Will taxing saturated fat save lives?

090715FOODTAX

By Grant Schofield and George Henderson, Science oriented blog

This headline caught our eyes in this week’s New Zealand Herald and then the subsequent paper we tracked down in PLOSone.

It is titled “Effects of Health-Related Food Taxes and Subsidies on Mortality from Diet-Related Disease in New Zealand: An Econometric-Epidemiologic Modelling Study”.

What the paper does is try to understand how taxing various groups of food at 20% would affect consumption, and then downstream from that, disease and then death attributable to those diseases.

What caught our attention first was the claim that ” A 20% tax on major dietary sources of saturated fat would result in 1,500 (950 to 2,100) deaths prevented or postponed“.

It surprised us because the meta-analyses of the effect of trials which reduced or replaced saturated fat have shown no effect on overall mortality. This is true in the analysis of randomised controlled trials just updated (2015) by Hooper et al, in the Cochrane reviews site.

They show no effect of interventions for the reduction of saturated fat intake on All-cause mortality, Cardiovascular mortality, Myocardial infarctions, Non-fatal MI, Stroke, CHD mortality, or CHD events.  There was a significant effect for Combined cardiovascular events (R 0.83 (0.72 to 0.96)) of reducing saturated fat over a standard diet, however this limited effect (mainly a reduction in the incidence of angina) was solely restricted to studies where polyunsaturated fat replaced saturated fat.

There is however, additional evidence for reducing saturated fat. Most important are the substitution meta-analyses of cohort studies – which are not actual interventions, but rather model how differences in what people do across populations relate to outcomes.  Taken together these papers (Jakobsen et al’s 2009 paper and Farvid et al’s 2014 paper) show a favourable effect of modelling what plausibly could happen in a population if they added extra polyunsaturated fat to their diet. They together note improvements in risk of heart attacks and CHD mortality whether that polyunsaturated fat replaces saturated fat or carbohydrate.

This is the “totality of evidence” you keep hearing about from the experts, telling us to eat less saturated fat.  Other meta-analyses have shown no effect whatsoever, but we may as well concentrate on the ones which do show something.

What we take from this is important, and is why the stuff about taxing saturated fat and the paper that came out of that analysis are making assumptions which are not reasonable in our opinion.

We take it that eating the low saturated fat diet in actual experiments doesn’t really do anything beneficial compared with eating the standard diet (telling people to do nothing) except perhaps a small improvement for combined cardiovascular events but not mortality (however it needs to be noted that in most of these experiments consumption of cakes and biscuits went down, fish and veges went up, in the polyunsaturated fat groups, so what are we really seeing an effect of?). These studies say nothing about other approaches like higher fats lower carb diets and others.

The  addition of extra polyunsaturated fats seems to be beneficial in the cohort studies – for cardiovascular events and/or mortality (but not overall mortality) – regardless of what non-essential nutrient (carbs or saturated fat) it replaces. The appropriate interpretation of these analyses is that polyunsaturated fats may be beneficial additions to the human diet in the context of the modern diet.

So, we wonder how these extraordinary claims of reductions in deaths by reducing saturated fat by taxes made it into such a prestigious medical journal and then the media?  Especially when there is no really strong evidence that doing this results in improvements in mortality.

Well that’s the big question, and when you do a bit of digging you find some surprising answers.

Uncovering assumptions

The first obvious thing is the paper they use as the meta-analysis to model the benefits of reducing saturated fat intake. It appears to be this paper by Law in 1994, which looks at possible reductions in ischaemic heart disease from changes in serum cholesterol.

This is really the B (lower cholesterol), then C (lower risk of heart disease), therefore A (lower saturated fat consumption lowers cholesterol (B) and therefore must lower heart disease risk (C))  argument. This is an assumption too far for the sort of effects they are trying to estimate. Especially given there are data more specifically related to diet (as above) which could have been used (the Hooper et al Cochrane review).

