Brexit risks ‘thousands’ of heart disease deaths by 2030

Fruit and vegetables are displayed for sale in Darlington Market in the town centre of Darlington, northern England on September 6, 2018. (AFP / Oli Scarff)
Updated 29 January 2019
Follow

Brexit risks ‘thousands’ of heart disease deaths by 2030

  • Britain is due to exit the EU on March 29
  • It is heavily reliant on food imports, particularly fruit and vegetables

PARIS: Thousands more people living in Britain are at risk of dying from heart attacks and strokes in the decade after Britain leaves the European Union as the cost of imported fruit and vegetables soars, new research warned Tuesday.
Britain is due to exit the EU on March 29 and it is far from certain what sort of deal — if any — Prime Minister Theresa May will be able to strike and what effect that may have on trade.
It is heavily reliant on food imports, particularly fruit and vegetables, and research published in the journal BMJ Open forecasts a widespread fall in consumption under all Brexit scenarios — as well as a concomitant long-term health risk.
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, in which Britain crashes out of the union with no agreement on future trading ties, scientists from London’s Imperial College predicted as many as 12,400 additional cardiovascular deaths over the next 10 years in England.
“Under World Trade Organization rules, the price of bananas would go up 17 percent, oranges by 14 percent and the fruits we import the most are obviously going to be the most sensitive in terms of price increases,” said Christopher Millet, from Imperial’s public health policy evaluation unit and lead study author.
“Under (no deal) we expect 12,400 extra deaths between 2021 and 2030 and even with a free trade arrangement we expect around 6,000 more combined stroke and heart attack deaths,” he told AFP.
The British Heart Foundation says around 42,000 people die in Britain from cardiovascular diseases every year.
Fruits and vegetables contain vital nutrients from fiber, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, that successive trials have shown to aid health cardiovascular function.
In 2017 Britain imported 84 percent of all fruit and 48 percent of the vegetables it consumed. A large proportion of these came from EU nations — such as citrus from Spain.
But even fruit imported from outside the EU could be disrupted as Britain would either need to adopt WTO rules or painstakingly conduct bi-lateral trade talks on a country-by-country basis — potentially facing longer customs checks and heftier tariffs.
Millet and his team used the latest available WTO and British customs statistics and applied it to a food policy model that combines a wide range of dietary, economic and health data to predict the impact on fruit and veg consumption under four possible Brexit scenarios.
Even if Britain strikes a free trade agreement with the bloc and other countries outside Europe that have similar arrangements with the EU currently, fruit and vegetable consumption would fall at least three percent, they said.
Under a no deal, that drop would be 11.4 for fruit and 9 percent for vegetables, potentially exposing tens of thousands of people to higher risk of dying from a stroke or heart attack.
“This is serious,” Millet said. “British families are going to be paying more for fruits and vegetables across all trade options — this is going to hit the pocket of the average British family and it has a real and important health consequence.”
MPs are due to vote Tuesday on how to proceed with Brexit after May’s initial deal with the EU was beaten down in parliament.
On Monday, Britain’s top supermarket bosses urged lawmakers to avoid a no-deal departure or risk a drastic cut in food availability.
Millet said politicians ought to give more consideration to the health impacts of Brexit, and the future burden increased illness and death will have on the health service.
“The British public weren’t necessarily aware that the price of bananas was going to increase to such an extent and what it would mean for the cost of daily living and the ability to ensure your child eats a healthy diet,” he said.
“These are the real implications (of Brexit).”


Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

Updated 04 March 2026
Follow

Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

  • “We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X.
  • Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway”

WASHINGTON, United States: President Donald Trump and his team scrambled Tuesday to reclaim the narrative on why he decided to attack Iran, after his top diplomat suggested the US struck only after learning of an imminent Israeli strike.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alarmed Democrats — who say only Congress can declare war — as well as many of Trump’s MAGA supporters on Monday when he said: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.”
“We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters.
Administration officials quickly backpedalled, insisting Trump authorized the strikes because Tehran was not seriously negotiating an accord on limiting its nuclear ambitions, and the United States needed to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities.
“No, Marco Rubio Didn’t Claim That Israel Dragged Trump into War with Iran,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted Tuesday on X.
At an Oval Office meeting later with Germany’s chancellor, Trump went further, saying that “Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they (Iran) were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen.”
“So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

- Had to happen? -

Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway.”
“The president made a decision. The decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide... behind this ability to conduct an attack.”
Critics seized on the muddied messaging to accuse Trump of precipitating the country into a war without a clear rationale, without informing Congress — and without a clear idea of how it might end.
They noted that just two weeks ago, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressed Trump again in Washington to take a hard line, in their seventh meeting since Trump’s return to power last year.
Some Republican allies rallied behind the president, with Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisting that “No one pushes or drags Donald Trump anywhere.”
“He acts in the vital national security interest of the United States,” Cotton told the “Fox & Friends” morning show.
But as crucial US midterm elections approach that could see Republicans lose their congressional majority, Trump risks shedding supporters who had welcomed his pledge to end foreign military interventions.
“We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a top former Trump ally and a major figure in the populist and isolationist hard right, posted on X.