Download
← All fact checksAfternoon run · November 13, 2026 · #10 by reach
EconomyPoliticsStatistic

Are UK food prices up 40% since 2019?

Have UK food prices risen 40% since 2019, mostly because of Tory and Labour energy policies and National Insurance rises, as Nigel Farage says?

True, but…

The 40% figure checks out; the blame attached to it is only partly supported.

Nigel Farage's headline figure is essentially right: UK food and non-alcoholic drink prices are roughly 40% higher than in 2019-2020, with House of Commons Library analysis putting the rise at 39.6% between September 2020 and September 2026. But his claim that much of this is 'directly due' to Tory and Labour energy policies overstates what the Bank of England's evidence supports.

+3Sources ↓Original post ↗

Claims

✓ 3 true

Food prices in the UK are up 40% since 201912

✓ Likely trueCentral claimHigh confidence

This is the load-bearing number, and it holds up. The ONS consumer prices index for food and non-alcoholic beverages stood at 144.3 in September 2026 on a 2015=100 base, which is roughly 38-40% above where it sat in 2019-2020. Separately, House of Commons Library analysis reported by the PA wire on 12 November 2026 put the increase at 39.6% over the six years from September 2020 to September 2026, and noted that the preceding six years had seen a rise of only about 1.6%. Two independent bodies working from the same official price series land in the same place, and neither has an interest in agreeing with the other. The one wrinkle is the starting point: the Commons Library comparison runs from September 2020, not from 2019, so 'since 2019' is a slightly looser framing than the analysis it matches. Given that the 2019-2020 level is roughly flat across those months, the rounding does not change the substance. A reader should treat the 40% headline as a fair summary of official data, not as a partisan invention.

Still open: The exact figure depends on the start month you choose; measured from a different point in 2019 the total shifts by a percentage point or two, but not enough to change the headline.

Much of the food price rise is directly due to Conservative and Labour energy policies23

~ Partly trueLow confidence

This is where the post stops tracking the evidence. Energy is genuinely part of the story: food production, refrigeration and haulage all use it, and the gas price shock that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine fed straight into costs. But the decisive question is whether UK energy policy, as opposed to global markets, did 'much' of the work, and the published analysis does not say that. The Bank of England and the Commons Library point first to global agricultural commodity prices, the post-pandemic commodity cycle and the international gas shock, and more recently to domestic labour costs including the minimum wage and higher employer National Insurance. Those are world prices and wage bills, not a policy choice by either governing party. Our confidence here is deliberately low because this is a causal claim that cannot be settled by a single figure; reasonable economists weight the components differently. What can be said is that the post presents a contested political interpretation as if it were established fact, and gives the reader no way to see the split between global and domestic causes.

Still open: Economists disagree on how to weight global commodity shocks against domestic policy costs, so no single percentage can be assigned to 'energy policy' with confidence.

Big hikes in National Insurance and a packaging tax have pushed food prices up346

✓ TrueHigh confidence

Both cost pressures are real and documented, which is why this part of the post survives scrutiny. Employer National Insurance contributions rose from 13.8% to 15% from April 2025, with a lower starting threshold, and the Bank of England has said this is likely to delay falls in services inflation and to support higher expected food price inflation. The Extended Producer Responsibility packaging fees began in October 2025, and the Bank of England, the British Retail Consortium and the Food and Drink Federation have all identified them as adding to food production costs. The important qualifier is scale. Bank of England staff estimated in the August 2025 Monetary Policy Report that the packaging scheme could add a little over half a percentage point to the level of food prices if producers passed the fees on in full. Half a point is not 'much' of 40%. So the post is accurate that these policies push prices up, and misleading in the impression it leaves that they are a major engine of the overall rise.

The Conservatives created the packaging tax and Labour enacted it456

✓ TrueHigh confidence

The origin story is accurate and is described the same way by industry and trade press, which have no reason to flatter either party. Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging was committed to by Michael Gove when he was Conservative environment secretary in 2018, and the scheme was developed under the Conservative government that followed. Labour finalised the legislation after taking office, and the first producer fees were billed from October 2025. So 'the Tories created it, Labour enacted it' is a fair one-line summary of a scheme that spans both governments. This matters for how the post should be read: it is not a case of one party being singled out. The claim is included here because it is a checkable factual statement embedded in the post, and it checks out. It does not, however, carry the causal weight the post implies, since the scheme's estimated effect on food prices is small.

