‘In conversation with…’ is a series of blog posts where we’ll be talking to inspirational people working in the world of food policy.
Today’s ‘In conversation with…’ features Hannah Brinsden, a leading advocate in public health, with over 15 years dedicated to shaping nutrition, food, and health policies at local, national, and global levels. As Head of Policy and Advocacy at the Food Foundation, she works on tackling issues like obesity, non-communicable diseases, and the broader social and commercial determinants of health. We caught up with Hannah to discuss her journey, the evolving food policy landscape, and the critical role of NGOs in driving meaningful change.
Morning Hannah, thanks for taking the time to talk with us, we know how busy you are! Firstly, you’ve worked in public health advocacy for over 15 years. What first sparked your interest in nutrition and food systems?
When I was at school trying to figure out what I wanted to do, I always knew I wanted to do something related to health or science. I wanted it to be practical too, and that’s how I came across nutrition. Around the same time, Jamie Oliver was doing his school dinners programme, and I was completely drawn in. I remember writing all my university applications and mentioning how I’d been inspired by his work — which, looking back, I find quite funny, but that’s really where it started for me.
At university, I studied Nutrition and Food Science, which covered both the technical development of food and nutrition. In my second year, we had a module on public health nutrition. The focus was on things like food fortification — essentially making processed food “healthier” by adding nutrients. I remember thinking, “shouldn’t we be supporting people to have healthier food in the first place?”. It felt odd that this was the only approach we were covering. We talked about fortification and health labelling, but none of the bigger, more systemic issues.
That experience really stuck with me. I had been planning to do a placement in the food industry, but I realised that wasn’t the path I wanted to take. Instead, in my final year I decided to do a module on the sociology of food. That’s when I was first introduced to Tim Lang and his work – reading his Food Wars book was a real turning point for me. It was like everything suddenly clicked! It aligned perfectly with how I felt about food and the changes that needed to happen.
Instead of doing the industry placement, I took on a summer placement with the Food Commission (which doesn’t exist anymore, but was one of the early campaign groups on food). I worked with them on food additives and similar issues. After university, I got a job at Action on Salt and worked there for a few years, before moving into global health, working across a broader range of issues. But now, I’m fully back in UK food policy.
Your PhD looked at how NGOs advocate for public health nutrition. What are some of the ways that research shaped the way you approach your work now?
The whole PhD experience was quite a journey for me. I was essentially studying what I do for work, which was challenging in some ways but also really eye-opening. One of the biggest takeaways for me was learning to step back and see the bigger picture.
When you’re campaigning, working on a project, or pushing for a particular cause, it’s so easy to get tunnel vision. You get caught up in the day-to-day tasks, and you’re so focused on the specific process you’re following that you sometimes lose sight of the wider context. My PhD helped me shift that perspective. I think of it as surfacing above the work — coming up for air and looking at how all the different pieces fit together. It also reminded me that change takes time, which is helpful when it feels like you’re hitting your head against a brick wall!
It’s also made me much more strategic in how I approach things. I now think more carefully about the components of advocacy — like getting the right spokesperson, making sure the evidence is solid, knowing who you need to get it to, and figuring out how you’ll measure success. That last part — measuring impact — is something I think about a lot, in terms of what truly valuable impact looks like.
If you had complete autonomy over the food system… what’s the first thing you’d do to tackle the influence of big business on obesity and poor health in the UK?
That’s a big question — there’s no single solution. If I had to pick one thing, I’d say we need to protect our policy processes from corporate influence and lobbying. Too often, policies start with ambitious goals, but by the time they’ve been negotiated with industry, they get watered down. We see this over and over — targets get softened, exemptions are added, or policies that should be mandatory end up voluntary. What could have been a landmark policy becomes something much weaker.
This issue isn’t unique to the UK, but I do think it’s especially pronounced here. Ironically, we actually have quite a few policies in place compared to other countries that don’t have any taxes, marketing restrictions, or reformulation programmes. But the problem in the UK isn’t always a lack of policies — it’s that they’re not as effective as they could be because of how they’re implemented.
I’m not saying we can’t learn from industry. If you don’t work in industry, you won’t fully understand how it operates. But we need to be much clearer about when and how they’re involved in the process, and make sure it is much more focused on the implementation side of policy rather than on the ambitions and remit.
