Ideas to reduce junk food consumption have been called “overprotective” because experts and politicians disagree on how best to tackle the problem.

It comes amid calls for cigarette-style health warnings on unhealthy foods such as chocolate and crisps.

The government’s food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, the healthy eating campaigner behind the proposal, told the BBC: ‘If you go into a supermarket the first thing you’ll see is a huge quantity fruits and vegetables.

“And then you have aisles and aisles of food-like substances – you have Kit Kat cereal next to Krave cereal marketed to children at discounts, because that’s the food that’s easier to earn money on. money by selling this food.

“The food would still be there but would be displayed in a less visible way, you would have black marks on it to say it’s not a good thing to eat… a mandatory label saying it’s bad for your health in a very visible way .”

His plans have been called “crazy.”

Chris Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the IEA, said: “Mr Dimbleby seems to think that the normal rules of policy-making should not apply to his outlandish ideas about diet.

“He wants politicians to ignore public opinion, forget about economic costs and not care whether policies will work or not.

Snowdon added: “Yet another nanny state policy crashes and burns.”

It comes as critics admitted that listing calories next to food menu items did not have the impact researchers hoped.

Currently, the government is not considering putting cigarette-style warnings on junk food, but it is seeking to ban junk food advertising.

Tobacco and ultra-processed foods cause many serious illnesses and premature deaths, but politicians and food experts fail to agree on how far the warnings should be taken.

Ultra-processed foods include convenience foods, soft drinks and ice cream, which are just some of the products that experts say should be labeled.

Others say they should be heavily taxed or even banned altogether – these foods tend to be higher in fat, saturated fat and sugar.