Comments on: Sugar – since when did the facts get in the way of a good story?

By: Donnell Alexander

Donnell Alexander — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:16:39 +0000

Apologies for the delay in posting this – it was not intentional.
Tony naturally the points you make, coming from you are no surprise. They repeat the unsubstantiated points you consistently make in other forums. Given they are well aired but also grossly incorrect your posting warrants correction of those inaccuracies.
Firstly consumption of refined sugar is not increasing. Our consumption of sucrose (a measure of added sugar) is actually decreasing according to the Ministry of Health’s most recent National Nutrition Survey.
The single minded idea that sugar and soft drinks are the major cause of obesity has certainly captured people’s attention. These products do contribute energy and intake of sugar does need to be moderated by individuals who over-consume it (not the majority of New Zealanders). Those same people are likely to over consume most other foods and beverages. That is what leads to obesity. I find this constant barking up one tree irresponsible when there is a whole forest that needs tending to.
Secondly many of the key food and beverage manufacturers in New Zealand are participating very actively in being part of the solution to obesity. Some examples include: reformulating products, developing new products under strict nutrition guidelines, broadening overall portfolios to offer more low energy choices, adopting marketing and promotion policies to favour low energy choices, facilitating professional development sessions for health professionals and supporting community health and activity programmes.
Thirdly, no food/beverage manufacturer has a vision to “shorten lives”. Happy, healthy customers who live long lives are what any business wants to ensure continued custom.
It is not surprising to me that you have strong feelings against your key competitor. That’s quite normal in business. Though few go to the lengths you have to promote unsubstantiated myths about their competitors from a self-appointed ‘moral high ground’ position. I just hope that others see this for what it is – a marketing exercise for Just Water.
While it is good to discuss the key facts, I’d prefer to focus on helping people eat healthier diets and live healthier lives. Your water programme is to be commended for that but your determination to blame your competitors undermines the benefits of this.

By: Tony Falkenstein

Tony Falkenstein — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:34:49 +0000

Thanks for your input. Can the food industry really condone the increased consumption of refined sugar? Are they really saying that until we get every other contributor to obesity under control, they are not interested in being part of the solution. At least Just Water can have a vision of “enhancing lives”; Coke and KFC’s vision can only be “shortening lives”! In terms of Coke, they not only cause premature death of their consumers, but rot their consumers’ teeth on the way and pollute the environment with their plastic bottles. Yuk!!!!

By: Donnell Alexander

Donnell Alexander — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:15:03 +0000

Thanks Catherine – you make some very valid points. I am particularly keen on looking at health/food/nutrition issues through a sociological lens, to understand better why people cannot/will not prioritise health overa ll of life’s other pressures.

By: Catherine Arrow

Catherine Arrow — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 03:33:38 +0000

I found the programme quite difficult to swallow – as, interestingly, did my teenage sons, who were aghast that the proposed ‘solution’ to the consumption of soft drinks came from someone selling big bottles of filtered tap water to low income families. Their teen-take on it was that the report was a big advert for a watercooler business and, judging by social media commentary, they weren’t alone in that view.

From a communications perspective, I think your point concerning food illiteracy is extremely valid, but equally, mainstream media increasingly looks for someone to ‘blame’ for all our societal ills. As individuals and families we make choices and have responsibility for all we do but far too frequently, when extreme choices prove to have unfortunate consequences, rather than personal responsibility being taken, it becomes the fault of the ‘things’ we did – food, drink, alcohol, speeding, etc.. – rather than our own culpability.

The way we eat has changed – at my house we are now the exception rather than the rule among many of my sons’ peers simply because we still sit together every evening for a meal at the table. Some of them think we’re quite odd, while others enjoy coming along for some food, conversation and lots of laughs – none of which tend to be available via the ‘grazing’ method.

I would agree that the starting point has to be around societal values and practices, whether that is around the food we eat, the way we drive or problems relating to alcohol – for example, the recent media stories surrounding Queen Street’s binge drinkers blamed everyone except the people choosing to preload themselves into such a ghastly state but failed to look at the underlying reasons why the bingers felt this was an acceptable way to behave – and why the rest of society tolerates such behaviour.

Maybe the answer is for the nutritionists, sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists to get together and first identify social cause and influence – sort out the ‘why’ so we can make headway on the ‘what’.

And disclosure .. I have had a passing involvement with food and beverage companies in my professional capacity, but my main engagement with food and drink over the decades has been as a consumer!