Uncategorized

1. Te Mahi Kai – The language of food

   Published on Friday, July 30th, 2010

   This week is Māori Language Week, themed The Language of Food. What better way to engage the Nation than to create synergies between Te Reo Māori, one of our three official languages* (which only 4.7% of us can speak fluently), with the act of meal preparation and eating. It’s something that we can all relate to, be it having a love of food, a passion for creating our favourite dishes or the mere survival instinct that kicks in and forces us to eat.

   New Zealanders are getting behind Māori language week in their own ways – Dr Pita Sharples led a celebrity cook-off at the Wellington launch; ‘boil-up’ is featured this week on some of our hospital menus and our television presenters are giving lessons in Te Reo Māori while we watch the weather – despite our struggles to figure out where they’re up to on the map. The Australian-owned Progressive Enterprises supermarket group (Countdown, Woolworths and Foodtown) is also getting behind Māori language week, providing Māori translations of traditional Kiwi recipes, measurements and shopping lists in Te Reo, and investing in Māori Language Week advertising. It’s encouraging to see the promotion of Te Reo Māori move beyond the traditional realm of Parliament and Education, towards a potentially more inclusive meeting ground like the supermarket.

   This year’s Māori Language Week is teaching us a few things about successful communications. The food theme highlights the value of finding common ground and experiences, no matter what our background, ethnicity, or religious beliefs are. This week’s execution also reminds us to make use of less traditional avenues for reaching and effectively communicating with target audiences. As PR practitioners, we must remember that just as food is all about communication, communication is all about engaging our five senses – taste, smell, touch, sound and sight.

   Our day jobs may be all about words, but as Māori Language Week shows us, we naturally communicate in a myriad of ways.

   * New Zealand’s three official languages are English, Te Reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language

   

2. All hail the cheese roll

   Published on Thursday, June 17th, 2010

   They’re celebrating and exploring the science of the cheese roll in Dunedin this month.  I love cheese rolls, and reading about this makes me want to rush home and cook up a batch of these warming winter treats.

   Winter food is all about comfort, warmth and sustenance.  Soup is a great example of this (and a perfect food match to those cheese rolls!).  All those great staple classics like lasagna, shepherds pie, macaroni cheese and casseroles come into their own at this time of the year.

   For those from the southern end of New Zealand, the humble cheese roll is so much more than a tasty snack.  It’s part of our heritage.  It’s about memories of Grandma and family times.  It’s about sharing with friends and social occasions.  And for those north of the cheese roll divide, there are other food favourites which fulfill this role in life.

   The powerful social role of food cannot be underestimated.  Recently I read some consumer research showing that the majority of people prioritise good nutrition when choosing what to eat at home or in routine situations.  But unsurprisingly when asked the same question in relation to times when they’re socialising or eating with friends, good nutrition became less of a priority.

   When communicating about food and nutrition the power of food’s traditional social role in our lives cannot be underestimated.  These messages mean very little if they fail to acknowledge people’s behaviour and feelings around food, especially in social settings.  Excellent nutrition communication needs to provide ways and means of achieving the same warm fuzzy feelings around healthy eating.

   And for those of you who’re dying to experience the magic of the Southland Cheese Roll to warm you up this winter, here’s a great recipe.

   

3. Has the world already reached Peak Health? If so, who’s to blame?

   Published on Monday, May 10th, 2010

   The concept of peak oil has spread into the health sector, with public health professionals now talking about peak health in the same vein.  This draws important parallels between our health as humans and the health of our planet – the two, as we have known for some time, being inextricably linked.

   So have we already reached peak health?  Are we therefore now heading down the slippery slope away from it?  If, as experts predict, today’s children will not live as long as their parents (due to increasing obesity and its ensuing chronic diseases), perhaps we are.

   And if we have surpassed peak health, who or what is to blame?  Having recently returned from a largely finger-pointing and teeth gnashing Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) conference in Canberra where there was much discussion on peak health, I know that many believe the blame lies with food manufacturers and marketers.

   “How can they truly have the health of consumers as their main objective, when their main objective is to make a profit for their shareholders?”

   That old chestnut.

   In fact all organisations are constrained by financial realities, whether this involves making a profit, breaking even or maximising value for money.  The ever present clamour for public sector funding to undertake health research is but one example of how money makes the world go around in the public as well as the private sector. We all need to make a living to feed and house our families, but most of us feel better in our work if we know our employer genuinely cares about us and others.

   Actually what motivates businesses is far more basic than money.  It’s survival.

   At the NZ Food and Grocery Council’s half yearly meeting last week I was heartened by what John Doumani, General Manager for the Fonterra business in Australia and New Zealand said about how to build immortality into brands.  He suggested that unless companies prioritise their objectives in order of customers first, employees second and shareholders third, they will not survive.

   Looking after your customers means looking after their interests, in particular their health.  Same for employees; after all, no one enjoys work for a company which puts shareholders first above all else.  Ensuring customers are happy and healthy, and employees feel great about the company they work for will satisfy shareholders in the long term.  Any wise and sustainable food manufacturer knows this.

