Politics of Food (2)



Here's an interesting article from The Telegraph on the 'Feeding Britain' report which put the issue of food banks back in the news the other week. 

Part of the report does indeed highlight the effects of smoking, for example, on low income families and here's an extract from the document which drives the issue home.

"The other force at work is the addictions that many individuals and families have, but which particularly sharply affects the budgeting of low-income families. We refer here to the size of income in some families going on drugs, tobacco and gambling. A family earning £21,000 a year, for example, where both parents smoke 20 cigarettes a day will spend a quarter of their income on tobacco. Even if people buy illicit tobacco they will still spend 15% of their total income on tobacco. Budgeting support is terribly important, but budgetary support alone is often not enough to equip families to kick their addictive habits when addiction is being fed and defended by some very powerful lobbies."  

Now this is a difficult subject to tackle because the obvious point to makes that if such families decided to stop smoking, then literally overnight they would free up 25% of their income to spend on more and better food for themselves and their children.

So targeting resources on smoking and other addictions would seem to have the potential for 'win win' all round, not least because I think it's difficult to sustain an argument that families in this situation really are going hungry if they're spending over £5,000 a year on cigarettes.

Some people using foodbanks buy cigarettes instead of food

Some poor families are spending a quarter of their income on tobacco, but a major report on food poverty doesn't want to talk about the issue.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Reverend Justin Welby, is backing the foodbank report. But those aren't cigarettes burning behind him. Photo: Gareth Fuller/PA



By James Kirkup - The Telegraph

There are many disturbing facts and accounts in the Feeding Britain report on foodbanks and the financial problems of Britain’s poorest. Admirably balanced and non-partisan, the thoughtful, considered response it’s had from most politicians is well-deserved.

Still, there’s one aspect of the report that seems a little under-explored. Here’s a quote from the document:

“The other force at work is the addictions that many individuals and families have, but which particularly sharply affects the budgeting of low-income families. We refer here to the size of income in some families going on drugs, tobacco and gambling.”

And another:

“…tackling these serious addictions is as crucial for the overall health of our society as it is in restoring a sense of dignity and control individuals have over their own lives and their tackling of these serious addictions is as crucial for the overall health of our society as it is in restoring a sense of dignity and control individuals have over their own lives and their own budgets. We make recommendations here on how food can be used as a way of kick-starting a recovery process for individuals who find themselves in such desperate situations.”

In other words, let’s make sure poor people are eating properly, then we can help them smoke and drink and gamble less.

On that basis, the report then largely ignores the question of spending on booze and fags and gambling. While it discusses the share of household income being spent on food and non-alcoholic drinks, utilities and the rest, it has almost nothing else to say about how much is spent on drink and tobacco.

I can understand why. There are too many people who want to focus on the issue in an attempt to argue or just imply that poor people are poor because they chose to be, that they go to food banks because they spend money on the “wrong” things instead of food. My best guess is that the authors didn’t want to get into that debate, so they ignored the question.

To be clear, I don’t want to make any such argument, or imply any such thing. I suspect some people will glance at the headline of this piece and conclude “Oh look, a heartless Telegraph toff sneering at poor people for smoking.” But that is not what I’m about here. I offer no judgement on poor people who smoke; if I was in the dire straits described in the Feeding Britain report, I suspect I’d want the comfort of a cigarette, or any other earthly pleasure I could get my hands on. And for all that non-smokers like me can be prone to look down on weak-willed smokers, we should acknowledge that this is a monstrously addictive drug, and remember: there but for the grace of God smoke I.

Still, facts are facts whether or not we find them convenient or comfortable. And the fact is that some poor people do spend some of their money on things like tobacco and alcohol. And obviously, a pound spent on cigarettes cannot be spent on food. For reference, the average packet of 20 cigarettes now costs £8.46. So surely a fully rounded look at the issues of food and poverty should include some analysis of spending on such things, shouldn't it?

Let’s start with the basics.

Because the price of goods like alcohol and tobacco is, broadly speaking, fixed, consumption of those goods is regressive: a poor person who buys 20 fags a day will spend a much greater share of their income than a rich one. The IFS has estimated that people in the lowest income group spend roughly twice as much of their income on tobacco and alcohol than those in the richest.

Smoking in particular is worth focussing on here, not least because the Feeding Britain report offers this thought:

“A family earning £21,000 a year, for example, where both parents smoke 20 cigarettes a day will spend a quarter of their income on tobacco. Even if people buy illicit tobacco they will still spend 15% of their total income on tobacco. Budgeting support is terribly important, but budgetary support alone is often not enough to equip families to kick their addictive habits when addiction is being fed and defended by some very powerful lobbies.”

Read that again. Some poor families may be spending a quarter of their income on tobacco. A quarter.

That figure is actually even higher than an estimate produced last year by the Institute for Economic Affairs last year, which said that the average smoker from the poorest fifth of households spends between 18 and 22 per cent of their disposable income on cigarettes.

(The IEA also noted that tax on these cigarettes consumes 15 to 17 per cent of those families’ incomes. A cynic would note that central government therefore has a financial disincentive to reduce tobacco consumption.)

Surely any serious attempt to address food poverty should have more to say about this issue than vague accusations about “powerful lobbies” exploiting the poor? Surely any move to ensure that poor people can and do spend more money on good food has to include an attempt to reduce the amount they spend on tobacco? Surely it’s not good enough to say that we have to sort out the food problem before we can sort out the tobacco problem? Because the basic economic fact is that tobacco is part of the food problem.

Again, just to repeat the caveat, I don’t raise this to criticise or denigrate those on low incomes who spend money on tobacco. I raise it because any attempt to discuss the problems of those people that doesn’t address their full spending patterns is incomplete and likely to fail.

If you care about poor people and want them to eat better, get them to spend less on smoking. Does that mean banning cigarettes? Taxing them even more? Or actually cutting the tax to make them cheaper? Or doing much, much more to help and encourage them to quit? There may well be an argument to be made for all of those options, and others besides. Sadly though, that's not part of the foodbank debate today.

Popular posts from this blog

SNP - Conspiracy of Silence

LGB Rights - Hijacked By Intolerant Zealots!