Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
11/15/05

UK food more costly to health than smoking

Click here <http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/59/12/1054> for the
full paper. The abstract and conclusions of the paper are given below.

_____________________________________________

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

11/15/05

STUDY ABSTRACT

Study objective: To quantify the burden of ill health in the UK that can be
attributed to food (the burden of food related ill health).

Design: Review and further analysis of the results of work concerned with
estimates of the burden of disease measured as morbidity, mortality, and in
financial terms and with the proportion of that burden that can be
attributed to food.

Main results: Food related ill health is responsible for about 10% of
morbidity and mortality in the UK and costs the NHS about 6 billion
annually.

Conclusions: The burden of food related ill health measured in terms of
mortality and morbidity is similar to that attributable to smoking. The cost
to the NHS is twice the amount attributable to car, train, and other
accidents, and more than twice that attributable to smoking. The vast
majority of the burden is attributable to unhealthy diets rather than to
food borne diseases.

STUDY CONCLUSIONS

That food related ill health is responsible for about 10% of DALYs
(disability adjusted life years) lost in the UK and costs the NHS about 6
billion annually are obviously crude estimates. Nevertheless they are
probably reasonable.

The estimates suggest that the burden of food related ill health is large,
compared with say smoking, and suggest that food related ill health has been
neglected by health and food policy makers. For example while there are
specific government targets for smoking in England there are no equivalent
dietary targets, the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease
has a specific standard for smoking cessation but no equivalent standard for
dietary improvement.

The estimates could be improved by more sophisticated and systematic
methodsfor example by calculating appropriate PAFs (population attributable
fractions) and applying them to the burden of specific diseases rather than
ICD (International Classification of Disease) chapters. The estimates should
be refined, as without quantifying the burden of food related ill health we
cannot say whether it is a problem worth worrying about or not.
_____________________________________________
Source: Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/59/12/1054

Date: 15-Nov-05