Non-communicable diseases prevention 'more important than life or death'

Proposals designed to prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as "fat taxes" will have wide-ranging effects on the economy and health but wider research is needed to avoid wasting resources on ineffective measures, according to an economist from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

Writing in Science, Professor Richard Smith says that effective prevention of the increasing problem of NCDs will require changes in how we live our lives, which will in turn lead to significant economic changes across populations, industries and countries. But unless evidence is provided about who and what is positively or negatively affected, it is impossible to know which policies will benefit both economies and health.

He calls for global studies concerning the whole economy and suggests lessons should be learned from infectious diseases such as AIDS where clear demonstration of the overall economic impact played a key role in securing funding initiatives at the highest level.

With increasing numbers of people in the developed and developing world suffering from ill health associated with both genetic and lifestyle factors, the problem is more than just a medical concern. NCDs affect the economy "profoundly and pervasively" and using the example of Liverpool Football Club manager Bill Shankly who said football was "not just a matter of life and death, it's more important than that", Professor Smith claims that for economists so are NCDs.

The target set at the 65th World Health Assembly to reduce premature deaths from NCDs by 25% by 2025 adds to the urgency and there is a growing swell of opinion about the importance of tackling the problem. The School's Centre for Global is just one example of a high-level response to the worldwide call for action.

Purely micro-economic approaches will not work, however, Prof Smith argues. Prices are "pivotal" for economics and this concept provides the logic for the current enthusiasm for the introduction (already implemented in Denmark and Hungary) of a "fat tax" to reduce consumption of foods high in saturated fat by increasing their price through tax.

But Prof Smith sets out the various potential effects of such a mechanism which have not been analysed such as the alternative products consumers might turn to instead and changes in farming practices. According to the paper, there is a major gap in knowledge about the "macro-economic" big picture perspective which needs to be filled before society-wide NCD prevention can move forward.

He writes: "A food tax will affect the risk of NCDs in an unpredictable manner as it begins to indirectly influence other sectors in the national economy and interface with the rest of the world," he writes. "If the net effect is to increase , then this should feed positively into the itself, by reducing healthcare costs and by improving workforce productivity. However, we do not know that this will be the effect, because we do not consider the broader macro-economic picture."

More information: "Can Noncommunicable Diseases Be Prevented? Lessons from Studies of Populations and Individuals," by M. Ezzati et al., Science, 2012.

Related Stories

Non-communicable diseases having devastating global impact

Aug 30, 2012

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes are no longer just a problem in wealthy nations – the rate of NCDs in low-to-middle income countries are increasing faster than in developed countries.

WHO target to cut early chronic illness deaths

May 25, 2012

The World Health Organization announced on Friday it was set to approve a new target to reduce premature deaths from chronic illnesses such as heart disease by a quarter by 2025.

Recommended for you

Don't let high altitude ruin your holiday trip

4 hours ago

(HealthDay)—When you're planning your holiday get-away, don't forget to factor high altitude into your vacation sports—such as skiing or hiking, a sports medicine specialist cautions.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

chardo137
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
More important than life or death is getting you people to quit telling us what to do or eat. Education is one thing, but legislating this kind of thing is true evil.
sstritt
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
"more important than life or death"?
What hyperbolic nonsense
dogbert
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
Every person is unique. What its good for one person is not necessarily good for another. Same with what may be bad.

The food police cannot design a diet which is good for everyone, nor would such a diet be universally available.

No one needs nanny government.
freethinking
3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
Vote Obama or any Progressive this election and you will deserve to be told what to eat, what to drive, what to drink, how to raise your designated number of children, what to think, what to speak.

If he wins, not only will you be told what to do, you will become a poor debt slave to China yelling Allahu Akbar to make attones for someone, somewhere, at sometime insulting Muslims.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2012
This is the Green's Way of telling you, "you're going to get a little hungry, while we save the planet".
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
This is the Green's Way of telling you, "you're going to get a little hungry, while we save the planet".

This comment completely misses the point.
The article is about increasing net health. Nothing "green" about it at all.

Aside from that, there's also nothing about going hungry, going on a diet, restricting your calorie intake, etc.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.