In a liberal society people are, by and large, allowed to do as they please, so long as their behaviour does not impinge on the freedoms of others. That is, broadly, as it should be. But in some areas, the state should interfere more than it does. Health is one such. Smoking and obesity illustrate the need for the government to take a more active role in promoting healthy behaviour.
Smoking products and unhealthy food have a lot in common. They can both cause chronic ill-health, and they’re both addictive. We’ve known for decades how hard it is for people to give up nicotine; more recently, scientists have come round to the view that food that is heavy in sugar, fat and salt can lead to a similar dependency.
While cigarettes are heavily taxed, vapes are not, because they are viewed as a means of encouraging people to give up cigarettes. It’s right to make a distinction, since vaping is clearly not as lethal as tobacco. However, since vaping is addictive its long-term effects are unknown and it has become worryingly popular among children. The government should be discouraging it too.
Jeremy Hunt has therefore suggested that a “vaping products levy” may be imposed in next week’s budget. It would tax the liquid that goes into vapes. The higher the nicotine content of the liquid, the higher the tax would be. At the same time, the tax on tobacco would rise, to preserve the differential between the two. While the government is working on introducing a progressive smoking ban, sin taxes are a well-established way to raise money and encourage good behaviour. This graduated version of a sin tax would nudge people away from smoking towards vaping, and push them towards quitting nicotine altogether.
Tackling obesity is even harder than smoking because the problem is more complex. Although it would be a good thing if nobody ever touched nicotine again, the state is not trying to ban eating but encourage healthier choices. The fiscal argument is even stronger, though: while smokers may be net contributors to the nation’s coffers, obesity costs the NHS £6.5 billion a year and may cost the economy as much as £100 billion.
Advertisement
A report this week makes a powerful case for putting pressure on the supermarkets to change people’s behaviour. Nesta, a foundation that promotes societal change, whose study is backed by reputable consumer and health organisations, argues that a relatively small shift in calorie intake could make a big difference. If obese people cut their calorie intake by 80 a day, it claims, the problem would decline by a quarter over three years. Supermarkets could bring about that change by, for instance, cutting prices of healthy produce and displaying it more prominently.
Nesta suggests an interesting model for bringing this about, based on the system used to cut companies’ carbon-dioxide emissions. Rather than banning buy-one-get-one-free offers for unhealthy food, which might only encourage companies to think up new marketing wheezes, it suggests giving supermarkets an overall target for shifting consumers on to healthier products. If they hit their targets, they would not incur fines; if they didn’t, they would.
The government has threatened the supermarkets with tough measures in the past, only to back down. As the country’s health deteriorates, the urgency of tackling the joint problems of smoking and obesity increases. It’s time to get tougher.
