Recycling ideas from biking and solar power subsidies: a preventative approach to obesity
Dear Editor,
Thank you for raising this pertinent point about the food industry's role in obesity, especially now that the awareness of the danger of obesity has grown with Covid-19. This increased alertness, along with the looming food policy and trade changes due to Brexit, make this a pivotal time to take action. You importantly highlight the fact that calorific, processed food is cheap. How can we make sure policy changes act on this problem without disproportionately affecting lower income groups? "Sin" taxes (on tobacco, alcohol, fat, sugar etc.) have historically been shown to disproportionately affect poorer families, and the sugar tax is no exception. Lower income households are more likely to consume sugary drinks[01] and the evidence shows that higher prices are not enough to deter everyone from buying their favourite sugary beverage. As a result, poorer families are hit the hardest. Faced with an even smaller disposable income, how will they afford the more expensive nutritious foods that we promote? For this reason, it is imperative that taxation on "sinful" products is met with subsidies on healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Otherwise, families will choose cheaper, yet still highly calorific brands, as has been the case in Sweden, Hungary, Germany, Finland and the USA[02].
As you mention, the UK government spent over £6 billion in one year (2014-2015) on direct consequences of obesity. Over time, part of this could be invested in a “healthy food” subsidy that would be attractive to the individual, industries, and the government and prevent, rather than treat, obesity-related disease. Government subsidy programs have been proven to enable emerging “green” industries to gain scale and relevance. Compare the UK government’s current “cycle to work” scheme (30% discount for bikers; 13% reduction in NI contributions for employers)[03] and the US and German governments’ subsidies of their solar power industries[04]. Such successes provide a model for obesity interventions. There is no better time to take action than now in this period of raised awareness and political transition. Thank you again for bringing this issue to the forefront at such a crucial time.
Rapid Response:
Recycling ideas from biking and solar power subsidies: a preventative approach to obesity
Dear Editor,
Thank you for raising this pertinent point about the food industry's role in obesity, especially now that the awareness of the danger of obesity has grown with Covid-19. This increased alertness, along with the looming food policy and trade changes due to Brexit, make this a pivotal time to take action. You importantly highlight the fact that calorific, processed food is cheap. How can we make sure policy changes act on this problem without disproportionately affecting lower income groups? "Sin" taxes (on tobacco, alcohol, fat, sugar etc.) have historically been shown to disproportionately affect poorer families, and the sugar tax is no exception. Lower income households are more likely to consume sugary drinks[01] and the evidence shows that higher prices are not enough to deter everyone from buying their favourite sugary beverage. As a result, poorer families are hit the hardest. Faced with an even smaller disposable income, how will they afford the more expensive nutritious foods that we promote? For this reason, it is imperative that taxation on "sinful" products is met with subsidies on healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables. Otherwise, families will choose cheaper, yet still highly calorific brands, as has been the case in Sweden, Hungary, Germany, Finland and the USA[02].
As you mention, the UK government spent over £6 billion in one year (2014-2015) on direct consequences of obesity. Over time, part of this could be invested in a “healthy food” subsidy that would be attractive to the individual, industries, and the government and prevent, rather than treat, obesity-related disease. Government subsidy programs have been proven to enable emerging “green” industries to gain scale and relevance. Compare the UK government’s current “cycle to work” scheme (30% discount for bikers; 13% reduction in NI contributions for employers)[03] and the US and German governments’ subsidies of their solar power industries[04]. Such successes provide a model for obesity interventions. There is no better time to take action than now in this period of raised awareness and political transition. Thank you again for bringing this issue to the forefront at such a crucial time.
References:
1. Ross J, Lozano-Rojas F. Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes Regressive? Evidence from Household Retail Purchases [Internet]. Washington, DC: Tax Foundation; 2018. Available from: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20180618173927/Tax-Foundation-FF592.pdf
2. Sugar taxes: A Briefing [Internet]. Institute of Economic Affairs. 2016 [cited 16 June 2020]. Available from: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/IEA%20Sugar%20Taxes%20Brie...
3. Reid C. U.K. Government Boosts Bicycling And Walking With Ambitious £2 Billion Post-Pandemic Plan [Internet]. Forbes. 2020 [cited 16 June 2020]. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/05/09/uk-government-boosts...
4. Meyer G. US solar industry powers ahead as investors back batteries [Internet]. Financial Times. 2020 [cited 16 June 2020]. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/ca578516-4d0e-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5
Competing interests: No competing interests