The Growth of Activism Against the Food Industry: Professionalism, Power and Media Influence Through Trending Articles (English Version)
If you work in the food industry and are keeping up with the latest news, you've probably noticed that various media outlets are talking more frequently about how "ultra-processed" foods (UPF) are harmful to health. Recently, Super Interessante magazine dedicated its cover to the subject of UPF with the headline: "The threat of ultra-processed foods," highlighting a questionable study that attributes thousands of deaths to such UPF, resulting in a long and biased article. The Exame website also published an article, "What is the worst ultra-processed food?", full of inconsistencies and biases. On the UOL portal, the headline was "Ultra-processed foods, benefited by reform, kill more than homicides," referring to the same study already mentioned in other articles. Galileu magazine has published an article entitled "30% tax on sugary drinks could reduce health costs by R$81 billion". According to the publication, taxing drinks such as soft drinks and isotonic drinks for ten years could reduce the prevalence of obesity by up to 9%, according to a new study.
It's interesting to note a pattern in these publications. They all seem orchestrated with perfect timing for the moment of publication. They only use sources against the UPF and in favor of the NOVA classification, rarely dedicating a few lines to the other side to appear impartial. This method of publication leads us to reflect on what is behind it.
Today's activists no longer use banners to march through the streets. They are highly professionalized, with penetration into government and academia (specifically public universities), support from large international NGOs that invest thousands of dollars in their actions, and armies of bloggers ready to destroy the morals, integrity, and reputation of those who work in the food industry. These activists have, among other things, strategic planning, communications, lobbying, legal, fundraising, and marketing departments whose budgets can exceed those of many food industries. You can see the influence of these campaigns when you see advertisements with terrifying scenes defaming industrialized foods at strategic points, with billboards along the main roads of the city, bus stops, digital street clocks, open and closed TV channels, newspapers, and magazines with nationwide circulation, as well as being present on cooking and news programs and portals. This shows that we are dealing with well-structured professionals. One of the international foundations often cited as sponsoring studies that demonize processed foods is the Bloomberg Foundation. I don't know how this works in the US, but here, it seems that the intention is to wipe out the Brazilian industry, especially now that we are one of the world's largest exporters of processed foods. This leads us to wonder about the real intentions behind this move.
Some considerations regarding the Exame article supporting the sugary drinks' surtax are necessary. It cites the study?"Estimated reduction in obesity prevalence and costs of a 20% and 30% ad valorem excise tax to sugar-sweetened beverages in Brazil: A modeling study," which coincidentally is funded by the Bloomberg Foundation.
The study published in PLOS that supports the surtax on sugar-sweetened beverages has several limitations and biases that need to be considered. The study assumes that the population's weight, height, and level of physical activity will remain constant over time. In reality, these factors can vary significantly due to changes in lifestyle, other public health policies, and nutritional interventions. The study uses a simulation model to predict the impacts of a 20% and 30% tax on SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages), which are highly dependent on initial assumptions and may not capture all the nuances of reality, such as calorie substitutions by other foods or beverages that were not considered in the model. The study assumes a high price elasticity for SSBs, especially among low-income families, and weak substitution by other less caloric drinks. However, data from other countries suggest that calorie substitution may occur and that price elasticity may be lower than estimated, resulting in smaller calorie reductions and, consequently, weight. The tax on SSBs can be regressive, disproportionately affecting low-income families. This could lead to negative economic consequences for these groups, hindering access to other food and basic needs. Health cost reduction estimates are based on models that assume a direct and proportional reduction in health costs based on obesity reduction. However, these costs can be influenced by many other factors, including the prevalence of other chronic diseases, changes in health policy, and population behaviors that are not directly related to the consumption of SSBs.
