The war on obesity
Yesterday the government released its response to the Health Select Committee’s inquiry into obesity and type-2 diabetes. It adopted most, but not all of the recommendations, which led Health Minister David Cunliffe to say:
“This Government has made health promotion and disease prevention a priority.”
But the somewhat unimpressed Obesity Action Coalition called on the government to ‘declare war on obesity‘.
And the Health Select Committee’s chairperson, Sue Kedgley, said:
“Half-hearted measures won’t work. The clear message heard by the committee is that healthy options need to be easy options.”
The big recommendations that did not make the cut were the committee’s proposal for an independent commissioner, for greater regulation on advertising unhealthy food to children and a move towards a ‘traffic light’ food labelling system that indicates the recommended frequency of consumption for each product. The United Kingdom Food Standards Agency has successfully used this system to change food purchasing behaviour there.
But one of the smaller recommendations not to make it past Cunliffe’s office is extending the Fruit in Schools programme to all schools. Instead it will only be extended to decile two primary and intermediate schools. Fruit in Schools is a programme that was developed in 2005. Currently 56,000 school students in 270 schools receive one piece of fresh fruit each per school day. In return, the school community collectively agrees to support healthy eating, being physically active, sunsmart and smokefree. Â
The select committee heard evidence that this programme not improves children’s health by increasing the amount of fruit they consume, it also improves learning outcomes in schools.  If it is having that kind of benefit it would seem worth extending to all schools as per the recommendation. Obesity, diabetes and good learning are not just low decile issues.
November 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
This is the worst, most dangerous load of bah humbug I have heard.
There are so many inaccuracies in the reports and recommendations filtering down to the public and the alarmism of calling it an “obesity epidemic� is just downright dangerous and discriminatory. Just a few of the issues are:
1. Imagine the squeals of outrage you would get from the Greens if you replace “obesity� with the word AIDS, and had programs in school to counter the AIDS epidemic including encouraging “safe sex� practices. Or try replacing it with “teenage pregnancy or tuberculosis�
2. The Greens are right behind the government’s policy to let in disabled people and people with AIDS and TB into the country but where is the outrage when a woman is banned because her BMI is too high. Just imagine the outcry if a TV documentary started with a whole lot of skinny men with AIDS walking down the road!
3. There is no high cause and effect relationship between obesity and type II diabetes but they are almost always reported as synonymous, which they are not.
4. There was recently a report of a study that children on one of these PC diets developed Calcium deficiency and they had to add dairy products back into the diet. We will see a lot more malnutrition related diseases in children as food fascists and sucked in parents put their kids on fad diets. The vast majority of children need their “puppy fat� and grow out of it quite nicely, and diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis will no doubt increase as a result.
5. A lot of this is just driven by the competing food industries, animal activists and vegans as has the anti meat and dairy propaganda for the last 40 years. Kedgely is a well known luddite and supporter of the artificial health food industry and its allies and is philosophically opposed to modern farming which feeds the world.
6. Overweight people already feel discriminated against, with good reason judging by the research literature and this publicity will make that worse.
7. If the sensationalist media reports about the so called obesity epidemic don’t stop then there WILL be an increase in eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, and psychological problems related to body image and self confidence.
I for one will hold the present government and their sycophants, the Greens, personally responsible for any increase in eating disorders or diseases of malnutrition as a result of this politically opportunistic campaign. They will no doubt try the usual trick of blaming poverty.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
To reply to the points made.
1. As far as I am aware there has been a programme for safe sex in schools for a while. There have been no squeals of outrage, in fact most people seem to react with a yawn.
2. Nobody is refused entry to New Zealand on the grounds of BMI, so that is another straw man.
3. A causal link does not mean the two are synonymous. Any more than a smoker is synonymous with a lung cancer victim. But the two are still strongly linked.
4.Where is the report? Have you ever wondered why if a vegan suffers any form of malnutrition it must be because they are vegan, but if a carnivore suffers from malnutrition it is never their carniverous diet that is to blame. The only person I know with problems in absorbing vitamin B12, and who has to have B12 supplement injections is a carnivore (ironically one who warned me about the dangers of vitamin B12 deficiency). The Ministry of Health and Crop and Food Research put out a list of readily available foods and their nutritional breakdown. A quick perusal of this will reveal a number of nutritious vegan products that contain calcium. The American and Canadian dietetics society both recommend vegan diets as being at least as healthy as carniverous ones in containing all healthy nutrients. These can be looked up on the website of these organisations.
