Introduction
The UK Government has announced an £85 million programme designed to tackle obesity using artificial intelligence, digital tools, community services and improved access to treatment. Up to £50 million will come from government funding, while pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly will contribute up to £35 million through the new Obesity Pathway Innovation Programme (OPIP). The scheme includes AI-powered patient triage, WhatsApp advice services, digital support platforms and community-based weight management hubs. On paper, it sounds modern, innovative and exactly the sort of thing politicians enjoy standing in front of cameras announcing. The question is whether it tackles the actual causes of obesity, or simply builds increasingly clever systems to deal with the consequences of decades of poor food policy.
Britain has become remarkably good at spending fortunes treating illnesses that many experts believe could have been reduced through prevention. We are apparently willing to throw artificial intelligence at the problem, but considerably less enthusiastic about asking why our supermarket shelves remain packed with products containing ingredients that scientists have been questioning for years.
What is the Government actually funding?
The programme is not simply about AI replacing doctors. Instead, the funding will support twelve pilot projects across the UK that aim to improve access to obesity services. Examples include AI systems that assess patients before directing them towards appropriate NHS support, WhatsApp services providing healthy lifestyle advice to parents, neighbourhood weight management hubs and digital tools designed to help people access care without always needing a GP appointment. The Government says the intention is to improve access, reduce pressure on NHS services and generate evidence for future nationwide programmes.
Some of these ideas are perfectly sensible because making services easier to access is difficult to criticise. If AI helps reduce waiting times or directs someone towards a dietitian more quickly, that is a practical improvement. The bigger question is whether easier access to treatment is being mistaken for prevention and whether this negatively impacts those who cannot afford a smartphone or don’t want to install the WhatsApp.
And I have to laugh at WhatsApp being used, because we all know that you only have to mention something there and then when you next go on another Meta app, you suddenly find what you have been talking about innocently presented ! So it this just a ploy for the algorithms to advise advertisers that this person has just come from a chat about obesity, time to show them some beer and chips or even worse show them videos or people chopping and frying onions…
Why is Eli Lilly involved?
Whenever a pharmaceutical company contributes £35 million towards an obesity programme, it is reasonable to ask why. Eli Lilly is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturers. In recent years it has become one of the dominant players in obesity treatment through its weight-loss medication Mounjaro (tirzepatide), which is licensed for treating obesity in eligible patients as well as type 2 diabetes. The company also manufactures medicines covering diabetes, oncology, immunology and neuroscience. None of this means there is anything improper about Lilly’s involvement. Companies regularly invest in healthcare innovation and research partnerships.
However, it would also be naïve to ignore commercial incentives because if more patients are diagnosed, assessed and moved through obesity pathways, more patients may ultimately become eligible for pharmaceutical treatments where clinically appropriate. That does not mean every patient receives medication, nor that the programme exists to sell drugs, but expanding access naturally increases the number of people entering treatment pathways.
That commercial interest is neither secret nor unusual. Pharmaceutical companies exist to develop medicines and generate returns for shareholders, but the important point is ensuring public policy remains driven by public health priorities rather than commercial opportunities proposed by corporate lobbying teams. Although there is no evidence that Eli Lilly’s investment guarantees future medicine sales, it is worth considering the scale involved. The company is contributing up to £35 million to the programme, while its obesity medicine Mounjaro has a UK list price ranging from around £133 to £330 per month depending on the dose. Based on those list prices, gross sales equivalent to the investment could be generated by approximately 106,000 to 263,000 monthly prescriptions, or roughly 12,000 to 14,000 patient-years of treatment, before accounting for manufacturing costs, confidential NHS discounts and other commercial factors. In other words, while £35 million is a substantial sum, it represents a relatively modest investment for a company whose obesity medicines generate billions in annual global revenue. That does not mean the programme exists to sell medication, but it does illustrate why pharmaceutical companies have a strong commercial interest in supporting initiatives that expand access to obesity treatment pathways.
Are we treating symptoms instead of causes?
This is where the debate becomes far more interesting, but I feel that successive governments have become fascinated and persuaded by technological solutions.
- Need better healthcare? Build an app.
- Need to reduce waiting lists? Add AI.
- Need healthier lifestyles? Send people WhatsApp messages or texts.
