Subscribe
The challenges generated by obesity levels across EU member states have become a recurring and pressing issue within EU-wide political discourse, particularly in health, health economics, food production, and taxation. Obesity is now considered not only a health crisis but a societal issue with profound economic implications, straining national healthcare systems and potentially undermining future economic productivity.
In Ireland, as in other European countries, the obesity rate has been acknowledged as an ‘epidemic’ by both political leaders and health professionals. It has reached such a magnitude that it threatens to reverse favourable trends in life expectancy and could compromise the financial viability of health systems. Recent Healthy Ireland reports indicate that between 21% and 23% of the Irish population are currently living with obesity, with an additional 35% to 37% categorized as overweight. Predictions for the future are concerning, with estimates suggesting that obesity rates in Ireland may rise to 47% by 2035. This projected increase highlights a public health emergency that demands immediate and sustained action.
Ireland’s response to the obesity crisis is outlined in the “A Healthy Weight for Ireland” initiative, more formally known as the Obesity Policy and Action Plan (OPAP), which was launched in September 2016 under the broader Healthy Ireland Framework. The OPAP set ambitious targets over a 10-year period to reverse obesity trends, prevent associated health complications, and reduce the societal and economic burdens linked to obesity. These goals were designed to not only improve individual health but also to relieve pressure on the healthcare system and benefit society at large. Within the OPAP, tackling childhood obesity and reducing socioeconomic disparities in obesity rates are identified as key priorities. Children and adults from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are known to exhibit higher obesity rates, illustrating the complex intersections of health, wealth, and access to resources.
However, when looking at the plan’s implementation, it is challenging to label Ireland’s efforts as a success. The recently published Independent Evaluation of OPAP’s 60 specific “actions” by the School of Public Health at University College Cork (UCC) provides a critical view. This evaluation, covering the period from January 2016 to May 2021, assessed both the rate and extent of implementation for short-, medium-, and long-term goals. While some actions showed high levels of implementation, overall, half of the actions (30 out of 60) were rated as having a medium level of implementation, and 53% (32 out of 60) showed only medium rates of progress. Furthermore, 30% (18 out of 60) were rated with low levels of implementation, while 17% (10 out of 60) showed low progress. An additional 10% of actions (6 out of 60) demonstrated very limited implementation, with 8% (5 out of 60) showing negligible progress. These findings underline the slow and uneven progress in addressing the obesity crisis.
The evaluation report’s conclusion is stark, emphasizing that “the current health status, including the high rates of obesity of people living in Ireland, urgently needs to be addressed through upstream actions targeting our food, physical activity environments, and the wider built environments, together with effective policies and programs.” It calls for a comprehensive approach that extends beyond the health sector, urging policymakers to consider the environmental and societal factors that contribute to obesity.
One of the more controversial measures Ireland has taken is the introduction of the Sugar-Sweetened Drinks Tax (SSDT), implemented on May 1, 2018, and expanded in early 2019 to include additional beverages. This tax aimed to discourage the consumption of sugary drinks, which are linked to obesity and other health issues. However, the effectiveness of this tax remains a subject of debate. An independent evaluation of the SSDT by the Department of Health revealed a lack of baseline data collected at the time of the tax’s introduction, which makes it difficult to assess the tax’s impact robustly. Despite this limitation, the evaluation suggested that while consumer preferences have naturally evolved to favour healthier options, the SSDT may have accelerated the trend of product reformulation by incentivizing manufacturers to reduce sugar content in their drinks.
The evaluation further observed that although the tax revenue has shown a slow decline since 2018, the trends in the available data “highly suggest” that the SSDT has contributed to a reduction in sugar intake from soft drinks. These conclusions are somewhat supported by a 2021 study published in PLOS Medicine, titled “Sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: Lessons to date and the future of taxation.” This study found that while sugar taxes tend to impact high consumers of sugary drinks, the reductions in sugar intake achieved through these taxes alone are insufficient to bring about broad health improvements in a timely manner. To address this, the study suggested increasing current tax rates—currently between 5% and 20% in most regions—to make a more significant impact. However, it also acknowledged that raising taxes could disproportionately affect disadvantaged and lower-income groups, posing a moral and practical dilemma for policymakers.
At a broader level, the European Union has been actively examining strategies to address obesity across its member states. The Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies recently presented an in-depth analysis to the EU’s Subcommittee on Public Health (SANT), outlining developments and challenges in the prevention and management of obesity within the EU. This analysis emphasized the importance of designing supportive environments to prevent obesity and highlighted the need for upskilling healthcare providers to better support individuals living with obesity.
The EU report to SANT included several recommendations, many of which advocate for mandatory measures. For instance, it suggests implementing front-of-pack nutrition labelling, mandatory food composition targets, and compulsory calorie and nutritional information in dining establishments. The report also raises the possibility of a 0% VAT rate on vegetables, which could encourage healthier eating habits by making fresh produce more affordable. While such measures have potential, their effectiveness remains uncertain, especially as the Policy Department itself noted the ongoing struggle in developed countries to curb obesity rates, stating that “countries currently appear incapable” of halting the rise of obesity. This acknowledgment reflects the profound challenge obesity presents, as it requires significant behavioural shifts across entire populations and changes to entrenched food industry practices.
One clear takeaway from the EU’s recommendations is the increasing willingness to embrace extensive regulatory control, both at the state and EU levels. The complex nature of obesity—affected by individual choices, socioeconomic factors, and commercial interests—has led policymakers to view regulation as one of the few remaining tools capable of influencing public health outcomes at scale. However, this approach is not without controversy. Critics argue that regulatory interventions, such as taxes on unhealthy foods or compulsory labelling, can infringe on personal freedoms and disproportionately impact lower-income individuals who may already have limited access to healthy food options.
Moreover, regulatory measures alone are unlikely to solve the obesity crisis. A holistic strategy that includes education, access to healthcare, and community support will be essential. Ireland’s OPAP reflects an understanding of this need by promoting a range of interventions, but the recent evaluation of its implementation shows that progress has been inconsistent. Effective management of obesity requires sustained funding, political commitment, and public engagement to encourage healthier lifestyles. Without these elements, the policies risk being perceived as punitive rather than supportive, which could lead to resistance from the public and from industries impacted by these regulations.
The challenges surrounding obesity are not simply a matter of public health but intersect with broader social and economic issues. Obesity contributes to a host of non-communicable diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers, all of which place a tremendous financial strain on health systems. In Ireland, where healthcare is publicly funded, the rising costs associated with treating obesity-related conditions could become unsustainable. Additionally, obesity has social implications, as it is often stigmatized and can lead to discrimination in areas like employment and education. Tackling obesity, therefore, requires not only policy action but also a cultural shift in how society views and addresses the issue.
In conclusion, the obesity crisis in Ireland and across the EU represents a multifaceted challenge that defies simple solutions. Ireland’s OPAP demonstrates a commendable attempt to address the problem through a structured policy approach, but the lack of significant progress highlights the need for more decisive action and resources. Measures like the SSDT offer a glimpse into how fiscal policies might influence consumer behaviour, but without sufficient baseline data, it remains difficult to measure their true impact. Meanwhile, the EU’s recommendations underscore a trend toward more stringent regulatory measures, which may be necessary to create healthier food environments.
The path forward will likely require a balanced approach that combines regulation with education, community support, and accessible healthcare. As obesity rates continue to rise, policymakers face a crucial test in implementing effective strategies that address both the causes and consequences of this crisis. Without sustained and comprehensive action, the health, social, and economic costs of obesity will continue to mount, posing a significant threat to future generations and the sustainability of healthcare systems across Europe.