5. This is just name calling and ad hominem attacks. I suppose the American and Canadian Dietetics Associations, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and the Health Select Committee are all luddite vegans plotting to take over the world.
6. Being overwieght is often (though not always) a preventable illness. In any event the issue of discrimination against those with a disease (preventable or otherwise) is a seperate issue from the scientific research on the aetiology of the disease and policy decisions made on the basis of the resarch findings.
7. Do you have a reference to back up the last assertion. I am sure that there has been a great deal written on anorexia and bulimia so if there was any truth to your theory that legitimate concern over a disease leads to the opposite disease then I am sure we would kow about it.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Actually Kiore1, one person was not let into NZ because she was too fat:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/nz-land-of-food-nazis.html
It seems that the green party is more interested in fighting Big Macs then in fighting Pot and crack. When was the last time that the green party rallied support for the war on drugs?
November 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I don’t see any discrepancy between the Greens food and drugs policies.
We don’t support the war on drugs and we don’t support a war on obesity because we recognise that wars on anything don’t work and are just empty rhetoric.
Instead we have a range of moderate, sensible, evidence-based, real-world realistic polices designed to reduce the harm of drugs and reduce the harm of unhealthy eating.
Characterising us as pro-drugs and anti-unhealthy food is just plain wrong. For example are we advocating that unhealthy foods should be prohibited and that users and dealers of unhealthy foods should be imprisoned?
No we’re not. We are advocating putting limits on advertising and stricter health labeling. Which is remarkably similar to our drugs policy!
November 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
“We don’t support the war on drugs and we don’t support a war on obesity because we recognise that wars on anything don’t work and are just empty rhetoric.”
Have you by any chance read the title of this thread stuey?
November 28th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
yes I have, but the title is not “lets all get behind the …” or “the Greens support the …”
The “war” thing comes from a PR from a pressure group, not from Sue’s PR.
The pressure group would be well advised to avoid such language because of the baggage that it brings.
November 28th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Re: an overweight person not being allowed into NZ.
As far as I recall the person was seeking to come in as an immigrant, not merely a visitor. I can only presume, if the story is true, that as part of the application the person’s weight may have been seen as a health issue.
Speaking as a very overweight person, (but working hard to achieve a better health/weight balance), I welcome the attention from the health system. Much more research is needed, especially in the area of prescribed medications, for other conditions, when weight increase is a common side effect.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
“But the somewhat unimpressed Obesity Action Coalition called on the government to ‘declare war on obesity‘.”
You are on thin ice Stuey. Having read the post would you say that it’s tone is supportive or against the intentions of the obesity action coalition?
November 28th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
take out the headline and frogs choice of quote and there’s nothing “war” in there at all, there is merely a set of possible moderate proposals that the government could have supported but didn’t. That’s the overall tone of the piece and the Obesity Action Coalition PR which is also similarly measured in it’s criticism (the actual quote is “This was the Government’s opportunity to declare war on obesity in New Zealand, and really make an impact on the marketing front. Instead, we have a weak response”).
Of course frogs post is supportive of the intentions of the Obesity Action Coalition, as is Sue’s PR, (she said “the Government needs to pull out all the stops”), as are the Greens, as am I. Strong action is clearly needed, but not a “war”.
The Greens are not in favour of unhealthy food prohibition and jailing unhealthy food users so your war on drugs comparisons are what is on thin ice.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
You say that you are opposed to symbolically declaring war on obesity, something which the OAC and probably frog (who chose the headline and the quote) support. Am I then to take it that you disagree with both frog and the OAC on that issue?
Also, moving away from the debate on the word ‘war’, how can you advocate similar or the same measures to fight obesity and drugs when the effects of drugs are clearly so much worse?
November 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Kevin Says:
November 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
6. Overweight people already feel discriminated against, with good reason judging by the research literature and this publicity will make that worse.
7. If the sensationalist media reports about the so called obesity epidemic don’t stop then there WILL be an increase in eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, and psychological problems related to body image and self confidence.
Certainly my experience with friends who had eating disorders backs up Kevin’s these two statements from Kevin. And eating disorders counsellors will also tell you that anti-obesity messages have a big effect on people with anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa.
I haven’t come across the Obesity Action Coalition before, but Fight the Obesity Epidemic are single-issue nutters who will do more harm than good through their influemce on people who are prone to eating disorders.
We should lock the anti-obesity campaigners in a room with people campaigning against eating disorders, and not let them out until the two groups come up with one public service message to achieve both of their aims. Otherwise they will just keep exacerbating each other’s problems.
