Liberalising agricultural policy for sugar in Europe risks damaging public health.

Concerns about the health effects of dietary sugars have recently taken centre stage, reflecting an emerging understanding of the importance of sugars, and particularly sugary drinks, in the development of obesity and diabetes.1-4 Recent research estimates consumption of sugar sweetened beverages will cause about 80,000 excess cases of type 2 diabetes in the UK over 10 years. In early 2015, the World Health Organization recommended intake of free sugars should be less than 10% of daily calories, and preferably below 5%. In July, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition halved its recommendation for free sugars to no more than 5% of daily caloriesThis work was undertaken by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR, MR/K023187/1), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. EKA was also supported by Fulbright-Schuman grant and a Harvard Knox Fellowship from Harvard University

Estimating the effects of preventive and weight-management interventions on the prevalence of childhood obesity in England: a modelling study

BACKGROUND: The effects of the systematic delivery of treatments for obesity are unknown. We aimed to estimate the potential effects on the prevalence of childhood obesity of systematically offering preventive and treatment interventions to eligible children in England, based on weight or health status. METHODS: For this modelling study, we developed a cross-sectional simulation model of the child and young adult population in England using data from multiple years of the Health Survey of England conducted between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2019. Individuals were assessed for eligibility via age, BMI, and medical complications. Weight status was defined based on clinical criteria used by the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Published systematic reviews were used to estimate effect sizes for treatments, uptake, and completion for each weight-management tier. We used all available evidence, including evidence from studies that showed an unfavourable effect. We estimated the effects of two systematic approaches: a staged approach, in which children and young people were simultaneously given the most intensive treatment for which they were eligible, and a stepped approach, in which each management tier was applied sequentially, with additive effects. The primary outcomes were estimated prevalence of clinical obesity, defined as a BMI ≥98th centile on the UK90 growth chart, and difference in comparison with the estimated baseline prevalence. FINDINGS: 18 080 children and young people were included in the analytical sample. Baseline prevalence of clinical obesity was estimated to be 11·2% (95% CI 10·5 to 11·8) for children and young people aged 2-18 years. In modelling, we estimated absolute decreases in the prevalence of obesity of 0·9% (95% CI 0·1 to 1·8) for universal, preventive interventions; 0·2% (0·1 to 0·4) for interventions within a primary-care setting; 1·0% (0·1 to 2·1) for community and lifestyle interventions; 0·2% (0·0 to 0·4) for pharmaceutical interventions; and 0·4% (0·1 to 0·7) for surgical interventions. Staged care was estimated to result in an absolute decrease in the prevalence of obesity of 1·3% (-0·3 to 2·4) and stepped care was estimated to lead to an absolute decrease of 2·4% (0·1 to 4·8). INTERPRETATION: Although individual effect sizes for prevention and treatment interventions were small, when delivered at scale across England, these interventions have the potential to meaningfully contribute to reducing the prevalence of childhood obesity. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Overall and income specific effect on prevalence of overweight and obesity of 20% sugar sweetened drink tax in UK: econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study

Objective To model the overall and income specific effect of a 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks on the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the UK. Design Econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. Setting United Kingdom. Population Adults aged 16 and over. Intervention A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were the overall and income specific changes in the number and percentage of overweight (body mass index ≥25) and obese (≥30) adults in the UK following the implementation of the tax. Secondary outcomes were the effect by age group (16-29, 30-49, and ≥50 years) and by UK constituent country. The revenue generated from the tax and the income specific changes in weekly expenditure on drinks were also estimated. Results A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks was estimated to reduce the number of obese adults in the UK by 1.3% (95% credible interval 0.8% to 1.7%) or 180 000 (110 000 to 247 000) people and the number who are overweight by 0.9% (0.6% to 1.1%) or 285 000 (201 000 to 364 000) people. The predicted reductions in prevalence of obesity for income thirds 1 (lowest income), 2, and 3 (highest income) were 1.3% (0.3% to 2.0%), 0.9% (0.1% to 1.6%), and 2.1% (1.3% to 2.9%). The effect on obesity declined with age. Predicted annual revenue was £276m (£272m to £279m), with estimated increases in total expenditure on drinks for income thirds 1, 2, and 3 of 2.1% (1.4% to 3.0%), 1.7% (1.2% to 2.2%), and 0.8% (0.4% to 1.2%). Conclusions A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity in the UK of 1.3% (around 180 000 people). The greatest effects may occur in young people, with no significant differences between income groups. Both effects warrant further exploration. Taxation of sugar sweetened drinks is a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults

The Brighton declaration: the value of non-communicable disease modelling in population health sciences.

The Brighton declaration arose out of a one day workshop held in Brighton in September 2013 as part of the Society for Social Medicine annual conference. The workshop convened UK based non-communicable disease modellers to discuss the challenges and opportunities for non-communicable disease modelling in the UK. The declaration describes the value and importance of non-communicable disease modelling, both for research and for informing health policy. The declaration also describes challenges and issues for non-communicable disease modelling. The declaration has been endorsed by many non-communicable disease modellers in the UK.The following academics collaborated with the authors to finalise this article are and acknowledged as co-signatories on its content. The authors are extremely grateful for their input. University of Cambridge: Ali Abbas, Marko Tanio; University of Edinburgh: Dr Susannah McLean; UK Health Forum: Martin Brown, Tim Marsh, Marco Mesa-Frias, Lise Retat; Imperial College London: Anthony Laverty; The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: Zaid Chalabi; University College London: Luz Sanchez Romero; University of Oxford: Anja Mizdrak, Mike Rayner, Marco Springmann; University of Sheffield: Alan Brennan, James Chilcott, John Holmes, Petra Meier, John Mooney; University of Southampton: Grant Aitken. ADMB and OTM are funded by the Wellcome Trust. PS is funded by the British Heart Foundation. JW is funded by an MRC Population Health Scientist Fellowship.This is the final published version. The article was originally published in the European Journal of Epidemiology (2014) 29, 867–870, DOI 10.1007/s10654-014-9978-0

Increasing healthy life expectancy equitably in England by 5 years by 2035: could it be achieved?

In 2018, the UK Government’s Secretary of State for Health and Social Care articulated an ambition to increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035 for England, while also reducing the gap in this between the rich and the poor1. While we doubt that England – or indeed any high-income country – could achieve this ambition, we describe a set of policies with the potential to make a significant contribution

Association between intake of less-healthy foods defined by the United Kingdom's nutrient profile model and cardiovascular disease: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, the Food Standards Agency-Ofcom nutrient profiling model (FSA-Ofcom model) is used to define less-healthy foods that cannot be advertised to children. However, there has been limited investigation of whether less-healthy foods defined by this model are associated with prospective health outcomes. The objective of this study was to test whether consumption of less-healthy food as defined by the FSA-Ofcom model is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used data from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort study in adults (n = 25,639) aged 40-79 years who completed a 7-day diet diary between 1993 and 1997. Incident CVD (primary outcome), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (secondary outcomes) were identified using record linkage to hospital admissions data and death certificates up to 31 March 2015. Each food and beverage item reported was coded and given a continuous score, using the FSA-Ofcom model, based on the consumption of energy; saturated fat; total sugar; sodium; nonsoluble fibre; protein; and fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Items were classified as less-healthy using Ofcom regulation thresholds. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to test for an association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD. Sensitivity analyses explored whether the results differed based on the definition of the exposure. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, behavioural risk factors, clinical risk factors, and socioeconomic status. Participants were followed up for a mean of 16.4 years. During follow-up, there were 4,965 incident cases of CVD (1,524 fatal within 30 days). In the unadjusted analyses, we observed an association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD (test for linear trend over quintile groups, p < 0.01). After adjustment for covariates (sociodemographic, behavioural, and indices of cardiovascular risk), we found no association between consumption of less-healthy food and incident CVD (p = 0.84) or cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.90), but there was an association between consumption of less-healthy food and all-cause mortality (test for linear trend, p = 0.006; quintile group 5, highest consumption of less-healthy food, versus quintile group 1, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.02-1.20). Sensitivity analyses produced similar results. The study is observational and relies on self-report of dietary consumption. Despite adjustment for known and reported confounders, residual confounding is possible. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for potential confounding factors, no significant association between consumption of less-healthy food (as classified by the FSA-Ofcom model) and CVD was observed in this study. This suggests, in the UK setting, that the FSA-Ofcom model is not consistently discriminating among foods with respect to their association with CVD. More studies are needed to understand better the relationship between consumption of less-healthy food, defined by the FSA-Ofcom model, and indices of health