Second, and even more interesting is the choice of what constitutes high saturated fat foods. These are a diverse and interesting way to bring some very different foods together – butter, cakes, cream and cheese, biscuits, pastry cook products, beef and lamb as well as processed meat.  Really? You’d lump these things in the same category, when they have profoundly different effects on the glycemic and insulinemic environments? We say this because an emerging view is that it’s blood glucose and insulin which seem to be more important in predicting modern chronic disease including heart disease.

journal.pone.0128477.t001

A third interesting assumption made in the PlosOne tax paper is that data from 578 Māori respondents was so unreliable that it needed changing “However, Māori diets were unusually low in absolute intakes of energy, fruit, vegetable, fibre and salt (20–40% lower than those of non- Māori), which possibly reflected the relatively small number of Māori survey participants (n = 578, 10%) and/or reporting bias. Therefore Māori diets were recalibrated using ratio of Māori: non-Māori intakes derived from the most recent National Nutrition Survey [17]. Recalibration increased Māori energy intakes by 37%, fruit and vegetable intakes by approximately 60%, and sodium by 26%. Following recalibration there were no important differences in baseline diet by ethnicity, which is broadly consistent with National Nutrition Survey findings [17].”
The 2008/09 National Nutrition Survey they refer to had 1040 Māori respondents, the PlosOne paper had 578. Was one sample really so much smaller than the other as to make its data so unreliable it needed to be corrected, just because it failed to conform with expectations?

So what can we take from this paper?

Our view:

  • Taxing food will change consumption. That’s what price elasticity is all about.  How much this plays out in actual reality with taste preferences, the food industry changing things to meet new criteria, and how budgets accommodate this – perhaps with perverse effects – is unknown and ultimately unpredictable. Probably this will and should happen (some taxes of some foods) but the public isn’t ready just yet. I’d start with a sugar tax because that’s most likely to be acceptable.
  • Be very careful about some of the big assumptions you make and how you group data together. This completely changes what you find, faulty assumptions = findings which are meaningless. Specifically:
    • The assumptions behind the saturated fat tax make a mockery of modern science and peer review. The mortality assumptions are based on a 1994 paper on cholesterol.  They didn’t use modern meta-analyses of food.
    • They decided to use data based on lumping food as diverse as chicken and cakes in the same saturated fat category for consideration as taxable. They have foods which have very different metabolic effects. This is a flaw to me.

We wonder what would happen if they modeled…

  • A sugar tax, or a sugar sweetened beverage tax as these are the most likely to be palatable to the government and the public. They say that a sugar tax was not modelled because the data regarding price and purchasing changes was considered unsound. So that’s fair enough, you can’t model data when they are not suitable. A read of the many comments on the NZ Herald site about this paper are interesting for us public health people. It’s obvious that taxing food isn’t popular with the public. The only one which enjoys any support is a tax on sugar and refined carbs. For any policy intervention work with food to be successful you definitely need good evidence. Evidence is important, but so is supporting public opinion. There is no political action without widespread public support.
  • A subsidy which introduces more polyunsaturated fat into our diets.  There may be various ways to think about this.  But if that appears to be a benefit to everyone then that’s a plausible idea.

Also in the fine print of the discussion is this interesting finding from the UK “However a similar UK study that modelled the potential health outcomes of four health-related food tax and subsidy regimens for the UK reported that two taxation scenarios (a saturated fat tax and a tax on less healthy foods as defined by a nutrient profiling model—both 17.5% flat rate taxes) would have little effect, or even adverse effects on mortality rates in the case of the saturated fat tax [58]. In contrast, the UK study found that combining a tax on less healthy foods with subsidies on fruit and vegetables would reduce deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancer [58]. The authors suggest that the observed adverse effects of the taxation scenarios on mortality in the UK were due to cross-PEs, for example, between fats and carbohydrates (i.e. as consumption of fats fell consumption of carbohydrates increased, the effects of the latter outweighing the former.)

Here’s the UK paper, which as far as I can tell also used cholesterol changes to estimate possible changes in heart disease and subsequent death from various diseases, and finds a null or possibly harmful effect because of different assumptions about price elasticity. So really – a tax that will save lives in NZ will kill people in the UK?

Other things to consider:

What the “saturated fat kills you” traditionalists say is that CHD mortality has dropped in the English-speaking world because we eat less saturated fat. But very little of that missing saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat. Polyunsaturated fat, which is the only replacement which plausibly gives benefit, has only increased in NZ by ~3% of energy since the 1960’s. Most of the missing SFA was replaced with refined carbohydrate which would not be seen as beneficial. So attributing anything but minor improvement in dying from heart disease to reductions in saturated fat is not plausible in this context.

Also in the meantime, calories have increased, BMI went up, activity probably has gone down.

So why did CHD mortality go down? Lots of reasons, some not measured I suspect. But people a) started to quit smoking (which everyone agrees on) and b) started to clean up the environment and take care to reduce the environmental hazards in the workplace from the mid-1960’s on.