For those interested in the subject, the Getúlio Vargas Foundation has carried out an excellent, unprecedented study on obesity in Brazil, based on a multidimensional proposal and integrating different factors that can lead to the occurrence of the disease, based on a database according to the National Health Survey (PNS), 2013 and 2019 editions, produced by IBGE, in agreement with the Ministry of Health, and the Family Budget Survey (POF), in its latest edition of 2018. The survey identified through statistical analysis that age, socioeconomic conditions, and lack of physical activity are the main factors associated with obesity in the country. With an unprecedented approach, the survey aims to support the creation of public health policies, deepen knowledge on the subject, and map the most effective measures to combat overweight worldwide.
VIGITEL is a Brazilian health survey carried out by the Ministry of Health, which collects, among other data, nutritional status and food consumption in the capitals of the 26 Brazilian states and the Federal District every year. The report that compiles the data between 2006 and 2021 shows the consumption of soft drinks in the period. The data on soft drinks is in the report because soft drinks are considered by the Ministry of Health to be "obesity markers", i.e. soft drinks are directly associated with obesity. Reading the report, you can see that soft drink consumption fell by 55% over the period. In the same period, obesity rates almost doubled, with an increase of 90%. This is just one example of how obesity is a multifactorial and multicausal disease that is highly complex, and it is impossible to make a simplistic and shallow causal relationship between a product and the disease.
Given the limitations and uncertainties, the PLOS study cannot state with certainty that a 30% tax on sugary drinks would reduce health costs by R$81 billion. The effectiveness of such a measure depends on several interconnected factors and behavioral changes that may not be fully captured by the simulation models used.
As for the countries that have already implemented this tax policy for beverages to reduce obesity rates, we can mention a few countries and their results:
Mexico:
Implementation: Tax of 1 peso per liter in 2014.
Results: Reduced consumption of sugary drinks but no reduction in obesity rates. Consumers compensated for the calorie reduction with other calorie-dense foods.
United States (various cities):
Implementation: Cities such as Berkeley, Philadelphia, and Seattle.
Results: Reduced consumption of sugary drinks but no reduction in obesity rates. Substitution with other beverages or caloric foods was common.
France:
Implementation: Tax on sugary drinks in 2012.
Results: Reduction in consumption, but no impact on obesity. Consumers compensated with other calorie sources.
Chile:
Implementation: Tax increase in 2014.
Results: Consumption was reduced, but obesity prevalence remained high.
Hungary:
Implementation: Tax on sugary foods and drinks in 2011.
领英推荐
Results: Change in consumption habits with no reduction in obesity. Substitution with other calorie options may have neutralized the expected effects.
Norway:
Implementation: Tax increase in 2018.
Results: There was a drop in consumption of sugary drinks, but obesity rates did not decrease.
Philippines:
Implementation: Tax on sugary drinks in 2018.
Results: Consumption was reduced, but obesity rates did not fall.
United Kingdom:
Implementation: "Soft Drinks Industry Levy" in 2018.
Results: Product reformulation and decreased sugar consumption, but no impact on obesity.
Portugal:
Implementation: Tax on sugary drinks in 2017.
Results: Reduction in consumption, but no reduction in obesity rates.
Finland:
Implementation: Tax increase in 2014.
Results: Reduced consumption of sugary drinks but no reduction in obesity rates.
Although the study by Basto-Abreu et al. provides a detailed modeled analysis of the impact of a tax on sugary drinks, the data sources and analysis methods used have several areas for improvement that could compromise the accuracy and validity of the projections. The use of self-reported data, the assumption of constant elasticities, inadequate data calibration, and limitations in economic projections are critical factors that need to be considered and improved in future studies to provide more robust and reliable estimates.
It would be interesting for the Brazilian government to examine the experiences of other countries to save Brazilians from paying more taxes.
References:
?
?
?
Senior Partner at PBC - Food & Beverages Consultants
7 个月These organised actions are basically a political agenda, nothing to do with science. Another example of this type of campaign was concern Nuclear Energy. Pure political agenda.
Diretora de Comunica??o e Assuntos Corporativos
7 个月Interesting! Thanks for sharing.
Senior-Director Communications, Government Affairs and ESG
7 个月Well said!