|
 The kinds of policies they're talking about would lower the price of
fruit and vegetables, help lower-income families make better
choices, impose taxes on sugary drinks and launch media campaigns,
according to a report in the journal PLoS Medicine.
"I think what our study does is highlight the potential power of
food policies to reduce cardiovascular mortality and disparities in
the U.S.," said lead author Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard, of Imperial
College London.
Pearson-Stuttard and colleagues say large disparities exist along
social and economic lines when it comes to diet and heart disease.
While past research found policies could influence diets, the
measurable effects on heart disease in the U.S. are unknown.
"The key question we’re trying to answer overall is which policies
are best buys for policymakers to consider," said co-senior author
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition
Science and Policy at Tufts University in Boston.
Using a computer model, the researchers estimated what various
policies might mean for heart disease in the U.S. between 2015 and
2030.
Those national policies included a media campaign and a 10 percent
tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. The researchers also analyzed the
effect of subsidizing the cost of fruits and vegetables, by 10
percent in general and by 30 percent for people on the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.
A national 10 percent subsidy on fruits and vegetables would be the
most beneficial policy, with approximately 150,500 lives saved from
deaths by heart disease over the 15-year study period, the authors
estimate.
A 30 percent subsidy for SNAP participants would likely save 35,100
lives, and a 10 percent soda tax would save 31,000 lives, they
calculate. A year-long mass media campaign was estimated to save
25,800 lives.
Mozaffarian said it's interesting that a national soda tax would
save only about a fifth of the lives saved by a national 10 percent
subsidy of fruits and vegetables.
[to top of second column] |
"That’s not something that would be obvious without doing the
analysis," he said.
The estimates also suggested that a targeted subsidy for SNAP
participants, which has been tested in Massachusetts, would narrow
the gap in heart disease rates between low-income and higher-income
people by 8 percent.
Pearson-Stuttard told Reuters Health the large gains among SNAP
participants can be attributed to their higher risks for heart
disease and stroke, and their lower consumption of fruits and
vegetables.
When the researchers estimated the potential benefit of implementing
all of the policies together, they found that nearly 230,000 lives
could be saved over 15 years while reducing the heart disease
disparity between SNAP-eligible and -ineligible people by 6 percent.
The researchers can't say how much such policies would cost, but
Pearson-Stuttard said they may be cost-neutral since revenue would
increase for certain foods while decreasing for others.
"It’s very likely these (expenses) over time would be cost-saving
because of the savings in the healthcare system and contributions to
the wider economy," he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2qUBouK PLoS Medicine, online June 6, 2017.
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
