Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177
Anne Marie Thow et al. Impact of sugars guidelines on farmers
This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders Implications for farmers of measures to reduce sugar consumption Anne Marie Thow,a Raphael A Lencucha,b Kieron Rooney,a Stephen Colagiuria & Manfred Lenzenc a Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, D17, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia. b School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Quebec, Canada. c School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Correspondence to Anne Marie Thow (email: [email protected]). (Submitted: 16 December 2019 – Revised version received: 25 September 2020 – Accepted: 1 October 2020 – Published online: 4 November 2020) Abstract Objective To estimate the impact on sugar farmers globally of reduced consumption of free sugars, in line with World Health Organization recommendations. Methods Using multiregion input–output analysis, we estimated the proportional impact on production volumes of a 1% reduction in free sugars consumption by the public. We extracted data on sugar production from the Food and Agriculture Organization database for the top 15 sugar cane and beet producing countries globally, and created a custom multiregion input–output database to assess the proportions of production going to human consumption, drawing on household expenditure surveys and national input–output databases (data valid for years 2000– 2015). We also considered the impact on production volumes in relation to countries’ gross domestic product. Findings A high proportion of current sugar production from these countries goes to human consumption, and would thus be impacted by reduced consumption of sugars. The largest impacts on cane sugar production, and thus on farmers, would likely occur in Brazil, China, India and Thailand and on beet production in Belarus, Germany, Russian Federation and United States of America. Conclusion A global opportunity exists for public health leadership to bring together the health, economic, environmental and agriculture sectors to collaborate and build capacity for promotion of alternate livelihoods for sugar farmers. Lessons regarding strategy and the importance of political economy factors can be learnt from tobacco control measures. Further research to quantify the impact of reductions in sugars consumption would provide useful insights for designing policies to complement and strengthen efforts to improve diets and health. Introduction Consumption of free sugars (sugars other than those naturally occurring in intact fruit, vegetables and milk) is associated with dental caries, increased body weight and poor-quality
Page 1 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 diets.1–3 In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) published Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children.4 The guideline recommended that consumption of free sugars comprise no more than 10% of dietary energy, while suggesting the additional benefits of a reduction to less than 5% of dietary energy. These recommendations contribute to WHO’s efforts to prevent nutrition- and diet-related noncommunicable diseases. However, consumption worldwide appears to continue to exceed these recommendations, with a review of studies from 1995–2012 indicating around 13–24% of dietary energy coming from sugars.5 An Australian analysis found that 56% of the study population of 8203 had usual intakes of free sugars above 10% of daily energy intakes in 2011–2012, and the average intake for children and adolescents was over 20%.6 In Switzerland in a study of 2057 people, only 8% consumed 5% or less of energy intake from sugars.7 Based on these estimates of consumption, achievement of these recommendations would, at a conservative estimate, require at least a 25% decrease in current levels of free sugars consumption. This change would likely have significant health benefits globally, in line with the contribution of high- sugar intakes to poorer diet-related health.1–3
In response to recommendations to decrease consumption of sugars, momentum for policy intervention has been growing. Fiscal policies such as taxes targeting sugar-sweetened beverages have been implemented in more than 40 countries worldwide; over 20 countries have instituted national efforts to promote product reformulation; and front-of-pack nutrition labels have been introduced in over 30 countries.8 However, as government health departments have sought to implement these nutrition policy interventions, economists from industry and within governments have raised concerns about the economic impacts along the supply chain, including adverse effects on the economic livelihoods of sugar farmers. For example, industry stakeholders have raised concerns about the impact on sugar farmers in Australia, South Africa and Thailand in response to proposals for taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.9,10 Sugar farming – in addition to the processing and retail sale of high-sugar foods – contributes to the economy in many countries, and is thus also a political issue. In Australia, for example, politicians and industry representatives have publicly criticized public health recommendations to decrease sugars consumption, arguing that it puts the livelihoods of 6000 sugar-cane farmers at risk.11
These arguments about the potentially negative economic impacts of public health interventions resonate with governments’ core economic and development objectives, particularly when delivered by powerful economic stakeholders.12 Such discourse is
Page 2 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 reminiscent of tobacco control, in which arguments based on economic costs have been mobilized to stifle tobacco control policies.13 However, unlike tobacco, which is grown primarily for human consumption, sugars are used in a range of industrial processes and non- food commodities, such as biofuels and paint thinner. Information is needed on how much sugar is destined for human (as distinct from industrial) consumption, to understand the potential impact on producers.
