A study conducted by Mexican econometricians and researchers of the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM) on the impact of the tax on drinks with added sugars found that the measure failed in reducing calorie consumption and tackling overweight and obesity.
The study “Taxing Calories in Mexico” is the first large-scale analysis of the effects of the special tax introduced in 2013 by the Mexican government with the declared objective of reducing consumption of food and non-alcoholic beverages allegedly associated with overweight and obesity.
The results represent new fundamental evidence to support what a growing number of studies has demonstrated, in particular:
- There is no academic evidence to prove that an increase in prices deriving from a tax over “caloric food” (drinks with added sugar especially) leads to a significant reduction in total caloric consumption and/or incidence on the Body Mass Index (BMI) of people. One year after the implementation of the tax the BMI in Mexico is still increasing and the total caloric consumption decreased by less than 1% only, especially due to substitution effects.
- Taxes of this kind have a stronger negative impact on the poorer households since they spend a higher proportion of their income on food and beverages.
The study was funded by the Consejo Mexicano de la Industria de Productos de Consumo, A.C. (ConMéxico), which signed an agreement with ITAM to ensure full academic independence for the authors in conducting the research and using the results.
The complete study and its conclusions are available at: http://cie.itam.mx/sites/default/files/cie/15-04.pdf
Obesity is a critical global issue that requires a comprehensive, international intervention strategy.
Much of the global debate on this issue has become polarized and sometimes deeply antagonistic. Obesity is a complex, systemic issue with no single or simple solution. The global discord surrounding how to move forward underscores the need for integrated assessments of potential solutions.
A new McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) discussion paper, Overcoming obesity: An initial economic analysis, seeks to overcome these hurdles by offering an independent view on the components of a potential strategy.
The main findings of the discussion paper include:
- Existing evidence indicates that no single intervention is likely to have a significant overall impact.
- Education and personal responsibility are critical elements of any program aiming to reduce obesity
- No individual sector in society can address obesity on its own
Read the full paper here.
New research suggests the UK’s rise in obesity has not been caused by, as many have suggested, high-fat foods and sugary drinks but by a lack of physical activity.
Conducted by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the briefing paper argues against the claim that calorie consumption has been the primary cause of the UK’s expanding waistline. Indeed, according to the IEA the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that per capita consumption of sugar, fat and calories has been falling in the UK for several decades.
The Fat Lie examines evidence from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the ONS and the British Heart Foundation.
The average weight of an English adult has increased by two kilograms since 2002. Yet over the same period calorie consumption fell four per cent and sugar consumption dropped nearly 7.5 per cent. The amount of calories consumed outside the home also tumbled from 310 in 2001/02 to 219 in 2012.
But while Brits were cutting back on cake, physical activity has also taken a back seat. In 2010 the average Brit walked 179 miles – compared with 255 miles in 1976.
Cycling had also dropped to an average of 42 miles a year by 2010, compared with 51 in 1976.
As many as 40 per cent of people reported spending no time walking at work. The IEA points out that the rise in sedentary office jobs and labour-saving devices mean people are not compelled to undertake the same amount of physical activity they used to.
Report author Christopher Snowdon said: “With obesity now featuring so heavily in the media it is worrying that so few people know that our largely sedentary lifestyles, not our appetites, have been the driving force behind the UK’s expanding waistlines”.
The report draws three key findings from the evidence gathered, the first being that the food industry, which has been the target of increasingly polemical public health campaigns, is not the main culprit for rising obesity. It could also put paid to some campaigners who argue that bans and taxes on certain types of food and drink could significantly reduce obesity numbers.
Second, while people tend to play fast and loose with the amount they say they eat, it remains “extremely unlikely” that the almost uninterrupted fall in calorie consumption is down to people telling fibs about how much they eat.
Furthermore, the report argues a one-size-fits-all solution is inadequate when it comes to reducing obesity. The report acknowledges while average calorie consumption has fallen this does not mean everyone is eating less; however, the IEA urges scepticism about claims that cutting the UK’s calorie intake will reverse the rise in obesity.
Please read the full article here.
