Unhealthy Eating Tax a benefit to the Government Purse and the Public Waistline

“The total economic burden (of lifestyle diseases) is in the region of $1.6 billion for diabetes and from hypertension $1.2 billion” is a chilling statistic mentioned by Chief Medical Officer, Dr Sheila Campbell-Forrester in 2009 at the Pegasus Hotel to an attentive audience, as stated by the article “Fat Jamaica worries health officials” published Friday August 28, 2009, Sophia Hanniford-Bartley and Gareth Manning, The Daily Gleaner.

The report further goes on to state statistics (an article of great interest to read!) that indicates that the consumption of very little fruits and vegetables and too much fatty and salty foods and not enough exercise by Jamaicans in a sample study group of 10-15 year olds and 15-19 year olds was contributing to the increased levels of obesity and hence non-communicable diseases related to obesity, such as hypertension and diabetes are responsible for 60% of deaths island wide.

But is there something the Government of Jamaica can do about it? Amusingly there is, and the idea has an unlikely connection to the Government: Taxing High Fat and Sugary Junk Foods, effectively an Unhealthy Lifestyle Tax.

According to the article, “Junk food tax could help fight obesity”, published October 24 2010, The University of Buffalo the United States of America has a similar problem, with around a third of twenty (20) year old adults and nearly one in five (1 in 5) US kids in the age group six (6) to nineteen (19) being obese according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

A study recently published in the this weeks Psychology Science periodical conducted at The University of Buffalo in New York by lead researcher Dr. Leonard Epstein, a psychologist (why it couldn’t be a sociologist?) attempted to demonstrate this concept. His team of researchers set up a controlled experiment in which forty-two (42) test shoppers were given US$22 to purchase food, ranging from bananas to colas and cookies represented by images in isles.

They then varied the prices of the foods in a manner to allow the test shopper to see if their choices of food purchases would change, price variance being implemented along the lines of junk food versus health food, the junk foods being defined as “high-calorie, low nutrient foods” and health foods being defined as food that “deliver more nutrients for fewer calories”.

The results returned from this social experiment (hence why I ask, where is the sociologist in this research study?) had even me amazed! Initially, all the prices were set at the same pricing level as in a local supermarket, to create a statistical baseline for comparison, effectively a control in the experiment, as with similar prices the test shoppers would have similar purchasing habits as in a regular local supermarket.

Then the prices were varied a follows: hiking the prices on junk foods and lowering (subsidizing) the prices on health foods, the price moved in such a manner as to encourage more purchase of the other food upon which no price increase or “sin tax”, as it is referred to, is placed. It turns out that subsidizing the price of health food, and thus making junk food look more expensive did not result in an increase in the purchase of health foods, as the shoppers opted to purchase the junk food, irregardless.

However, it turns out that adding additional price increases on junk foods resulted in a cutback in the buying habits of the test shoppers, with a 10% tax resulting in a 14.4% less junk food being purchased overall, or as the researchers stated “that meant their week’s shopping contained 6.5% fewer calories”. A similar study can be done here by the Government of Jamaica by Senator Rudyard Spencer, Minister of Health & Environment in collaboration with the University of the West Indies.

If the results are replicable, then the Senator Rudyard Spencer, Ministry of Health & Environment can recommend to Senator Audley Shaw Minister of Finance that the unhealthy lifestyle of Jamaicans can be used as a source of inelastic taxable revenue, called a Unhealthy Lifestyle Tax as the taxes on junk foods or “high-calorie, low nutrient foods” e.g. KFC, Burger King, Juici Beef Patties, Mothers, Island Grill, Tastee, etc. are not only a means of increasing the taxable revenues of the Government of Jamaica

It can also be a means of aiding the Faith-based evangelism of healthy lifestyles being promoted by Chief Medical Officer, Dr Sheila Campbell-Forrester, as according to her “the total economic burden (of lifestyle diseases) is in the region of $1.6 billion for diabetes and from hypertension $1.2 billion”, an indicating that the decision to tax junk food would not only reduce this cost to the Ministry of Health (and by extension the Jamaican Economy).

Like traffic vehicle fines issued under the Road and Traffic Act, can work to dissuade people from this practice and encourage them to eat more healthy food and thus reduce the levels of  obesity in our young people aged 10-15 year olds and 15-19 years and the associated risk factors for hypertension and diabetes and it contribution to deaths in the Jamaican Society, the ultimate goal achieved by this recommended novel form of taxation, a Unhealthy Lifestyle Tax!

Here’s to healthy eating!