   Still, it seems that food manufacturers struggle to do anything right in the eyes of public health critics.  Even affordable foods, developed (at great expense) by food companies to provide high levels of the nutrients commonly missing from diets in developing countries, were criticised at the PHAA conference. It left me questioning what food companies could possibly ever do right for such critics.

   What do you think food manufacturers, and others can do to help us regain peak health?

   

4. Helping kids buy from the school cafeteria – will ‘Big Brother’ tactics work?

   Published on Friday, August 21st, 2009

   A new computer system telling parents what their child has bought in the school cafeteria that day is being used in some American schools. The idea is that parents can make sure their children are making appropriate choices and spending their money wisely.

   In principle it sounds like a great idea but on the other hand, are we not depriving them of an opportunity to use their own decision making skills, in what would surely be a somewhat controlled environment?

   As with most things I guess it depends on how we put it into practice.  Food police parents are likely to be pretty vigilant at home and will aim to encourage the same at school.  Many would argue that the school cafeterias should not be offering ‘inappropriate’ food choices anyway.  But those children who want to beat the system will always find a way, whether it’s at school or elsewhere.

   At the other end of the scale there are the permissive parents who, given their more relaxed attitude are probably not going to worry too much anyway – at school or home.  And somewhere in the middle - my personal favourite - one hopes that common sense prevails.

   For younger children I am sure that it could be a useful tool to help them learn about making healthy food choices.  But as they get older surely we need to offer them the chance to make their own decisions?  Yes there will be some downsides but with a good foundation they will eventually realise that eating only treat foods isn’t all that fulfilling.

   I often wonder if parents of children who are growing rapidly are in fact offering sufficient high energy density foods to meet their needs.  A teenage boy for example can burn twice the energy of a sedentary adult male.  A desire for high energy snacks is just as likely to be due to a genuine need for energy in some as it is due to poor decision making in others.

   On the other hand we know from the national nutrition surveys that as children get older and begin to exercise more free will, the overall nutrient intake changes – and not usually for the good. In particular consumption of dairy, fruit and vegetables goes down.

   So what is the best way to encourage children to choose the right food and beverages at school?  Should we not be putting our energy into making sure what is on offer is appealing, tasty and good quality – nutritionally and aesthetically?

   

5. 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.

   

6. Our nation’s health and wealth – whose responsibility is it anyway?

   Published on Monday, July 20th, 2009

   

   Politics might be about people, but at the end of the day it is the fiscal health of our country and the impact an issue has on that health that is guaranteed to exercise the conscience and therefore policy direction of our government.

   Obesity is the perfect example of this.  One of, if not the main reason obesity has become a major political issue during the past decade is the cost to New Zealand now and in the future.  But in identifying this problem what have we tangibly done to address it?

   For almost a decade we have seen an enormous amount of time used in consulting, planning, lobbying and networking, in order to decide how we can help people overcome all of these issues that apparently are absolutely no fault of their own. Note the “how we can help”.

   But are we really any further forward?  Do we have a decisive road map on how, in the medium and long-term, we can address these issues, or the very least the confidence in our convictions that we are making some in-roads?  Certainly there has been some progress but often these are specific and isolated outcomes.  I also know that the food industry (I freely admit my own involvement within the food industry) has done a huge amount to “assist”.

   It now seems that our new Minister of Health is calling for greater focus on putting the money directly into fixing the problem and the word is that we want actions and outcomes not plans and pontification.  But what will this mean in the area of obesity?  Fat camps or social welfare benefits for people who are the right weight only?

   If we look at our US counterparts who are also taking a fresh and very serious look at these matters there could be some lessons to be learnt.  A recent address by President Obama, to the annual American Medical Association conference highlights the key strategies needed to “fix” the US health system and if we listen carefully the situation really is dire.

   Most interestingly President Obama specifically identifies greater investment in preventive care “so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place” as the second most important focus for his administration in order to get the health system back on track.

   It only comes second because the first area to tackle is that of a more efficient and integrated record keeping system. It seems that in America there is far greater success tracking a Fedex parcel than a person’s medical records.  It also results in significant cost blowouts right across the system.

   The most refreshing aspect of his focus on preventive care is that it directly links to personal responsibility – listen to his words.

   “That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.

   “It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That’s a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that’s a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.”

   President Obama predicts that within a decade one of every five dollars earned will go towards health care.  In thirty years (when our own children will be working) one in three dollars will be spent on health care.  The future cost of health could potentially be the undoing of a modern society’s financial stability.

   What I found particularly interesting was the fact that the US health system costs US$2 trillion every year and they apparently spend 50% more per person than the next most costly nation.  Despite that over 100,000 people a year die from medical misadventure.

   So it is up to us as individuals to take responsibility for their health and the future health of their own children. To me it is a flash of the blinding obvious.

   So to the question posed in the title.  Whose responsibility is it anyway?  Surely it is everyone’s?  So let’s park the blame game and get on with doing our bit.  But let’s do it for ourselves first!