Following Prime Time’s recent programme (Tue, Oct 11th), some incredible statistics regarding obesity in Ireland have come to light.
According to professor Donal O’Shea, obesity is killing 6,000 people a year through its direct link to diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
One of the principle arguments put forward against introducing a ‘fat tax’ was the negative impact it would have on the poorer echelons of society, as they are the highest consumers of high sugar/high fat products.
Statistics show, that of the 26% of overweight nine year olds, 33% of them come from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds with 22% coming from professional/managerial backgrounds. Given these statistics we might be tempted to think that a ‘fat tax’ would actually be more beneficial than damaging to lower income families.
But would the introduction of a ‘fat tax’ turn us into a ‘nanny state’? This was the argument put forward by Eamon Delaney, columnist with the Sunday Independent. Nessa Childers, MEP Ireland East, however, felt it was time for the state to intervene as self-regulation was obviously not working.
Perhaps there is a case to argue here, particularly when you look at the cost to the state of managing long-term chronic illnesses such as diabetes. After all, Type 11 diabetes is an illness which is directly linked to the amount of high sugar products consumed in the diet. On a positive note, it is also a disease which is highly preventable, given correct nutritional intervention.
Prime Time’s presenter Donogh Diamond put it to Paul Kelly, director of the food and drinks industry Ireland, that fizzy drinks were toxic and should therefore be taxed. Mr Kelly disagreed that fizzy drinks were toxic in moderation but agreed that they should be kept as treats. Surely this then is a good argument in favour of taxing them – the more they cost, the more likely they are to be kept as treats.
So where do we draw the line? Are products such as butter, cheese and beef in the same category as processed or refined products such as fizzy drinks, crisps, microwave dinners, etc.. Perhaps a tax on these highly processed foods would be more appropriate, especially where our children are concerned.
So let’s call a spade a spade. It’s not the consumption of beef and butter that is causing our children to be overweight but rather the over-consumption of fizzy drinks, packets of crisps, pot noodles and other such processed foods. Just take a look at what kids are buying for their lunches in the supermarkets on any given day.
Don’t know what to put in your trolley?
Would you like to have an appointment with a registered Nutritional Therapist in the comfort of your own home?
A recent study of Yup’ik Eskimos in Alaska suggests that the consumption of high levels of Omega-3, mostly from salmon and sardines, protected Yup’ik Eskimos, who have obesity levels similar to those in the US, from type 11 diabetes and raised blood trigylcerides. Although randomized clinical trials have yet to be carried out before public health recommendations can be made, including more oily fish in the diet would certainly be advisable for everyone, and even more so for the obese.
