Sue Kedgley: Obesity fight like trying to treat alcoholic living at pub

COMMENT

The food industry's voluntary accord on reducing obesity is fat on rhetoric but thin on action.

It is full of good intentions and public relations spin, but devoid of concrete measures to help reduce obesity. The only specific actions the industry has committed itself to are rehashed American advertisements fronted by a McDonald's marketing icon, a review of a voluntary advertising code for children, and support for a Let's Beat Diabetes campaign.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the voluntary code is essentially a public relations tool to try to stave off Government regulation or controls on marketing to children, and food labelling, rather than a serious commitment to reduce obesity.

At a time when the Government's own advisers are warning that diet-related risk factors are the major cause of death, and studies indicate that an astonishing 8000 to 9000 New Zealanders die prematurely each year because of poor diet (nearly twice as many as from smoking), the accord is an inadequate response to an extremely serious health problem. It will do little to tackle the underlying causes of obesity.

A recent report confirmed that our children are among the fattest in the world and our obesity rate one of the worst. Confronted with this, you would expect bold political leadership to combat obesity. Instead the Government has adopted a laissez-faire approach, relying on initiatives such as the accord and consumer education to tackle the impending health crisis.

It is always worthwhile to work with the food industry to make improvements, but it is naive to expect it to voluntarily curb its relentless and highly profitable promotion of unhealthy foods and drinks to children - which has been identified as one of the major causes of obesity.

A voluntary accord is politically attractive because it stops the Government getting offside with powerful interests. History shows that when industry has a vested interest, voluntary approaches alone are ultimately ineffective. Experience with the tobacco and baby-milk industries has shown that hands-on government leadership is necessary to enact genuine change.

I have challenged the food industry to implement a 10-point plan to demonstrate its seriousness about obesity. I have called on the industry to immediately stop all exploitative advertising of unhealthy sugar and fat-laden foods to children, to respect school environments as advertising-free zones, and remove vending machines selling high-sugar drinks from schools.

Food and drinks that are high in fat, sugar or salt should be labelled as such, with targets to be implemented to reduce the amount of fat, sugar and salt in processed foods.

But the industry has made it clear it has no intention of doing any of these things. Instead, it has developed public relations "messages" to promote in its "healthy eating campaign".

Its main message is that obesity is an individual's problem caused mainly by low levels of activity, with little to do with diet. It suggests education and greater self-control, exercise and dietary restraint.

These messages are designed to shift responsibility from the industry to the individual. Individual adults do have a responsibility to eat well and exercise, but what these kinds of messages conveniently ignore is that one of the main contributors to obesity is the proliferation of high-fat, high-sugar, highly processed, low-nutrient foods that the industry targets at children, using increasingly sophisticated methods.

The industry assumes it has a right to sell foods without regard to the health consequences, and that the costs of unhealthy foods (obesity, dental cavities, diabetes, heart disease) should be picked up by society rather than priced into these foods.

The problem is that unless they result in meaningful changes in behaviour, healthy eating campaigns will achieve little. One healthy eating advertisement on television will have little effect if it is placed between hundreds of others enticing children to eat unhealthy food.

A campaign to encourage healthy eating in children will be similarly ineffective as long as an avalanche of unhealthy food choices, including in schools where children spend a large proportion of their early lives, undermines that message.

The truth is that trying to reduce obesity in this environment is like trying to treat an alcoholic who lives at the pub. To change this environment we need to acknowledge that unhealthy diets and lifestyles are influenced by a host of social and environmental factors, as well as individual choice, and develop a wide set of measures to protect children from the continuing pressures..

This would include controls on marketing to children; reduction in the levels of fat and sugar in food targeted at children, and nutrition education as a core curriculum.

Making improved nutrition the goal of the entire food chain is in everyone's interest. This requires strong political leadership and vision, and much more than platitudes, public relations and a voluntary accord.

* Sue Kedgley is the Green Party health spokeswoman.