If sugar farmers were affected by reduced consumption of free sugars, the public health community would need to engage with issues of production, to support demand-side interventions to reduce sugars consumption while protecting the livelihoods of farmers. Sugar farmers in developing countries are often poor and relatively unskilled.14 Ignoring the negative impacts on such communities will thus be detrimental to broader public health outcomes. In addition, based on experience with tobacco control, complementing demand- focused reduction policies with supply-focused policies can enhance both the political acceptability and the effectiveness of interventions.15
This study was designed to generate evidence on the scale and geographical distribution of the impact on sugars production arising from reductions in the public’s consumption of high-sugar food and beverages, in line with global recommendations. We estimated the potential impacts of reducing consumption of sugars on the volume of sugars produced. We hope the results will contribute to the conversation about the potential for the global public health community to support alternative livelihoods for sugar farmers.
Methods We used a multiregion input–output analysis approach to estimate the proportional impact on production volumes of a 1% reduction in free sugars consumption by the public. To understand the impact of changes in sugars consumption on farmers, it is necessary to follow complex supply chains from sugar farmers to end products, to identify whether and where production would likely be affected. Refined forms of sugars, a type of free sugars identified by the WHO as harmful to human health, are produced from sugar cane, beet and corn (namely high-fructose corn syrup). These free sugars are consumed directly as table sugar or in processed foods. Although corn is a source of global sugar consumption, we excluded corn from the analysis because we were unable to differentiate between corn products present in processed foods as sugars (that is, high-fructose corn syrup) and in other forms (in particular, as thickening agents and emulsifiers).
Page 3 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 Sugars can reach consumers along many supply routes, including direct purchase of raw or refined sugar, incorporated in other food products such as confectionery, soft drinks or condiments, and via catering services and restaurant meals. Sugars are also contained in products not relevant to this analysis, including food not destined for human consumption, such as pet food and animal feed, and non-food items such as biofuels. Global supply chains can be assessed quantitatively using multiregion input–output analysis.
For this study, we used the Global Multi-Region Input–Output Laboratory,16 a cloud- computing platform for compiling large-scale, multiregion input–output databases. We generated a custom data set (a set of specific tables) to map flows of material, starting from sugar cane and beet production, to sugar refining and syrup manufacturing, through to the incorporation of sugars into specific food products for human consumption (Box 1). Because primary national accounts data are released intermittently by the various statistical bureaus, the information we used was generally valid for years 2000–2015. The tables constructed on the platform break down the global economy into 67 sectors in 220 countries; and between these into more than 200 million intermediate transactions. As common in multiregion input– output compilations, these transactions are supported only by a few million primary data points, so that a large part of the elements are the result of a constrained optimization or reconciliation process; more detail about this process is provided elsewhere.33
The second phase of our analysis examined the volume of sugars production that ends up in a wide range of high-sugar consumer products, including sugars added at the household level (table sugar) and sugars added to processed foods and beverages. We aimed to estimate the reduction in volume of production of beet and cane sugar arising from a 1% reduction in consumption of these products. This amount corresponds to the current proportion of production that is destined for human consumption in high-sugar food products. For example, 0.7 means that 70% of production goes to human consumption in sugar-containing products, such that if final (consumer) demand goes down by 1%, production goes down by 0.7%. We then used this estimate to consider the potential impact of a 25% reduction, based on the evidence presented in the Introduction. The reason for the 1% setting is that the input–output framework provides a static snapshot of current economic structure that would likely apply to a situation in which a 1% reduction in one consumption category occurred. A 25% reduction would probably lead to a different economic structure that this input–output framework would no longer capture. Our impact estimates assumed an infinitely elastic, linear response of production. In reality, slack production capacity and price effects will lead to deviation
Page 4 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 from the linearity assumed here. What we report here is thus only an indication of which direction the production of the sugars supply chain would move if consumption were to be reduced.
We also obtained data from the World Development Indicators34 on the gross domestic product (GDP) of each country, and on the proportion of GDP contributed by the agriculture sector. We used GDP as a reference point when interpreting the implications of changes to sugar production, in relation to the size of a country’s economy and relative dependence on agriculture.
Results The volume of annual global production of sugar cane in 2017 was 1833 million tonnes and sugar beet was 301 million tonnes.35 Multiregion input–output analysis for sugar cane and beet showed that around 61% and 71% of production, respectively, is directly destined for human food consumption (Table 1).