A text-only post: there was no media to test.

What was posted

X

A text-only post on X from Nigel Farage arguing that food prices have risen to an alarming level. It gives a single round number for the increase, then attributes much of the rise to energy policy, National Insurance increases and a packaging levy, naming both the Conservatives and Labour as responsible. There is no chart, image or linked source, so the reader has to take the figures and the causal story on trust.

“The amount that food prices have risen is just insane. They’re up 40% since 2019! Much of this is directly due to the Tories’ and Labour’s crazy energy policies and big hikes in National Insurance. They’re also both responsible for the ‘Packaging Tax’. The Tories created it, Labour enacted it.…”

Posted from Nigel Farage's own X account. No image, video or supporting data was attached, and no source was cited in the post.

Who posted it

X
@nigel_farage

Account 10 years old

View the account on X ↗

Account check

Looks like a genuine account90%
Likelihood of automation10%

Estimates from public signals — account age, posting pattern, audience — not a judgement of the person behind the account, and separate from whether this post is true.

What stood out

  • Nigel Farage is a prominent British politician, known for his leadership roles in UKIP and Reform UK, and his tenure as a Member of the European Parliament.
  • The Twitter handle @nigel_farage is widely recognized as his official account, with numerous reputable sources confirming its authenticity.
  • Farage's official social media accounts are listed on VerifiedHandles.org, including his Twitter handle @nigel_farage.
  • The account has been active for several years, with a substantial follower count, indicating genuine engagement and influence.
  • There have been instances of impersonation and fake accounts associated with Farage, highlighting the importance of verifying official accounts.
Signals (4)+
Posting cadence
Regular
Follower ratio
High
Notable news coverage
Farage's official social media accounts are listed on VerifiedHandles.org, including his Twitter handle @nigel_farage.
Fact check history
Instances of impersonation and fake accounts associated with Farage have been reported, emphasizing the need for verification.

Account checked October 23, 2026, 03:10 UTC

Sources

6 sources reviewed

Further reading

The full story

The striking thing about this post is that its central number is not invented. Anyone who has filled a shopping basket since 2020 has felt the change, and official statistics confirm it. UK food and non-alcoholic drink prices rose by roughly 39-40% over the six years to September 2026, according to ONS consumer prices index data analysed by the House of Commons Library. In the six years before that, the same measure rose by only about 1.6%. That contrast is real, and it is the kernel of truth the post is built on.

What makes the post persuasive is that it pairs a true figure with a causal story that is only partly supported. Food prices did rise sharply after 2021, and energy costs did feed into them. But the dominant forces were global: post-pandemic commodity markets and the gas price shock that followed Russia's invasion of Ukraine. More recently, the Bank of England and the Commons Library point to domestic labour costs, including the minimum wage and higher employer National Insurance, with the packaging levy adding a little over half a percentage point to food prices if fully passed on.

So the post's policy list is not fiction. Employer NICs did rise in April 2025, the packaging fees did begin in October 2025, and the scheme really was designed under a Conservative government and implemented under Labour. The overstatement is in the word 'much'. A handful of genuine, small-to-moderate cost pressures are assembled into a story in which UK policy choices explain a rise that economists mainly attribute to world markets.

Kernel of truth

UK food prices really are about 40% higher than in 2019-2020, and the policies named in the post really do add to food costs. The error is in how much of the rise they explain.

Timeline

  1. 2018

    Then Conservative environment secretary Michael Gove commits to an Extended Producer Responsibility scheme for packaging. 4The i Paper

  2. April 2025

    Employer National Insurance contributions rise from 13.8% to 15%, with a lower starting threshold. 3Bank of England

  3. August 2025

    The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Report estimates packaging fees could add a little over half a per cent to food prices if fully passed on. 6Resource Media

  4. October 2025

    First Extended Producer Responsibility packaging fees are billed to producers. 5The Grocer

  5. November 12, 2026

    House of Commons Library analysis reported by PA puts the rise in food and non-alcoholic drink prices at 39.6% over six years to September 2026. 1Evening Standard (PA)

How it was framed

Misleading content

The post's headline statistic is accurate and every policy it names is real. The problem is framing: small or moderate documented cost pressures are presented as the direct cause of 'much' of a 40% rise that economists mainly attribute to global commodity and energy shocks. That is misleading use of genuine information to frame a political argument, not fabrication.

