Blog

The World Cancer Research Fund has compiled convincing evidence that shows regular consumption of certain foods and beverages increases cancer risk.

Front-of-pack labels are a great way to alert consumers about the cancer risks associated with certain foods and beverages.

Cancer in Australia: A snapshot

The absolute risk of getting cancer is very low. In Australia, around 120,00 new cancer cases were detected in the past year. This is a population of close to 23,000,000.

In other words, the lifetime risk for a male is 1 in 3, and for a female, it is 1 in 4. In Australia, cancer is the most common cause of injury and disease, resulting in the loss of more than 550,000 years due to illness, disability, or premature death.

Last year, the most common cancers diagnosed were lung cancer (11280 cases), melanoma (12,510 cases), bowel cancer (15,840), prostate cancer (18,560), and melanoma. Many of these cancers have excellent treatment outcomes, but 117 people die each day from cancer.

Good news: between 1982 and 2010, relative five-year survival rates after a cancer diagnosis increased in three of the most common cancers. These were prostate cancer (58%), bowel cancer (48%), and breast cancer (72%).

There is more that can be done to either prevent cancer from developing in the first instance or reduce the chances of it returning.

What foods and beverages increase cancer risk?

There is compelling evidence to suggest that alcohol can increase the risk of breast cancer in pre- and after-menopause, as well as cancers of the mouth, throat, and bowel (in men). Recommends that men limit their alcohol intake to two drinks per day and women to one, but there is no safe amount of alcohol for breast cancer.

Consuming more than 500 grams of cooked meat per week can be harmful. Every 100-gram increase of red meat per day increases the risk of bowel cancer by 17%.

A meta-analysis of thirteen studies found that every 50 grams of processed meat consumed daily increased the risk of bowel cancer by 18%.

Alcohol, salt, and processed meat increase the risk for some cancers. Image from shutterstock.com

Evidence suggests that eating salty or salt-preserved food is a probable cause of stomach cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund advises avoiding these foods and not using salt in preserving food, limiting consumption of processed food with added salt, and aiming for a low sodium intake (less than six grams or 2.4g per day).

There is evidence to suggest that eating foods rich in dietary fiber, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes, can help reduce the risk of developing bowel cancer. For every 10 grams of fiber you consume daily, your risk drops by 10%.

Foods rich in folate, such as legumes, seeds, and citrus fruits, along with fortified cereals and breads, have been linked to a lower risk of pancreatic and bowel cancers.

How does a labeling system work?

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand could manage the food labeling process in the same manner as it does currently with health claims. These are voluntary statements that food companies make to refer to a link between food and health.

FSANZ launched a new standard in January to regulate the health claims that are made on food labels and in advertising. There are two types of health claims: general and high-level claims.

Health claims at the general level refer to “something in” food and its impact on a particular health function. For example, “calcium is good bones.” A high-level claim is a reference to “something in” the food and its relation to a serious condition or intermediate factor or risk indicator for that condition. As an example:

Your bowel cancer risk drops by 10% for every 10 grams of fiber you consume each day. Chiot’s run

A diet high in both fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk of coronary artery disease.

The FSANZ Code contains 13 high-level health claims and 200 general health claims related to food, health conditions, and their effects on health. These statements do not raise alarms about consumption patterns that are associated with an increased risk of disease.

We need a list of similar statements to alert the consumer to possible adverse risks from consumption. Public health authorities could make these claims relating food consumption to cancer risk.

The National Health and Medical Research Council, which produces Australia’s official dietary recommendations, could oversee this process. The NHMRC can use the data from the World Cancer Research Fund in areas where it is clear that certain foods or drinks increase the risk of cancer.

The government health department and non-government organizations such as cancer councils may also be allowed to make high-level claims about the health of foods and drinks when there is a strong indication that consumption increases the risk.

It is time to educate consumers about the foods they can eat or drink safely, as well as which ones to avoid. This will help them reduce their cancer risk. FSANZ’s high-level claims about health on food labels may be a good signpost.

In an Australian report published today, we show that the government could improve health for Australians by combining taxes and subsidies. This would also free up billions of dollars in health care costs.

Not less than 13 countries announced new taxes in the last five years on sugary drinks and unhealthy foods to combat the growing problem of obesity and chronic diseases.

We could help by providing some facts.