We found that public health interventions to reduce sugars consumption by at least 25% globally, to align with recommendations, would likely have an impact on sugar farmers in the major sugar-producing countries (Table 2; Table 3). Cane producers in Brazil, China, India and Thailand will be especially affected because of the large scale of production in these countries; over 100 million tonnes per year (Table 2). This decrease in production is likely to be of concern to industry stakeholders and policy-makers because cane sugar production is an important industry. For China, this concern is acute because our analysis indicates that 100% of the production goes to human consumption in the form of high-sugar products (that is, a 1% decrease in consumption will result in a 1% decrease in cane-sugar production, so a 25% decrease in consumption would affect production proportionally). Similarly, in Colombia and Indonesia, all the sugar production goes to high-sugar products. A further seven of the top-producing countries have 60–90% of production going to human consumption in the form of high-sugar products. In contrast, although Brazil is by far the largest producer of sugar cane in absolute terms (759 million tonnes of the world’s 1833 million tonnes) a relatively low proportion of sugar-cane production will be affected due to only 20% of production being destined for high-sugar foods. This outcome is primarily because about 60% of sugar cane grown in Brazil goes to biofuels.36 Eight of the 15 countries analysed have relatively small economies, less than 500 billion United States dollars (US$) in total, which suggests the economic impact of reduced production may be of higher concern
Page 5 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 than in larger economies. Notably, in Colombia, Pakistan and Viet Nam nearly all sugar production goes to human consumption, while agriculture comprises 10–20% of the countries’ gross domestic product (GDP).
The major sugar-beet producing countries are France, Germany, Russian Federation and United States of America (Table 3). For all these countries except France, 70–100% of the beet produced is destined for human consumption in high-sugar products and thus production would likely be significantly affected by reductions in demand. In France, Poland and Turkey, beet is also used for production of biofuels, alcohol and animal feed.37 Although beet production is a relatively smaller sector in terms of absolute production in Belarus and China, farmers are likely to be concerned because all of their production goes to human consumption. Similarly, seven other countries in the top 15 producers have 50–60% of their production going to human consumption. Among the top beet producers, Belarus, Czechia, Egypt, Islamic Republic of Iran and Ukraine have relatively small economies (GDP less than US$ 500 billion), for which estimated reductions in production may be of higher concern. China and the USA are the only countries that are major producers of both sugar cane and beet.
Discussion Our study indicates that a high proportion of sugar production among the top global sugar beet- and cane-producing countries is destined for human consumption. As such, a reduction in sugars consumption of 25% or more could impact on sugar farmers in the 25 top- producing countries we analysed. The magnitude of this impact would vary according to the economic and agricultural context in each country, but at the global level, our findings suggest the need for complementary policy interventions to mitigate the potential impacts on farmers. It should be noted, however, that a decrease in demand for sugars may lead to increased demand for other (healthy or unhealthy) agricultural commodities. Through targeted policy intervention, it is possible to support farmers to switch to healthier alternative crops.38 Policy action could also incentivize different supply chains for some crops used for sugar that are used for human consumption in different forms. Both corn and beet are important staple commodities that in whole form can be used in a variety of healthy foods. We identified countries that are likely to be the most affected, in particular countries with large volumes of sugar production and countries within which a high proportion of production is destined for human consumption. Our analysis therefore also indicates where concerns regarding the employment impacts of policies are most likely to arise.
Page 6 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 Tobacco control efforts can provide insights relevant to sugar policy because of the similar focus on reducing consumption of a single commodity that is of economic importance for many countries. The inclusion of commitments on alternative livelihoods for tobacco farmers was an important provision in gaining global acceptance for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Article 17).39 It might be argued that a 25% reduction in consumption of sugars could only generate relatively moderate impacts on farmers. However, experience from tobacco control suggests that provisions for farmers were pivotal to gaining support for tobacco control measures, even though actual impacts on farmers are often small. Evidence on the economic livelihoods of smallholder tobacco farmers indicate that profits from tobacco growing are often minimal and at times non-existent.40 However, even where potential economic impacts are minimal, they can still be used effectively to influence policy- makers. In China, for example, employment from the tobacco industry is a major concern of policy-makers. Even though studies show that the impact on employment of increased tobacco control measures would be minimal and there would be significant numbers of lives saved, the Chinese government has still used the impact on employment as a reason not to raise tobacco taxes.41 Even relatively small reductions in sugar production related to consumption declines may thus trigger economic concerns about farmers.
