Obesity is a problem that cannot be understated. It is estimated that it costs £98bn a year to treat obesity as well as further £6.5bn in treating complications related to obesity.
A huge contributor to that has been the rise of junk food, or more correctly termed “ultra processed foods.” Such foods are cheaper, more readily available and soak up less time to prepare. Of course, this week’s newsletter is not to have a go at individuals for their life choices which is something we tend to do. It is to offer an “ethical” perspective on how individual choice, economics and ethics all interact.
I find this very intestine and I hope you all will too.
The Public Sentiment
The NHS is strained and the UK public can see that. Certainly, diseases linked to the umbrella term of metabolic syndrome are on the rise and people want to be able to better manage their health. A recent poll surveying 2,136 UK adults found 58% to be in favour of taxing companies that produce ultra-processed foods, namely foods which are high in sugar and salt content.
Examples of such foods include sugary cereals, pizzas, crisps, and ready meals. Their low cost and convenience make them a staple in many households, but their nutritional content leaves much to be desired. The idea behind such a tax is to subsidise more healthier options such as fruit and vegetables to encourage healthier food choices.
Now on paper, this sounds like a good idea. It’s almost comparable to the tax on alcohol and tobacco to make items more expensive and deter people from buying goods. The idea this time is different as it proposes taxing companies directly. Previously, individual ingredients were taxed such as sugar. Companies evaded this by manipulating or replacing certain ingredients as well as making savings in their purchasing of other ingredients so as to keep the overall price of sugary drinks the same.
What are the Ethical Considerations?
Things are never straightforward in public health. Unfortunately, our practice as clinicians is quite linear in that we often make patients entirely culpable for their poor health behaviours. I’m not denying individual agency here, but the socio-economic context has a huge factor to play in such life choices. Here are some ethical factors to take into consideration if such legislation is proposed:
Health Inequalities. Taxing companies and thus making the price of goods higher could deter people from eating regularly due to the cost and time required to prepare healthier food. This could result in poor outcomes in both adults and any dependents they have. It’s a fine balance.
Obesity is multifaceted. This is an argument made by food companies who argue that they shouldn’t be punished for the rising rate of obesity. The rising cost of living has forced people to take on more work, subsequently zapping away any time for exercise or cooking healthier meals. It can be argued that the government needs to be more comprehensive in its approach.
Are taxes always the right way? This is controversial but bear with me. Perhaps punishing companies and forcing them to find ways to avoid the tax isn’t the best way. The alternative strategy of subsidising companies could work better. Encouraging companies to add more fruit or fibre into cereals, which in turn reduces the sugar content could be an alternative strategies. Subsidies could be financial or governments could offer tax relief amongst other things. Just a thought I guess…
So yes.. It’s not straightforward. Taxes are often seen as an effective way to deter people from certain behaviours, but as opposed to tobacco and alcohol which are not integral to life, food is. Making food more expensive can have some negative repercussions down the line so great thought needs to be put into such proposed legislation.
It’s an interesting area to watch and it would be great to hear your views!
Until next time!
Check us out on our various pages
Website: www.paretoeducation.co.uk
Instagram: www.instagram.com/pareto_ed
Twitter: www.twitter.com/pareto_ed
Youtube: https://bit.ly/3DPm23c
Email: paretopaeducation@gmail.com