Meanwhile, shoppers continue filling trolleys with foods that have ingredient lists resembling failed chemistry experiments. The irony is difficult to ignore because we appear perfectly comfortable developing artificial intelligence capable of analysing someone’s Body Mass Index in seconds, yet somehow remain incapable of asking why breakfast cereal aimed at children can contain enough sugar to make a hummingbird feel slightly hyper. Technology certainly has a place in healthcare, but is not a substitute for fixing the food environment.
Prevention starts in the supermarket
If governments genuinely wanted to reduce obesity over the next twenty years, one obvious place to begin would be the food itself. This is not about banning chocolate, birthday cake or the occasional takeaway. Nobody needs the Government confiscating Hobnobs because someone once ate half a packet while watching the rugby (it wasn’t me I promise !). It is about asking why thousands of everyday products continue to contain ingredients that add little nutritional value while encouraging overconsumption, extending shelf life or improving manufacturing costs.
Consumers should still have freedom to choose. Manufacturers appear to have not accepted responsibility for what they are choosing to sell and this is one easy step governments can take for the benefit of not only obesity but long term health.
Twenty ingredients that deserve much greater scrutiny
Not every ingredient below is equally harmful in every circumstance, and some remain approved for use within regulatory limits. However, all have been the subject of scientific discussion regarding health, ultra-processed foods or dietary quality. How about banning some of this ?
- High fructose corn syrup
- Hydrogenated oils
- Partially hydrogenated oils
- Artificial trans fats
- Sodium nitrite
- Sodium nitrate
- Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
- Potassium bromate
- Titanium dioxide
- Brominated vegetable oil
- Artificial sweetener aspartame
- Artificial sweetener acesulfame K
- Artificial colour Red 40
- Artificial colour Yellow 5 (Tartrazine)
- Artificial colour Yellow 6
- Artificial flavour enhancers
- Maltodextrin
- Carrageenan
- Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
- Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
Removing or reformulating products containing unnecessary additives would not eliminate obesity overnight, but improving the overall nutritional quality of the national food supply would arguably have a broader population impact than asking AI to remind someone to eat another apple – just call me Eve.
The uncomfortable reality
Obesity is influenced by genetics, lifestyle, physical activity, mental health, socioeconomic circumstances and access to healthy food and I don’t believe that there is a single solution. AI is unlikely to make somebody choose a home-cooked meal over a drive-through on a Friday evening after an exhausting week. An app cannot redesign food manufacturing. A chatbot cannot reduce the sugar content of breakfast cereals. A digital triage system cannot replace healthier food environments.
Healthcare technology should support prevention, not become a substitute for it.
Final thoughts
The Government deserves credit for recognising obesity as one of the country’s biggest public health challenges and for exploring new ways to improve access to support. Better use of AI, faster referrals and improved community services could all help patients receive care more efficiently. Whether £85 million represents the best use of public and private investment is a question taxpayers are entitled to ask but will never get an answer. If Britain genuinely wants to reduce obesity over the coming decades, perhaps the first conversation should not begin with artificial intelligence, but with a much closer scrutiny in the aisles of the supermarkets.
After all, if the ingredients entering people’s shopping baskets remain largely unchanged, what are we doing to sort the problem at its roots? But I guess we may simply end up building ever more sophisticated AI systems whose primary purpose is managing problems we could have done far more to prevent in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the UK’s Obesity Pathway Innovation Programme (OPIP)?
It is a new £85 million initiative funded jointly by the UK Government and Eli Lilly to trial new ways of delivering obesity care, including AI-assisted assessments, digital support services and community weight management programmes.
What does Eli Lilly manufacture?
Eli Lilly develops medicines across several therapeutic areas, including diabetes, cancer, immunology and neuroscience. It also manufactures the weight-loss medicine Mounjaro (tirzepatide), which is approved for eligible patients with obesity.
Will AI solve obesity?
AI may improve access to healthcare services and streamline referrals, but obesity has multiple causes. Most public health experts view technology as one tool among many rather than a complete solution.
Would removing certain food ingredients eliminate obesity?
No. Obesity is a complex condition involving diet, activity, genetics, health and wider social factors. Reformulating processed foods could contribute to healthier diets but would not remove every cause of obesity.
