THE World Health Organisation (WHO) had long ago issued a warning: over-consumption of sugar is a major contributor to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.
We should know. According to 2016 figures issued by the Health Ministry, 50 per cent of Malaysians are overweight or obese.
Also, Malaysia has the dubious distinction of topping the obesity scale among Asean countries. The economic cost is also making a fat hole in the coffers of the nation. In the words of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2017 report on “Tackling Obesity in Asean”, the obesity cost to the country in 2016 was between RM4.26 billion and RM8.53 billion.
And that is a whopping 10 to 19 per cent of Malaysia’s healthcare spending. Add to this the 2.5 million adults — almost eight per cent of the population — who are down with diabetes and you get the scale of the problem the country is up against.
To put it bluntly, sugar is not Malaysia’s candy girl.
In the estimate of the WHO, on average, a single can of a sugary drink contains around 40g of free sugars (equivalent to around 10 teaspoons of table sugar). Its guidelines recommend that we reduce consumption of free sugars to less than 10 per cent of daily energy intake (equivalent to around 12 teaspoons of table sugar for adults).
Or better still, keep the intake to below five per cent of daily energy intake (around six teaspoons of table sugar for adults).
Sugar tax — a la Malaysia or Mexico — is seen by many as being an effective intervention, including the international health organisation.
A study conducted in 2013 by Powell, LM., Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R and Chaloupka FJ lends support to the WHO’s claim: tax on sugary drinks that raises prices by 20 per cent can lead to a reduction in consumption of around 20 per cent.
But not all are swayed by this data. Thusitha De Silva, for example, who wrote to the New Straits Times yesterday is one such dissenting voice. Saying that the success stories of soda taxes were far from definitive, he locates the solution elsewhere. Entirely, too.
We say the sugar tax is not the only solution, but a solution nevertheless. We do not disagree that promotion of healthy lifestyles will have a greater impact on not only obesity, but also other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). NCDs require a composite solution, of which sugar tax is one.
Tim-Niklas Schoepp, writing in the Penang Institute website, sees several pathways to a more effective intervention. One is at the food intake level. Two, the food industry needs to play a more constructive role in designing new food products with lower sugar and fat content.
Three, child-focused obesity measures are crucial as childhood obesity is hard to reverse. Options include restricting the availability of higher fat or high-sugar foods in schools. Advertisements, too, need to be restricted, especially those that target children.
Sugar tax is a good start, but we need to do more to keep the bulge down. Otherwise, Malaysia will be weighed down in more ways than one.