In Australia, we spend A$4 Billion every year to treat obesity. Has invested in programs that encourage people to eat healthier and get fitter. Examples include ” Get moving ” and ” ” Go for 2 and 5. The rising obesity rate suggests that this isn’t enough. In particular, in light of powerful food industry marketing as well as an environment that makes unhealthy foods widely available and inexpensive.

It can be influenced by adjusting the price of food and drink to make healthier options more affordable compared to less healthy products.

Does it work?

There are precedents. There are precedents. In Australia, we raised the price of cigarettes, and smoking went down. We also raised the price of alcoholic beverages, and drinking has gone down.

Mexico’s sale of unhealthy food has fallen after an 8% tax was introduced on these foods. Sales of non-taxed products have not changed.

We want to shift the pricing structure towards healthier choices by taxing unhealthy foods (saturated fatty acids, excessive salt, sugars). This can also be an incentive for processed food producers to improve the nutritional content of their products.

High-saturated fat, salt, and sugar foods can cause high blood pressure, obesity, and other diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

What would Australia gain?

In our study, we modeled the effects of adding taxes to foods based on their saturated fat, sugar, and salt content, a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, and a subsidy for fruits and vegetables. These policies were intended to have a less than 1% effect on the average household’s food and beverage expenditure.

With the combination of tax and subsidy, we found that over the life of the 22 million Australians (that was the number at the beginning of our simulations back in 2010), there would be an additional 470,000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) (meaning an extra year in perfect health).

The greatest impact on our health would be if we tax sugary foods and drinks. From www.shutterstock.com

This is an increase of 2.1 healthy years for every 100 Australians who were alive in 2010. Few public health interventions have been able to deliver such gains in health on average for the entire population.

The tax on sugar was the most beneficial (270,000 DALYs), followed by the tax on salt (130,000 DALYs), the tax on saturated fat (97,000 DALYs), and the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (12,000 DALYs). When added to the tax combination, the subsidy for fruits and vegetables produced additional health benefits (6,000 DALYs), but it did not have a clear advantage if implemented alone.

In our simulations, we found that the combination of tax and subsidy would prevent A$3.4 billion worth of healthcare expenditures over the lifetimes of the population. The benefits would be greater if food companies responded by reformulating their products with healthier levels of sugar, salt, and fat.

Simulation studies such as ours do contain uncertainty. We rely on other research to estimate the public response to price changes. Simulation modeling is the only method to understand what will happen to the population on a medium- to long-term basis with the policies we choose today.

This study is part of a growing body of evidence that shows the health benefits of taxes and regulations in influencing the consumption of healthy food.

What’s next?

Many Australians are looking to lose weight, improve their diet, and increase their physical activity. We want our children to grow up to be healthy adults.

We need policies to help people maintain their new behaviors. In recent decades, Australians have become more responsible when it comes to smoking, drinking while driving, safe sexual activity, and sun exposure. This is because their environment has changed in a way that makes healthier choices easier.

Australia is a country that knows how to help people take personal responsibility. We can also do this for the most pressing health issue we face today – unhealthy eating habits. We must put policies in place that address the environmental factors that are fueling the obesity epidemic.

Medical Colleges of Australia has called out the government for its inaction against obesity and demanded a six-point plan, including a tax on sugary drinks. Our study strengthens this call. While this is being implemented, we will need to do research and plan around a broader system of taxes.

When Jamie’s School Dinners was first broadcast in 2005, it established Britain’s secondary schools as a battleground for politicians, professionals, and campaigners who wanted to improve the diet of young people and stop the obesity tide.

First, Turkey Twizzlers was banned. In 2008, the English government implemented stricter food standards in all schools managed by local authorities. In these schools, the sale of chocolate, sweetened drinks, and other confectionery was prohibited, and the sale of less-healthy products, such as chips, was severely restricted. Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have all adopted similar legislation.

Could this cause more harm than good to our children? Napoleon called Britain A Nation of Shopkeepers. The prohibition of such a broad range of products could have created a new generation operating illegally in our schools’ playgrounds and corridors.

According to new research, published in Society, restrictions on junk food in secondary schools may have led to a black market in the food. In six English secondary schools, the research found that students were running “underground businesses” selling prohibited food and drinks.

