This article was published on Radio Libertà, January 27, 2025.
Starting in 2025, Italy established a Fund for the care and prevention of obesity, with an allocation of one million euros for the years 2025, 2026, and 2027 (plus additional funding for each year). According to the promoters, this amount represents a concrete action to combat a constantly growing social and global scourge. However, the decision to establish this fund is yet another demonstration that our political system is entirely incapable of trusting individual freedom and responsibility, preferring to perpetuate a welfare model that disempowers citizens and stifles society with ineffective and paternalistic interventions.
Obesity is a complex problem and, as such, cannot be solved with simple injections of public money. On the contrary, state intervention in attempting to solve individual issues often worsens the situation. Economic incentives, far from solving problems, actually favor and exacerbate them. This is because economically incentivizing certain choices or behaviors tends to disempower people, shifting the burden of the consequences of their actions onto the shoulders of the community. This process creates a vicious cycle, where dependence on subsidies or state facilitation becomes part of the problem itself.
Taking obesity as our case study, the causes of obesity are often (though not always, to be fair, and it’s always right not to generalize) rooted in an unhealthy lifestyle, frequently adopted by low-income social groups. But these choices are not random: the cheapest foods are often highly processed, rich in sugars and fats, while healthy foods tend to be more expensive. There are many reasons behind this price disparity. In Europe, the price of fruits and vegetables—the foundation of a healthy diet—has significantly increased in recent years compared to the average price of other foods.
Of course, it is normal for factors such as seasonality and weather conditions, transportation, production and storage costs, and agreements between producers and distributors to contribute to price fluctuations. However, the truth is that much of the responsibility for price increases lies with the state: consider, for example, the tax on biodegradable bags in effect since 2018, the ban on consumers reusing them after the first purchase, and the ban on supermarkets using other types of bags. A small state interference (ranging from 2 to 10 cents per bag) has led many people to reduce their consumption of these food items. Additionally, it is estimated that inflation alone has caused the average price of fruits and vegetables to increase by 21% over the past five years.
In short, both the producer and the consumer are exacerbated by fiscal policies that penalize the production, sale, and purchase of healthy products. Every tax, regulation, or bureaucratic imposition results in increased costs for the producer, who inevitably passes these costs onto the final consumer.
Instead of wasting public resources on initiatives of questionable effectiveness, politicians should focus on a more rational and indirect strategy: reducing the tax burden on the production and sale of food. Such an approach would make healthy foods more accessible to a wider audience, thus reducing the economic barrier that today pushes many towards less healthy alternatives. The market, when left free to operate without state interference, tends to meet consumer needs by offering a wider range of products at competitive prices.
The principle is simple: if production costs decrease, retail prices also drop, allowing more people to purchase healthy foods. Those who wish to adopt a more balanced diet would thus face fewer economic obstacles. Conversely, those who prefer to maintain harmful eating habits should be free to do so (politically speaking), thereby taking full responsibility for their choices. In a truly free society, blame is always considered individual, never collective.
Some might argue that the government should take even more decisive action by taxing sugar and other ingredients considered unhealthy. This proposal, supported by socialists of various stripes, who have always been proponents of state paternalism (let’s not forget that this obesity fund was approved through an amendment to the budget bill, first signed by Roberto Pella, leader of Forza Italia in the Budget Committee of the Chamber of Deputies), represents a serious mistake. Taxing unhealthy foods or drinks would not change the eating habits of low-income people at all. It would simply worsen their economic condition. If a family is already struggling to put together a decent meal, increasing the cost of the products they consume will certainly not lead to an improvement in their diet: those people will continue to choose the cheapest available options, which will still be the most harmful.
The idea that higher taxation on unhealthy foods could push consumers towards healthier options clashes with market reality. If healthy foods are expensive today (because they are directly or indirectly taxed), they will remain expensive tomorrow: sugar taxes do not affect the dynamics that regulate their price. The only effect of this policy would be an increase in economic hardship for already struggling families.
Education, awareness, and economic accessibility to healthy products are key to effectively combating this battle against obesity. Educational efforts can be conducted without necessarily resorting to coercive interventions or excessive public spending. Well-designed awareness campaigns, perhaps funded through private initiatives or public-private partnerships, can have a significant impact without burdening taxpayers. It is crucial, now more than ever, that politicians understand the limits of state action.
The idea that every social problem can be solved with more public money is not only naive but profoundly harmful. A society that disempowers its citizens by shifting the burden of individual choices onto the community ends up creating an environment where no one is truly responsible for their actions. This is not just an economic issue but also a moral one. It is a problem from which today’s society (both in Italy and beyond) suffers terribly.
The real fight against obesity requires a cultural change, not a new public fund. Citizens must be encouraged to make informed decisions, taking responsibility for their life choices. At the same time, it is necessary to remove the economic and bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for many to access a healthy diet. Reducing the tax burden on producers of healthy foods is an essential step in this direction.
The Italian government has chosen to take the easiest and most politically convenient path, allocating public funds without addressing the root causes of the problem. But citizens deserve better. They deserve a policy that respects their freedom, that empowers them, and that creates the conditions for real change. The solution to obesity does not lie in distributing a million euros, but in the ability to return control over their choices and their future to the people.
Gaetano Masciullo