Sorry that title has to be written. News today that the Tory health minister is telling the food industry that they can pay their way out of being regulated on obesity issues so long as they contribute to public health campaigns is straightforwardly ludicrous.
I think Tim Laing of City University got this right on the Today programme this morning when he said that, in his opinion and having undertaken a study of corporate responsibility in this area for the World Health Organisation, the contribution of the corporate sector to tackling obesity was pathetic.
And as he also said, all major advances in public health — be they with regard to food, air, water, transport safety, tobacco and more besides, have always been in the face of staunch opposition from business, and never with their cooperation.
This will remain the case, I am sure. In which case, if the Tories want us to believe they are serious on obesity (and they say they do) then either they’re stupid or they think we are when promoting this new policy. No other conclusion is possible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Maybe Andrew has forgotten about the limitations of self regulation revealed in the city of london and the houses of parliament. I suppose he’s worried about the cost of food in the depression he is helping bring about.
Obesity is the symptom and deliberately used to castigate the victim, malnutrition as an industrial policy is the problem.
This problem will be exacerbated by GMO interests very soon.
Regulated on obesity? Is it really true that the Coalition has accepted the ludicrous notion of people being made obese by the food industry?
I disagree. It’s not a question of the state not doing these things, but it not doing them many times in different ways. All the Change4Life info is already on NHS Choices. It’s all freely accessible there and can be used by any other site that wants it. For nothing. So why rehash it for Change4Life? On this one, I think Lansley (or Coulson) or whoever came up with this one has got it right.
Richard,
There is another conclusion, which is quite simple. I think a lot about food, grow most of my food and cook all of it. So bear with me.
The food industry is in my view a necessary part of obesity. In other words, people who do not eat industrially produced food you will rarely be obese, whereas obese people almost invariably eat the stuff. Industrially produced food uses cheap produce and relies on excessive fat, salt and sugar to hide the fact that it is neither fresh nor inherently tasty. There is no way around that, it is basic food chemistry. Food that is not fresh is inherently unhealthy and unbalanced and addictive. Even the nice stuff like parma ham is loaded with salt and nitrates. There is no point regulating it.
What we should be doing is telling people to avoid it and making sure that people have access to affordable fresh produce. But it is purely a matter of education. Oh, and tax. Tax the food industry to death but make sure healthy stuff is affordable.
But don’t try to regulate it and use labels so people are misled into believing a smaller pack of turkey twizzlers is OK or that cookies with raisins in are healthy. It is all vile glop that should be banned. But as that won’t happen, make the food industry pay for adverts that show the direct link between industrial food, morbid obesity and death.
“What we should be doing is telling people to avoid it and making sure that people have access to affordable fresh produce.”
Two things:
1. What we should be doing is leaving people alone and not hectoring them with made-up rubbish to fit already settled policy (c.f. 5-a-day, alcohol units)
2. Fresh produce is affordable: it’s much cheaper to assemble meals from basic ingredients than to buy ready-made meals. Giving more money to people who make poor nutrition choice is not going to help.
“What we should be doing is leaving people alone and not hectoring them with made-up rubbish to fit already settled policy”
Will the food advertising industry leave them alone as well?
“Giving more money to people who make poor nutrition choice is not going to help.”
As the quantity of money you have widens the available choices to you, it is the one thing that would help them.
I do envy your ability to reduce difficult, multi factorial situations to individual responsibility.
A lot of effort is put into making people act against their own interests, and limiting their information (which is what food manufacturers have succeeded in doing here) is one of the most important strategies.
A glance at some data series such as Obesity among adults: by sex and NS-SeC, 2001 and The Iceland Ready meal range will show you that the people who struggle with the most responsibilities, women in boring, low prestige jobs have the highest rates of obesity.
Are they going to whip up a grand marnier soufflé for the kids before doing the housework? No, because its easier and cheaper to fill the kids up with microwaved lasagne at £2 sterling a kilo.
Interestingly upper management and long term unemployed males have the lowest rates of obesity, though I doubt they will have a similar quality of nutrition.
The coalition strategy to produce more long term unemployed will sit nicely with their desire to reduce obesity.
‘Joined up’ thinking indeed.
George Orwell had these concerns nailed back in the thirties
@(Not so) Mad Foetus
“Oh, and tax. Tax the food industry to death but make sure healthy stuff is affordable”. I think it should be easy enough to apply VAT to all processed food, leaving the fresh stuff untaxed. Of course the tax will hit many staples, e.g. salt, butter, but these are not main ingredients so should not have too much impact. A very interesting idea, worth developing.
@mad foetus
Just to say I agree completely with you here. Great post.