A newly published report shows the soaring economic costs of obesity, but reflection on this growing ailment of contemporary society requires us to fundamentally assess the role of the state before it is clear what ought to be done about it.
“The Obesity Crisis”
It has been described by the World Health Organisation as an “epidemic” and this week we were confronted with the sobering news that in Britain the costs of obesity now rival those of smoking and exceed the costs incurred by various forms of conflict – findings far from atypical globally.
In a study commissioned by the prestigious consultancy group McKinsey and Company the impact of obesity on the economy was estimated to be a staggering burden of £47bn per year (which equates to a loss of around 3% of GDP) as compared to that of smoking (£57bn or 3.6% of GDP) and armed violence, war, and terrorism (£43bn or 2.5% of GDP). The three categories were found to be Britain’s most troubling man-made burdens ahead of alcoholism, illiteracy and drug use.
Image Credit: The Guardian
It was also noted that 2.1 billion people worldwide are overweight or obese, a figure representing 30% of the world’s adult population. This already startlingly high figure is likely to rise to approximately 50% by 2030 if current trends continue.
The severity of the problem, emphasised in the study, is reinforced by two further findings. Firstly -in a week where the return of Band Aid has been much debated – the number of people in the world who are overweight or obese is two and a half times the number recorded as undernourished. And secondly, that weight issues can now be held accountable for approximately 5% of global deaths.
“A Global Economic Problem”
The report offers a systematic consideration of the economic impact of obesity, highlighting loss of productivity as a sometimes neglected external cost affecting companies to a growing extent.
However, as part of their case study looking at Britain, it is perhaps the focus on a well known cost of obesity that strikes a chord, in the run up to an election year which Labour seems determined to fight on a platform focussed on the NHS, whilst the Conservatives seek to remind the electorate of the pressing need to take care of Britain’s finances through continued cuts to public services.
A particularly telling passage of the report states the following:
“In the United Kingdom, the government currently spends about £6bn a year on the direct medical costs of conditions related to being overweight or obese. That is 5 percent of the entire budget of the NHS. It spends a further £10bn on diabetes… On current projections of rising prevalence of obesity and overweight conditions, the cost to the NHS could increase from between £6bn and £8bn in 2015 to between £10bn and £12bn in 2030.”
To put this into context, the current costs of obesity and diabetes to the UKs health care system is equal to the “combined protection budget” for the police, fire services, law courts and prisons. It is also an incredible 40% of total spending on education in Britain, and 35% of the defence budget.
“Tackling Obesity”
The McKinsey report outlined 44 methods which were effective in bringing “20% of overweight/obese Britons back to normal weight”: including measures aimed at educating the populace more effectively in matters of health and suggestions for increasing people’s personal responsibility over their weight.
The need for a wide-ranging package of measures perhaps reflects the plethora of causes for the rise in global obesity, which we are only beginning to fully understand.
Yet if obesity is to be analysed as an economic problem, something which its significant economic costs seems to render rather appropriate, there is a growing sense that governments worldwide must seek economic solutions and the report states this clearly.
“No single solution creates sufficient impact to reverse obesity: only a comprehensive, systemic program of multiple interventions is likely to be effective… Education and encouraging personal responsibility are necessary but not sufficient.”
Among the package of interventions considered was significant market intervention, including the subsidisation of healthy alternatives such as fresh fruit and vegetables, and (most interestingly) the taxation of certain foods deemed especially problematic.
Taxation is an option much maligned in some circles, from a practicality perspective as well as through more ideological objections.
Critics highlight the basic economic consideration as to whether consumer choice will be particularly responsive to any tax levied, or whether measures sometimes referred to as a “fat tax” would instead have regressive impacts on the poorest of families, already concerned with the cost of living.
They also emphasise the entrenched subjectivity in deciding which foods were to be hit by a tax induced price rise and worry that such decisions might be arbitrary, or worse manipulated by those with a preconceived agenda against certain food companies.
And it is those food companies, of course, who are at the forefront of resisting some of the intervention suggested – which also includes marketing restrictions and regulation on the size and content of certain products.
Challenging questions about the role of the state
David Cameron entered Downing Street in 2010 with a noted enthusiasm for “nudge” economics, but it would appear that rather than nudge consumers towards socially optimal behaviour (e.g. through mandatory nutritional information on the front of food packaging), getting to grips with obesity would also require more of a shove (e.g. taxation, making the socially optimal behaviour the monetarily desirable one) if a unified policy package is going to have even close to the needed impact in the near future.
But despite the potential benefits for individuals and the economy, there remain clear philosophical as well as pragmatic grounds upon which such measures are opposed.
As with other problems incurring large social costs government intervention is seen by some to appear overly paternalistic, constraining the fundamental liberty of individuals.
A precedent may have already been set with the tobacco industry however, who only recently emphasised the heavy rate of taxation they face in light of Ed Miliband’s desire to implement a further windfall tax on their profits.
Considering the report finding comparable impacts from smoking and obesity it would seem that the tobacco lobby might feel rather hard done by should it be that they are targeted by ‘sin taxes’ and the food lobby escape.
Moreover, they might argue that our hesitance to force similar measures onto the food industry shows that rather than being a precedent that ought to be followed, sin taxation is a misguided approach that misconstrues the moral purpose of the state and undervalues individuals having the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
If such arguments were deemed persuasive, it would lead surely to a radical re-appraisal of the modern state, as such libertarianism is not consistently applied at present to any real extent. Governments in modern society do constrain free choice by intervening in markets regularly, claiming the good in doing so outweighs the associated harm of restricting liberty.
Our growing awareness of the true impact of obesity on ourselves as individuals but also wider society and the global economy – as put forward by the McKinsey report – means that all options must surely be on the table for genuine debate at the very least, with the best options being coordinated into an urgent and systematic response to the challenge obesity constitutes.
If strong intervention like taxation were to be meaningfully considered, this also gives us the chance to critically reflect on the moral purpose of the state, something rather neglected in the hectic world of contemporary politics.
Too often fundamental questions are skirted over or sidelined in the desire for quick fixes and popularity with the electorate. If we do not have a conception on what we value, and what the state is meant to do in promoting said values it is hardly a surprise that our political landscape lacks consistency and clarity, frequently failing to deliver optimal results for its citizens.
Would taxation on food products fuelling the unyielding rise in obesity place us on the slippery slope to authoritarianism? And do we value liberty to such an absolute extent that tough measures cannot be considered to stem societal problems of the magnitude described?
These are the tough questions that this latest reminder of the impact of obesity lead us to consider. But let us be clear, they are questions for the people our governments represent as opposed to a hiding place for corporate interests. “Big food”, like “big tobacco” seem very worried about constraining liberty, and though the issue itself is an important one, it is understandable that their protestations may be viewed cynically by those aware of their vested interests.
About the Author
