The Great Debate UK

A modest proposal for solving the obesity problem

It was bound to happen. You could see it waddling into view from a long way off. We are now being told by the medics that we should seriously consider a tax on fatty foods, in order to combat the scourge of obesity. How appropriate that, according to The Independent, the Deputy PM is planning to recruit 65,000 “State Nannies”!

One wonders how the new tax will be computed. Will it be a higher rate of tax on higher fat-content foods? Will chicken breast be taxed at a lower rate than chicken legs? Will omega-3 fats be taxed at a lower rate than omega-6? Either way, we can look forward to a tabloid feeding frenzy which will make pastygate look like a Cornish picnic.

As with minimum alcohol prices, it punishes us all for the sake of a minority. Why should those of us who have no weight problem be penalised for eating fatty food which may be doing us very little harm? And in any case, what gives the State the right to stop us from harming ourselves simply on the grounds that the NHS cannot afford to carry the cost? Surely when personal liberty and the NHS are in conflict, it is the NHS which has to give way?

Given that personal liberty is now such a low priority, apparently ranking a long way below concerns like NHS costs, I want to propose a far better solution, a more direct approach that goes straight to the root of the problem, while sidestepping the distractions of having to negotiate with the food suppliers.

What about a real fat tax?

I mean a tax levied on body fat. Using the standard BMI-type calculations, we compute a weight allowance for every individual, taking account of age, height and any other factors regarded as relevant. Then, for every pound over their allowance, people pay tax at a rate increasing with their excess weight. The obese would then pay tax at a rate which reflected the burden they impose on the NHS.

Children, who should certainly not be exempt, are already weighed routinely at school. Their parents could be weighed at the end of each tax-year by their GP’s, who would provide a weight certificate in the same way they hand out sick-notes today.

Alzheimer’s Disease: A Global Epidemic

-William Thies, Ph.D. is Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the Alzheimer’s Association. The opinions expressed are his own.-

This week, more than 5,600 of the world’s leading scientists gathered in Paris to report and study the latest advances in Alzheimer’s research at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2011 (AAIC).

Alzheimer’s disease is an escalating international crisis. It is under-resourced, under-funded and under-prioritized by governments worldwide.

Latest estimates tell us that more than 35 million people worldwide are living with dementia. Unless we can change the course of this disease, this number is expected to double by 2030 and more than triple by 2050.

The out-of-pocket costs to patients and families caring for people with Alzheimer’s disease, the cost to insurance companies and the cost of uncompensated care to healthcare providers and rising taxes, cumulatively during the next 40 years and without taking into account inflation, will amount to $20 trillion in the United States alone.

We must, as a world community, demand that a far more significant amount be invested in research by our leaders in government. We must do this now to advance scientific progress and bring us closer to the biomarkers and treatments that will make a world without Alzheimer’s disease possible. This is not only a moral obligation, it is a financial one as well.

Innovative global research studies such as a potential “eye test” and markers in blood and spinal fluid, featured at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2011 this week, are taking the first important steps to confirm and standardize Alzheimer’s biomarkers, in very much the same way that blood pressure is a biomarker for heart disease.

Saving children’s lives – the GAVI Alliance pledging conference for immunisation

What: Live Webcast of Press Conference after the GAVI Alliance pledging conference for immunisation

Date: 13th June, 2011

Time: 1.30pm to 2.00pm BST

Run Time: Approx 30 mins

Join us for a live press conference following the “Saving children’s lives – the GAVI Alliance pledging conference for immunisation” event, with Bill Gates, Prime Minister David Cameron, Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell and senior Ministers from Norway (Tore Godal), Sweden (Gunilla Carlsson), United States, Canada, the European Union and Rwanda.

//

from Global News Journal:

Quadriplegic in an age of austerity

Every time I write a story on European countries cutting public spending, I feel a frisson of panic. I can't help but fear my health, lifestyle and liberty could be a casualty of the "age of austerity".

On assignment covering the Sri Lankan civil war for Reuters four years ago, I broke my neck in a minibus smash. It left me quadriplegic, almost entirely paralysed from the shoulders down and totally dependent on 24 hour care. I was 25.

Nine months later, in a wheelchair, using voice recognition software and supported by government-funded personal assistants, I got back to work in Reuters London headquarters the day after leaving hospital. Now political risk correspondent for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, I write about the interplay of politics and markets. For the past year and a half, much of that has been the drive to cut government spending as Europe rebalances its books.

That hasn't done my personal mental health any good at all. I even had my doctor tweak my medication to make sure worry didn't produce a gastric ulcer.

Britain's new coalition government intends to cut more than many countries, some 25 percent over five years. Some details will emerge in an Oct. 20 spending review, but I may have to wait until the end of the financial year for details on how that will affect my care and that of others.

In many respects, I have already been very lucky. Stringent UK employment law meant it was hard to pension me off just because of my disability. Improvements in voice recognition software meant I could still write at roughly the same speed as before - crucial to continuing work as a newswire journalist.

Most important of all, decades of growth in Britain's social welfare system meant that - after a substantial struggle - enough state funding was available to look after me in my own home.

from The Great Debate:

Business must change to earn back the public’s trust

-- Jeff Kindler is the chairman and CEO of Pfizer. He has agreed to reply to readers' responses about this opinion piece. The views expressed are his own. --

While it’s encouraging that slightly more people say they trust business and government today than a year ago, surveys show more than 70 percent of Americans and Europeans fear companies and governments will return to business as usual once the recession ends. It’s easy to see why.

In just the past year, a UK accounting scandal forced out the Speaker of the House of Commons, for the first time since 1695. The Governor of Illinois was thrown out of office for influence peddling, and a Congressman was convicted of accepting bribes and storing the cash in his freezer.