Illicit supply of doughnuts

The students and staff at these schools said that the new restrictions placed on school food and their dissatisfaction with rushed and crowded canteens had created an ideal storm for black market growth. This illicit supply of high-calorie items such as doughnuts and cookie bags has been fueled by the proliferation of supermarkets, including new high-street stores located near secondary schools.

Students resell their cheapest items in school, akin to a convenience shop. Blackberry Messenger (BBM) and other new technologies can help students advertise the products they are selling in school on that particular day, as well as where they will be.

Teachers, school administrators, and other secondary staff members appear to be turning blind eyes. There are few incentives for them to take action to stop or reduce these black markets of food and drinks. Instead, the focus is on schoinspectionons reports, performance goes,als, and “league tables.” The school’s priority is not to focus on the diets of students or obesity issues. Students in six of the schools investigated reported that teachers did not care about the illegal resale of energy drinks and food, even when the practice was widespread.

Media attention has focused on the ways in which young people can benefit from school food and beverage bans. Last year’s Educating Yorkshire was a brilliant, fly-on-the-wall documentary about Thornhill Community Academy. It included scenes where students were smuggling energy drinks and snack foods into gym bags to sell.

The Daily Mail reported earlier this year that a Nottingham trader had set up a “Car Boot Tuck Shop” to capitalize on the demand for sweets, chips, and fizzy beverages outside of schools. The US newspapers have reported that Michelle Obama’s reforms to school food have spawned a black market for junk food.

We don’t need any education.

Schools have always been places of resistance, and these underground distribution networks are simply a form of rebellion against the extremely restrictive nature of secondary school. These findings are alarming from the perspective of public health, as they show that young people have access to cheap, calorific snacks, energy drinks, and junk food at school.

There are many examples of legislation that has had a positive impact on public health, such as the ban on smoking in public places. However, there are many other cases where prohibitions have led to new underground economies or worse harm. In the 1920s, black marketeering was used to resist alcohol prohibition in America.

Henry Dimbleby, John Vincent, and the Leon restaurant founders have created a new English School Food Plan that is packed with great ideas. It advocates simplifying nutritional standards for school canteens. These plans would not change the wide variety of products that are banned.

We must not drive problems underground to improve the diet of young people. It is better to start any school food policy by giving young people more voice and the chance to influence their environment more legitimately, rather than increasing restrictions up until they open their convenience store at school.

The government must be more efficient when intervening in the food industry, as it was with tobacco and alcohol. It’s not possible to ignore what supermarkets are doing around schools.

New York City’s health board is cracking down on sugary soft drinks, but Australian health experts say more is required to address the obesity epidemic. MAP

Email (Twitter)6 LinkedIn Print429 Facebook

Health experts say Australia should look at a rebate for healthy foods, a tax on sugary beverages, and regulated portions. At the same time, New York continues to push government regulations in order to combat the obesity epidemic.

New York City’s health commissioner, who is behind a proposal to cap the size of containers of sugary soft drinks, has said that government regulation of portion sizes could help combat America’s obesity crisis.

In the Journal of the American Medical Association’s latest issue, Dr Thomas Farley writes that governments that do not take action to stop the marketing of sugary drinks high in calories will invite even greater rates of obesity, diabetic mortality, and related deaths.

Australian health policy experts agree that the self-regulation of food groups is not enough to combat obesity. It’s a serious problem in the US that costs 150 billion dollars and 100,000 lives every year.

Bebe Loff is the director of Monash University’s Michael Kirby Centre for Public Health and Human Rights.

We don’t give people a chance to fight against the environment, which encourages them to purchase more of these products.

Rob Moodie is a professor of global health and argues that the food and drink industry uses the same tactics and strategies as the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry.

There is no way that they will move without regulation.

Professor Moodie stated that the advertising of junk food to children in Australia and the sponsorship of important sports led to a culture in which junk food was consumed, and junk drinks were drunk.

“Things will not change until we make substantial changes in foods with lower levels of sugar, salt and fat.” “That probably won’t change until there is regulation or a serious threat of regulations,” Professor Moodie stated.

In his article, Dr. Farley details the New York City Board of Health’s measures to “regulate the food products that are harmful to the most people.”

These measures include a ban on trans fats in New York’s restaurants, forcing food companies to lower the sodium levels in their products, requiring chain restaurant menus to list calorie counts, and imposing an excise duty of 1 cent per ounce on sugary beverages.