The experience from tobacco control also highlights the underlying tension between government efforts to improve public health, and efforts to support and foster cash crops (including tobacco and sugar) to increase economic growth. In many situations the economic side of government has objectives that align with industry concerns to maintain existing tobacco and sugar industries.12 For example, the Zambian government (after ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2008) has actively supported tobacco production and processing through policy incentives.42 These shared economic objectives mean that industry concerns regarding the potentially negative economic effects of tobacco control on production and farmers are generally taken seriously by governments. Also, economic objectives are justified to some extent by evidence that without intervention, phasing out tobacco farming can reduce farmers’ incomes and overall employment.43 These concerns are also fostered by strategic action by tobacco companies to oppose changes to their core business model, namely, to continue to produce and sell tobacco at a low cost. These strategies include lobbying government; mobilizing evidence and arguments on the cost of regulation; attempting to discredit the science that illustrates the benefits of
Page 7 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 regulation; and appealing to the public desire for freedom of choice. Similar actions have been observed in food industry efforts to influence regulation on healthy diets.13
Implementation of global recommendations for alternative livelihoods for tobacco farmers has been limited. Successful approaches have included training and education of farmers regarding alternative crops, often through integration into government agricultural extension activities.44 At the global level, these efforts have been supported by the establishment of a United Nations study group on alternative crops. Analysis has shown that interventions for diversification and adoption of alternative crops have been effective and also profitable for farmers, when supported by robust supply chains.45 To successfully promote the adoption of alternative crops to tobacco, farmers must have access to guaranteed markets and support in the form of access to inputs (seeds, fertilizer, tools) and finance.46
Our analysis suggests there is an emerging imperative for the public health community to support alternative livelihoods for sugar farmers; to address potential equity impacts resulting from decreased demand; and to support policy action to reduce sugars consumption – including through forestalling industry concerns regarding impacts on sugar farmers.
Lessons from tobacco control highlight that the promotion of alternative livelihoods for sugar farmers is not solely a technical issue; power and politics associated with governance of supply chains will be a challenge. As with tobacco control, part of the challenge lies with conflicting mandates and institutional practices across sectors, particularly among the health, agricultural and economic sectors. This disconnection is in part a response to persuasive lobbying by the sugar industry.12 As such, it will be necessary to build the capacity of public health stakeholders to engage across sectors, to frame alternative livelihoods as a whole-of-government issue, and to counter the arguments of the sugar industry.
A key opportunity for the global public health community, including WHO, is supporting – and providing leadership for – an intersectoral, alternative livelihood agenda in relation to sugars production through strategic stakeholder engagement and capacity- building. Diversification out of sugar production has a role to play in sustainable development. There are potential benefits in seeking partnerships with economic, agricultural and environmental agencies at the global and national level. In particular, investment in alternative livelihoods for sugar farmers could contribute to improved livelihoods, reduced
Page 8 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 vulnerability, increased agricultural diversity and environmental sustainability.47 There are a few alternative crops that have been identified as appropriate, considering environmental and soil-related factors. These include sorghum,48 which is also a staple food crop in many sub- Saharan African countries, as well as sunflower crops and mung beans,49 both of which would also support increased availability of healthier foods. In addition – and in marked contrast to tobacco – there is an opportunity for public health stakeholders to encourage diversification in the end-use of sugar crops. For example, lending political support or technical support (such as consideration of impacts in sugar-related public health evaluations) to the production of biofuels from sugar cane or animal feeds from beets.50
There is also scope for further public health research on this issue to support intersectoral action. Creating a custom, global, multiregion input–output database for the sugar supply-chain network has enabled us to estimate the current proportion of sugar-beet and sugar-cane production destined for human consumption. We were also able to determine the location of producers who would likely be affected by reductions in sugars consumption, in line with global recommendations. However, a limitation of the study is that we were not able to analyse the complex supply-chain interactions and impacts on sugar production that would arise from a 25% or greater reduction in consumption. Nor were we able to estimate the differential impacts on farmers within countries. To address this limitation would require more complex modelling, although this in turn would be subject to a range of limitations due to the necessary assumptions arising from limited availability of data. We were also not able to quantify the differential impacts on production due to changes in sugars consumption in different countries. Further research specifically addressing these geographical differentials in consumption would add more nuance to the estimation of impacts on production. We were not able to include corn-derived sugars in the analysis due to the presence of corn in processed food in multiple forms. Further research on corn-derived sugars and potential implications for farmers of alternative sweeteners being used as a replacement for sugar would provide additional insights into the shifts in production dynamics resulting from changes in sugar consumption.
In conclusion, this analysis has confirmed that a large proportion of sugar production in the major sugar-producing countries is destined for human consumption, with over 25 countries potentially adversely affected by public health measures to reduce consumption of sugars on farmers. There are potential equity issues associated with loss of livelihoods which make it unacceptable for the public health community to ignore the negative impact on
Page 9 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 farmers. There is thus a global opportunity for public health leadership, particularly by WHO, to bring together the health, economic, environmental and agriculture sectors to collaborate and build capacity for identifying opportunities for promotion of alternative livelihoods for sugar farmers.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Penelope Elix.
