Dear Editor,
I write to pay kudos to the fantastic editorial that appeared in SN on 22 October 2019 (`Our snack foods imports bill’). The Editorial is informative, analytical, insightful and timely but perhaps it will fly over the heads of those who are responsible for the nation’s overall health. More pieces like that editorial examining aspects of our living and working conditions are needed.
Our imported snack bill is simply stunning. It appears that we spend $10.9 billion on imported snacks (annually?), which translates into $14,700 for each person living in the country. In terms of USD, this is at least US$66 per man, woman and child! Simply incredible. Abbie prapa gat wan sweet tongue!
Perhaps because of space constraints, the Editorial did not endeavour to talk about the adverse effects of such snacks on health. There is now a tendency to put snacks into two broad groups: healthy and unhealthy. From what I can tell by browsing the shelves of supermarkets, we mainly consume unhealthy snacks. Such snacks are calorie-dense, contain lots of sugar and sodium (salt) and perhaps other health-damaging substances. The sheer amount we spend on unhealthy snacks can only add to the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Today about 70 percent of all deaths in Guyana is attributed to NCDs. Our primitive, dilapidated and wholly inadequate health system lacks the capacity and resources to handle the present load of NCDs, which can only be expected to grow. Health problems from the consumption of unhealthy snacks range from dental issues, such as cavities and more frequent extractions, to obesity and associated diseases, including diabetes and cardiovascular events. It is little known that oral health is crucial to one’s overall state of health.
In effect we are paying hard-earned foreign exchange to ruin our health. The problem is that most of us who consume these snacks do not know we are ruining our health. Another issue, which I think is probably more prevalent in rural areas, is the idea that “wha na kill, a fatten.” This is where a public health education programme is crucial. A fine example of such a programme is the conquest of ankylostomiasis – hookworms – in Guyana during the second decade of the 20th century. The public health education programme unleashed by the British and Americans did wonders. According to the Rocke-feller Foundation (1915: 8), The work “is essentially educational: it is teaching the people by demonstration” (emphasis supplied). The field directors of the programmes, working with villagers, told the story of ankylostomiasis in “varied graphic forms and in terms so simple that the common man, though he be illiterate, may see and understand.” I am afraid a similar educational programme may be necessary to wean us off unhealthy snacks.
Another way to cut down on the consumption of imported garbage is to impose import restrictions, which can be a complicated affair. An even more attractive option is to impose a tariff on such snacks. There is simply no sensible reason why a poor country spends its hard-earned foreign exchange to ruin the health of its people, which negatively impacts productivity and the allocation of social expenditure and thus overall health.
Yours faithfully,
Ramesh Gampat
