Food and Nutrition Events

1. The expansion of New Zealand waistlines

   Published on Friday, September 23rd, 2011

   With the release of the 2008/09 nutrition survey summary report last week, I was heartened to read that diet-wise, New Zealand adults seem to be starting to make the right choices.  According to the survey, since 1997 we’ve reduced our overall energy fat, saturated fat and sugar intakes.  We’re eating more healthy fats and protein, fruit and selenium.  We also have lower total cholesterol levels with a better total:HDL-cholesterol ratio, potentially due to these dietary changes, but more likely due to higher rates of statin use.  A couple of interesting findings were the drop in our intakes of vitamin A, iron and zinc; possibly resulting from cutting down on full cream dairy products and red meat.

   But the real kicker is what’s happened to our waistlines, despite all this apparent healthy change.  There’s no doubt about it – we’re all getting fatter.  Sadly, as is often the case, this trend disproportionately affects certain groups in the population, with obesity rates amongst Maori and Pacific peoples in particular, starting to scale to dizzying proportions.

   While everyone agrees the reasons are multifaceted, a number of experts have provided commentary in the past week as to why this dichotomy is being seen, including (and I’m paraphrasing for the sake of brevity):

   1. “It’s because people under-report what they eat in surveys” (Rod Jackson)

   Yes, this has been documented in the literature, but in comparing like methodology with like methodology are we really likely to be recording our food intake any less accurately now than we were in 1997?  Even with an interviewer in our homes and going through our cupboards?  I’m not sure this is the only explanation.

   2. It’s partly because we’re less active than ever before and the survey did not assess activity levels.

   Certainly the basic energy in: energy out equation loop isn’t completed without an assessment of physical activity levels.  There is no question that sedentary behaviour is the elephant in the room with respect to obesity.  No matter how much we idolise our sporting heroes as a nation, the majority of us are more likely to sit on our backsides for most of the day.  Every day.  But, are we likely to be even more sedentary now than we were in 1997?  The 2006/07 NZ Health Survey found no change in regular physical activity between 2002/03 and 2006/07.  However, according to Professor Grant Schofield, our levels of sedentary behaviour are likely to be on the increase, with more hours of TV viewing, more sedentary jobs and greater car ownership/distance travelled by car in the last 15 years.  I don’t think we’ve heard the last on just how dangerous sitting can be for our health.

   3. “It’s because our environment is too jammed with easily available high fat, salt and sugar foods” Robyn Toomath.

   This is where we start to go around in circles, because the dietary intake data on the whole indicate we’re actually eating less fat and sugar.  In fact the only source of sugar which is growing in our diets seems to be fruit.  And in our fear of fat we seem to be switching to low fat dairy at the expense of retinol intakes and cutting out red meat to the expense of our zinc and iron intakes.  So are we reporting our intakes correctly? (… and the circular nature of this dicussion goes on).

   I would love to know what you make of all of this.  It would be great to get a discussion going.  Just insert a comment below (if there are no comments yet you need to click on the no comments box in order to make one).

    

    

   

2. You still can’t beat f2f!

   Published on Friday, August 26th, 2011

   In this age of real-time electronic communication, it’s easy to be cynical about the time and expense involved in attending a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting or conference.  After all, just last week I took part in a tweet chat with dietitians from all over the world from the comfort of my own sitting room, which didn’t cost me a cent.  But having just hopped off the plane from the Dietitians NZ National Conference in Nelson, I’m reminded of the value of spending quality time both networking and socialising with one’s professional colleagues.

   As a nutrition communicator I spend much of my time trawling the pages of PubMed, tapping away on the computer, laptop, iPhone or iPad, using social media and other electronic networks to share balanced, evidence-based food and nutrition information.  It was actually quite a relief to rest my thumbs for a few days and use my own voice and ears instead.  So much so that I now sound like a pack-a-day smoker!

   Together with Sarah (a colleague from the NZ Nutrition Foundation) we presented a social media workshop for dietitians at the conference, and while we were very successful in convincing New Zealand dietitians to jump onto the blogosphere, I was surprised at how much the experience reminded me that social media is only useful in-between times of face-to-face contact.  In fact when I think about it, the dietitians I interact most with via social media networks are the ones I’ve actually met in person.

   Is it a generational thing? Being someone who grew up without the internet, who can even remember what working-life was like prior to email, perhaps I’m biased?  Are you more likely to respond to questions and take part in social media discussions about professional issues when you’ve actually met the person seeking input?  I guess I’ll get my answer from your comments below…

   

3. Food Week dishes up popular cooking tips

   Published on Friday, May 13th, 2011

   There’s only 2 more days to go in the inaugural New Zealand Nutrition Foundation Food Week!