Competing interests: None declared.
References 1. Moynihan PJ, Kelly SAM. Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: systematic review to inform WHO guidelines. J Dent Res. 2014 Jan;93(1):8–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034513508954 PMID:24323509 2. Te Morenga L, Mallard S, Mann J. Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ. 2012 01 15;346 jan15 3:e7492. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7492 PMID:23321486 3. Louie JCY, Tapsell LC. Association between intake of total vs added sugar on diet quality: a systematic review. Nutr Rev. 2015 Dec;73(12):837–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuv044 PMID:26449366 4. Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/149782?locale=en [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 5. Newens KJ, Walton J. A review of sugar consumption from nationally representative dietary surveys across the world. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2016 Apr;29(2):225–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12338 PMID:26453428 6. Lei L, Rangan A, Flood VM, Louie JCY. Dietary intake and food sources of added sugar in the Australian population. Br J Nutr. 2016 Mar 14;115(5):868–77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114515005255 PMID:26794833 7. Chatelan A, Gaillard P, Kruseman M, Keller A. Total, added, and free sugar consumption and adherence to guidelines in Switzerland: results from the First National Nutrition Survey menuCH. Nutrients. 2019 05 19;11(5):1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051117 PMID:31109151 8. NOURISHING framework. Our policy framework to promote healthy diets and reduce obesity [internet]. London: World Cancer Research Fund International; 2017. Available from: http://www.wcrf.org/int/policy/nourishing-framework [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 9. Sugar imports and sugar tax major risks to South Africa industry’s profitability. Sugar Asia Magazine. 2019 Apr 25. Available from: http://sugar- asia.com/sugar-imports-and-sugar-tax-major-risks-to-south-africa-industrys- profitability/ [cited 2019 Jun 30].
Page 10 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 10. Iwamoto K. Southeast Asian sugar taxes: bitter pills for better health. Nikkei Asian Review. 2019 Mar 12. Available from: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Southeast-Asian-sugar-taxes- Bitter-pills-for-better-health [cited 2019 Jun 30]. 11. Boswell R. In defence of sugar: Boswell speaks out. Australian Canegrower. 2012 Mar 5. 12. Lencucha R, Thow AM. Intersectoral policy on industries that produce unhealthy commodities: governing in a new era of the global economy? BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):e002246. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002246 PMID:32816826 13. Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank Q. 2009 Mar;87(1):259– 94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x PMID:19298423 14. Phillips N, Sakamoto L. Global production networks, chronic poverty and ‘slave labour’in Brazil. Stud Comp Int Dev. 2012;47(3):287–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-012-9101-z 15. Warner KE. The economics of tobacco: myths and realities. Tob Control. 2000 Mar;9(1):78–89. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.9.1.78 PMID:10691761 16. Lenzen M, Geschke A, Abd Rahman MD, Xiao Y, Fry J, Reyes R, et al. The Global MRIO Lab – charting the world economy. Econ Syst Res. 2017;29(2):158–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2017.1301887 17. Consumer expenditure surveys. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labour Statistics; 2018. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/cex/csxresearchtables.htm#allnew [cited 2019 Oct 20]. 18. Global consumption database [internet]. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2017. Available from: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/consumption/ [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 19. Table A35. In: Detailed household expenditure by countries and regions. London: Office for National Statistics; 2018. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhousehol dfinances/expenditure/datasets/detailedhouseholdexpenditurebycountriesandr egionsuktablea35 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 20. Bottled water in China. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2017. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets- and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/reports/sector-trend- analysis-bottled-water-in-china/?id=1486580447145 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 21. Confectionery products in Japan. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2018. Available from: http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry- markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/reports/sector- trend-analysis-confectionery-products-in-japan/?id=1532111027726 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 22. Sweet spreads in China. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric- Food Canada; 2019. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry- markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/reports/sector-
Page 11 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 trend-analysis-sweet-spreads-in-china/?id=1547060997729 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 23. Market overview – Indonesia. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2016. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry- markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/reports/market- overview-indonesia/?id=1475075685743 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 24. Confectionery trends in China. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2018. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry- markets-and-trade/international-agri-food-market-intelligence/reports/sector- trend-analysis-confectionery-trends-in-china/?id=1523044987944 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 25. Confectionery in the United Arab Emirates. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2017. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/Internet-Internet/MISB-DGSIM/ATS- SEA/PDF/6877-eng.pdf [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 26. Sugar confectionery in Belgium. Sector trend analysis. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agric-Food Canada; 2017. Available from: https://www.