I have been moved to write this short paper by two news items appearing in DNO. The first one is entitled “ Dominica Tackles Non Communicable Diseases” and the second is entitled “Youth Obesity Troubles Dominica Diabetes Association (DDA)”. These articles are in fact a continuation of the anxiety expressed for some time now by the government ( in fact all Caricom Governments) about the strain imposed on the economy by the explosion of these diseases and the cost of dealing with them. The government thinks the problem is sufficiently acute that it has been organizing keep fit sessions for civil servants. In addition a somewhat patchy campaign of education about the benefits of good nutrition and regular exercise for maintaining good health has been ongoing for some time. From the alarm expressed in the articles cited above it would seem that these exhortations seem to have had no effect on the rate of expansion of these diseases, especially diabetes.
The latest research on the causes of the cluster of diseases known collectively as the metabolic syndrome pinpoints the consumption of sugar as the major culprit. Dr. Robert Lustig a paediatric endocrinologist at the university of California at San Francisco. In his book “Fat Chance, Beating the Odds Against Sugar , Processed Foods , Obesity and Disease” lays out very carefully the connection between the metabolism of sucrose (ordinary sugar) and fructose (the sugar found in fruits) by the body and shows how the manner of sugar metabolism leads directly to obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular impairment. DNO readers can purchase the kindle version here, or if you prefer to read books on paper it can be ordered here as well.
If you prefer to listen to lectures you can listen to the one and a half hour long lecture free of charge on youtube at this location.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
What you may ask does diabetes and taxation policy have to do with each other. If the proposition that the overconsumption of sugar leads to the complex of diseases noted above then tax policy has everything to do with diabetes as we will attempt to show. In 2006 Dominica overhauled its tax structure and enhanced taxes on consumption by way of the Value added Tax (VAT). Cognizant of the fact that taxes on consumption are generally regressive ( they impact a larger percentage of the incomes of the poor than better off segments of society) the Government decided to introduce a measure of progressiveness into the VAT by exempting certain food items on which the poor are thought to spend a high percentage of their income. Sugar was considered one of the food items that met this criterion and was therefore made exempt from the VAT. Our high school economics teaches us that when the price of a good goes up the tendency is for its consumption to drop and vice versa. How far the consumption drops (or increases) depends on what is known as the price elasticity of demand. It is also known that with any class of goods such as food the change in relative prices among the goods in that class will induce a substitution effect. In other words if tomatoes become more expensive relative to carrots there will be a tendency for consumers to eat more carrots and less tomatoes. One way in which relative prices can be changed is via tax policy. In 2006 the tax regime on food changed the relative prices of different foods. Because sugar has no value added tax its price relative to other food item was effectively lowered. Although we have no direct data as to whether sugar consumption increased and by how much as a result of the relative lowering of its price we can be pretty certain that consumption of sugar will at the very least not have diminished(except for the growing number of diabetics who have been ordered by their doctors to cut the product out of their diet).
It is our view that the exemption of sugar from the VAT is an example where well-meaning tax policy leads to unintended negative impacts on health. In light of the alarm expressed in the two articles cited above and the scientific data we suggest that the Government should reverse its tax policy on sugar and begin to tax its consumption. Since sugar is consumed in myriad ways including an ever increasing amounts of sugared beverages of all sorts the administration might want to start by imposing a special levy on sugared drinks, including the so-called juice drinks. The increase in the price of sugar should be accompanied with an aggressive campaign against the consumption of sugar similar to what was undertaken against the use of tobacco . Here is link to a little experiment that demonstrates the amount of sugar in sugared drinks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzsORE0ae10
AS usual I will be happy to respond to your queries.
Marcidonia in my opinion your reasoning is correct. The price elasticity of sugar is very likely low.Many researchers consider sugar an addictive substance and therefore simply raising the price through taxation would probably not result in a big drop in consumption. However the government would receive increased revenue which could be put to use in an education campaign on proper nutrition. The increased revenue would also be available to take care of the growing army of diabetics at the hospital.
God, that was boring!!!!!!!!
it’s time we try to drink our tea without sugar,it not going to kill you,we just have to condition ourselves to useing less or no sugar,also salt it will be good for us.
lol. Actually thought he would find a way to instill a contract into getting fat or losing weight…
Let ppl be dread. If u can’t hear, you will…
Interesting thought about a contract for good health. I will have to ask my friends in the legal business what can be done to put such a contract in place!
can i make money in collecting plastic bottles for solid waste…possibly for them to recycle?
can i pay a special fee to have my bike personal license /registration number?
oh, i would like to offer game hunting tourism (to the french)in a specially demarcated game reserve-agouti and red neck pigeons?
time to think of new economies:
submitted by,
WNT- upset with the running of this island! status secured by those in authourity Mac
TENURE OF STATUS
Imagination being regarded as becoming extinct. I was hoping to read about new economies ..rather than this lack of Government intervention at th right levels (food) and to drive health policies from their kitchen cabinets.
Mac, excuse me on that one: pro-choice; sugar or not!
aerated drinks or not?
rough foods verse fine foods.
loking forward to your article on NEW ECONOMIES AND NEW REVENUE GENERATION BY THE STATE! de small stuffs!