   Having completed 16 radio interviews and five interactive celebrity cooking demos with audiences of hundreds, and with 600 “likes” on the Food Week Facebook page, Sarah Hanrahan from the Nutrition Foundation is justifiably satisfied with progress so far.

   The approach of Just Cook – promoting positive, no stress cooking, with basic, inexpensive pantry essentials and just talking about food in a positive light has been received well by people so far.  “It’s so much more practical and well received than telling people what not to do”, said Sarah when we spoke to her today.

   With rising food prices and cost of living increasing, many families struggle to manage on an average New Zealand wage (as shown by Campbell Live reporter Tristram Clayton’s reality check in living on a budget), Just Cook, and its message “Just get in the kitchen and cook!” shows it’s absolutely still possible to make healthy, tasty meals in the home without breaking the budget.

   Research shows the biggest barriers to cooking at home are time, money and knowledge. Just Cook provides practical tips on how to address these barriers, such as knowing where to add a tin of beans or a cup of oats or to make meals go further for a fraction of the cost, adding good nutrition without compromising taste. The Food List  – a handy list of pantry, fridge and freezer foods to keep on hand at all times – is a great guide of kitchen essentials that can help those shopping on a budget prioritise what’s needed. And the Just Cook interactive kitchen houses easy, affordable, tried and tested recipes that cater to any combination of ingredients commonly held in NZ pantries.

   The programme also has a schools component for year 10 pupils which will be followed and evaluated in the coming weeks. Students are challenged to produce a recipe on a budget to feed a family of five, using items in the pantry list and a few extra dollars.

   As I write this, Sarah is just packing up from the final celebrity chef cooking demo in Britomart, where Masterchef finalist Nadia Lim cooked up a storm from the Food List in the fabulous kitchen provided by Fisher & Paykel. 

   You can access the celebrity chef recipes here, proof that some of our top foodies have great ideas for inexpensive food!

   We welcome any of your favourite recipe ideas or comments for making meals go further on a budget – please post these in the comments section below.

   

4. en•gage•ment (in-geidj-mint)

   Published on Thursday, October 28th, 2010

   n.
   1. The act of engaging or the state of being engaged.
   2. Betrothal.
   3. Something that serves to engage; a pledge.
   4. A promise or agreement to be at a particular place at a particular time.
   5. a. Employment, especially for a specified time.
   b. A specific, often limited, period of employment.
   6. A hostile encounter; a battle.
   7. The condition of being in gear.
   Synonyms: engagement, appointment, assignation, date1, rendezvous, tryst
   These nouns denote a commitment to appear at a certain time and place: a business engagement; a dental appointment; a secret assignation; a date to play tennis; a rendezvous of agents at the border; a lovers’ tryst.

   I do believe after many years of courtship and conflict, the various groups of stakeholders in the ever-expanding waistlines of New Zealanders are finally approaching engagement.  There’s not a lot of tangible evidence of productive engagement yet, but the scene is set.

   [The cynic in me is bearing in mind that using the above definition, engagement can mean both betrothal and battle...]

   Last week I attended the popular Edgar Centre for Diabetes Research and Prior Policy Centre’s Who Cares About New Zealand’s Waistline? seminar held in Wellington.

   Much of the discussion was not new – but the format was.

   As Professor Jim Mann explains here, the event was designed to portray evidence and practice from several of the key “actor groups” previously identified by the United Nations as influencing the health of populations.  The “actor groups” chosen to contribute at this event were Food Industry, Government, Civil Society Organisations, Schools & Families, Media and Workplace.

   Researchers were asked to present the case for evidence-based action in each sector and each sector was asked to respond with what has been and what could be done in New Zealand.

   I was particularly struck by the lack of hard evidence for any one intervention within each “actor group” having a major impact on obesity rates (with the exception of better town and transport planning).  Although every group demonstrated tangible evidence that they’re doing their bit – some better than others – within each area.  And no-one can deny that the combined effect of many coordinated interventions involving many different actor groups would likely be substantial, if any such research project existed to provide the hard evidence.  Presently it’s an ambitious dream, but monitoring action and research in this way on an annual basis will hopefully show progress.

   Tariana Turia impressed us all with her personal and compassionate concern for the issues.  You can read her speech here.