Having said that, Sue’s suggestions about friut in schools, and wider moves to make healthy choices the easy ones, are a good idea. As long as she is suggesting sensible stuff like that, she should be careful not to associate herself with FOE and OAC.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
if frog or the OAC support “symbolically declaring war on obesity” then yes I don’t support that.
Who says the effects of illegal drugs are “clearly so much worse” than obesity? Have you ranked them by the harm done? What measure of harm? If you were to ask me which substance does the most harm I would probably put alcohol first.
The reason why the Greens treat all addictive substances that can be bad for you in a similar manner is because people’s relationships with them all are all based on the same innate needs.
e.g. read Andrew Weil’s From Chocolate to Morphine which explains how all drugs are basically on the same continuum. Weil says that there is no such thing as good or bad drugs, merely that some individuals have good or bad relationships with certain substances.
So I see no problem in treating illegal drugs, alcohol, junk food and gambling in a similar way but obviously on a sliding scale so that substances that are more harmful get more restrictions than others.
Read the Green Party Drug Law Reform Policy - Towards a Harm Reduction Model for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and other drugs - if you want any more detail of how this manifests itself in practice.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
>stuey Says:
>November 28th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
>The reason why the Greens treat all addictive substances that can be bad for you in a similar manner is because people’s relationships with them all are all based on the same innate needs.
We don’t treat them the same. Consider some examples:
caffeine - ban caffeinated drinks from sale at primary and intermediate schools.
bzp: age limit of 18, impose dosage limits per tablet.
alcohol: age limit of 18, support puntitve taxes, ban broadcast advertising
tobacco: age limit of 18, support punitive taxes, ban all advertising
marijuana: allow for medical users, instant fines for other users caught in possession of it
ecstasy, P, heroin, cocaine, LSD, fantasy: prohibit (other than the existing medical uses of heroin, P and cocaine).
Doesn’t sound like treating them all the same to me.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
“we recognise that wars on anything don’t work and are just empty rhetoric.”-Stuey
“if frog or the OAC support “symbolically declaring war on obesityâ€? then yes I don’t support that.”-Stuey
180 degree turn there? I though declaring war was just empty rhetoric stuey.
Yes stuey, i am ranking the drugs by harm done, not to society as a whole but to any given individual who takes them. You say that you support a sliding scale so that substances that are more harmful get more restrictions. I agree with you on that so the only difference between you and I is how far such a scale would go. My scale would ban all drugs that are currently banned. I think that there are already enough restrictions on tobbaco, and with alcohol I think the problem is more to do with our culture then our laws. Your scale would legalise every drug, but with varying degrees of restriction.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
No of course we don’t advocate treating them exactly the same, but in a similar manner under the same evidence-based regulatory framework on a sliding scale whereby different restrictions are done for each.
You have to admit that there are similar measures employed for each substance in your list kahikatea: age limits, restrictions on advertising, regulations on content, restrictions on availability, compulsory health warnings, pricing mechanisms, including taxes, duties and levies and health education and treatment. Similarly for items not on your list such as junk food (also ban advertising, restrict sale in schools) and gambling.
For the record my views on the proper place on that scale of some of the recreational drugs, (e.g. marijuana, ecstasy, nox, LSD, mushrooms) is different from the Greens.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:17 am
P.S. kahikatea, you missed out a crucial GP policy point for cannabis that helps highlight the similarities between our policy on currently illegal drugs and currently legal ones …
cannabis: age limit of 18 [ref]
I thought we also had a restrict advertising policy for cannabis as well but I can’t find it. However we do also have a policy to treat cannabis and tobacco the same under the smokefree environment act. And we do seek to treat driving while impaired the same whether it is cannabis or alcohol or any other substance.
Also, I don’t believe that the Greens do have a policy for instant fines for cannabis possession as you state. According to our policy, we want to “eliminate penalties for personal cannabis use for people aged 18 years and over.”
I do remember that Nandor proposed a suggested compromise bill just before the 2005 election that proposed fines for people in possession within 100m of a school but as far as I am aware this was just a suggestion for legislation and is not policy.
Finally I also do not believe that we actually have any sort of policy on the other currently illegal recreational drugs that you mention except of course including them in education programmes. So I don’t think you can say that we support prohibition of those substances, except in that we have no policy to change the current law.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Nicks link led to the revelation that peak oil has claimed it’s first victim.
“Iceland is the world’s best place to live, according to an annual U.N. report that ranked sub-Saharan Africa as the worst place for someone to call home.
The island nation edged out Norway, which had held the top spot for the last six years. The United States slipped to 12th place from an eighth place ranking last year.