The food industry continues its opposition to the proposed sugary drink portion rule. Dr Farley, however, said that the food industry is the one driving the sales of large portions and not the consumer.

Kerin O’Dea is a professor of population and nutrition at the University of South Australia.

“Large portions are a good source of profit.” They won’t change unless there is regulation.

Professor O’Dea believes that labeling menus is crucial so that people can make informed decisions and know how much food they are consuming.

State governments are now requiring calorie counts to be displayed on menus at fast food outlets with more than fifty outlets. McDonald’s has already done this in Australia and is now moving to follow suit across America. This will catch up with New York, where calorie-counted menus are mandated.

Professor O’Dea wants to see people encouraged to choose healthy foods.

We offer a rebate on diesel fuel to people living in the country. I’d like to see a healthy-food rebate for those in remote areas, especially aboriginal communities… to give people a financial incentive to purchase healthy food.

Rob Moodie, however, said that with the number of people dying in preventable accidents and the strains placed on both the state and federal healthcare systems by the industry, it might be necessary to take measures similar to those imposed upon the tobacco industry.

We have a problem with Australia’s large, aggressive, and well-organized junk food and drink industries. According to Professor Kelly Brownell, a leading scientist in the field, “When the history of obesity is written, collaboration with the food industry and appeasement may be the greatest failure.”

Professor Loff says that he believes it is impossible to stop the proliferation of disciplines devoted to food marketing, but limiting the amount of sugary drinks would be a great start.

She said that plain packaging was only implemented after 60 years and after the government decided to ignore its regulations.

What I think our government will say about something like banning oversized sweet drinks containers is that you must not only show that this is an informational problem or that harm is greater than any potential benefits, but you also need to show what impact the intervention is going to have in dealing with the issue, which is lowering the obesity.

Professor Loff stated that restructured physical and psychological environments are needed to allow everyone to have a chance to protect their health.

It shouldn’t be welfare-promoting. But it should be neutral so that we aren’t bombarded by all kinds of creative marketing tactics every time we walk through a grocery store.

The UK government’s sugar tax will make 500ml bottles of high-sugar drinks cost an extra 14p, and two-litre bottles an extra 58p. The higher price is intended to steer people towards choosing lower-sugar drinks. But promotions, such as “meal deals,” could make the sugar tax meaningless by negating the price difference.

The sugar tax will apply to fizzy drinks, squashes and juice drinks with more than 5g or 8g of sugar per 100ml, adding 22p and 29p per litre respectively to the price, including VAT. Places that have already got a sugar tax, such as Mexico and Berkley, California, have found that the higher price does make people drink less. But Public Health England’s (PHE) approach is slightly different because it has set two levels of tax and given manufacturers plenty of time to lower the sugar content of their drinks to be below the sugar tax thresholds.

Since the sugar tax was announced in April 2016, manufacturers have been steadily altering their recipes, (known as “reformulation”) to have 20-50% less sugar. This has been so successful that forecasts of how much money the sugar tax will generate in the first year have shrunk from PS520m to PS385m and may be even lower. The UK’s approach is being held up worldwide as a shining example of how to get manufacturers to make food healthier.

Much of this reformulation has been hidden, with no clear message to consumers that the product has changed. But while some drinks producers, such as Tesco and Lucozade Ribena Suntory, have reduced sugar across their entire range, others have taken a different approach.

Coca-Cola and Britvic (the licensed bottler of Pepsi in the UK) have lowered the sugar in most of their drinks, but kept Coca-Cola Classic and Pepsi unchanged. These full-sugar versions contain around 53g sugar per 500ml bottle (around 14 sugar cubes), so there will be a 14p sugar tax to pay.

Passing the can

The drinks industry says the size and scale of the sugar-tax bill is too much for them to absorb, so they will pass the cost on to retailers. Retailers are likely to do the same and pass the cost onto consumers. This is what PHE intended; high-sugar drinks should cost more to make them less attractive to buy. However, the tax may have an unintended consequence on drinks purchased in meal deals, which typically include a sandwich, a snack, and a drink.

Young people are the biggest consumers of sugar-sweetened drinks and have been a key target of PHE’s sugar-reduction strategy. Meal deals are popular and widely available in student environments, from on-campus supermarkets, student union shops, and express supermarkets.