   Professor Grant Schofield from AUT was bold enough to admit that people don’t want to hear public health messages.  He suggested we need to re-frame the problem/issues into solutions/benefits/outcomes our audiences can relate to.  This was also backed up by sentiments expressed in the media session by Lorelei Mason and Jim Tully about what consumers want.

   Re-framing the issue is something done particularly well by the private sector.  Engaging in marketing and business tactics used successfully by the private sector are exactly what could make the difference to public sector campaigns.  In a recent inspirational TED presentation by Melinda Gates, she stated (of the need for aspirational marketing in health) “…<health agencies> assume when people need something we don’t have to make them want it”. It’s very true.

   Which brings me back to the need for real engagement between all actor groups to engage New Zealanders in the issues.  The main point I took from the research outcomes presented was that working away diligently in silos is not likely to trim our waistlines one iota.

   Well done to Professor Jim Mann and his team – who did a lot of the legwork to pull together the programme.  It was a refreshing approach.

   

5. Navigating the food and nutrition communications highway

   Published on Thursday, May 27th, 2010

   Navigating the communications highway can easily lead you into a spaghetti junction. Perhaps never more so than in the area of food and nutrition communications. Central to successful navigation is weighing up the evidence, listening, and understanding the views of others before choosing the path to follow.

   Key equipment for us is scientific rigour combined with common sense.
   
   Last week our Food Group hosted a seminar on this topic.  The first half focused on collecting views and perspectives from many relevant sectors within the healthy eating debate, with presentations from Kate Porter (McDonalds NZ), Dr Robyn Toomath (Fight the Obesity Epidemic), Sarah Thomson (Child Cancer Foundation) and Katherine Rich (Food and Grocery Council).

   It was interesting to hear such diverse views on approaches to healthy eating within one session.  But the panel discussion highlighted promising areas of commonality towards a shared goal.  It’s effective communications which can achieve a WIIFM factor within such a wide spectrum of approaches.

   The second session focused on communicating what consumers think and want.  Our Food Group and Nutrition NZ analysed some recent large pieces of research looking at what consumers really think of food labelling – in particular food and nutrition information on food labels.  If you’d like a copy of my presentation I’d be happy to provide this.

   Then Cathy Arrow led us on a virtual tour of her sister’s fish pie via online media, highlighting the influence of various online media influences in effective communications.

   We ended up with a panel of “alpha mums” who were all asked questions by the attendees.  I think we could have carried on firing questions for at least another hour or two, as their insight was the true measure of all our communications efforts.

   For those who attended, what (if anything) did you learn?  What would you have liked to see more of?  Please post any comments on the event (good and bad) to this blog.

   

6. What’s driving us to drink….and what are we drinking?

   Published on Monday, November 30th, 2009

   Recently I had the privilege of hearing one of my all time dietetic gurus, Linda Tapsell from Wollongong University, speak about how we relate to beverages.  Alongside her, Claire Richards from Coca-Cola Oceania shared some fascinating insights into New Zealander’s attitudes to drinking.  And Caryn Zinn expertly summarised issues on hydration in sport.

   When it comes to successfully encouraging people to make healthier beverage choices, each and every speaker stressed the importance of working with individuals, rather than making broad general recommendations such as “drink water and low fat milk”.

   What people expect and need from different beverages is extremely varied, which explained to me why it’s unrealistic to expect people to switch from one set of beverages (with similar attributes) to another set of beverages (with completely different attributes in the mind of the consumer). 

   For example, if you’re out for a good time with your mates you’re about as likely to order a glass of milk as you are to be wearing pyjamas.  What you want is a beverage that’s associated with socialising, not one that’s associated with, say health and nutrition.  There is a time and place for everything.

   Those underlying needs associated with certain life situations don’t change, but moving to a healthier option which addresses the same underlying need within the same situation is far more likely to work.  For example in the scenario described above, recommending that people order a diet soft drink if they’re watching their calorie intake, rather than a sugar containing soft drink, might actually be likely to work.

   That would be fine, were it not for another shocking fact I picked up at the same seminar: New Zealanders drink mostly tap water (nothing shocking in that), but the second most widely consumed beverage in New Zealanders (ranging from 12-69 years of age) is …wait for it….beer!  So in fact, most people in the above scenario will opt for a beer anyway!  Diet beer anyone?

   This sets my mind reeling at the calories we Kiwis must consume from alcohol.  It baffles me why all dietary energy sources do not require nutrition labelling and packaged alcoholic drinks are a long overdue candidate for this. 