  • Emotional language. 'The amount that food prices have risen is just insane' and 'crazy energy policies'.
  • Unsourced statistic. 'They're up 40% since 2019!' is given with no link to ONS data or any published analysis.
  • Selective evidence. The post lists NICs, energy policy and the packaging tax but omits global commodity prices and the gas shock, which the Bank of England treats as the main drivers.
  • Us vs. them. 'The Tories' and Labour' are named together as jointly responsible, framing both governing parties against the poster's position.

Posted from the verified X account of Nigel Farage, a sitting MP and leader of Reform UK. The post is text-only and cites no source for its figures.

Bias

NoneSlightModerateStrong

Leans partisan, anti-Conservative and anti-Labour (Reform UK). The post leads with a real statistic but packages it in a partisan argument that pins responsibility on both the Conservatives and Labour and their 'crazy energy policies', with no mention of the global gas and commodity shock that economists regard as the main driver. This frames a contested economic attribution as established fact in service of a political agenda.

Bias describes how the post frames its message — the slant of the language, selection and emphasis — and is judged separately from whether the claim is true. A true claim can still be framed with a strong slant.

How we checked

40 s
  1. 1

    Searched for the ONS food price figure and the '40% since 2019' comparison to find published analysis.

  2. 2

    Checked the ONS consumer prices index for food and non-alcoholic beverages and compared index levels across the period.

  3. 3

    Searched for the origin and timing of the Extended Producer Responsibility packaging fees and the employer National Insurance rise.

  4. 4

    Searched for the Bank of England's explanation of recent food price inflation to identify the drivers it weights most heavily.

  5. 5

    Compared the post's causal claims against the Bank of England and Commons Library analysis and against industry coverage of the packaging scheme.

✓ Claim checked– Media not applicable✓ Sources checked

Why 78% confidence

High

We are highly confident in the underlying statistic because two independent bodies working from the same official price series land within a percentage point of each other. We are far less confident in the causal claim about energy policy, which is why that finding carries a LOW band: economists weight the drivers differently and no published source assigns 'much' of the rise to UK energy policy.

Limits. The post cited no source, so we could not check which data the poster was working from or which start month was intended by 'since 2019'. There is no published figure that isolates the effect of UK energy policy on food prices, so the causal question cannot be settled with a single number.

What we don’t know

  • Which data source or start month the poster had in mind when writing 'since 2019'.
  • How economists would weight global commodity shocks against domestic policy costs if forced to assign shares; published analysis describes the drivers but does not divide them cleanly.
  • Whether the poster was aware that the packaging levy's estimated effect is a little over half a percentage point.

Spot it yourself

Find the overstatement

Looks suspicious, isn’t proof

  • The poster is a party leader with a political interest in blaming rivals — that is a reason to check the numbers, not proof the numbers are wrong.
  • The alarmist tone ('just insane', 'crazy energy policies') signals an argument, but emotional language does not make a statistic false.
  • The absence of a link or chart is a gap, not evidence of fabrication: official ONS data can be checked independently.
  • The round figure '40%' looks like a convenience number, but roundings of real statistics are common and here it is close to the mark.

The actual evidence

  • ONS consumer prices index data for food and non-alcoholic beverages put prices roughly 38-40% above their 2019-2020 level, and Commons Library analysis reported by PA gives 39.6% over six years to September 2026.
  • The Bank of England attributes recent food price pressure mainly to global commodity prices and domestic labour costs, with the packaging levy estimated at a little over half a per cent.
  • The employer NIC rise from April 2025 and the packaging fees from October 2025 are both documented and both acknowledged as cost pressures by the Bank of England and industry bodies.
  • The packaging scheme's origin is confirmed by trade and industry reporting: committed to under Conservative environment secretary Michael Gove in 2018, finalised and billed under Labour in 2025.
  1. 1

    Separate the number from the cause

    Check the statistic on its own first, then treat any 'because of' sentence as a separate claim that needs its own evidence.