Thanks for your comment. You will notice that my thoughts on inducing the public to reduce sugar consumption was by way of an indirect method of changing relative prices through taxation. The consumer would still have the choice of using sugar or not. I am not suggesting any law to ban sugar!! BY the way I noticed a news item on DNO today about the introduction of legislation on tobacco. I consider this a waste of time since the Dominican public has pretty much abandoned the use of tobacco since the intensive campaign by Rastas and others against ” cancer sticks” in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. This seems to be a case of closing the barn door after the horses (or assess) have bolted!!
The trend in other countries is to eradicate obesity and non-communicative illnesses. Those have increased in previous years to the point of early demise which we could also call premature death in especially adults and at a younger age.
Other products that may not be necessary for health purposes, as bottled, canned and packaged items should also be taxed. I live without drinking pop and the majority of canned goods. As I always state I love homecooking and this is hereditary from my land of birth, Dominica. My father had a saying, “Too much salt is not good; no salt or very little salt is a medicine”; good for the health.” We could also attribute this to sugar.
The majority of Dominicans own computers. If they are not aware of the health benefits information which is posted on certain health Websites, please make it your business to do so and inform your relatives and friends who may not have a computer. As each one reaches one, share and share alike. I also love to share such information. If we love people we will want what is best for them and not deny them such important information. Good luck fellow Dominicans. God be with you.
One teaspoon instead of 3 watchdog, simple. The caco tea doh bong sugar anyway, grow up, sweet things are for kids.
Hendrix, you doubting basic economic theory there man? If it costing more people buying less of it ceteris paribus full stop talk done. When you eat sugar and doh have no immediate need for it your body storing it as fat, that not complicated either. Fat people is unhealthy people, that not complicated either. too much sugar causing diabetes, thats why people does call diabetes sugar, that not complicated either.
What you want people to conduct a 200 hundred page study on exactly how much each percent in tax will result in exactly how much lower sugar consumption resulting in how many fewer incidences of diabetes or how many grams of weight lost? that too complicated ghost.
Right on Ghost. You still remember your basic economics.
Mark, yu are so so playing cat an mouse. Yu of all persons know very well the major suppliers of all sugar pop soda soft drinks Junk food etc killing the children and making the ladies put on butterflaps all over der stomach and der back. you cannot stop the owners of the economy. they get what they want when they want and tell us when to Jump.
Actually I do not believe anyone owns the economy. If the people are against a particular policy especially when the pros and cons are put in the public arena the politicians respond. BY the way I just noticed an article in the side bar by Dr. CORY on the ill effects of sugar on health. Interestingly enough he references the work of Dr. Robert Lusting, the same researcher I mentioned in my article. Take a look at Dr. Cory’s article right here on DNO.
Mc Carthy, since there is no undocumented production of sugar in Dominica, the data re consumption should be relatively easy to come by. The custom’s department should have that data relatively available. Except for sugar entering the country via the barrel ecomony, the relationship between consumption and documented importation should be relatively accurate.
Only after that data has been analysed can we draw our conclusion re the relationshop between the tax policy of 2006 and the increased incidence of diabetes. Until then, we can only speculate about the causative effect of such policy.
Sure Jimi it is indeed pretty easy to know the volume of raw sugar imported in bulk. However this is only part of the sugar consumed since sugar finds itself in so many products in quantities (including sugared drinks)that are difficult to quantify. For this reason I deliberately did not give any measure of the per capita consumption since without some in depth research on food consumption patterns and quantities of sugar in different foods especially pre-packaged foods making any statement re. the quantum of sugar consumed would be pure speculation on my part.
Actually Jimi there is some sugar production in Dominica in the form of honey.
Your point however is well taken that it would be useful to have an idea of the amount of sugar consumed in Dominica especially children and adolescents.
McCarthy, actually the data on sugar used in the production of sugared drinks is also available to the government. Josephine Gabriel & Co. should have records of their consumption over the years. We also have data on the quantity of imported soft drinks (and juices) and the sugar content of those drinks. Analyzing the data should be relatively simple. They can then do the comparison pre and post 2006.
The increase incidence of NCD is a common trend in developing nations. Developed countries have struggled with these health problems for years. Sadly that is an unpleasant side-effect of growing affluence. We eat too much and are too sedentary.
The more I think of it the more I question the hypothesis that 2006 was a turning point in the increased incidence of NCD and diabetes in particular. Since I presume the government did not exempt pre-made sugary drinks, we can discount the effect of the sugar contained in those drinks. The price would have gone up and therefore the substitution effect would not apply in that case. Therefore we have to contend with the effect of the tax on sugar sold at the retail level.
Unless the data shows an increase in the importation of sugar post 2006, I am not convinced that the substitution effect exists in that particular case either.
Our diet has a very high carbohydrate content. Without the commensurate physical activity to burn those excess calories, it all gets converted to fat in the body. As you are aware, people who carry excess fat are more prone to these diseases.
I think our problem has more to do with our increased affluence and the accompanying lifestyle changes we have witnessed over the past 30 or more years.
So Marc you doh want me to sweeten my cocoa tea?
No it is best to drink it without sugar.
Well the demand for sugar might just be now inelastic since it is, what we call, a necessity. So raising prices through taxation may just make people worse off.