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/Internet-Internet/MISB-DGSIM/ATS- SEA/PDF/6841-eng.pdf [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 27. Input output transactions table 2007–2008. Publication reports. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation; 2012. Available from: http://mospi.nic.in/publication/input-output-transactions-table-2007-08 [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 28. Table 7: materials consumed by kind. In: Soft drink manufacturing. Economic census, Manufacturing Industry Series. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration; 1999. Available from: https://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/97m3121a.pdf [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 29. Input-output accounts data. Use table after redefinitions data from the 2007 benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts [internet]. Suitland: Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2013. Available from: https://www.bea.gov/industry/input- output-accounts-data [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 30. Input-output matrix. [internet]. Rio de Janeiro: Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Ministry of Planning and Budget; 2019. Portuguese. Available from: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/economicas/contas- nacionais/9085-matriz-de-insumo-produto.html?=&t=downloads [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 31. Total transactions at BPS buyer prices. 2008. [internet]. Jakarta: Central Bureau of Statistics; 2019. Indonesian. Available from: https://www.bps.go.id/statictable/2016/01/06/1897/transaksi-domestik-atas- dasar-harga-dasar-2010.html [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 32. Lan J, Malik A, Lenzen M, McBain D, Kanemoto K. A structural decomposition analysis of global energy footprints. Appl Energy. 2016;163:436–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.178
Page 12 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 33. Lenzen M, Kanemoto K, Moran D, Geschke A. Mapping the structure of the world economy. Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Aug 7;46(15):8374–81. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300171x PMID:22794089 34. World development indicators: economy theme. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. Available from: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development- indicators/themes/economy.html [cited 2020 Apr 23]. 35. FAOSTAT data: crops [internet]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2019. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC [cited 2019 Apr 15]. 36. Ionova A, Teixeira M. Betting on ethanol, Brazilian mills turn sour on sugar [internet]. Reuters Business News. 2018 Dec 3. Available from: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-6453951/Betting-ethanol- Brazilian-mills-turn-sour-sugar.html [cited 2019 Oct 2]. 37. Marzo C, Díaz AB, Caro I, Blandino A. Chapter 4: Status and perspectives in bioethanol production from sugar beet. In: Ray RC, Ramachandran S, editors. Bioethanol production from food crops: sustainable sources, interventions, and challenges. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2019. pp. 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813766-6.00004-7 38. Lencucha R, Pal NE, Appau A, Thow A-M, Drope J. Government policy and agricultural production: a scoping review to inform research and policy on healthy agricultural commodities. Global Health. 2020 01 20;16(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-0542-2 PMID:31959213 39. Weishaar H, Collin J, Smith K, Grüning T, Mandal S, Gilmore A. Global health governance and the commercial sector: a documentary analysis of tobacco company strategies to influence the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001249 PMID:22745607 40. Magati P, Lencucha R, Li Q, Drope J, Labonte R, Appau AB, et al. Costs, contracts and the narrative of prosperity: an economic analysis of smallholder tobacco farming livelihoods in Kenya. Tob Control. 2019 05;28(3):268–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054213 PMID:29967193 41. Hu T-W, Lee AH, Mao Z. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in China: barriers, challenges and recommendations. Glob Health Promot Educ. 2013 Dec;20(4):13–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975913501910 PMID:24297769 42. Lencucha R, Drope J, Labonte R, Zulu R, Goma F. Investment incentives and the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: evidence from Zambia. Tob Control. 2016 07;25(4):483–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052250 PMID:26135987 43. Kienle U, Manos B, Jungbluth T. Alternatives to tobacco cultivation –towards an evidence based approach. Land Use Policy. 2015;45:199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.009 44. Sinha DN, Narain JP, Kyaing NN, Rinchen S. WHO framework convention on tobacco control and its implementation in South-East Asia region. Indian J
Page 13 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177 Public Health. 2011 Jul-Sep;55(3):184–91. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019- 557X.89949 PMID:22089686 45. Jha V. Viable alternatives to tobacco growing: an economic model for implementing Articles 17 and 18. Geneva: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Secretariat; 2017. 46. Appau A, Drope J, Witoelar F, Chavez JJ, Lencucha R. Why do farmers grow tobacco? A qualitative exploration of farmers perspectives in Indonesia and Philippines. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 07 2;16(13):2330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132330 PMID:31269640 47. King N. Exploring female former sugar cane farmers’ livelihood transition in St. Kitts and Nevis: a multiple case study. Ann Arbor: Northcentral University; 2016. 48. Sweet sorghum as alternative for sugarcane [internet]. Farm Progress America. 2008 Aug 13. Available from: https://www.farmprogress.com/sweet-sorghum- alternative-sugarcane [cited 2019 Nov 29]. 49. Sparkes D. Sunflower crop flourishes in first for Mackay region, as cane grower experiments with soil health [internet]. ABC News. 2015 Nov 24. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2015-11-24/sunflower-crop-flourish- in-first-for-mackay-region/6967862 [cited 2019 Nov 29]. 50. Sugar and the environment: encouraging better management practices in sugar production. Gland: World Wide Fund for Nature; 2004. Available from: https://wwf.panda.org/?22255/Sugar-and-the-Environment-Encouraging- Better-Management-Practices-in-Sugar-Production-and-Processing [cited 2019 Oct 2].