Diet and activity doesn’t seem to explain the drop in CHD mortality as well as it explains the increase in diabetes and overweight. Except possibly that our modern diet is better at supplying micronutrients, fibre and antioxidants than the diet of the 1960’s. Maybe that has helped.

Last word

Under the present state of science, sugar should be the only thing targeted by government action. We can be sure that sugar causes disease – just ask a dentist. There is no equivalent of caries with any other macronutrient. And, sugar supplies no micronutrition, it’s the classic empty calorie food. There are solid pathways linking sugar to fatty liver, diabetes, Alzheimers and heart disease. Mind you, people used to think that about fat. We can only hope that the science has progressed.

18 comments

  1. Unrelated to the Saturated fat bit but really bugging me – why on earth does their infographic say that fresh beef, lamb, hogged & poultry would be taxed for their (negligible) salt content?!

    1. Beats me why they’d do that

      1. I looked this up – beef and lamb have 72 mg sodium per 100g, 218 mg potassium. That’s a low sodium food in terms of daily requirements of protein and sodium, and a good source of potassium.
        So why do they say that? Because meat is so bad for you it must have everything wrong with it? Because people put salt on burgers (but they put salt on chips too, and I didn’t see potatoes in there)?
        While I’m at it, processed meats are the real bad boys in the high SFA category, but the worst of them are the 98% fat-free varieties! These would be exempt from tax – does that make them a health food?
        How many health stars does a 98% fat-free luncheon meat get? After all, it’s high protein, low SFA, moderate energy.

  2. Thanks for some science. These guys seem determined yet again to give science a bad name.

  3. I know it’s a red herring, but… I wonder what contributes more to CO2 emissions; a pasture-fed lamb grown down the road, or the same amount of calories and protein from quinoa or almonds imported from the other side of the world?

    1. Hi George,
      who is entitled to play with our health based on their assumptions about political, economical or environmental issues? Are we livestock and dietitians the ones to decide about our health? When and how did I give up my rights as a human being? Why don’t I deserve to be given reliable and accurate information about the effects of specific foods on my health?

      Have dietists delusional fantasies of power? Who do they think they are?

      My point is: should we enter the environmental debate or should we deny them the right to play with our lives?

  4. Great write-up Grant & George.

    The “more polyunsaturated fats” in the diet proposition is, I think, too flawed as to be useful – especially as a public policy starting point. It needs considerable refinement (excuse the pun).

    If we’re talking about more animal omega3’s (e.g. salmon) with a concomitant reduction in plant omega6’s (e.g. canola oil) then that’s fantastic! The total level of polyunsaturated fats needs to drop in the Western diet although a kind of those polyunsaturates (animal omega3’s) needs to increase – bringing the O6:O3 ratio between 1:1 to 1:5 (according to best estimates). I like Chris Masterjohn’s 2008 paper “How Essential Are the Essential Fatty Acids?” on the subject. Let me know if you can’t access it.

    I think you guys know this but I’m putting out this out there for the consideration of other readers.

    Thanks again for all your public health efforts!

    1. Thanks Raphi;

      Lee Hopper states very eloquently in an earlier editorial on Mozaffarian (who is very pro-PUFA as well as open-minded about SFA) that the evidence doesn’t justify raising PUFA per se, just suggests a benefit from current intakes compared to historical intakes.
      And because linoleate is the cheapest fat in the food chain, it hardly needs a subsidy IRL; perhaps ALA does relative to LA, but as for DHA, think of the environment, do we really want to go down that road of encouraging over-fishing? (Though I agree 100% with Vicente – the environmental argument that’s now being selectively applied to food is just dog-in-the-manger bad-looserism from the anti-SFA crowd; they’re trying to move the goalposts, but the game is almost over.)

    2. Yeah I don’t get this part:

      “Polyunsaturated fat, which is the only replacement which plausibly gives benefit, has only increased in NZ by ~3% of energy since the 1960’s.”

      Almost everyone here in NZ cooks all their food in and uses PUFA-(seed)based sauces/dressing liberally. The last thing we need is to increase this.

      The lipophobia here is even more pronounced than in Australia where at least many folk are just “*shrug*, gotta die of something mate, may as well enjoy it” and still have full fat steaks with butter etc, finding untampered with full fat food in NZ takes real spelunking.

