“…They are questions of individual lifestyle – obesity, smoking, alcohol abuse, diabetes, sexually transmitted disease … These are not epidemics in the epidemiological sense – they are the result of millions of individual decisions, at millions of points in time’ (‘Blair calls’ ). The resulting ‘lifestyle drift’ in health promotion (Popay, Whitehead, and Hunter ) has pernicious implications when it ignores such factors as the simple unaffordability or inaccessibility of healthy diets for those on low incomes (Barosh, Friel, Engelhardt, and Chan ; Breyer and Voss‐Andreae ; Drewnowski, Monsivais, Maillot, and Darmon ; Jones, Conklin, Suhrcke, and Monsivais ; Loopstra et al 2015; Loopstra, Reeves, and Stuckler 2015; McIntyre, Bartoo, and Emery ; Monsivais and Drewnowski ; Perry, Williams, Sefton, and Haddad ; Williams et al ), diverting attention from aspects of social position that make it far more difficult for some people to lead healthy lives than for others, even given best intentions and perfect knowledge. As it applies not only to health but also to social policy, this individualisation represents an especially destructive manifestation of the ideological dimension of neoliberalism as it colonises professional routines and policy vocabularies.…”