Meal deals are often available at express supermarkets. Lukasz Pajor/Shutterstock

Our research with students (aged 16-19 and 19-24) found that they decided what to buy in a meal deal based on price and “getting a bargain.” Students tend to choose the most expensive drink in order to maximize the cost-benefit of the deal, even though they are often aware of the health aspects.

When the sugar tax comes into force, and full-sugar drinks cost more, this may create a perverse incentive because choosing the more expensive drink will increase the relative discount/cost-effectiveness achieved by buying a meal deal.

The UK has more special offers and price promotions on food and drinks than anywhere else in Europe and PHE has set “reducing and rebalancing” price promotions in its sights for future action. In the meantime, the drinks industry is doing its bit, lowering sugar but retaining choice.

Now, it is over to retailers and other drinks outlets to act in the spirit of the sugar tax by passing the higher price on to consumers and keeping a price difference between high- and low-sugar drinks.

For meal deals, there are three options:

Add the sugar tax to the price of the meal deal when a full-sugar drink is chosen.

Take sugary drinks that are taxed out of the meal deal.

Do nothing and risk encouraging people to choose the full-sugar version, undermining everything PHE is trying to achieve.

 

The FDA is investigating a number of deaths that are allegedly linked to energy drinks and shots. This investigation is being conducted amid an increasing number of reports about adverse effects related to energy drinks.

The consumption of energy drinks has grown exponentially in the last five to ten years. Red Bull, Mother, and other energy drinks are made up of caffeine in varying quantities, guarana, taurine, and ginseng. Additives include amino acids, carbohydrates, and vitamins.

According to their manufacturers, these drinks are designed to maintain alertness. Therefore, they target athletes, students, and professionals who require extended alertness. These drinks are commonly found at dance parties and nightclubs, where they’re often mixed with alcohol and recreational drugs like ecstasy.

In recent years, Australia has reported on the adverse effects caused by these energy drinks.

Caffeine, caffeine, and other additives

Caffeine is the main ingredient in energy drinks and has been linked to a number of adverse health outcomes for those who are susceptible. There are three main effects on heart health: increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, and increased blood viscosity, which can cause clots to form in the heart.

Recent medical publications have described three independent cases in which the consumption of energy drinks caused catastrophic outcomes, including heart rhythm disturbances or cardiac arrest.

These are serious cardiac rhythm disorders that can cause sudden death in young people. These effects can be observed even with just one can of energy drinks.

The consumption of energy drinks has been associated with anxiety, insomnia, and nervousness. It is also linked to addictive behaviors, panic attacks, and vomiting. In pregnant women, caffeine consumption is associated with the risk of late miscarriage, stillbirth, and small-for-gestational-age infants.

Other additives found in energy drinks can exacerbate these effects. The marketing of these drinks, which encourages them to be consumed quickly and at high concentrations in order to get a quick boost in energy, magnifies the negative effects. The introduction of “energy shots”, small-volume, high-concentration shots of caffeine and taurine available at petrol stations, supports this marketing strategy.

What should I do?

Health professionals and the public face major challenges due to the wide variety of energy drinks available on the market. They also have to contend with the fact that the industry as a whole is not regulated. The fact that these energy drinks are clearly aimed at children, teenagers, and young adults should be cause for concern.

People are likely to be unaware of the differences in caffeine dose and chemical composition in energy drinks. Energy drink cans are not adequately warned about the dangers of overdose, poisoning, and death.

Energy drinks in Australia are regulated by Standard 2.6.4 under the Code, and the maximum caffeine permitted is 320 milligrams/liter. Because many energy drinks are only sold in small quantities, they contain more additives than the limit.

The typical can of energy drinks contains up to 300 mg of caffeine. This caffeine comes from both added caffeine and naturally occurring sources like guarana. However, the volume of these drinks is much less than one liter, usually less than 200 milliliters. The same goes for “energy shots,” as they clearly do not meet Standard 2.6.4. In an effort to avoid the standard requirements set by both the FDA and FSANZ, many energy drinks are marketed under the names “dietary supplements” or “conventional food.”

We need to increase community awareness and education about the potential dangers of energy drinks, especially for young people. It may be necessary to take drastic measures such as putting clear and graphic warnings on the cans of energy drinks in order to alert people about their potential dangers.

