Challenges of Overweight and Obesity

Chronic obesity is becoming and overwhelming issue in Australia and Worldwide. To cope with the challenges posed by overweight and obesity, governments have so far opted for an educational approach, for example by providing the public with information on the basics of healthy eating through guides such as food and nutrition labels. According to this strategy, the quality of food becomes a question of individual responsibility, which depends on the ability of each person to make informed choices about what they eat every day (Mandrioli, Kearns & Bero 2016). Unfortunately, this approach is clearly insufficient, as only a small proportion of the Canadian population considers these nutritional recommendations. This could be because health is not just a matter of individual responsibility: everyone aspires to stay healthy, but the environment in which we live puts pressure that is incompatible with disease prevention and even encourages lifestyle habits that are totally against the maintenance of good health. For example, even if they are within everyone’s reach, less than 3% of the population respects the four basic recommendations for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, that is to say not to smoke, to eat well, to remain slim and exercise regularly. The main factor responsible for this obesogenic environment is undoubtedly the omnipresence of processed industrial products. The high availability of these products, their low cost as well as their aggressive promotion by the agri-food industry means that the consumer is exposed in spite of himself to excess calories which promotes overweight. In contrast, healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains are often more expensive and therefore less accessible, especially for the disadvantaged. To correct this imbalance, we cannot therefore only invoke individual responsibility; Society must also actively participate in promoting the adoption of healthy lifestyle habits by creating a more favorable environment for health. One of the measures of creating favorable environment is through government regulations. Government can regulate the consumption of certain food substances through taxation. One of the controversial taxation laws is sugar tax (Stuckler, Reeves, Loopstra  et al. 2016). Sugar tax is expected to reduce the consumption of sugar by restricting the amount of sugars used in production of different products. However, it is not clear whether sugar tax is one of the effective strategies for addressing chronic obesity. It is therefore the goal of this paper to evaluate the effectiveness of sugar tax in prevention and control of chronic obesity in Australia. The debate is based on the thesis statement that sugar tax is one of the effective ways of controlling chronic obesity in Australia and should be introduced because the purpose of sugar taxes is to limit the consumption of certain foods and to incline the consumer to choose other “healthier” ones, which, because they are not taxed, would be cheaper, thus reducing the prevalence of obesity and chronic noncommunicable diseases.

Insufficiency of Education Approach

Historically, the main objective of taxation of non-essential products has been to generate income. Already in 1776, in his treatise The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said, “Sugar, rum, and tobacco, which are in no way staple foods, have become commodities of everyday consumption almost everywhere, and this is a very tax-friendly medium. “It is now known that these taxes are not only important sources of income, but can also be indispensable tools for improving public health. Tobacco taxes, for example, play a central role in the fight against smoking because price increases encourage smokers to quit, reduce the number of new smokers and reduce consumption among those who still smoke (Stuckler, Reeves, Loopstra  et al. 2016).

