Poor diet ‘costs NHS £6bn a year’
November 15th, 2005
Poor diets cost the NHS £6bn a year in ill-health - three times as much as smoking, a study suggests.
Researchers calculated the figure by studying the death rates and prevalence of food-related problems such as heart disease and cancer.
The British Heart Foundation team said the figure, which includes treatment, prevention and care, showed more had to be done to combat unhealthy eating.
The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Research has shown that bad diet can cause heart disease, cancer, tooth decay and diabetes.
The cost of treating people in the UK who develop these totals £18bn.
But the researchers acknowledged that not all cases of these diseases were caused by diet.
Instead, using previous research by the World Health Organization, government and independent scientists, the researchers calculated that about a third of this could be attributed to food.
The team admitted the figure was crude, but said it could still be used to help form policy.
Report co-author Mike Rayner said: “The estimates suggest that the burden of food-related ill-health is large with, say, smoking, and suggest that food-related ill-health has been neglected by heath and food policy-makers.
“For example, while there are specific government targets for smoking in England there are no equivalent dietary requirements.”
Government action
He called for the government to introduce food labelling and restrictions on TV advertising to help change dietary habits.
Anna Denny, nutrition scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, said while it was a “crude” estimate, the study highlighted the growing burden of ill health attributed to food.
“Today, more adults are obese than ever before and the World Health Organization estimates that dietary factors account for 30% of cancers in industrialized countries.
“It is important to get clear messages across to consumers regarding diet, and to make it as easy as possible for consumers to choose a healthy balanced diet.”
But Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund health think-tank, said in reality it may be cheaper not to intervene as the costs of the health care can be less than the cost of changing lifestyles.
“The most cost-effective action is to get GPs to tell people to change their lifestyle, but that does not work.
“What you need in reality is some pretty major interventions, perhaps interfering with the food market through advertising bans, and on top of that these measures take a long-time to have an impact.”
And a Department of Health spokeswoman said: “We are well aware of the links between poor diet and ill health including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke.”
And she added the government was taking a range of measures to combat unhealthy eating.
She pointed out warnings had been issued over salt intake and consultation was ongoing on food labelling and restrictions on junk food advertising to children.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk
Entry Filed under: Nutrition News
2 Comments Add your own
1. Dick Hanneman | November 15th, 2005 at 7:06 am
As president of the Salt Institute. the global association of salt producers, I monitor this issue and the associated medical reports closely and presented much of this comment at a symposium earlier this year in London, sponsored by the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Two points. First, let’s not dismiss the point raised by “Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund health think-tank, said in reality it may be cheaper not to intervene as the costs of the health care can be less than the cost of changing lifestyles.” It may seem cheap to change the food supply in hopes this will change the diet, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach — as contrasted with a one-on-one doctor/patient model — is unproven.
Second point, is even more compelling. Reducing dietary salt is promoted to reduce blood pressure on the assumption that however blood pressure is reduced will lower the risk profile for heart attacks and cardiovascular deaths. That’s where the “savings” NHS projects originate. But there are no data confirming this hope. In fact, only a dozen studies have examined the health outcomes of people on lower sodium diets and they show, if anything, that there is a HIGHER RISK of heart attacks. How can that be? When salt is reduced, the body compensates with other metabolic changes: insulin resistance is increased, sympathetic nervous system activity increases and, most of all, the body secretes vastly more renin, a hormone produced in the kidney that has been shown by the president of the International Society of Hypertension to cause four times more heart attacks.
Anyone can build a model and project an outcome (£6bn a year), but the model depends on the assumptions of its creators and NHS’ model reflects is the triumph of hope over the realities of the scientific data.
2. Dick Hanneman | November 15th, 2005 at 7:07 am
I should have added that further informatoin is available on our website at http://www.saltinstitute.org/28.html and the medical evidence, with links to studies available online, is found at http://www.saltinstitute.org/healthrisk.html
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed