Why raise the price of killer foods and not lower the cost of what’s good for us?

 Prime Minister Kenny Anthony: How far is he willing to go to show that the health of Saint Lucians is indeed a priority for his government?

Prime Minister Kenny Anthony: How far is he willing to go to show that the health of Saint Lucians is indeed a priority for his government?

In his attempt to solicit support for his removal of a subsidy on brown sugar, the finance minister sought to sell this entirely fiscal-adjustment measure as inspired by the need to address the prominence of non-communicable diseases in Saint Lucia, especially diabetes.

That shoe-salesman’s pitch was not without its special sweetener and MPs on the government side gobbled it up during the just concluded 2014/2015 Budget. By all they said on the occasion, the opposition seemed to agree too much sugar was bad and went out of their way not to buy the sugar-coated bitter pill that the prime minister sought to sell them.

Meanwhile, as an observer I couldn’t help wondering: Is that the best this government can do for diabetes in Saint Lucia? What had they done for all the diabetics who cannot help themselves and for whom the prime minister’s pill is too little too late?

How impressive it might’ve been had the health minister informed the House of what her ministry was doing about the widespread diabetes plague? Instead government MPs spoke in general terms about the effects of too much sugar, about their own personal habits and so on.

Why couldn’t they have rolled out a solid track record and statistics specifically to illustrate and signify the government’s contribution to a National Diabetes Programme that provides screening, treatment and support, sensitization, education, management and counselling services to the public, and more importantly to people already suffering from the disease. What the government seemed to be saying was that they do not trust the public to exercise their judgement in their own personal best interest.

That approach, along with the citation of the relevant policy document on non-communicable diseases, including diabetes and lifestyles, would have been a far more convincing premise to have adopted in the House.

But to have raised a hue and cry in 2014 that sugar should be made more expensive so as to deter over-consumption by Saint Lucians was duplicitous, an insult to the nation’s intelligence.  All their verbiage amounted to was a very, very late and quite convenient response, years shy of a situation which was declared to be dire way back in 2007, when the findings of the study conducted by urologist Dr. Michael Graven (who screened more than 31,000 Saint Lucians)  stated that 8.1 per cent of the population was diabetic.

“The state of diabetes in St Lucia is tantamount to a public health disaster, much like a hurricane with catastrophic rates,” Dr. Graven said at the time.

At this time the island is not even attracting the kind of headlines it did back then.

For example, a CMC headline: “St Lucia Has World’s Highest Level of Diabetes – Study” April 13, 2007. Why didn’t the political lobbyists who stood in the House in May of this year call for an increase in the price of brown sugar in 2007? Better late than never? Are we talking here about a government that cares?

One may speculate that if they had done this, the UWP government of the day may have responded positively to their call. Sadly, we may never fully understand why MPs, who surely know better, have made brown sugar the villain, the most lethal product to use if one has diabetes.

Given the emphasis on refined sugar one wonders if a diabetic who does not consume sugar yet drinks and smokes will be any better off? It cannot have escaped those who listened to what passed for a budget debate a few weeks that nothing was done or said to deter people from consuming cigarettes and alcohol.

The relevance of the government’s line of reasoning again becomes dubious when one takes into consideration that many, if not most, of those with the disease actually inherited it. When one analyses the ways in which diabetics control their illness, it may not mean they’re mandated to blacklist sugar (as many will tell you that they need to keep a sweet handy at all times, lest their sugar goes to the other extreme) but instead to limit their consumption of sugar in all its forms; be it from fruits, nuts and vegetables or processed foods.

Moreover diabetes and hypertension go almost hand in glove in this country. So when a patient is diagnosed with both diseases it often means the individual must undertake a major dietary overhaul.  So if people are to be penalized for eating unhealthy foods, shouldn’t health-promoting foods be made more affordable?

In 2007, when he was Saint Lucia’s health minister, Stephenson King addressed the diabetes statistics. He said then that the government would make a number of interventions, such as formulating policies and developing programmes to change people’s lifestyles.

“In a sense this information has been timely as the ministry is at a critical juncture where we are seeking to refocus our health programs,” he said back in the day. “This will encourage renewed approaches and develop ideas that will help us fulfill the provision of total health to our people.”

It is fair to imagine that these efforts he alluded to publicly were implemented and have borne fruit. Since government is a continuum, no matter which administration may be holding the reins of leadership, whatever good thing there was should’ve been kept in place and improved. There is no need to embellish. That fiscal measures have to be put in place given our currently shaky economic standing is a given. There is no need for showboating on these matters.

“Mr Speaker, the prominence of non-communicable diseases, especially diabetes in Saint Lucia, alludes to excess consumption of processed foods and refined sugars. When the price paid for an item does not accurately reflect the cost, this
leads to over-indulgence of the item. To avoid perpetuating unhealthy decisions in the population, these items should reflect their true cost.”

This level of reasoning cannot hold for ten cents.

— Alexis B. Montgomery

Share your feedback with us.

5 Responses to Why raise the price of killer foods and not lower the cost of what’s good for us?

  1. Fer De Lance says:

    Kenny “Disaster” Anthony is a dangerous debt hurricane, things are going to get much worse.

  2. Freelace says:


  3. John Joseph says:

    the real cause of their problem and doing something creative about it. The source of woe being this diabolic Government. So fete every weekend, every conceivable holiday alcohol is cheap and plentiful. So don’t blame sugar. Please?

  4. John Joseph says:

    So why sugar subsidies as the cure? Why not deter the consumption by high taxation against alcohol for the good and health of the nation? If what the PM says is true he is acting in the interest of the nations health why stop short of the real culprit? No Kenny all you are interested in is trying to keep Gov’t coffers from running dry due the excess of your inefficient Government. You do so at the expense of the poor, and at the lack of imaginative and creative your intellectual capacity. Come again full me twice sir. You won’t raise tax on liquid as it serves your purpose to keep lucians boozing themselves to death to drown away their woes instead of being sober to think logically about…

  5. John Joseph says:

    I concur with this writer 100%. But when wickedness and deceit abounds in the heart then the deceiver plays with the gullible who drinks the wine of deceit. The Gov’t is bankrupt of ideas, and their gross ineptitude produces this absurd brand of governance. Sugar? Wow! Hit the poor where it hurts Kenny. These miserable ingrates who had the audacity to remove you from office, will continue to pay the price for believing the devil had changed and become a saint. How sweet. Who doesn’t know that our consumption of alcohol in large doses at every turn and all opportunities is the greatest contributing factor to our diabetic problem, Triggering the decease in those prone due to heredity. So…

← Go Back | bbApp | Commentary Back to Top ↑
THE STAR Newspaper
Magazines available in THE STAR Newspaper
2Nite Magazine for Saturday October 1st, 2016 ~ Issue no. 204
2nite Magazine
Sports & Health Magazine for October 1st, 2016 ~ Issue no. 112
Sports & Health Inc

Lifestyle & Archives

  • 2Nite Magazine TV

    2Nite Magazine's Candid Camera

    You never know where 2Nite Magazine will capture you next. You may very well be the next one 'caught on candid camera' at the next event!! If its HIP and its HAPPENING, then its in 2Nite! Hosted by: Faye-Chantelle Mondesir (Empress Faye)

    Posted by 2nite Magazine on Friday, 22 January 2016
  • Contact us via WhatsApp with news on 1 758 720 2896

    What's App
    Send us your news or contact us with your story via What's App.
  • Sound your voice and cast your ballot!

  • Poll for the week

    See all polls and results
  • TALK or VENT here!

    TALK or VENT constructively and share your feedback on our weekly news and stories. CONSTRUCTIVE talk is welcome. You have a voice with The STAR Newspaper!
    TALK or VENT constructively and share your feedback on our weekly news and stories. CONSTRUCTIVE talk is welcome. You have a voice with The STAR Newspaper!
  • Subscribe for latest news and updates

    Enter your email address to subscribe and receive latest news and updates via email.

  • The St.Lucia STAR Newspaper

  • STAR Articles