The Guardian view on calls to ban sunbeds: prevention in healthcare raises hard questions about risks | Editorial

CMoves by cancer experts to ban deckchairs in the UK will not be immediately addressed. So far, no minister or opposition party has expressed support for a measure that many would consider too restrictive. The public was also not consulted. While the World Cancer Research Fund (a UK charity) supports a ban, Cancer Research UK sticks to issuing warnings.

But with skin cancer rates rising and evidence that the current ban on children using sunbeds is being flouted, it’s no surprise that cancer specialists think more needs to be done. In the UK, a ban on children using commercial deck chairs was introduced in 2010. Since then, Australia has completely banned these types of businesses. Professor Paul Lorigan and other authors of a British Medical Journal article argue that a law like Australia’s would be the most cost-effective way to reduce melanoma cases – even if it included compensation for companies. The data suggests that young women in deprived areas of the north of England are particularly at risk.

As with other activities and products known to cause cancer or other illnesses, the alternative is stricter regulation and public education aimed at persuading people to make healthier choices. On tobacco, the UK has opted for a ban – albeit a gradual one, with a bill banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after January 1, 2009. The new law will also ban the sale of vapes to children and further restrict advertising and smoking in public places. By contrast, when it comes to junk food and alcohol, Labor has failed to deliver on its pre-election promises, with tougher advertising rules delayed, and England has so far failed to follow Scotland with a minimum unit price for alcohol.

Public health activists are all too aware of these inconsistencies. When it comes to the powerful food and drink industries, successive governments’ commitment to disease prevention is at odds with an overtly pro-business approach.

Exactly which risky activities should be prohibited will always be a difficult question in a liberal society. People constantly take risks to their health and safety and appreciate the opportunity to make their own choices and mistakes. But as health officials have pointed out about high-risk cosmetic surgery, Britain’s open-access national healthcare system makes the potential downsides of such decisions harder to ignore. Choices are not simply made at the individual’s “own risk” when negative consequences and costs are shared.

With “sin taxes”, as they are called, a different type of cost-benefit analysis comes into play. While the pleasure derived from alcohol and the profits derived from its sale are two reasons why there is little appetite for restrictions, another reason is that the Treasury earns around £12.5 billion in duty on sales each year.

As with deckchairs, public health experts point out that poorer people are most at risk of obesity and alcohol-related harm (although a recent survey found that people from wealthier families were more likely to have an addiction problem). Attempts to change consumer behavior should never be a substitute for addressing the socio-economic determinants of poor health, including insufficient income and housing. But the health dangers posed by gambling, ultra-processed foods, deck chairs and other risky products and services cannot simply be ignored either. If ministers want the public to trust them, prevention in healthcare must be more than just a buzzword.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.