   Thanks to the NZ Nutrition Foundation and Coca-Cola Oceania for making this event possible.  Linda and Caryn’s presentations should both be up on the Nutrition Foundation’s website shortly.

   

7. When is nasty truly nasty?

   Published on Monday, July 20th, 2009

   The word nasty is a strong one that tends to elicit an involuntary feeling of discomfort in most of us – and people do say that your gut reaction is the most important.  According to one dictionary “nasty” means:
   

   1.    Very ugly, or unpleasant to see, taste, smell, etc.
   2.    Morally bad or improper.
   3.    Harmful; painful; severe.
   4.    Causing difficulty or danger.
   5.    Angry or threatening.

   So when a UK Supermarket decided to include Aspartame in its list of “nasties” as part of a marketing campaign it’s no surprise that Ajinomoto, the proud manufacturer of this well known sweetener, was more than a little insulted. They decided to take legal action, the outcome of which shows just how “judgemental” our interpretation of such words can be – even when there is clear evidence to the contrary – proving that gut reaction does indeed triumph over logic.

   Despite aspartame being proven completely safe in more tests and studies than most other food ingredients added together, the High Court judge found in favour of the supermarket chain.

   The Judge’s ruling stated that describing aspartame free foods as “containing no hidden nasties” did not mean that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy, it was simply trying to convey the message “if you the consumer think that aspartame may be bad for you, or unpleasant to taste or consume, then this product is for you”.

   It effectively says that despite the facts, if someone thinks aspartame may be bad for them, their false belief should be supported and encouraged.  Surely this defies logic?

   Sadly some people automatically equate “natural” with “nice” and “manufactured” with “nasty”.  Before the manufacture of things like antibiotics and vaccines people died ‘naturally’, albeit horribly, in their millions.

   There are also just as many natural nasties as there are goodies out there in foods, which can even have fatal effects.  Here are just a few toxins, naturally present in fruit and vegetables: amygdalin, ipomeamarone, furocoumarins, glycoalkaloids and oxalic acid.  Not to mention the whole range of food poisoning bacteria, also quite natural. And what about those natural food ingredients that contribute to overweight and chronic disease, which again is ultimately fatal? No manufactured “nasties” there.

   Unfortunately despite the delicate nuances of the ruling, the general message to consumers is that aspartame is nasty.  This once again reinforces misconceptions based on emotion rather than reason.  I say challenge the nasty name callers with scientific facts and allow consumers the freedom to make their own informed choices.

   

8. We recommend…Taste of Auckland

   Published on Monday, February 16th, 2009

   As a relatively new member of The Food Group, this is my inaugural Food Talk update.  Recently I’ve been intrigued by an event coming to Auckland next month and, as passionate ‘foodies’ yourselves, I felt compelled to share it with you.

   Not simply another food and wine gathering, Taste of Auckland is a unique festival bringing together the elite of Auckland’s diverse hospitality scene, in a sophisticated outdoor extravaganza.  Tipped as a ‘foodie heaven’, Taste is designed to showcase the culinary delights of Auckland’s most acclaimed establishments and promises to educate and inspire anyone with a keen interest in fine cuisine.

   Taste originated in London in 2004, but the huge success of the concept has seen the programme expand into four further UK cities and seven countries internationally.  Twelve of the finest establishments in Auckland are poised to wow approximately 15,000 guests over a four day period with tastings, demonstrations and opportunities to learn tricks of the trade from some of the country’s top chefs.

   From the 19th to 22nd March, Ellerslie Racecourse will be transformed into a haven for enthusiastic foodies.  Restaurants such as The French Café, Clooney, Euro and Waiheke’s Mudbrick will exhibit their signature dishes within a re-creation of their premises, bringing their own unique ambience to this sophisticated event.  Amongst these, boutique food and drink exhibitors from all over the country will display their wares and delight the taste buds.

   Taste events in the UK have been heralded as some of the most prestigious food and drink events in the industry calendar, attracting high profile chefs such as Gordon Ramsey, Gary Rhodes and Anthony Worrall-Thompson.

   I’m sure you can sense my excitement from the tone of this article, but I have to stress that Network PR has no involvement in the orchestration of this event and my interest is purely from a consumer’s point of view.  I’m pleased to see an event of this calibre coming to the city and would encourage you to experience it for yourself.

   Individual tickets for Taste of Auckland can be purchased through Ticketek, however, the organisers are able to offer a range of Corporate Hospitality packages to suit.  Contact the team on 09 976 8300 or info@tasteofauckland.co.nz for details.

   My ticket is already booked; I hope to see some of you there.