People are getting fatter. The question is: can a government legislate a country back to health?
It’s an issue that’s made headlines with Denmark’s recent introduction of a tax on foods high in saturated fat. The so-called “fat tax” targets butter, cheeses and snack foods, among other products, in a bid to counteract poor eating habits and improve the nation’s health.
One in 10 adults is obese, according to 2008 estimates by the World Health Organization – that’s a problem of “epidemic” proportions.
The situation is even worse in Canada, where nearly one quarter of adults were estimated to be obese as of 2005. That percentage is comparable to rates in the United Kingdom, but lower than those in the United States, where one third of the population weighs in as obese.
With no visible improvement in Canada’s obesity rate in the past six years, it’s time to take the fight against obesity to the next level by introducing an integrated national and provincial plan that would incorporate fiscal incentives, school-based interventions and better food labelling.
Strong, top-down interventions are often demonized as infringing on the individual’s right to eat as they please, but obesity is becoming an inexcusable and expensiv national problem.
People who are obese face higher risks for heart disease, high blood pressure and certain cancers. Stronger measures could prevent as many as 40,000 deaths a year in Canada, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
In comparison, lung cancer kills 20, 000 people per year. They may also reduce the $4.6 billion total national costs generated by obesity related conditions every year.
This can’t be done through individual willpower alone. It’s not just that chips are cheaper and better tasting than vegetables, or that lounging in front of the TV while you eat those chips is easier than going for a run.
Rather, it’s the myriad of other institutional barriers to nutritious choices, such as overly complex nutrition labelling, that make healthy living about as fun as calculating your taxes.
Introducing similar legislation to Denmark’s “fat tax” would be a starting point to address some of these barriers.
Taxes on high-calorie foods with low nutritional quality could both discourage consumers from choosing those products and bring in funds for educational programs to fight the epidemic.
Ontario already taxes some snack foods, including chips and candy bars, but it also taxes certain healthy “convenience” foods such as packaged salads and fruit and vegetable trays.
But implementing such legislation alone runs the risk of disproportionately focusing on a single nutrient, such as saturated fat, while allowing other risks; for example, those caused by excessive salt or sugar content, to fall off the radar.
The Centre for Science in the Public Interest pointed to these tax flaws in 2007 when it recommended a more comprehensive approach to food taxes that would focus on the overall nutritional quality of products, rather than on specific ingredients.
Canada has some of the most stringent nutrition labelling requirements in the world. Manufacturers must list everything from calories to sodium levels and vitamin content. But what about foods for which there’s no nutritional information available?
Canadian households visit restaurants for meals or snacks 520 times per year, according to Statistics Canada.
Yet, restaurants are not legally required to disclose the nutritional value of their products. Mandating restaurants to provide nutritional information on their menus would help Canadians make healthier choices, even when eating away from home.
Taxes and labelling legislation must also be paired with measures that improve Canadians’ access to healthy foods.
Mandating healthier lunches for children in elementary schools is just one step Ontario has taken in the right direction.
Elementary schools are also an ideal environment to begin educating the population about healthy choices. These programs can run without interference from commercial interests.
In 2007, the Canada Food Guide changed to include more specific recommendations regarding exercise levels and produce intake.
The classroom is the perfect place to communicate these changes. Obese children are more likely to become obese adults and healthy habits taught early have been shown to pay off in the long run.
While diet plays a huge role in obesity rates, so does inactivity. Only 15 per cent of Canadian adults perform the recommended amount of weekly physical activity, according to Canadian Health Measures Survey data from 2007 to 2009.
Children are the easiest group to get for improving activity rates. Parents who involve their children in physical activity programs, such as hockey, can receive up to $500 from the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit program.
This support needs to extend to adults as well. Fortunately, the federal government promised in April to double the amount parents can receive for their children’s activity, and give adults $500 if they are active in similar programs.
Canadians can’t allow government inactivity to become another contributor to the nation’s high obesity rate. Both federal and provincial governments have been talking about tackling the epidemic for years and now it’s time to take action.
It won’t be easy, and it may require legislation that will push us out of our comfort zones, but with 40,000 lives on the line, we can’t afford to wait.