New research finds UK’s rise in obesity has been primarily caused by a decline in physical activity
The rise in obesity amongst the UK population has been primarily caused by a decline in physical activity. Using government figures, this new study debunks the popular belief that the rise in obesity in recent decades is the result of increased calorie consumption in general, and sugar in particular.In The Fat Lie, Christopher Snowdon studies evidence from DEFRA, the National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the ONS and the British Heart Foundation, finding that all the evidence indicates that per capita consumption of sugar, fat and calories has been falling in the UK for decades.Despite public health campaigners portraying Britain’s obesity ‘epidemic’ as a result of increased availability of junk food, this conventional wisdom has no basis in fact. People have reduced the number of calories they consume, but have reduced the amount they move around even more.
- Since 2002, the average body weight of English adults has increased by two kilograms. This has coincided with a decline in calorie consumption of over 4% and a decline in sugar consumption of nearly 7.5%.
- Of food eaten outside the home, daily calories consumed have fallen from 310 in 2001/02 to 219 in 2012, a drop of nearly one hundred calories per day in ten years.
- Data for eating out does not go back prior to 2000, but we do know that Britons were consuming more calories in the home in 1974 than Britons consumed in and outside the home combined in 2012.
- Despite falling calorie intake, average body mass has increased by 5 kilograms since 1993. The crucial missing variable, often overlooked by campaigners, is energy expended.
- Britons walk an average of 179 miles a year, down from 255 miles in 1976 and also cycle less; averaging 42 miles a year compared to 51 miles in 1976. 40% of people report spending no time even walking at work. The rise of office jobs and labour saving devices means people have fewer opportunities for physical activity, both at work and at home
- ‘Big Food’ is not to blame
Food supply is a more inviting target for health campaigners than the sedentary lifestyles of the general public. A war on the food industry requires no stigmatisation of individuals and there are a readymade set of policies available which have been tried and tested in the campaigns against tobacco and alcohol.
- Under-reporting of eating habits does not change conclusions
Although measuring the diet can be difficult because people tend to downplay the amount they eat, the question is not whether people under-report but the extent to which under-reporting has changed over time. It is extremely unlikely people have become so forgetful that the large and virtually uninterrupted fall in calorie consumption reported in successive studies can be explained by misreporting.
- A one-size-fits-all response is not the solution
The fact that Britons, on average, are eating fewer calories does not mean that everybody is eating less, but we should be sceptical about those who claim that reducing calorie intake across the population will lead to less obesity. That clearly hasn’t happened in the past.
Commenting on the report, its author, Christopher Snowdon, said:“The root cause of Britain’s rising obesity levels has not been a rise in calorie intake but a rise in inactivity. With obesity now featuring so heavily in the media it is worrying that so few people know that our largely sedentary lifestyles, not our appetites, have been the driving force behind the UK’s expanding waistlines.
“Campaigners promoting a healthy lifestyle should refocus their efforts towards encouraging exercise and away from a war on food. Anti-market policies aimed at the whole population such as fat taxes will do nothing for the nation’s health.”
Shadow health minister Luciana Berger this week ruled out the possibility of a Labour government imposing additional taxes on
fizzy drinks and other high-sugar products.
In an exclusive interview with The Grocer, Berger said the party had decided against backing a sugar tax because it would increase food prices and be seen to punish cash-strapped consumers.
“We have never said we are in favour of a sugar tax and I can categorically say that isn’t the case,” said Berger, who this week hosted an obesity debate in Westminster involving MPs, NHS bosses, NGOs and the food industry.
Campaign group Action on Sugar and the National Obesity Forum have recently supported the idea of taxing products high in sugar. But Berger, whose party is
coming towards the end of a review of its public health policy, cautioned against the approach.
“We should not be looking at any food ingredient in isolation,” she said. “Obviously, we have to do something to tackle the obesity crisis and one of the things that we have to look at is sugar. But there is no specific sugar policy. What we are suggesting is limits on the amount of sugar, salt and fat in food and we will be bringing these forward before the next party conference.”
Berger said Labour was also looking at regulation which could stop fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s being located in close proximity to schools and added that “stores like WHSmith which sell a huge amount of sweet confectionery were also “high on our radar”.
The shadow minister, who has been behind an avalanche of parliamentary questions attacking the closeness of the DH to food companies, would not go as far as confirming Labour planned to scrap the Responsibility Deal but said: “It clearly isn’t working.”