After NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher yesterday announced a $36 million strategy to tackle obesity, many people rang in to radio stations to express their concerns about taxpayers’ money being used to treat what they saw as the result of lifestyle choices.
Some callers were disparaging about the nanny state getting involved in obesity prevention measures. Funny about that because the persecution of smokers to protect them from the health consequences of their own folly will probably go down in history as taking nanny state-ism to art form status, and I’ll bet that many of these same callers were all for it.
While we’re on this subject, can anyone please tell me why Nanny thinks it’s OK to ban tobacco use just about everywhere yet she doesn’t seem to feel it’s her responsibility to stop her charges from self-destructing on lethally fatty fast foods? And why doesn’t she intervene to modify urban environments which actively promote inactivity?
The magnitude of the obesity problem is much described these days, both in the scientific and lay press, but its nature is not so often analysed deeply. Could this be because we can’t face its ‘dark side’ — the one that reminds us of lemmings’ suicidal scampering (maybe lumbering in this case) en masse into the sea? Or is it because we can’t explain the illogic of why the fast food chains seem to have inherited a special strategic gene for warding off legislation, regulation and taxation that the tobacco giants missed out on?
Why does Nanny play favourites? If she can act decisively and effectively to reduce smoking, why can’t she act to reduce obesity and associated chronic disease risks? What if Nanny came to her senses and wanted to rule the playground with an even hand? What could she do?
For starters, she might need to see that obesity is not purely the responsibility of the Health Minister, and that many other portfolios need to be involved.
Then she might ask Treasury to develop some strategies to help redress the health differential between those who live in affluent suburbs and those who live in disadvantaged areas. For example, we know there is a socio-economic gradient associated with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and poorer health outcomes generally. We also know that poorer socio-economic areas are home to around 2.5 times more fast food outlets than their more affluent counterparts. So, if Nanny really wanted to level the nursery floor, what else could she reasonably do?
Perhaps she could call on the law. No, I’m not talking about banning advertising – it’s much more subtle than that. It’s about strategies like applying zoning laws to thin out the over-abundance of fast food outlets in high-risk areas. So if the NSW Government really wants to get serious about tackling obesity, it should be examining how California is using zoning laws to make it easier for people to make healthy food choices.
And, Nanny could insist on warnings and information about calorie content on restaurant food. After all, if the nannies that guard our cousins in America, the land of personal responsibility for just about everything, can do it, why can’t our Nanny do it too? And, while she’s at it, maybe she could get some joined-up legislation going — the long-awaited uniform national food labeling system for instance.
Nanny, what exactly are you waiting for?
Associate Professor Ruth Colagiuri heads The Diabetes Unit at the University of Sydney’s Australian Health Policy Institute and co-directs the Oxford Health Alliance Asia-Pacific Centre.
Talk back! Join the discussion about this article on Croakey’s health forum here.
Lucy’s point is a good one. The mere use of tobacco is dangerous to users and anyone else nearby. The mere use of junk food isn’t. The Colagiuris and the rest of the “if it movies, ban it” school of health would far rather regulate than the simpler approach of requiring people to pay a greater proportion of their actual healthcare costs.
Actually Lucy, you are affecting people. The side affects of obesity results in a drain on hospital and other medical resources. If you were in are for diabetes treatment, I may have to wait longer for something else I’m in hospital for. Or much more money must be spent on hospitals that could instead be spent on education.
Associate Professor Ruth Colaguiri calls for ‘the long-awaited uniform national food labelling system”. She may be interested to note that the wait ended awhile ago – we have had national food labelling laws in place for many years, with a comprehensive review (of all food legislation including labelling laws) undertaken, culminating in a revised Food Standards Code being promulgated 20 December 2000. The Food Standards Code has been amended regularly since then, including updates to labelling laws.
I feel to compare smoking and obesity causing fast foods is plain fallacy. Sure, if the costs imposed on the health system by smokers is the only reason they’re use is now regulated, then maybe Ms Colagiuri has a point. But really the issue is more complex, and as Lucy mentioned, as an associate professor at USyd, one would think that Ms Colagiuri could see that when one eats fatty foods, no one else but that person needs to expend that energy. But when one smokes in an environment where others are forced to inhale their smoke too (day in day out for many workers) this compounds the costs on the economy as a whole in more sick days taken, hospital visits etc. When one eats fatty foods, one has a chance to burn them off. But when one smokes it does immediate damage to one’s body and continual use has very serious permanent repercussions.
As head of The Diabetes Unit at the University of Sydney’s Australian Health Policy Institute, one can understand that she feels strongly against unhealthy foods as they are the number 1 enemy of diabetes, but calling for regulation of the distribution of fast food is just silly, and a case where the arguments of many pro-smoking campaigners actually hold ground. It would be an attack on personal freedom of choice. We adults have the intelligence to make our own decisions regarding on our personal well-being. Some people need extra help, and that should be made more available to them.
Maybe what is needed is more funding for healthy food advertising at school canteens coupled with an improved selection of healthy foods sourced from local suppliers. Or maybe she should be bagging out the use of cars in favour of modes of transport which at least get you to walk 100m. Or since she’s really into regulation, I bet if “Nanny” were to ban all pylon signs for fast food chains it would have a massive effect on patronage easily susceptible to impulse purchases (btw drive thru purchases are the unhealthiest part of these stores) and would likely have a negative effect the viability of such stores without the inflated prices caused by her ‘zoning laws’, but I don’t necessarily agree with this direction.
Anyway, good luck with the obesity problems people… Eat healthier, exercise more! If you cant do that by yourself, get help, there’s no shame in it whatsoever.
… is Disney making a film on obesity and related morbidity by sending out millions of free Big Mac vouchers?