The proposed ban on buy-one-get-one-free offers on foods considered to be unhealthy has been postponed for a year, with the cost of living crisis cited as the reason. Another part of the reason might have been the growing hostility on the part of several Conservative MPs to a stream of new laws from the Department of Health and Social Care designed to make it more expensive or difficult for people to do things the Department does not want them to do. They are usually things that people want to do. If they did not want to do them, there would be no need to ban them or make them costlier.

There seems to be a mindset in the Department of Health that they must attack popular tastes in food and drink, and use the power of the law to enforce change. They want people, but especially children, made to consume less sugar, salt and fats. This means controlling the advertising of treats enjoyed by children. They target obesity with proposed limits on calories. They seem to think we should all be eating steamed fish and cucumber, and then only in controlled quantities.

They “negotiate voluntary agreements” with the food industry to lower the sugar content of food and its calorie content. The word “voluntary” is used alongside the threat of legal action in the event of non-compliance.

It might be minimum unit alcohol pricing that leads poorer people to seek cheaper, stronger drinks. It might be calorie counts on restaurant menus that drive people concerned about their weight and shape into eating disorders. The point about these relentless “better health” laws is that some of them have unanticipated knock-on effects that lead to unplanned and undesired consequences.

In an ideal world, the Department of Health should concentrate its resources on being ready and able to deal with pandemics, and with clearing health backlogs and delays. Instead it squanders time and effort in trying to micromanage people’s diet, and on preparing and promoting laws that make decisions which most people would prefer to make for themselves. Since the Department is not very good at doing the things it should be doing, there is no reason to suppose that it would be any better at doing those it shouldn’t be doing.

It seems to be the less well-off who are most affected by all this. Sweets were once thought of as unnecessary luxuries that it was justified to ration and to tax, but in the real world it is more likely that poorer people will eat sweets to liven up what would otherwise be a fairly dull diet. As Orwell observed in ‘The Road to Wigan Pier,’ “The less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food.”

It might be reasonable to promote information about the possible consequences of eating certain foods, because that would enable people to make informed choices. But to make those choices for them is to step outside the line that divides a free society from an unfree one.

The postponement of the proposed ban on certain food offers should be a permanent one, and the Department of Health should be reorganized so that those dreaming up and promoting their cascade of restrictions should be candidates for early retirement.