Page 14 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177
Box 1. Explanation of the approach used in the study of the impact of recommendations for reduced sugars consumption on sugar farmers Multiregion input–output databases provide comprehensive representations of inter- regional trade, economic structure, industrial interdependence and other measures. The technique was conceived by Wassily Leontief in the 1930s, and input–output data structures and analytical procedures are governed by United Nations standards. More than 100 statistical bureaus across the world regularly issue input–output databases in this standard format. The databases are a core ingredient for the computable general equilibrium models that are relied upon by many governments around the world for designing fiscal policy. For our analysis, production data for beet and sugar cane were readily available from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for 2019. However, for the majority of countries, sugar-related industries are aggregated within broader sectors such as food products. To overcome these shortcomings, we extracted primary data from the United Nations and from national statistical agencies. We then used the Global Multi-Region Input-Output Laboratory to construct a custom multiregion input–output database for the supply-chain network of sugars. In order for these tables to map these sugars supply-chains with sufficiently low uncertainty, we collected additional sugar-specific data and use these as constraints in the reconciliation and optimization procedures staged in the multiregion input–output build pipeline. We obtained these additional data from (i) household expenditure surveys containing detailed food items17–26 for estimating household final consumption on food, and (ii) national input–output databases27–31 for estimating intermediate inputs of sugar beet and sugar cane into raw sugars and syrup, and these in turn into products such as confectionary and soft drinks. Publication delays mean that more data are available for the earlier years in the period were analysed (2000–2015). We made efforts to deflate and inflate, and currency-convert the data to a common denominator of 2005 United States dollars in current prices. The deflation and conversion procedure is described in the Appendix of another article.32
Page 15 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177
Table 1. Final destinations of the world’s sugar beet and sugar cane production, 2017 Destination Production, million % of production tonnes Sugar cane Sugar beet Sugar cane Sugar beet Food for human consumption 1099 211 70 60 Hospitality 18 4 1 1 Agriculture 103 18 6 6 Other services 103 16 5 6 Other manufacturing 127 6 2 7 Animal food 6 1 1 0 Biofuels 49 0 0 3 Capital, inventories & discrepanciesa 328 45 15 18 Total 1833 301 100 100 a This category mainly reflects statistical discrepancies and inventories (such as agricultural storage). Notes: The raw data for 2017 add up to 1944 million tonnes (cane) and 310 million tonnes (beet). However, these raw data contain a duplication of China, as China as well as China, mainland and China, Taiwan Province of. In addition, FAOSTAT includes American Samoa, Eswatini, Guadeloupe, Guam, Martinique, Réunion, North The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United States Virgin Islands, and Wallis and Futuna, all of which were not available in the Global Multi-Region Input- Output Laboratory database. Subtracting these from the FAOSTAT raw totals yields study totals of 1833 million tonnes (cane) and 301 million tonnes (beet). Unit differences are due to rounding. Source: Authors’ calculation based on multiregion input–output analysis using production data from FAOSTAT35 (Statistics Division of the Food and Agriculture Organization; see Box 1).
