Editorial: Palatable diet advice is in the delivery

Opinion

Much more than the Government turns on the result of an election; the whole mood of the times can take the outcome as a cue to change. The near-election of the National Party a fortnight ago has been widely ascribed to a general loss of patience with the array of modern concerns that can be characterised as political correctness.

Food advice, a subject featured in the Herald today, might fall into that category, particularly when we read that, "Obesity reduces our enjoyment and quality of life".

Who says, we are tempted to ask. Who is to say that we are not enjoying life quite well in our happily overfed condition? How much fun are weight watchers having?

At a certain level there is a sneaking regard for the authors of the Maori health book who advised their readers to eat, drink and be merry in the hope that an all-purpose pill will be developed in time to save them from an early death. Surely they were kidding.

The infuriating thing about political correctness is that it is correct. Diet is important, racism is wrong, the environment matters, women can do anything.

The reaction is not a denial of such truths, it is an appeal for fun and acceptance of human frailty. It is saying we do not want to live entirely by the codes of political propriety. Give us a break.

The challenge for public health campaigners, like anti-discrimination watchdogs and self-appointed censors of hurtful speech, is to temper the style rather than the substance of their message.

It is worthwhile to hear, for example, that 40 per cent of deaths are associated with nutrition-related risks such as high cholesterol, blood pressure and obesity, and that excessive consumption of animal fat or sugar and too little of fruit and vegetables is linked to diabetes, stroke, heart disease and cancers.

The use of terms like "associated" and "linked", which give a causative impression, is a bit misleading. But that apart, the reminders of risk are worthwhile.

It is when healthy food campaigns start pressing for prohibitions that they overstep the bounds of public patience.

They would like to ban junk food advertisements aimed at children, impose limits on "unhealthy" food advertising generally, shut some food out of school canteens and limit the sugars and fats permitted in food and drinks.

They find their own promotions competing against contradictory material. How bad is that? The world is full of contradictory messages. Life is a balance of safety and risk, seriousness and frivolity, discipline and indulgence.

A Heart Foundation dietitian observes that knowledge alone does not change behaviour. Some people take the public dietary messages with more than a grain of salt, so to speak.

The anti-obesity campaign is several years old now and still the message seems not to be getting through.

In part that may be the fault of a certain faddishness in the dietary advice. Once carbohydrates were the arch- enemy and fat was our friend against them. Now the roles are reversed.

Then there is the dubious body-mass index that doctors use to calculate their patients' recommended weight. It cannot distinguish obesity from a burly All Black's frame.

So forgive us our grain of salt when we are bombarded by healthy eating advice. People know when they are over-eating and know they feel better for regular exercise.

Those that avidly absorb the latest dietary advice probably also know they are looking for an easy alternative to a regime of activity and self-control. Deep down they probably know there is only one certain cure for being overweight. It has been summarised in four words: eat less, move more.