Comments on: Has the world already reached Peak Health? If so, who’s to blame?

By: Donnell Alexander

Donnell Alexander — Mon, 10 May 2010 03:19:54 +0000

Can’t say that I completely agree with you John, but thanks for your comment. I still believe that it’s about overall dietary and lifestyle choices – not individual food or beverage products. Companies such as Coca-Cola and Bluebird are definitely reformulating and expanding their ranges to provide more choice and meeting demand for lower energy beverages and foods. But that doesn’t mean existing products should be demonised or no longer sold. “Red Coke” has been sold for over 100 years with the same formulation, so it’s clearly not the only cause of obesity.
No, I tend to agree with Elaine when she says “it’s not knowing that causes misunderstandings”. That’s exactly right. All of the good work that is being undertaken by food and beverage manufacturers needs to be better communicated to and understood by those working in public health.

By: John Birkbeck

John Birkbeck — Mon, 10 May 2010 02:06:55 +0000

Food industry rightly expect to make a profit. What we lack is government [either party] willingness to regulate by rules or economic measures. CocaCola Amatil for example will have to accept their products are mostly harmful to health and either reformulate or stop selling them. Same for the fast food industry, Bluebird and so on. We could start by removing GST from appropriate foods [e.g. fruit and vegetables either fresh or simply frozen or canned in water] but not soft drinks, alcohol and other health-harming items. It shouldn’t be very difficult to make the division. Then if a product is reformulated it can move to GST free status. This is better than the traffic signal concept which can mislead because it usually has a restricted list of characteristics such as “low salt” or “low saturated fat” but may not have much nutritional benefit either.

By: Elaine Rush

Elaine Rush — Mon, 10 May 2010 01:20:10 +0000

There are a number of ways that food manufacturers can (and are) work with governments to improve the education, food preferences, purchasing behaviour and the balance of food categories consumed. If there were clear, achievable goals that food manufacturers could report on and be be graded against then public health critics would have less to question. It is not knowing that causes misunderstandings. Marketing, price and availablity are tools of public health and food manufacturers; if the goals are the same there should not be a problem?
The distribution system for fresh fruit and vegetables in New Zealand appears to add cost to this important component of a healthy food supply. In some areas I understand the goods travel the same road twice. Is this right? Is there some innovative way where the miles covered by F&V are reduced and the time (and cost) from garden to mouth reduced? Suggestions from industry please