Calorie counting gimmicks and sugar taxes won’t solve obesity crisis

In the early days of the pandemic obesity was identified as a key factor behind hospitalisation rates and deaths from Covid.  The Prime Minister knew this personally, from his own brush with mortality last April.

This is on top of the already well-established links between obesity and other life-threatening conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

The government’s strategy to combat obesity, published at the end of July last year, is full of earnest intentions.

Weight management services by the NHS will be expanded, with evidence-based tools and apps being made available. Calorie labels are being added to food and drink in more and more situations.

Yet the sheer scale of the problem is not really grasped.  It is not just the numbers. Nearly 30 per cent of all adults are obese and some 33 per cent of school children.  

The phenomenon is without precedent in human history.  

Indeed, for most of the existence of humanity, most people lived close to starvation levels.  Only the very rich could ever get fat.

Historically, and even today in poor countries, there is a strong positive correlation between obesity and income.

In the last three decades, this has been dramatically reversed.  It is the poor who are fat.

In America, for example, in 1990, Mississippi  had the highest obesity rate of any state, at 15 per cent of the population.

The inhabitants of any such state now would look exceptionally svelte.  The lowest obesity rate is in Colorado, at 24 per cent of the population.  In no fewer than 12 states, more than 35 per cent of all adults are obese, and all of them are poor by American standards.

Simply providing more information about the dangers of being obese is unlikely to prove very effective.

A fundamental challenge to reducing obesity arises from what economists call hyperbolic discounting. The concept was initially developed by David Laibson of Harvard in the 1990s and has strong empirical support.

The issue is straightforward. You do something you enjoy today, but which has costs in the future. How do you compare future costs to current benefits?

Hyperbolic discounting simply means that you place huge emphasis on the present and the immediate future. You discount any costs beyond this short horizon heavily.  It does not mean you are unaware of them. Even if you know, you just do not pay much attention to them.

The same problem arises with climate change policies. Yes, you know the risks.  But they are in the future and right now it is cold, so turn up the central heating.

From the decades long campaign against smoking, it seems that promoting the idea that peer groups are giving up can be effective. 

Whatever route is chosen, obesity will not be solved by gimmicks such as NHS apps and sugar taxes.  

It is a problem without precedent and needs serious scientific study in just the same way that monies have been poured into Covid vaccines. 

Paul Ormerod
As published in City AM Wednesday 17th March 2021
Image: Leon Brooks on Pixnio

Share this post

ALEX O’BYRNE

Associate

e: aobyrne@volterra.co.uk
t: +44 020 8878 6333

Alex O’Byrne, Associate at Volterra, is an experienced economic consultant specialising in economic, health and social impact, economic strategy, project appraisal and socio-economic planning matters.

Alex has led the socio-economic and health assessments of some of the most high profile developments across the UK, including Battersea Power Station, Olympia London, London Resort, MSG Sphere and Westfield. He has significant experience inputting to EIAs and s106 discussions as well as drafting economic statements, employment and skills strategies and affordable workspace strategies.

Alex is also experienced at economic appraisal for infrastructure. He was project manager of the economic appraisal for the City Centre to Mangere Light Rail in Auckland. He also led the economic and financial appraisals of the third tranche of the Transport Access Program for Transport for New South Wales, in which Alex developed and employed innovative methodological approaches to better capture benefits for individuals with reduced mobility.

He is interested in the limitations of current appraisal methodologies and ways of improving economic and health analysis to ensure it is accessible to as many people as possible. To this end, Alex recognises the importance of transparent and simple to understand analysis and ensuring all work is supported by a robust narrative.

Alex holds a BSc (Hons) in Economics from the University of Manchester and he was a member of the first cohort of the Mayor’s Infrastructure Young Professionals Panel.

ELLIE EVANS

Senior Partner

e: eevans@volterra.co.uk
t: +44 020 8878 6333

Ellie is a partner at Volterra, specialising in the economic impact of developments and proposals, and manages many of the company’s projects on economic impact, regeneration, transport and development.

With thirteen years experience at Volterra delivering high quality projects to clients across the public and private sector, Ellie has expertise in developing methods of estimating economic impact where complex issues exist with regards to deadweight, displacement and additionality.

Ellie has significant experience in estimating the economic impact across all types of property development including residential, leisure, office and mixed use schemes.

Project management of recent high profile schemes include the luxury hotel London Peninsula, Battersea Power Station and the Nova scheme at London Victoria. Ellie has also led studies across the country estimating the economic and regeneration impact of proposed transport investments, including studies on HS2 and Crossrail.

Ellie holds a degree in Mathematics and Economics from the University of Cambridge.