A second initiative could be to limit the sale of energy drinks to adolescents and children, as they are the main target of advertising for energy drinks and face a lot of peer pressure. These measures are designed to raise community awareness about the harmful effects of energy drink consumption.

In Australia, we will certainly be watching the results of the FDA’s current investigation into the reported 13 deaths with interest.

Public hospitals, in addition to treating patients and injuries, are also workplaces that can have a positive or negative impact on the health and well-being of their staff. To promote a healthier workplace, it is important to ensure that workers and visitors have easy access to healthy foods and to limit the availability of junk food.

In 2011-12 public hospitals employed nearly 271,000 full-time equivalent staff. Around 45% are nurses who have a greater rate of obesity in their communities.

Healthy lifestyle programs in the workplace are a great way to change this. However, they require time and a multifaceted strategy. Their most important characteristic is that they provide an environment that supports healthy food choices.

A dire state

Public hospitals are notorious for their unhealthy food environments. You don’t need to go far to find vending machines, despite what you may or may not find in the hospital food outlets.

These machines offer food and drinks that are high in sugar or salt but low in nutrients. Water and sugar-free drinks are often available, but they may not be prominently displayed.

We know that healthy vending machine options encourage people to make better nutritional decisions without compromising revenue volume. The Australian National Preventive Health Agency produced guidelines for healthy Vending Machines based on this evidence.

Most state health departments, including Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia, and Victoria, released their policies on healthy eating and drinking choices for hospital staff and visitors long before the ANPHA guidelines.

All of these policies use a traffic light system, where healthy foods are labeled green, and junk food is marked red.

Red-labeled foods cannot be sold in super-sized portions, advertised, or offered at points of sale. They also can’t make up more than 20% of the food and beverages displayed, even in vending machines. Yellow-labeled food is somewhere between the best choices and the worst.

This approach is proven to work by research. In the large cafeteria of the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, for example, traffic-light labeling of food and beverages was associated with an improvement in the sales of healthier foods and a reduction in the sales of less healthy ones.

The trend continued for the entire two-year period of the Evaluation. How are Australian policies performing?

Public hospitals are dotted with vending machines. Emil Jeyaratnam/The Conversation

South Australia’s Example

South Australian Department of Health published its first policy document on October 8, 2008. A March 17, 2011 update by SA Health has been marked as “Directive,” for which “Compliance Is Mandatory.”

The directive explains in great detail what is meant by “healthy food and drink.” The directive aims to make sure that healthy food and drinks are available everywhere food and beverages are offered or sold in SA health facilities.

There are no benchmarks or specifics for this. Healthy choices should be prominently advertised and displayed.

There should be less junk food available, and it should be displayed discreetly rather than tempting customers when they pay for their food at the register. After hours, it must be easy to find healthy food and drinks, and there should be plenty of water available. The policy includes vending machines.

The initiative’s directive nature and the principle that underlies it is commendable. As far as I am aware, the initiative’s effectiveness has not been audited.

Ensure compliance

On a recent stroll around the South Australian Hospital where I work, I noticed that vending machines displayed water more prominently than sweetened drinks.

The snack options were neither healthy nor labeled. The main hospital cafeteria offered a limited selection of salads but otherwise did not comply with the policy.

Public health policies that are well-intentioned and courageous require stakeholders to be educated, committed, and buy-in. They also need procedures for evaluating and dealing with noncompliance.

It can be incorporated into the tendering process for vending machine and food outlet contracts, or it can take the form of informal feedback and monitoring, encouragement, and education. It is also necessary to conduct regular formal audits.

Public hospitals are responsible for promoting the health and wellbeing of their employees and demonstrating public health initiatives. The people who visit hospitals deserve to have better choices in food.

The state health department’s and ANPHA’s initiatives could be very beneficial if they were properly implemented. State health departments have now formulated directives for public hospitals to follow.

The Trump Administration recently announced an ambitious plan to consolidate federal efforts in food safety within the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Currently, nine congressional committees oversee 15 federal agencies that administer 35 different laws relating to food safety. The administration describes this system as “illogical and fragmented.”

The document explains that “[the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service] is responsible for the safety of liquid eggs, while [the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services] is responsible for the safety of the eggs inside their shells.” The FDA is responsible for cheese pizzas, but if pepperoni is added, the FSIS will be in charge. FDA regulates closed-meat sandwiches, while FSIS controls open-meat sandwiches.

