Appreciate this breakdown of the report. It's interesting that most of the costs are borne in high-income countries. Is it because the methodology values the "human capital" in those areas higher? (E.g. based on earnings lost to illness or value of statistical life years?)
Thanks a great question and I should have included that in the piece! It is pretty much what you say. On page 36 of the report, the authors calculated the hidden costs per capita and found that "populations in high-income countries generate the highest indirect costs". Another line: "The main reason the average person in a high-income country generates almost double the costs of a person in an upper-middle-income country is that the productivity losses from unhealthy dietary patterns are also double, due to higher labour productivity per capita."
One other interesting thing I didn't add because this was already getting quite long, was the fact that high-income countries also had high levels of incentives and subsidies linked to production, input use or other factors of production. From the report: "This strong reliance on coupled subsidies has the potential to distort prices and discourage the production of nutritious foods that do not receive the same level of support. Similarly, evidence shows that in these countries, commodities with the largest carbon footprint, such as beef, milk and rice, were among those most supported by price incentives."
That methodology makes sense in narrow economic terms, and after all, it sounds like the goal of the report was to measure economic costs. But it's always slightly uncomfortable to me when illness among some groups of people is considered more costly than illness among others...
Appreciate this breakdown of the report. It's interesting that most of the costs are borne in high-income countries. Is it because the methodology values the "human capital" in those areas higher? (E.g. based on earnings lost to illness or value of statistical life years?)
Thanks a great question and I should have included that in the piece! It is pretty much what you say. On page 36 of the report, the authors calculated the hidden costs per capita and found that "populations in high-income countries generate the highest indirect costs". Another line: "The main reason the average person in a high-income country generates almost double the costs of a person in an upper-middle-income country is that the productivity losses from unhealthy dietary patterns are also double, due to higher labour productivity per capita."
One other interesting thing I didn't add because this was already getting quite long, was the fact that high-income countries also had high levels of incentives and subsidies linked to production, input use or other factors of production. From the report: "This strong reliance on coupled subsidies has the potential to distort prices and discourage the production of nutritious foods that do not receive the same level of support. Similarly, evidence shows that in these countries, commodities with the largest carbon footprint, such as beef, milk and rice, were among those most supported by price incentives."
Thanks for sharing this!
That methodology makes sense in narrow economic terms, and after all, it sounds like the goal of the report was to measure economic costs. But it's always slightly uncomfortable to me when illness among some groups of people is considered more costly than illness among others...
I totally agree with you.