In a similar way to tobacco, the data collected so far indicate that the taxation of sweetened beverages may reduce their consumption. For example, even if the tax rates applied so far are lower than what is recommended by specialists (20%), taxation reduced sales of sweetened beverages. For example, in 2014, Mexico adopted ‘sugar tax’. The tax system was designed such that sweet drinks are taxed at10% and non-essential foods with high caloric density are taxed at 8%. The impact of this legislation on consumption was profound. It resulted in an average decrease of 6% in purchases of sweet drinks (17% for the poorest) Colchero et al. 2016). In the same year, City of Berkeley (CA) imposed a sugar tax in its products. The sugared beverages were taxed at 2-25% depending on the size of the container. This resulted in a 21% drop in the consumption of sugary drinks in underprivileged areas (Falbe et al. 2016). Similarly, in 2012, Hungary imposed sugar tax in most of her products as follows: Confectionery (0,41 € / kg); Sweet drinks (€ 0.64 / L); Energy drinks (0,8 € / L); Salty snacks (0.8 € / kg). The effect of this is that there was a 27% drop in sales of taxed products (WHO Regional Office for Europe 2015). In addition, Hungary witnessed 3.4% decline in processed food purchases combined with a 1.1% increase in non-processed food purchases (Biro 2015). Although longer-term studies are still needed to more accurately determine the impact of taxation on the health of these populations, these results are nevertheless very encouraging and several countries (Romania, Ireland, United Kingdom, Norway, Italy, South Africa, Philippines) plan to take this path in the coming years in the hope of reducing the incidence of obesity and chronic diseases. A recent study reveals that tax were applied in Australia, it could, according to The Conversation, save 1600 lives in the country. Sodas are very popular in the state-continent, especially among children and adolescents. In one study, The Conversation examined the potential impact of the new UK measure. The scientific journal applied in its simulation a rise of 20% of the prices on soft drinks and flavored mineral waters. She observed the potential results over a period of 25 years. The consequences would be beneficial not only for health but also for the economy. As expected, the tax would result in reduced consumption of sugary drinks. In concrete terms, this would lead to declines in the prevalence of obesity of about 0.7% for men and 0.3% for women. In addition, the tax would prevent 4,400 heart attacks. The Conversation stresses that these results would be difficult to achieve through other prevention measures against obesity. When the benefits of these changes to health are simulated for all citizens during their lifetime, the influence of the tax is even more important. The research estimates that this would reduce the number of type 2 diabetics by about 800 cases per year. Even considering decreases in consumption, the revenue collected through the tax would represent more than $ 400 a year. The money would be used to subsidize healthy food for low-income Australians, but also to carry out programs to prevent obesity.

Processed Industrial Products, Main Factor of Obesogenic Environment

The very strong opposition of the sweet drinks industry to the implementation of these taxes is another indication of their potential to reduce the consumption of these beverages. As with the tobacco industry before it, this industry has developed several strategies to avoid the implementation of these measures, notably by distributing major subsidies to several organizations promoting healthy lifestyles, including those dedicated to fighting the disease. obesity. Unfortunately, some groups that have received these subsidies have abandoned their support for a tax on sweetened beverages or have chosen not to comment on the subject. At the same time, the sugar beverage industry is investing considerable sums in lobbying against several bills proposing ways of reducing the consumption of sugary drinks or promoting better eating habits (Besley & Rosen 1999).

On the whole, the arguments put forward by the industry to combat the introduction of new taxes on sweetened drinks reflect the strategy used a few years ago by the tobacco industry: to emphasize individual responsibility ( excess is the fault of the consumer, everything is in moderation, because there are no good or bad foods), make believe that any government intervention is an attack on individual liberties, and sowing doubts about scientific studies which report negative impacts on health (Cornelsen & Carriedo 2015).

The large number of nutritional studies subsidized by industry contributes to this confusion. It is now well documented that research funded by food companies almost invariably produces results that favor products marketed by these companies. In the case of sweet drinks, for example, a study shows that research subsidized by manufacturers of these products is 8 times more favorable to these companies than those subsidized by independent organizations (Etilé & Sharma 2015).

It has even recently been learned that in the 1950s and 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation paid nutrition professors at Harvard University to publish an article aimed at questioning studies showing a link between consumption. sugar and mortality related to cardiovascular diseases. All of these factors mean that we must be very skeptical of the arguments put forward by the sweet drinks industry to justify their opposition to the taxation of these products (Lustig 2010).

A key argument in favor of taxes on sweetened beverages is that it is a way of correcting what is called in economics a “negative externality”, that is to say an activity whose negative effects generate costs that are not included in its price. In the case of sugared beverages, consumers are generally not well informed about their health effects due to very aggressive marketing that values ??gratification in the short term, while ignoring their negative impacts in the longer term. The total costs associated with the consumption of these sweetened beverages (agricultural subsidies for sugar production, various producer tax credits, medical costs for the treatment of diseases that result from obesity) are therefore not borne by Consumers and the imposition of a tax may help to partially reduce this imbalance (Schillinger, Tran, Mangurian et al. 2016).

Creating a More Favorable Environment for Health

Although idea of introducing sugar tax as a way of curbing chronic obesity seems feasible, there are different people and scholars that opposes this idea. For example, one of the arguments against the sugar tax is that taxes are a brutal form of government intervention. However, the proponents of this argument fail to acknowledge the fact that taxes can encourage better eating habits, while generating the necessary income (Scarborough, Morgan, Webster & Rayner 2011).

In addition, those who opposes sugar tax tend to argue that there are no data that have clearly demonstrated a link between sugary drinks and obesity or other health problems. Although this is true, research funded by independent agencies, not by sweet drink companies, shows a clear link between the consumption of sugary drinks and being overweight (Konnopka, Bodemann & Konig 2011).

Other opponents of the sugar tax may argue that taxes on soft drinks are regressive because they disproportionately affect the poorest people. However, the truth is that obesity and diabetes are regressive diseases because they disproportionately affect the poorest. In addition, the results of several studies point in the same direction, that is to say that the tax causes only a small increase in expenditure and that there is little difference between the poorest and most poor households. rich Tax-related costs represent 0.1 – 1% of the annual family income for the poorest households, compared to 0.03 – 0.6% of the income of the richest households (Waterlander, Ni Mhurchu & Steenhuis 2014). In sum, even if a tax on sweetened beverages is regressive (like all sales taxes), its financial impact seems very modest. This is especially important as low-income families are at higher risk for obesity and are therefore more likely to benefit from reduced consumption of sugary drinks. In the United States, the prevalence of diabetes and obesity are higher in ethnic minorities and in the poorest collectives (Drewnowski 2009). This association has been explained by the higher price of foods such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables, in contrast to the lower food that is more energy dense, so that the disadvantaged groups are inclined to follow more unbalanced diets. However, some studies fail to explain this higher prevalence of obesity in these groups because of the quality or cost of the diet, but because of other aspects related to lifestyle, such as less physical activity (Navalpotro, Regidor & Ortega et al. 2012).

Effect of Sugar Tax on Consumption

Some opponents of sugar tax may also argue that consuming sugary drinks is a matter of individual responsibility. However, this is not true because taxpayers must pay the health care costs through their taxes. In addition, a mounting body of evidence suggest that obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease are social issues (Eyles, Ni Mhurchu, Nghiem & Blakely 2012).

It is also common to find some arguments that maintain that sales of soft drinks have declined, while the incidence of obesity remains high; Sugary drinks cannot be responsible for obesity. The truth is that the incidence of obesity is starting to stabilize with the decline in soft drink sales. Sales of other sugary drinks are up. All these drinks should be taxed. Although it is still too early to know precisely the impact of sugar taxes on people’s health, but the estimates made so far are very encouraging. For example, a computer modeling of the impact of the Mexican tax suggests that a 10% reduction in consumption (which is similar to what was observed) would result in 189,300 fewer cases of diabetes and 20,400 cardiovascular events (heart attack and stroke), which would prevent 18,900 premature deaths by 2022. In the same vein, a study by Harvard’s Researchers TH Chan School of Public Health estimates that the Cook County Beverages Tax (Chicago area), approved on November 10, 2016, could reduce diabetes incidence by 7% and save money more than $ 200 million in health care over the next few years (Schwendicke, Thomson, Broadbent et al. 2016).

Conclusion

The paper has demonstrated that that sugar tax is one of the effective ways of controlling chronic obesity in Australia and should be introduced because the purpose of sugar taxes is to limit the consumption of certain foods and to incline the consumer to choose other “healthier” ones, which, because they are not taxed, would be cheaper, thus reducing the prevalence of obesity and chronic noncommunicable diseases.

However, in an economic moment as delicate as this one in which we find ourselves, to increase the pressure on the consumer by applying a rate to one or several foods, without the certainty that the objective pursued will be achieved, does not seem the most convenient. Positive measures may be more effective, promoting foods that include less than the desirable portion of the diet (fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) and favoring the follow-up of more balanced diets, along with campaigns to improve the nutrition education of the population. population and that allow the consumer to make more appropriate food choices (Wright, Smith & Hellowell 2017). Nor should we forget the promotion of more active and healthy lifestyles. In addition, measures of this type are not well accepted by the food industry. The administration and the food industry should try to find the way to work together for health, and not seek confrontations. For this reason we believe it is necessary to involve and work with the industry, so that it is able to improve its offer to the consumer, developing and putting on the market foods that are not simply healthier but also more attractive and appetizing.

Impact of Sugar Tax in Other Countries

References

Besley T. & Rosen H. (1999). Sales taxes and prices: an empirical analysis. Natl Tax J. 1999;52(2):157–78.

Biro A. (2015). Did the junk food tax make the Hungarians eat healthier? Food Policy; 54: 107-15 .

Bonnet C, Réquillart V. (2013). Tax incidence with strategic firms in the soft drink market. J Public Econ. 2013; 106:77–88.

Colchero M. A. et al. (2016). Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ 2016; 352: h6704.

Cornelsen L, & Carriedo A. (2015). Health-related taxes on food and beverages. 5th May 2015. Food Research Collaboration Policy Brief.

Drewnowski A. (2009). Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutr Rev. 67 (Suppl 1): S36-9.

Etilé F. & Sharma A. (2015). Do high consumers of sugar-sweetened beverages respond differently to price changes? a finite mixture IV-tobit approach. Health Econ. 24(9):1147–63

Eyles H., Ni Mhurchu C., Nghiem N. & Blakely T. (2012). Food pricing strategies, population diets, and non-communicable disease: a systematic review of simulation studies. PLoS Med. 9(12):e1001353.

Falbe J et al. (2016). Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on the Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption. Am. J. Public Health 2016; 106: 1865-1871

Konnopka A., Bodemann M, & Konig H.H. (2011). Health burden and costs of obesity and overweight in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 12(4):345–52.

Lustig R. H. (2010). Fructose: metabolic, hedonic, and societal parallels with ethanol. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(9):1307–21.

Mandrioli D., Kearns C. E. & Bero L. A. (2016). Relationship between research outcomes and risk of bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One 11: e0162198

Navalpotro L., Regidor E., Ortega P., et al. (2012). Area-based socioeconomic environment, obesity risk behavior, area facilities and childhood overweight and obesity: socioeconomic environment and childhood overweight. Prev Med. 2012; 55: 102-7.

Scarborough P., Morgan R.D., Webster P. & Rayner M. (2011). Differences in coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer mortality rates between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: the role of diet and nutrition. BMJ Open.1(1):e000263

Schillinger D., Tran J., Mangurian C. et al. (2016). Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause obesity and diabetes? Industry and the manufacture of scientific controversy. Ann Intern Med 165: 895–897

Schwendicke F., Thomson W.M., Broadbent J.M. et al. (2016). Effects of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages on caries and treatment costs. J Dent Res 95: 1327–1332.

Stuckler D., Reeves A., Loopstra R. et al. (2016). Textual analysis of sugar industry influence on the World Health Organization’s 2015 sugars intake guideline. Bull World Health Organ 94: 566–573

Waterlander W.E., Ni Mhurchu C. & Steenhuis I.H.M. (2014). Effects of a price increase on purchases of sugar sweetened beverages. Results from a randomized controlled trial. Appetite. 78:32–9

WHO Regional Office for Europe (2015).. Using price policies to Promote Healthier diets. WHO.

Wright A., Smith K. E. & Hellowell M. (2017). Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health 17: 58