Week after week books are published and media reports are issued focussing on finger pointing.  For the past six months in particular all fingers have been pointed at the food industry – in particular the “food giants” – for manipulating and addicting consumers to their products.  Prior to that – at least in New Zealand – experts have pointed to Government, for their lack of investment in preventative health and unwillingness to introduce regulatory taxes, bans and restrictions for certain foods and food marketing.  And any health-related association or sports group is now being criticised for working collaboratively with food companies because of the fear that food companies only associate with health-related associations as a fluffy PR exercise. It is not known what foundation there is for such fear, but it’s enough to make food companies throw in the towel on their numerous attempts to introduce healthier options and reformulate existing products, and just start doing exactly what they’re being accused of (if people are determined to think that anyway).

In the meantime is the population any better off?  When the average person spends less than a second deliberating over their supermarket choices and juggles food provision for their families with all of the other priorities in our busy lives, what is all this finger pointing achieving for them?

I would venture to say it’s doing more harm than good.  It’s causing even more confusion.  The bottom line is people have to eat and drink something to stay alive.  Dietary experts and food and nutrition guidelines largely make recommendations based on the four food groups, which actually don’t relate well to what the average person has to choose from when they’re in the supermarket or eating out these days. People also don’t have the lifestyles or incomes that enable them to grow their own foods or shop at farmers markets (wonderful as they are).  They simply buy and eat what they like/can afford/are familiar with – in that order.  So achieving the shift that motivates them to also vitally include in the purchasing mix “know is healthy for them” requires the following:

- Unity and clarity in scientific advice from Government and academics which relates to the current food supply, not the foods which Nana had to choose from when she shopped for her family back in the 1960s.

- No more contradictory, confusing, subjective and unsubstantiated messages or blanket statements which only result in people giving up and going back to what they know and like.

- Support and endorsement from the scientific/health community when food companies make positive nutritional changes, so that there is actually a demand for healthier products from the population.

- Dropping the blame game.  Truly collaborative implementation of solutions is the only way forward to deliver real benefits to the population.  This will involve significant compromise for all parties, who must commit to concrete actions and be held accountable to those in the long term.

Can’t we just get on with it?

A critical success factor is that this campaign appears to stem from Michelle’s own personal family learnings and experience prior to entering the White House.  And now that she’s mother of the nation it makes sense to bring these learnings to her new, wider family.  It’s a PR dream.

The four campaign pillars are: helping parents make better food choices, serving healthier food in school vending machines and lunch lines, making healthy food more available and affordable, and encouraging children to exercise more.

Yes, it is ambitious – but what I like is that it’s multifaceted – like obesity itself.  The true causes of obesity in a population are highly complex, because they vary so much from person to person, so no single approach will ever be successful.  What’s needed for prevention is a multifaceted approach across the population, to allow for this individual variation.

Within “Let’s Move” there are specific plans to work with the food industry on developing easily understood food labels, encouraging doctors to better identify and work with those children at risk, serving healthier food in schools, offering tax breaks to improve access to healthier food in specific areas, consumer education programmes providing tips and resources, and encouraging at least 60 minutes of exercise daily.

All really good common sense stuff, that’s pulled together as one campaign with one clear goal, by a powerful, talented and nurturing figurehead.  As discussed on Rebecca Scritchfield’s US healthcare blog, recognition of the fact that governments alone will not solve the challenge of obesity is another critical success factor of Let’s Move.  Surely it’s the sort of approach our own government should be taking?  Why then abolish the progress made on making school food here healthier?  Why take the view that education on its own doesn’t work, so stop marketing and producing healthy eating education and resources?  Why stop programmes already working to improve access to healthier foods in communities?  Why not commend food companies for the progress they’ve already voluntarily made (for example labelling foods with %DI information to help consumers plan their food and beverage intake)?

Our government seems to be focusing on exercise as a silver bullet.  What do you think?  Who would our Let’s Move figurehead be?  Would people believe this of Bronagh?

(PS – these questions aren’t rhetorical.  I’d really like to hear your views!)