Similar consolidation proposals have been fueled for decades.

However, the research I conducted for a book about the U.S. Food Safety System suggests that the Trump Administration’s plan faces several challenges, making a major reorganization in federal food safety regulations both unpractical and undesirable.

Why is food safety regulation so complex?

Two laws passed in 1906 led to the strange division of work between the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration.

Meat Inspection Act required inspection of all beef carcasses. The Pure Food and Drug Act banned the sale of adulterated foods in interstate commerce.

In the beginning, officials from the USDA implemented both laws. The USDA’s Bureau of Animal Industry assigned veterinary-trained inspectors to each meat plant. The Bureau of Chemistry hired laboratory scientists to check for food adulteration.

Franklin Roosevelt transferred the Bureau of Chemistry from the USDA to the Federal Security Agency, which later became the Department of Health and Human Services. The FDA oversees the production of all foods except meat and poultry.

Separately, the Bureau of Animal Industry was renamed to the Food Safety Inspection Service. This service is still responsible for meat and poultry inspections.

As Congress delegated new tasks relating to food safety, concerns about fragmentation of regulatory frameworks grew.

Congress, for example, instructed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate food advertisements, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set pesticide tolerences, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to inspect seafood.

Reform efforts

The current system is confusing, say those who favor putting all food safety standards under one agency . This is because the different agencies have inconsistent standards.

They also claim that the overlap of jurisdictions leads to inefficiencies and that insufficient coordination creates gaps in coverage. Also, they worry that so many actors are involved in the process, and this diffuses accountability.

In 1949, under the Truman administration, a presidential commission made the first prominent proposal to consolidate federal regulations on food safety. They recommended that the USDA be given responsibility for food safety, much like the Trump administration.

In 1972, consumer advocate Ralph Nader called for the creation of an organization to oversee food safety. A few years later, the Senate Committee recommended transferring the USDA’s responsibilities for food safety to the FDA.

These are only three of over 20 proposals that have been made by both political parties, including one from President Barack Obama.

Ralph Nader first proposed a consumer agency in 1972. Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Why Trump’s plan is likely to fail

The same reasons that the current consolidation effort is unlikely to succeed now are the same as those for which none of the previous consolidation efforts were successful.

The many congressional committees that currently supervise agencies that regulate food are unlikely to support a reorganization that would reduce their powers. In exchange for their political support, members of congressional committees can help constituents and interest groups.

In the same way, associations of industry are unlikely to support any reorganization, which would cause them to lose their relationship with current agencies. Consolidation could reduce their influence and access to agency decisions.

There are also practical issues to consider. The 5,000 FDA food safety officials and the 9,200 FSIS officials would still be under the same administrator. Still, the bureaucratic fragmentation caused by the different jurisdictions, powers, and specializations will not disappear. Consolidation would be impossible without a major overhaul of federal laws and regulations on food safety. This task is both legal and politically complex.

Consolidating efforts to ensure food safety in one agency could create new fragmentation. Transferring the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine program for regulating residues of drugs in beef and chicken to the USDA, for example, would separate the FDA’s veterinary medicine drug approval program.

Faced with declining markets in Western nations, multinational food corporations are targeting Africa, Asia, and Latin America as new consumers of packaged goods. This move may worsen the worldwide epidemic of chronic illnesses related to diabetes. The government is taking action against obesity-related factors such as unhealthy food. Singapore, where 1 million residents may have diabetes by 2050, could require soda producers to lower sugar content. The obesity and lifestyle diseases are now a long-term “silent” challenge for governments, resulting in increased healthcare costs and productivity losses.

To improve public health, governments must encourage lifestyle changes by educating people and improving access to healthy food.

It’s not a disease that only affects the rich

In Asia, the rural population, which is used to farming, is migrating to urban areas to take up more sedentary jobs in manufacturing and service sectors. These migrant populations also change their eating habits due to the availability of high-calorie food and time constraints. According to a recently published study that included 98,000 Chinese adults, linking obesity solely to wealth is simplistic. Instead, geographic variations in China’s “nutritional transformation” explain the differences in public health.