Page 16 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177
Table 2. Annual production by the top 15 global sugar-cane producing countries, 2017, and likely impact of reduced consumption of high-sugar foods on cane production Country Sugar-cane Reduction in production due 2017 GDP production, to 1% reduction in high-sugar million food consumption tonnes Relative Absolute, Total, % of GDP for proportion, million tonnesb US$ agriculture %a billion World 1 833.1 0.4 7.5 NA NA Brazil 758.5 0.2 1.6 2 054 5 India 306.1 0.3 0.9 2 652 16 China 104.8 1.0 1.1 12 143 8 Thailand 102.9 0.4 0.4 455 8 Pakistan 73.4 0.9 0.7 304 23 Mexico 57.0 0.5 0.3 1 158 3 Australia 36.6 0.9 0.3 1 330 3 Colombia 34.6 1.0 0.4 312 6 Guatemala 33.8 0.3 0.1 76 10 United States 30.2 0.6 0.2 19 485 1 Philippines 29.3 0.6 0.2 314 10 Indonesia 21.2 1.0 0.2 1 015 13 Argentina 19.2 0.9 0.2 643 5 Viet Nam 18.4 0.9 0.2 224 15 South Africa 17.4 0.8 0.1 350 2 GDP: gross domestic product; NA: not applicable; US$: United States dollars. a Reductions given are in response of a 1% reduction in final demand for sugar-containing products (i.e. consumption). For example, 0.7 means that 70% of productions goes to human consumption in sugar-containing products, such that if final consumer demand goes down by 1%, production goes down by 0.7%, given the assumptions of our model. Any difference to a purely linear response (i.e. < 1) is due to: (i) non-human-food uses (animal feed), (ii) non-food uses (biofuels and value-added feedstock chemicals), (iii) human food uses not captured (e.g. in agriculture, where people do not buy from retailers, food during travel, catering during industry functions), (iv) misallocation of flows during multiregion input–output reconciliation (see Box 1). Because the input–output data are released intermittently by the various agencies, the information we used is generally valid for 2000–2015. b We calculated the reduction in sugars production based on a 1% reduction in consumption of the following products: dairy products; jams, marmalade and honey; raw sugar, cane; raw sugar, beet; refined sugar; other sugars (lactose, maple sugar, glucose, fructose, molasses); cocoa products; chocolate; cereal products; vegetable products; fruit products; extracts, yeasts, sauces, soups; ice cream; soft drinks; restaurants; catering. Sources: Authors’ calculation based on multiregion input–output analysis World Development Indicators for GDP.34
Page 17 of 18 Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization; Type: Research Article ID: BLT.19.249177
Table 3. Production by the top 15 global sugar-beet producing countries, 2017, and likely impact of reduced consumption of high-sugar foods on beet production Country Sugar-beet Reduction in production due to 2017 GDP production, 1% reduction in high-sugar food million consumption tonnes Relative Absolute, Total, US$ % of GDP for proportion, %a million tonnesb billion agriculture World 301.0 0.6 1.9 NA NA Russian 51.9 0.7 0.4 1 579 4 Federation France 34.4 0.2 0.1 2 586 2 Germany 34.1 1.0 0.3 3 657 1 United States 32.0 0.9 0.3 19 485 1 Turkey 20.8 0.5 0.1 853 6 Poland 15.7 0.5 0.1 526 3 Ukraine 14.9 0.6 0.1 112 10 Egypt 12.1 0.5 0.1 235 11 China 9.4 1.0 0.1 12 143 8 United Kingdom 8.9 0.6 0.1 2 666 1 Netherlands 7.9 0.6 0.1 832 2 Islamic 5.8 0.4 < 0.1 454 9 Republic of Iran (Islamic Republic of) Belarus 5.0 1.0 0.1 55 8 Czechia 4.4 0.4 < 0.1 215 2 Japan 3.9 0.5 < 0.1 4 860 1 GDP: gross domestic product; NA: not applicable; US$: United States dollars. a Reductions given are in response of a 1% reduction in final demand for sugar-containing products (i.e. consumption). For example, 0.7 means that 70% of productions goes to human consumption in sugar-containing products, such that if final consumer demand goes down by 1%, production goes down by 0.7%, given the assumptions of our model. Any difference to a purely linear response (i.e. < 1) is due to: (i) non-human-food uses (animal feed), (ii) non-food uses (biofuels and value-added feedstock chemicals), (iii) human food uses not captured (e.g. in agriculture, where people do not buy from retailers, food during travel, catering during industry functions), (iv) misallocation of flows during multiregion input–output reconciliation (see Box 1). Because the input–output data are released Intermittently by the various agencies, the information we used is generally valid for 2000–2015. b We calculated the reduction in sugars production based on a 1% reduction in consumption of the following products: dairy products; jams, marmalade and honey; raw sugar, cane; raw sugar, beet; refined sugar; other sugars (lactose, maple sugar, glucose, fructose, molasses); cocoa products; chocolate; cereal products; vegetable products; fruit products; extracts, yeasts, sauces, soups; ice cream; soft drinks; restaurants; catering. Sources: Authors’ calculation based on multiregion input–output analysis; World Development Indicators for GDP.34
Page 18 of 18