Ex Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith calls for benefits to be increased in line with inflation to provide ‘shield’ against cost-of-living crisis Mr Duncan-Smith made…
INCREASING the cost of biscuits, cakes and sweets could be more effective at tackling obesity than taxing fizzy drinks, experts suggest.
Experts say that the controversial sugar tax, that was introduced on sugary beverages last April, led to a "wave of reformulation" by the drinks industry.
But according to a new BMJ study, in the UK, high sugar snacks including biscuits, cakes, chocolates and sweets make up more free sugar and energy intake.
On average, sugary drinks contribute two per cent of energy and 11 per cent of free sugar intake, compared with 12 per cent of total energy and 26 per cent of free sugar intake from biscuits, cakes and confectionery combined, according to the National Diet and Nutrition Survey.
Stop snack shopping
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Cambridge hypothesised that reducing purchases of these snacks could have a greater impact on population health.
They modelled a scenario where the cost of sugary snacks was increased by 20 per cent, based on food purchase data for 36,324 UK households and survey data for 2,544 adults.
They grouped the results by household income and body mass index (BMI) to estimate changes in weight over a year as a result of reduced purchases.
They predicted the 20 per cent increase would reduce annual average energy intake by around 8,900 calories, leading to an average weight loss of 1.3kg.
This "plausible" estimate compares with an average weight loss of 203g with the tax on sugary drinks.
The researchers believe this could lead to an estimated population level reduction in obesity prevalence of 2.7 per cent after 12 months, and a reduced BMI of 0.53 per cent.
The predicted change in BMI is "relatively large" compared with other public health interventions.
The option of a snack tax is "worthy of further research and consideration as part of an integrated approach to tackling obesity", they added.
The authors wrote: "There is a strong rationale for using fiscal policy to improve diet and health, to change consumer purchasing and encourage manufacturers and producers to reformulate or increase availability of healthier options."
They said the increase could make an "important contribution" to reducing health inequalities driven by diet-related diseases.
Their model showed the impact of the price increase would be most felt by low-income households with the highest rates of obesity, while the impact would be smallest in high-income households classified as not overweight.
MORE ON OBESITY
Tragic story of 'world's strongest kid' who weighed 23 stone aged NINE
New NHS app helping kids choose healthier snacks launches today
I'm a doctor and simple weight loss hack will stop you overeating
My daughter was labelled 'obese' in Govt letter – now she's trying to skip meals
The authors added: "Taxes on food and beverages are regressive because families on lower incomes who spend a higher percentage of their income on food will be disproportionately affected.
"This could be justified if decreased consumption reduced health inequalities and if revenues were to be used to amplify health benefits through subsidies for healthy foods or community intervention programmes."
An alternative could be introducing a nutrient-related tax, which would take into account positive elements such as the fruit, vegetable or fibre content of the product.
Source: Read Full Article