Another key issue is the way government departments operate in silos. Policies on child poverty and food poverty, for instance — are they the responsibility of the DWP, DfE, or DHSC? Well, it’s all of them. And when it’s all of them, it’s effectively none of them. We end up with scattered policies that don’t function as a coherent package. If we’re serious about making real change, we need that package — not just a bunch of separate policies, but a connected, unified approach where everything works together. Right now, it’s disjointed because every department is working to its own agenda. If no one owns the big picture, no one drives it forward.
Since the Labour government came into power, what changes or ideas have you found most promising? Where do you feel they are already falling short?
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and analysis about what the government’s up to. It does feel like there are more open doors right now — more discussions happening and more opportunities emerging.
For example, the work we do at the Food Foundation seems to be aligning with key areas like food poverty. The Poverty Task Force and the government strategy offer a big opportunity to bring food into that conversation. Then there’s the Children’s Wellbeing Bill, which includes breakfast provision and could be a chance to push for broader improvements in school food.
We’ve also seen relatively quick action on things like junk food advertising bans and restrictions on energy drink sales to young people, so there are some promising signals — the kind of things you’d expect from a Labour government. That said, we haven’t seen much in terms of concrete action yet. It’s mostly strategies, visions, and missions, which always makes me a bit wary. At the same time, I have to remind myself that it hasn’t actually been that long since the election. It might be a bit unfair to expect loads of “rabbit-out-of-the-hat” policies so soon.
The budget side of things is tricky too. They’re clearly trying to be fiscally conservative, which is understandable. But when you’re working on issues like poverty, it’s hard to make meaningful change without funding — whether it’s through wages, benefits, nutritional safety nets, or other support services. It’s just difficult to do it all cost-free.
It does feel busier now — there’s more to react to. Before, we were doing a lot of self-driven work and creating opportunities ourselves, responding to things within our own sector, and the government’s role often felt negative — like hearing about delays or withdrawals of commitments. Now, it feels like we have bills and initiatives to latch onto, which gives me a bit more hope. I’m going to stay optimistic for now.
The Food Foundation has produced some influential and powerful work in 2024, what initiative are you most proud of? And congratulations on your BBC Food and Farming Award!
Thank you! Receiving the award did feel like great recognition of all the work happening at the Food Foundation. A big part of that is our ongoing efforts around free school meals — it feels like we’re steadily chipping away at the challenge.
For me personally, I think one of the standout projects that I worked on was the preparation we did ahead of the election. We produced a manifesto, created a range of supporting materials, and made a “10 cost-free policies” document — recognising early on that budget constraints would be a priority. So when the election period came, we were able to respond quickly and effectively. We analysed party manifestos, produced a report on children’s declining health, and ran weekly podcasts to keep the momentum going. I think that approach — front-loading our work in anticipation — was a smart move and a key learning for the future. It showed us the value of timing and being ready to react as things unfold.
What do you think NGOs need to do to stay effective in fighting NCDs and obesity, especially with so many global challenges to deal with? How can they work better together to create real change?
Collaboration is absolutely essential. There are so many voices in this space, and I think recognising and building on each other’s strengths is key. No single organisation can do it all, but by supporting each other and aligning messages where possible, we become far more effective. If multiple groups are saying slightly different things, it creates confusion for decision-makers. But if we present a unified call to action, it simplifies the government’s role. Instead of choosing between competing ideas, they can focus on feasibility, cost, and impact. The School Food Review is a great example. It brought together academics, caterers, schools, and unions — all advocating for the same thing. That unity makes it much easier for the government to act, as they’re not stuck weighing the risk of upsetting one stakeholder over another.
With a new government in place, it’s also crucial to understand their priorities and frame your solutions accordingly. It’s different from lobbying at the end of a government term, where you’re pushing your issues on your terms. Now, it’s about meeting them where they are. If the government is focused on “barriers to opportunity” or “working families,” you need to frame your asks as solutions to those problems — not just health or attainment issues. It forces us to adapt our language and approach, which can be uncomfortable, especially when it challenges long-held perspectives. We can’t afford to work in parallel to these opportunities. We have to embed ourselves in them and adjust our approach to match the moment. It’s hard, but it’s also essential for impact.
Super answer, thank you. Lastly, what’s for dinner tonight?
Normally on a Thursday night, we get back late from school, so it’s typically pasta, vegetables, pulses, mixed together in a pan, thrown at the kids.
Edited by Rosie Osborne