      1. Agreed, it should be higher and probably is, but the last NZ nutrition survey has PUFA at 5.7%E.
        And PUFA intakes are plateauing in Australia, and probably NZ, because rice bran, canola, and high-oleic this and that are replacing corn and soy in deep fryers. But are they being replaced in the diets of the poor and the off-franchise chippies and restaurants? Doesn’t look like it from the supermarket shelves. How well do diet surveys represent all the people too poor or busy or impulsive or busy drinking or foreign-speaking to fill in surveys? There is a question.

      2. Call me skeptical but I have about as much faith in nutrition surveys/FFQ’s as the easter bunny.

        I dare say most people wouldn’t have a clue that nearly every product they consume contains or is prepared in rapeseed/corn/soybean oil, and so their self-reporting likely only includes the stuff they actively add.

      3. If I put that I ate mayonnaise in a FFQ, does the analyst know whether it’s the cheap one made with soybean oil (60% LA) or the more expensive Heinz variety with canola oil (20%LA)? Or am I expected to enter the brand?

  5. John Davy · · Reply

    I fully support your questioning the proposed tax on fat. I am a kiwi who was diagnosed type 2 diabetes 12 years ago- managed it OK up till January 2015 – then told to go on insulin as well as the 3 drugs I had been given. Then I studied Gary Taubes ,Peter Attia ,Richard Bernstein,Jay Wortman,Andreas Eenfeldt,Stephen Phinney,Walter Willett, Eric Westman,Mary Vernon,Robert Lustig,Richard Johnson,Tim Stokes,Mary Enig,Robert Atkins, Donald W Miller and Jason Fung. All doctors or professors – thanks to the net – I learned alot – went against my own GP’s advice – a hard well thought out decision. Gave up statins, sulfonylureas, and took up high animal fat and low carbs.
    I have more energy, reduced A1c blood sugars from 80 in January to 51 now, and reduced overall cholesterol. Gary Taubes was right – fat does not cause fat – carbs do . No disrespect to my dear GP but as he says he has limited time and can not/will not go outside Pharmac guidelines. I am now off all diabetic drugs. A saving to all.
    New Zealand can follow the Food/Drug Mega Rich Corporates and stay poor, fat,diabetic and fatigued – or it can open its mind to a better world. I fear those cartels with their opiate Politically Correct PR control the game and the media here. If Prof Richard Johnson is right about Samoa being 43% diabetic its Game Over for many of us.

    All strength to you Prof Grant Schofield

    1. Thanks great comment

  6. Cannot agree with any tax on food of any sort , when government start interferring with what you can eat they have to much control , it may start off with saturated fats but there will be no end to it .
    Nutritional education is the only way , then it is up to the individuals as to what they consume , after all we do not want to be completely controlled in all aspects of our life .
    I am saying this as a non grain , non dairy , non sugar but high saturated fat consumer .

    Ray

  7. Wenchypoo · · Reply

    I think what’s really driving this is two things:

    1. The government is looking for more money, and will tax what they see as surging demand. Why don’t they just legalize marijuana and get it over with?

    2. The various federal health agencies are trying to regain control of the nation’s dietary agenda, and this is how they’re going about “nudging” us the the perceived “right” direction. We are no longer buying enough subsidized commodities, causing the market floor for them to fall, and the government having to step in and subsidize even more than they did before. So why do they keep cutting out their repeat customers by continually cutting food stamps?

    They really need to change the way they decide what crops get subsidized in this country–will they follow demand? No, because that’s self-supporting. Instead, they prefer to stay on the $$ bandwagon originally built by Ancel Keys, and is currently steered by Alice Lichtenstein. That bandwagon continues to haul heaps if people to slaughter through disease and early death, while Wall St. continues to cash in.

  8. […] Will taxing saturated fat actually prevent any deaths? […]

  9. […] HEADLINE: 560-Pound Man Biking Across US To Lose Weight – Fatherhood makes you fat – Will Taxing Saturated Fat Save Lives? by Professor Grant Schofield – How To Avoid The New (Unlabeled) GMO Potatoes – Low chance of obese people recovering […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Richard David Feinman

Richard Feinman, the Other

The Science of Human Potential

Understanding how to be the best you can be. Professor Grant Schofield.

helenkilding

A topnotch WordPress.com site

lowcarbshighfat.com

LCHF, Diet & Health

Eat...Enjoy

Eat real food. Enjoy real health.

%d bloggers like this: