comment & analysis

Stoap

Description

Can childhood obesity be “epidemic”? In the first 6 months of 2004, there has been an outbreak in newspaper articles on the “obesity crisis”, with the situation being referred to as an “obesity epidemic”. The accuracy of this statement depends on the definition of “epidemic”. Most definitions of “epidemic” require an outbreak of a contagion – this cannot be literally true for obesity, since you cannot contract fatness. Using this sense of the word, obesity cannot be an epidemic but must have underlying causes; thus if identified, the crisis can be addressed. “Epidemic” can also be used to describe a sudden, widespread occurrence of an undesirable phenomenon. This is true for obesity, and in fact the problem is so widespread, that “pandemic” is possibly more accurate a description. Alternatively a 1colleague suggested that obesity could be considered a “meme” , being the by-product of a lifestyle image. Obesity could be the result of either, or a combination of, (a) overeating, (b) inactivity or (c) a medical problem. In the case of an overweight child, provided medical problems are ruled out, it’s likely to be a case of too much “junk” food and not enough exercise. The nutrition and exercise of the nation’s children could be considered a point of public interest. Therefore, should obesity be a private matter or one of public health? Should obesity be an indication of poor parenting or should a teenage child be viewed as legally ...

Informations

• Publié par: Hamef
• Nombre de lectures: 24
• Langue: English

Extrait

Can childhood obesity be “epidemic”?

In the first 6 months of 2004, there has been an outbreak in newspaper articles on the

“obesity crisis”, with the situation being referred to as an “obesity epidemic”.

The accuracy of this statement depends on the definition of “epidemic”. Most

definitions of “epidemic” require an outbreak of a contagion – this cannot be literally

true for obesity, since you cannot contract fatness.

Using this sense of the word,

obesity cannot be an epidemic but must have underlying causes; thus if identified, the

crisis can be addressed.

“Epidemic” can also be used to describe a sudden, widespread occurrence of an

undesirable phenomenon.

This is true for obesity, and in fact the problem is so

widespread, that “pandemic” is possibly more accurate a description.

Alternatively a

colleague suggested that obesity could be considered a “meme”

1

, being the by-product

of a lifestyle image.

Obesity could be the result of either, or a combination of, (a) overeating, (b) inactivity

or (c) a medical problem. In the case of an overweight child, provided medical

problems are ruled out, it’s likely to be a case of too much “junk” food and not

enough exercise. The nutrition and exercise of the nation’s children could be

considered a point of public interest.

Therefore, should obesity be a private matter or

one of public health?

Should obesity be an indication of poor parenting or should a

teenage child be viewed as legally competent on health matters?

Never before have the UK’s children been so fat.

The statistics are alarming:

•

Obesity in England has grown over 400% in 25 years

•

Childhood obesity has tripled in 20 years

The UK now has warnings that the NHS cannot cope with the health problems of our

next generation and that children may die before their parents.

Heart problems, renal

failure, osteoarthritis and diabetes are just a few of the linked conditions. Despite the

severity of these health implications and numerous committee findings, FSA and

WHO reports, the rates of childhood obesity are nevertheless still increasing.

Thus, the questions remain:

1

Why are our children getting fat and whose fault is it?

2

Who should be responsible for addressing the problem – Schools, Parliament,

Manufacturers, Retailers, Advertisers, Character Licensors, Parents or

Children themselves?

3

How do we stop children eating “junk” food and encourage healthy eating and

exercise?

4

Should the State intervene and take responsibility for children, in the event

that their parents cannot, or will not, provide healthy nutritious food?

1

See Ken Peattie.

Definition of a “meme” - A contagious information pattern that replicates by

parasitically infecting human minds and altering their behaviour, causing them to propagate the pattern:

Glenn Grant.

1

Why are children getting fatter?

Food is cheaper than ever, particularly the popular “value” lines.

Today, it’s possibly

cheaper to eat snacks and ready meals than fruit and vegetables.

Work and time

commitments mean convenience foods are frequently selected instead of home

cooking.

This has become a vicious circle so children are now growing up without

the knowledge and experience of cooking.

Marketing campaigns for confectionery are stronger and louder than healthy eating

messages.

The use of character merchandising and peer pressure often means that

parents give in to the pester power of children in the supermarket.

Quite commonly

2-tier advertising campaigns are being used.

Initially products are marketed to

children using cool character merchandising and early morning broadcasting slots.

Then manufacturers send a healthy and convenience message on the product to the

parent at the point of purchase.

Should the UK introduce more advertising laws on

food marketing practices to vulnerable groups?

Another obvious factor is inactivity.

Parents are scared to let their children play in the

streets and parks and are opting to keep children inside, protected against the world.

The lure of TVs, Playstations and computers to quieten a confined child, is strong.

It

appears that the parental fear of stranger childhood abduction is greater than the fear

of childhood obesity.

The statistics of obesity and abduction could suggest that there

is more threat in inactivity and poor nutrition, than successful child abduction

2

.

2

Who should be responsible for addressing the problem?

Whoever or whatever started the problem, the most important question is now who is

going to rectify it?

Should it be Parliament, Manufacturers, Retailers, Advertisers,

Character Licensors, the Parents, or maybe even the Children themselves?

Many lay the blame firmly at the feet of industry for manufacturing and marketing the

products.

Yes, industry has a role in the supply chain; however, the products are

labelled, so consumer information and choice are available.

Yes, perhaps businesses

should be more responsible when deciding which products to market with character

merchandising.

However, many companies are now recognising their influence and

are reviewing their lines.

A clear example is the recent review by the BBC over the

products merchandised with their popular pre-school characters such as Teletubbies.

Retailers also have a strong influence in public nutrition with the majority of food

being purchased from supermarkets.

Many contend therefore that supermarkets

should be accountable.

But surely consumers, particularly parents and children,

cannot transfer blame this easily?

Despite marketing and children pester power,

manufacturers and supermarkets cannot force families to buy multi-packs of crisps,

pizzas and processed lunchbox snacks, instead of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Purchasers make this decision because it’s easier than spending 45 minutes preparing

a nutritious snack.

Also, until recently, reluctance to become a Nanny State has meant that Parliament

and the EU Commission preferred increasing labelling to more extreme actions such

as advertising restrictions or compositional requirements for children’s food.

This

2

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violence12.htm.

approach is not working and thus the tide is changing, with MPs on the Common

Health Select Committee saying Ministers must prepare to intervene if industry

agreements on marketing and composition do not show results.

The Committee

favoured government action over consumer information.

It wants the Food Standards

Agency (FSA) to draw up a traffic light system of food and drink labels with red

being for high energy, amber being medium and green for low.

When private individuals cannot make the correct choice and this affects the public

interest, then perhaps the state should legislate.

This is true for tobacco, alcohol and

drugs – they are restricted by age, classified according to their danger and are taxed.

A child cannot buy spirits or tobacco so should they be permitted to purchase fast

food and bags of confectionery with their pocket money?

Perhaps the state should intervene and protect children from either their own choices

or inadequate parenting?

In an era when billions are being spent on mandatory GM

detection and labelling, without the problem even being one of safety, perhaps

attention should instead be turned to compositional and marketing standards for

children’s food?

Possibly, this is better use of Industry and the Commission’s time

and money?

Alternatively, perhaps the answer lies with local authorities. Maybe ideas can be

pioneered on transport, planning and school meals that would change children’s

futures? Or perhaps the answer lies in increasing taxation on non-essential foods with

funds raised being ring fenced either for the NHS or obesity initiatives?

3

Reducing “junk” food and encouraging healthy eating and exercise?

More likely the answer lies in addressing the problem from all angles. For each food

business in the supply chain to step forward and become accountable for our

children’s health. However, this is pointless unless the State (particularly through

schools) and Parents also take responsibility and proper care for children’s wellbeing.

Children themselves, above a certain age, also need to be self-responsible – to

understand the importance of healthy living.

In a country where parents can be imprisoned for their child’s truancy, it is

unbelievable that there is no recourse for the state against a parent who allows their

child to become so obese at pre-school age, that it jeopardises their life.

When will

health and lifestyle now be given the same importance as education?

In America

children can be taken into the care system for the parent failing to apply suncream.

Unless action is taken soon, then we may see the same principles eventually being

applied to food and neglect.

Possible Suggestions

•

A long-term public information campaign combined with legislation is needed.

•

Increased labelling – make the label clearer in terms of Kcal (rather than KJ) and

labelling salt rather than sodium.

•

Children’s products must have nutritional labelling aimed at children, not just

parents. This could be done in conjunction with an educational program to

children explaining the scheme.

•

Free vitamins, minerals and fish oils for all children of school age.

•

Free or compulsory means tested school meals for all children below 11.

Children

above 11 have to stay on school grounds during breaks and the schools have

internal rules about lunchbox contents and snacks.

•

Breakfast clubs in schools with higher protein breakfasts rather than

toast/chocolate spread.

Sponsored by food companies, not by confectionery

manufacturers.

Such schemes to be permitted as tax deductions.

•

More water fountains in schools and introducing compulsory water bottle schemes

so each child has access to water during classtime.

No carbonated drinks

permitted in schools, particularly the ban of vending machines on school

premises.

•

Free milk (with the option of Soya or goat’s milk alternatives) for every child in

primary and junior school.

•

Increased Physical Education classes in school and re-introduce Home Economics

as a compulsory subject until the age of 15 concentrating on preparation of food

and nutritional content.

•

Increase the number of free after-school sports clubs with teachers being paid to

oversee these clubs rather than relying on volunteers.

•

Children’s medical centres each month at schools to help prevent, treat and

monitor obesity.

Weekly weight and diet monitoring and education by the

appointed school’s health visitor when necessary.

•

Restaurants considering the nutritional value of children’s meals and providing

nutritional information for parents on the menu (possibly in accordance with the

traffic light system suggested).

•

Local authority policies on housing, planning and transport to consider obesity

issues –

such as attempting to encourage school cycle routes, secure walkways to

school, increased zebra crossings and use of road monitors, prevent development

on school fields, and public parks to have attendees and be locked at night so

parents don’t worry about the safety.

And if that doesn’t work - more extreme suggestions!!!!!

•

Extend VAT to include all foods outside pre-set compositional standards on fat,

sugar and salt.

•

Clear health warnings on the highest fat, sugar, and salt content products.

The

warning must appear on the front of the product, similar to cigarettes, and be in

clear language.

•

Making obesity and poor nutrition an indication of parental neglect.