Mortality from pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza in England: public health surveillance study

Objective To establish mortality from pandemic A/H1N1 2009 influenza up to 8 November 2009

The potential health impact of restricting less-healthy food and beverage advertising on UK television between 05.30 and 21.00 hours: A modelling study

Funder: National Institute for Health Research; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272Funder: British AcademyBackground: Restrictions on the advertising of less-healthy foods and beverages is seen as one measure to tackle childhood obesity and is under active consideration by the UK government. Whilst evidence increasingly links this advertising to excess calorie intake, understanding of the potential impact of advertising restrictions on population health is limited. Methods and findings: We used a proportional multi-state life table model to estimate the health impact of prohibiting the advertising of food and beverages high in fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) from 05.30 hours to 21.00 hours (5:30 AM to 9:00 PM) on television in the UK. We used the following data to parameterise the model: children’s exposure to HFSS advertising from AC Nielsen and Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board (2015); effect of less-healthy food advertising on acute caloric intake in children from a published meta-analysis; population numbers and all-cause mortality rates from the Human Mortality Database for the UK (2015); body mass index distribution from the Health Survey for England (2016); disability weights for estimating disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease Study; and healthcare costs from NHS England programme budgeting data. The main outcome measures were change in the percentage of the children (aged 5–17 years) with obesity defined using the International Obesity Task Force cut-points, and change in health status (DALYs). Monte Carlo analyses was used to estimate 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). We estimate that if all HFSS advertising between 05.30 hours and 21.00 hours was withdrawn, UK children (n = 13,729,000), would see on average 1.5 fewer HFSS adverts per day and decrease caloric intake by 9.1 kcal (95% UI 0.5–17.7 kcal), which would reduce the number of children (aged 5–17 years) with obesity by 4.6% (95% UI 1.4%–9.5%) and with overweight (including obesity) by 3.6% (95% UI 1.1%–7.4%) This is equivalent to 40,000 (95% UI 12,000–81,000) fewer UK children with obesity, and 120,000 (95% UI 34,000–240,000) fewer with overweight. For children alive in 2015 (n = 13,729,000), this would avert 240,000 (95% UI 65,000–530,000) DALYs across their lifetime (i.e., followed from 2015 through to death), and result in a health-related net monetary benefit of £7.4 billion (95% UI £2.0 billion–£16 billion) to society. Under a scenario where all HFSS advertising is displaced to after 21.00 hours, rather than withdrawn, we estimate that the benefits would be reduced by around two-thirds. This is a modelling study and subject to uncertainty; we cannot fully and accurately account for all of the factors that would affect the impact of this policy if implemented. Whilst randomised trials show that children exposed to less-healthy food advertising consume more calories, there is uncertainty about the nature of the dose–response relationship between HFSS advertising and calorie intake. Conclusions: Our results show that HFSS television advertising restrictions between 05.30 hours and 21.00 hours in the UK could make a meaningful contribution to reducing childhood obesity. We estimate that the impact on childhood obesity of this policy may be reduced by around two-thirds if adverts are displaced to after 21.00 hours rather than being withdrawn