'Fat tax' on fizzy soft drinks being considered in UK
Health experts are calling for a 10 percent ‘fat tax’ to be imposed on fizzy soft drinks in the UK as they believe it will help to tackle rising obesity levels.
The proposed move echoes that made by Denmark in October 2011 which saw the government introduce a surcharge on all foods that contained high levels of saturated fat – more than 2.3 percent.
After the fat tax was passed in Denmark, UK Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to consider a similar move in a bid to make the nation healthier.
However, although it is thought a charge on fizzy drinks, such as cola, will put people off buying the products and will inspire them to choose less-sugary options, some believe the move will anger consumers during a recession when food prices are ever increasing regardless of any extra taxes.
To read the latest edition of Healthcare Global, click here
- Maggot therapy can clean hard-to-heal wounds
- GSK to sell US consumer brands to Prestige for $660 million
- France recalls 30,000 breast implants amid cancer fears
Imposing a fat tax on unhealthy food has been a move considered by many countries this year; in September Hungary starting charging a levy on food with a high salt and sugar content while extra charges on sweets is being planned in Finland.
If a similar move was carried out in the UK, it is expected as well fizzy drinks being subjected to the levy, full fat milk, cheese, pizza, processed foods and oil will be included too.
In a study that has been published in the British Journal of Nutrition four co-authors looked at the changing consumption habits of Britons between 1986 and 2009.
They said: “In testing taxation as an option for shifting beverage purchase patterns, we calculate that a 10 percent increase in the price of sugar sweetened beverages could potentially result in a decrease of 7.5ml per capita per day.”
As is the case with a fat tax on fizzy drinks, researchers believe a charge on full fat milk will encourage people to choose skimmed or semi-skimmed alternatives.
They added in the article that if full fat milk was made more expensive, its consumption would fall by 5ml per person per day and the consumption of lighter milks would increase by 7ml per person per day.
Despite the evidence suggesting a fat tax has the potential to reduce obesity levels across the UK, some are sceptical of the plans and believe consumers would find a way to avoid paying more money for soft drinks.
Professor Jack Winkler, a lecturer in nutrition policy, believes a fat tax would only make people buy soft drinks in larger quantities.
Alternatively, he says people will resort to buying cheaper brands of fizzy pop or shopping at cheaper grocery outlets and he thinks it will also encourage people to take advantage of special offers on a more regular basis.
Commenting on the possibility of a fat tax in the UK, a Department of Health spokesman told the Daily Mail newspaper: “This is one of a number of independent academic papers that looks at the likely impact of taxes on food products. We keep all international evidence under review.”
Our magazine is now available on the iPad. Click here to download it.
The challenges to vaccine distribution affecting everyone
While it is comforting to know that vaccines against COVID-19 are showing remarkable efficacy, the world still faces intractable challenges with vaccine distribution. Specifically, the sheer number of vaccines required and the complexity of global supply chains are sure to present problems we have neither experienced nor even imagined.
Current projections estimate that we could need 12-15 billion doses of vaccine, but the largest vaccine manufacturers produce less than half this volume in a year. To understand the scale of the problem, imagine stacking one billion pennies – you would have a stack that is 950 miles high. Now, think of that times ten. This is a massive problem that one nation can’t solve alone.
Even if we have a vaccine – can we make enough? Based on current projections, Pfizer expects to produce up to 1.3 billion doses this year. Moderna is working to expand its capacity to one billion units this year. Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine producer, is likely to produce 60% of the 3 billion doses committed by AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi. This leaves us about 7 billion doses short.
Expanding vaccine production for most regions in the world is complicated and time-consuming. Unlike many traditional manufacturing operations that can expand relatively quickly and with limited regulation, pharmaceutical production must meet current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) guidelines. So, not only does it take time to transition from R&D to commercial manufacturing, but it could also take an additional six months to achieve CGMP certification.
The problem becomes even more complex when considering the co-products required. Glass vials and syringes are just two of the most essential co-products needed to produce a vaccine. Last year, before COVID-19, global demand for glass vials was 12 billion. Even if it is safe to dispense ten doses per vial, there is certain to be significant pressure on world supply of the materials needed to package and distribute a vaccine.
It is imperative drug manufacturers and their raw material suppliers have clear visibility of production plans and raw material availability if there is any hope of optimizing scarce resources and maximising production yield.
It is widely known by now that temperature is a critical factor for the COVID-19 vaccine. Even the regions with the most developed logistics infrastructures and resources needed to support a cold-chain network are sure to struggle with distribution.
For the United States alone, State and local health agencies have determined distribution costs will exceed $8.4 billion, including $3 billion for workforce recruitment and training; $1.2 billion for cold-chain, $1 billion vaccination sites and $0.5 billion IT upgrades.
The complexity of the problem increases further when considering countries such as India that do not have cold-chain logistics networks that meet vaccine requirements. Despite India’s network of 28,000 cold-chain units, none are capable of transporting vaccines below -25°Celsius. While India’s Serum Institute has licensed to manufacture AstraZeneca’s vaccine, which can reportedly be stored in standard refrigerated environments, even a regular vaccine cold chain poses major challenges.
Furthermore, security will undoubtedly become a significant concern that global authorities must address with a coordinated solution. According to the Pharmaceutical Security Institute, theft and counterfeiting of pharmaceutical products rose nearly 70% over the past five years. As with any valuable and scarce product, counterfeits will emerge. Suppliers and producers are actively working on innovative approaches to limit black-market interference. Corning, for example, is equipping vials with black-light verification to curb counterfeiting.
Clearly, this is a global problem that will require an unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination.
Disconnected information systems
While it is unreasonable to expect every country around the world will suddenly adopt a standard technology that would provide immediate, accurate and available information for everyone, it is not unreasonable to think that we can align on a standard taxonomy that can serve as a Rosetta Stone for collaboration.
A shared view of the situation (inventory, raw materials, delivery, defects) will provide every nation with the necessary information to make life-saving decisions, such as resource pooling, stock allocations and population coverage.
By allowing one central authority, such as the World Health Organization, to organize and align global leaders to a single collaboration standard, such as GS1, and a standard sharing protocol, such as DSCSA, then every supply chain participant will have the ability to predict, plan and execute in a way that maximises global health.
Political influence and social equality
As if we don’t have enough stress and churn in today’s geopolitical environment, we must now include the challenge of “vaccine nationalism.” While this might not appear to be a supply chain problem, per se, it is a critical challenge that will hinge on supply chain capabilities.
In response to the critical supply issues the world experienced with SARS-CoV-2, the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) formed Covax: a coalition dedicated to equitable distribution of 2 billion doses of approved vaccines to its 172 member countries. Covax is currently facilitating a purchasing pool and has made commitments to buy massive quantities of approved vaccines when they become available.
However, several political powerhouse countries, such as the United States and Russia, are not participating. Instead, they are striking bilateral deals with drug manufacturers – essentially, competing with the rest of the world to secure a national supply. Allocating scarce resources is never easy, but when availability could mean the difference between life and death, it becomes almost impossible.
Global production, distribution and social equality present dependent yet conflicting realities that will demand global supply chains provide complete transparency and an immutable chain of custody imperative to vaccine distribution.
The technology is available today – we just need to use it. We have the ability to track every batch, pallet, box, vile and dose along the supply chain. We have the ability to know with absolute certainty that the vaccine is approved, where and when it was manufactured, how it was handled and whether it was compromised at any point in the supply chain. Modern blockchain technologies should be applied so that every nation, institution, regulator, doctor and patient can have confidence in knowing that they are making an impact in eradicating COVID-19.