Two out of every five adults living in the Asia-Pacific are overweight or obese. According to the World Health Organisation , approximately half of all adults in the world with diabetes reside in Asia.

In the Asia-Pacific, obesity is estimated to cost US$166 Billion per year. In Southeast Asian countries, healthcare costs and productivity losses are the highest in Indonesia ($2 to $4 billion), Malaysia ($1 to $2 billion), and Singapore ($400 million).

Malnutrition is a problem in China and India. But obesity has been on the rise. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study, the prevalence of male obesity in India almost quadrupled from 1980 to 2015. In China, where 110 million adults are obese, and that number could rise to 150 million by the year 2040, the prevalence of obesity has increased 15 times between 1980 and 2015.

In India, the loss of national income caused by heart disease, stroke and diabetes has increased seven-fold between 2005 and 2015. The statistics about children’s health are grim. In India, a quarter of urban youth starting middle school is obese, and 66% have a high risk of diabetes. China has the largest number of obese children in the world. There are many factors that could be contributing to this trend. These include lack of space for physical exercise, a preference for computer games among youth, and an increased focus on university entrance exams.

Taxing obesity

Many Asian governments are tackling obesity in different ways. The United States and Europe have introduced taxes on sugary drinks and soft drinks, Proponents argue that these beverages contribute to obesity because they add excess calories without adding nutritional value. Cook County (Chicago), Philadelphia, and other large local governments have implemented sugar taxes. San Francisco and Seattle will implement similar taxes by 2018.

Berkeley, California, with its high-income and highly educated residents, was the first city in America to introduce a tax on sugary beverages. This took place in November 2014. A study published in the journal PLOS Medicine found that sales of sugary drinks in Berkeley decreased by 10% in the first year after the tax. The city raised approximately US$1.4million in revenue. proceeds are used in part for child nutrition and community programs. Berkeley may be an exception, but the spirit of its approach – which includes the smart use revenue – could serve as a guide for Asian cities.

In Asia , the market for soda is growing rapidly.

Sugar fight

Malaysia, which is facing a national obesity epidemic, is looking at Mexico’s tax on sugary drinks as a possible model. Brunei implemented a tax on sugary drinks in April 2017, and the Philippines is currently debating a sugar-sweetened beverage excise tax. Thailand has imposed a tax on sugary beverages in September 2017. The tax will increase over the next six years.

Other Asian governments have shown a willingness to combat obesity. India instituted an annual obesity evaluation after a survey revealed that one-third of its army personnel were overweight. China’s army has also publicly raised concerns over sugar consumption by recruits.

In India’s Maharashtra western state, so-called junk food was banned in school canteens due to concerns over childhood obesity. Hong Kong is introducing a labeling system for pre-packaged food in schools.

Policy implications

It is unclear whether taxes on sugary beverages have a positive impact on health. Many cities in the world are considering or adopting such taxes. It is possible to be optimistic, as an Asian Development Bank study found that a 20% sugar-sweetened beverage tax was associated with a reduction of 3% in obesity and overweight prevalence. The greatest impact on young men living in rural areas.

In terms of policy research, it is important to gather information. For example, a href= “http://218.248.6.39/nutritionatlas/dashbord/overwight.php”> India’s nutrition atlas/a>, which offers a state-by-state comparison on varying public health indicators, including obesity. The first step is to gather information. India’s Nutrition Atlas is a good example. It offers state-by-state comparisons of general health indicators, including obesity.

A second concern with sugar taxes is socioeconomic equity. Taxes on cheap, unhealthy food can affect low-income groups. In 2011, Denmark implemented a comprehensive “fat tax,” which covered all products containing saturated fats. The tax was scrapped after only a year, and plans for a new sugar tax were also dropped due to consumer concerns. Another challenge is the limited control of policy. Consumers may choose to consume non-taxed products that contain high levels of sugar or find other ways to avoid taxes. Many Danish consumers simply crossed into Germany to buy cheaper products.

While focusing on simple tax solutions can be a quick way to score political points, it may risk sacrificing basic public health and developmental goals. In many Asian cities, for example, there may be no alternatives to sugary beverages due to the poor quality of tap water. Sugary beverage taxes must be complemented by broader initiatives to encourage healthier lifestyles. In a 2016 study on obesity in India, the authors argue that policy should take into account nuanced social-cultural factors rather than a “one size fits all” approach.