  2. 2

    Go to the primary price series

    Look up the ONS consumer prices index for food and non-alcoholic beverages and compare the index level between two dates yourself, rather than trusting a single round percentage.

  3. 3

    Ask what the central bank says caused it

    Search the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Report for the phrase 'food price inflation' to see which drivers it weights most heavily.

  4. 4

    Size each named policy

    When a post lists several causes, find the published estimate for each one. A levy adding half a per cent cannot account for much of a 40% rise.

  5. 5

    Watch for 'much'

    Words like 'much', 'mostly' and 'directly due to' are the load-bearing claims in a causal argument. Ask whether the sources quantify them or only assert them.

Takeaway

A claim can contain a true number and a shaky explanation at the same time; check them separately. The size of each named cause is as important as its existence.

Questions people ask

Are UK food prices really up 40% since 2019?+

Broadly yes. The ONS consumer prices index for food and non-alcoholic beverages is roughly 38-40% higher than its 2019-2020 level. House of Commons Library analysis reported by PA put the rise at 39.6% between September 2020 and September 2026, so 40% is a fair rounding even though that comparison starts from 2020.

Did the packaging tax push food prices up?+

Yes, but not by much. The Extended Producer Responsibility fees began in October 2025 and the Bank of England, British Retail Consortium and Food and Drink Federation link them to higher food production costs. Bank of England staff estimated the scheme could add a little over half a percentage point to food prices if producers passed the fees on in full.

Who introduced the packaging tax, the Conservatives or Labour?+

Both, in a sense. Michael Gove committed to Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging as Conservative environment secretary in 2018, and the scheme was developed under the Conservative government. Labour finalised the legislation after taking office, and the first producer fees were billed from October 2025.

What actually caused UK food prices to rise so much?+

The Bank of England and the House of Commons Library point mainly to global factors: post-pandemic commodity markets and the gas price shock after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. More recently they cite domestic labour costs, including the minimum wage and higher employer National Insurance, with packaging regulation a small additional factor.

Why does it matter how a true statistic is explained?+

A correct number can still leave a false impression. Here the 40% figure is accurate, but attaching it to a list of small policy costs suggests those policies caused most of the rise. Checking the size of each named cause, not just whether it exists, is how readers avoid being misled by accurate data.

Go deeper

CPI (consumer prices index)
The official measure of how the price of a basket of goods and services changes over time, used to calculate inflation.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
A scheme that makes companies that put packaging on the market pay towards collecting and recycling it, with fees billed to producers.
Employer National Insurance contributions
A tax paid by employers on their employees' earnings above a threshold, which raises the cost of employing staff.
Global commodity prices
The international market prices of raw materials such as wheat, oil and gas, which feed directly into food production and transport costs.

People also search for

food prices up 40% since 2019Nigel Farage food prices 40% claimUK food inflation since 2019 how muchpackaging tax food prices rise UKare food prices 40% higher than 2019
For educators+
Causal claims versus descriptive statistics: a true number does not validate the explanation attached to it.Confirmation bias and the availability of price rises people have personally felt.Base rates and starting points: how choosing 2019 versus 2020 changes a percentage.Provenance and sourcing: a post with no cited data versus an official statistical series.
  • The post's headline figure is accurate. Does that make the post trustworthy overall? Why or why not?
  • If a policy adds a little over half a per cent to food prices, how should it be described in a post about a 40% rise without overstating it?
  • What would you need to see in a post like this before accepting its explanation of a price rise?

About this check

Platform
X
Posted by
@nigel_farage
Posted
November 12, 2026
Age when checked
1–2 days old when checked
Where it spread
United Kingdom
Audience
UK & EU audience
Language
EN
Status
● Post is live
Verified
November 13, 2026, 15:10 UTC
Published
November 13, 2026, 15:10 UTC

Reach. 3,973 likes (verify.py 13 Nov). Part of Reform's food-price push: Tice's 13 Nov post claims a £140/yr saving (161 likes); Reform says the packaging tax costs £50 a year.

This verdict was generated with AI from the sources shown. AI can make mistakes — check the sources before relying on it.

Check anything yourself, in seconds.

Share any social post or video to What the Fact and get the verdict, the confidence, and the receipts.

Download on theApp StoreGet it onGoogle Play