Businesses haven’t done any better, from taking reckless risks with other people’s money, to Ponzi schemes, to insider trading. Many banks and automakers now owe their existence to taxpayers, who bailed them out then paid them bonuses. My own company paid a $1.8 billion fine after some of our sales people improperly promoted a medicine for uses the FDA hadn’t authorized.

Actions like these are leading people to demand more restrictions on business. People say banks should risk less, and pay their executives less. They want oil companies to drill less, and burn less. They want drug companies to charge less, but not do less R&D. Sometimes, this criticism is warranted. Sometimes, it’s not. But when people don’t trust you, they’ll find a way to force you to change.

If leaders fail to change, the shape of things to come will not be pretty, for companies or for society. And if any business or government leader thinks they’re exempt, they are wrong.

from Commentaries:

Water down the tube in London heatwave

London's transport bosses are telling travellers on the tube system to beat the heat by carrying a bottle of water with them when they venture underground.

But how many of us are refilling our bottles with tap water rather than pouring money down the tube -- not to mention the cost of recycling the plastic bottles -- by buying a new bottle of water each day?

Cue the National Hydration Council whose eye-catching advertising campaign to encourage people to buy more "naturally sourced bottled water" -- on health grounds -- featured prominently on the underground network earlier this year.

The worrying thing for the bottled water lobby is not that people are doing what would appear to be the most sensible thing and refilling their bottles from the tap, but that Britons are replacing bottled water with sugary drinks instead.

We're told that sales of bottled water fell by 7 percent last year, with 71 percent of that decline the result of people buying sweet drinks instead. Good news for the soft drinks industry perhaps, but a worry for health officials.

Meanwhile, beneath the streets of London, the hot and flustered faces of fellow tube passengers shows just how dire it is on board the capital's underground trains when the mercury rises.

With a decent air-conditioning system on most lines a distant prospect, Transport for London (TfL) could show it cares by offering each of its cash-strapped passengers a free TfL water bottle and the opportunity to refill them at its stations.

from UK News:

Raising the price of alcohol

Chief Medical Officer Liam Donaldson has recommended that the government should sharply raise the price of alcohol  to try to combat Britain's chronic drinking problem.

His annual report calls for a minimum price of 50 pence per unit of alcohol sold, which would nearly double the price of some discount beer and wine. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also shown interest in minimum pricing.

But the government is under no obligation to accept any such recommendation and is aware of the unpopularity of raising alcohol prices in a recession and not so far away from a general election.

Gordon Brown rejected the proposal outright.

The Conservatives say it is important to deal with people's attitudes to drinking, not just supply and price, while the Liberal Democrats support putting an end to "pocket-money priced" alcohol.

What do you think? Does price play much of a part in Britain's binge-drinking culture?

Confronting medical issues for women

- Shelley Ross is secretary general of the Medical Women’s International Association, a non-governmental organisation representing women doctors from all continents. The opinions expressed are her own. -

The Medical Women’s International Association was created in 1919, not long after the first International Women’s Day in 1911. MWIA’s founder was an American by the name of Dr. Esther Pohl Lovejoy, who served as its first president. She was an obstetrician by training but an activist and humanitarian by action. Not only did she establish MWIA but she also founded the American Women’s Hospital Service during the First World War.

The motto of the Medical Women’s International Association, Matris Animo Curant, comes from Latin and translates to read, “She Heals with the Spirit of a Mother.”

From the time of Hygeia in ancient Greece to present day, women have had a significance influence on the practice of medicine.

To name three of its objectives, MWIA (1) works to overcome gender-related differences in health and healthcare between women and men throughout the world, (2) works to overcome gender related inequalities in the medical profession and (3) works to promote health for all through the world with particular interest in women, health and development.

International Women’s Day on March 8, gives us an opportunity to reflect on how we are doing with accomplishing these objectives.

from The Great Debate:

Are a CEO’s health problems a private matter?

-- Dana Radcliffe is a Day Family senior lecturer of business ethics at the Johnson School at Cornell University. The views expressed are his own. --

Are a CEO’s health problems a private matter? Or does he or she have an obligation to disclose them to investors and other stakeholders?

These are questions Apple and its iconic co-founder and chief executive Steve Jobs have had to face ever since he was diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer in 2003.  Happily, the disease proved to be treatable with surgery, which Jobs underwent in 2004.  But shareholders didn’t learn that Apple’s chief had been ill until he sent out an email to employees, announcing that he had had cancer but was now “cured.”

The issue of what, if anything, the company should disclose about its CEO’s health concerns resurfaced last summer, when Jobs spoke at Apple’s annual developers conference.  There he appeared, as the New York Times put it, “unusually thin and haggard.”  Reacting to the inevitable rumors that Jobs was ill again, the firm’s public relations department reported that he was suffering from “a common bug.”

A PRIVATE MATTER

However, according to the Times’ John Markoff, Jobs told some associates that he was experiencing “nutritional problems.”  Moreover, people close to Jobs told Markoff that in early 2008 he had a surgical procedure to treat a problem related to his weight loss.  Yet, in July, in a conference call after the release of Apple’s quarterly earnings statement, a senior officer deflected an analyst’s question about Jobs’s health, calling it “a private matter.”

Not surprisingly, investor uncertainty about whether Jobs would be able to continue as CEO was reflected in sharp fluctuations in the price of Apple’s stock.  In December, the worries intensified when the company said that Jobs would not give his much-anticipated annual keynote address at Apple’s Macworld conference.  At first, the reason offered by a spokesman was that the firm would not take part in the event after 2009.  That “explanation” only fueled the rumors.