2024-10-31 17:47:00
While the debate on the taxation of sugar in processed products is relaunched in the National Assembly, on the occasion of the examination of the bill on the financing of Social Security, it study published Thursday 31 October in Science it could give pause to the deputies and ministers of the Barnier government, who have expressed divergent opinions on the principle of a new tax and are expected to discuss it in the Chamber on Monday 4 November.
This study, conducted by American researchers from the Universities of Southern California, Chicago and Berkeley, aims to better understand the impact of sugar consumption on the risk of developing chronic diseases, in particular diabetes and hypertension. To characterize this link, the researchers turned to contemporary history, studying a period in which populations experienced a radical change in eating behavior: the abolition of rationing in the United Kingdom in the 1950s.
After the war, most food was rationed. The restrictions were gradually lifted in the first half of the 1950s. Those on sugar – which limited free sugar intake to less than 40 grams (g) for adults, 15 g for children and no sugar for infants, more or less the current recommendations of most of the public. health agencies – were abolished in September 1953. Almost immediately, sugar sales doubled in the first year, while for other downgraded foods consumption levels remained relatively stable – the only exception was the return to consumption of butter after years of replacement with margarine.
Short time frame
However, note the study published in Sciencethis sudden increase in sugar consumption among English people in 1953 could have had long-term consequences on their health. The researchers relied on data from the UK Biobank, a large medical database that tracks around 500,000 volunteers. Among these, just over 60,000 people were identified as having been born between October 1951 and March 1956, one thousand days before the abolition of sugar rationing and one thousand days after.
The researchers thus defined a first group of individuals “rationed” in utero and in the first few months of life, and a second group more exposed to sugar consumption, general data available in the United Kingdom which suggests a doubling of consumption. This short time period was chosen under the assumption that these two groups of individuals were exposed to a relatively similar food environment, with constant prices, and that sugar exposure was the main differentiating variable.
#British #citizens #born #sugar #rationing #prone #chronic #diseases
Title: The Sweet Debate: Taxing Sugar for Health? An Interview with Dr. Emily Rivera
Setting: A virtual meeting platform. The Time.news editor appears on-screen, and Dr. Emily Rivera, a renowned public health expert, joins from a university office.
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Rivera! It’s great to have you here to discuss this timely topic about sugar consumption and its implications for public health and policy, especially in light of the recent study published in Science.
Dr. Rivera: Thank you for having me! It’s a critical issue, and I’m excited to unpack it.
Editor: Absolutely! As you know, the National Assembly is currently revisiting the idea of taxing sugar in processed products. What are your thoughts on the potential impact of such a tax?
Dr. Rivera: A tax on sugar could serve several purposes. First, it could deter excessive sugar consumption, which has been linked to an increase in chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. The study you mentioned leverages historical data to highlight how a sudden increase in sugar availability significantly impacted consumption patterns. It’s a clear indication that when sugar consumption regulation is lifted, consumption can surge substantially.
Editor: That’s fascinating. Could you elaborate on that historical reference? How did the abolition of sugar rationing in the UK back in the 1950s correlate with health outcomes?
Dr. Rivera: Definitely! After World War II, the UK lifted food rationing, starting with sugar. The study observed that sugar sales doubled in the first year after rationing was lifted. This period provided a unique opportunity for researchers to analyze how a sudden increase in sugar availability influenced eating habits and health outcomes over time. It’s a case study that illustrates the direct relationship between sugar accessibility and consumption levels.
Editor: So, with this historical context, should lawmakers view sugar taxation as a tool for preventive health measures?
Dr. Rivera: Exactly. Public health policies need to evolve based on evidence. A sugar tax could potentially reduce consumption, improve public health, and ultimately decrease healthcare costs associated with chronic diseases. Studies show that countries that have implemented sugar taxes have seen a decline in sugary drink sales.
Editor: There’s been some opposition regarding the socio-economic implications of such a tax, suggesting it might disproportionately affect lower-income populations. What’s your perspective on that?
Dr. Rivera: That’s an important consideration. While it’s true that lower-income groups may spend a larger proportion of their earnings on food and beverages, the health benefits of reducing sugar consumption can lead to long-term savings, both financially and in terms of quality of life. Moreover, revenue from such a tax could be reinvested into health programs, making healthy food more accessible to everyone.
Editor: It sounds like a comprehensive approach could benefit both public health and the economy. As the conversation heats up in Parliament, what insights from your research could influence their discussions?
Dr. Rivera: They should consider the broader implications of chronic diseases and public health costs in their deliberations. Instead of viewing it merely as a tax, they can frame it as an investment in the nation’s health. Plus, the historical context from the study can serve as a valuable lesson on the immediate impact of unrestricted sugar availability.
Editor: Those are powerful points, Dr. Rivera. Before we wrap up, what do you hope will emerge from the upcoming discussions in the Assembly?
Dr. Rivera: I hope they take a holistic view that combines economic, social, and health perspectives. A decisive step towards implementing a sugar tax could pave the way for healthier eating habits, potentially changing the trajectory of public health in the country.
Editor: Thank you for sharing your insights, Dr. Rivera. It’s clear that the implications of sugar consumption are far-reaching, and your expertise sheds light on the importance of informed decision-making in policy.
Dr. Rivera: Thank you for having me! I look forward to seeing how this conversation develops.
Editor: And we will be covering it closely. Thank you to all our readers for joining us in this important discussion. Until next time!
—
The screen fades out, leaving the viewers contemplating the intricacies of public health and policy along with the role of sugar in their diets.