Norway slipped to No. 2 this year because of new life expectancy estimates and updated figures for gross domestic product, or GDP, the report said.”
That’s what happens when your oil field has peaked. Your GDP drops and you get overtaken by the hydrogen economy.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313227,00.html
November 29th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Finally a good article in the MSM about overinterpreting epidemiological studies, that they cannot usually determine cause and effect and why they often contradict themsleves:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=149&objectid=10475094
And another good article here:
Distinguishing Association from Causation: A Backgrounder for Journalists
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1629/pub_detail.asp
I’ll try to get the article on Calcium deficiency. What I am against most is the sensationalism marginalising overwieght people (its not a disease) and exacerbating other body image problems. Eat healthy - yes - its just comomon sense - a bood balance of foods including meat and dairy products, and not too much of any one thing. Anything else is just dangerous tinkereing because the body is well adapted to take what it needs from your diet.
The ludicrous headline “Obese layabouts face higher cancer riskâ€? is an example of the type of sensationlism when you imagine the outcry if the headline said “promiscous homosexuals increase AIDS risk”.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:48 am
All the recent comments are mine. Do I win a chocolate fish. Or do I get disqualified for “clicking the wrong button”. Yes, I know, maybe I should get a life, but then the issues we’re discussing here will influence what sort of lives your children will get so it’s worthwhile making it part of my life. Anyway, can’t weed the vege garden in the dark.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:13 am
“Nicks link led to the revelation that peak oil has claimed it’s first victim.”
Eh? it leads to an article about how a woman was denied entry at the border for being too fat.
“proposed fines for people in possession within 100m of a school”
Ha, i can imagine it now. A pot dealer sees a policeman and realises he is walking past a school, and if the policeman cant catch him before he gets out of the 100m zone he gets off scot free! Get the tape measure boys!
When you say that your views are different from the greens stuey, I take it that means that you support legalisation of all party drugs with restrictions?
November 29th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Expulsion for those in possession of a NZ made hamburger within 100 m of school and a “multinational” hamburger within 1 km of school. Its a winner - sue or Sue?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Nick, in the interests of accuracy in reporting, the obese woman was not “denied entry at the border for being too fat” she was declined for immigration.
Yes I support legalisation of all “party drugs”. (1) because prohibition doesn’t work, in fact it increases the harm caused by drugs, and (2) “party drugs” such as E are actually less harmful than alcohol.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
The Primary reason that I am opposed to party drug legalisation is because people shouldnt need drugs to enjoy life. Legalisation sends the wrong message, that using drugs to get high is ok and a normal part of life, they are not and people should not be encouraged to think that they are. Also a number of other reasons such as the fact that party drugs are very harmful towards children, who are (excuse the cliche) the future.
Although prohibition didnt work with alcohol becuase there was such strong demand for it by the general population, i believe it does work with drugs like P and ecstacy, which are clearly more harmful then alcohol (and esspecially when used along with alcohol). http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Ecstasy
The reason is that prohibition does work with party drugs is because it does manage to force down the amount of people using these drugs such as P, and it makes it much harder to get. Given the adverse effects how can we make this avalible for the general population?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Last week my stepson came home from school with a letter addressed to his “caregivers” (anything addressed in such a way alerts my PC antenna immediately)
The gist of the letter (apart from being a promotion for the teachers union) was that as the teachers union were pushing for smaller class sizes (nobody disagrees with that) some subjects would have to go.
Have a guess at what was first on the list of subjects that would have less emphasis placed on them in 2008….physial education.
At a time when child obesity is at epidemic proportions and a time when youth crime is out of control the lazy sods want to drop PE from the school curriculum.
Kids need to be active, kids need more sport (competitive sport at that) as a way of fighting obesity and youth crime.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Nick C said: …it does work with drugs like P and ecstacy, which are clearly more harmful then alcohol…
Ecstasy more harmful than alcohol? Come on, Nick.
How many fights at parties or domestic violence incidents are caused by people on esctacy? A big doughnut would be my guess. Ecstacy is relatively harmeless compared to alcohol. P is far more harmful than either.
By the way, Green policy is total prohibition of all drug use by and supply to anyone under 18. That includes party pills.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Thanks for that link Nick, I’m certainly not saying that E is safe or harmless, merely that it is less harmful than alcohol. And that link that you provided seems to confirm that, e.g. compare them:
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Alcohol
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/Drug_Guide/Ecstasy
November 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Can you please issue a press release Toad, it is about time that the voters in NZ were aware that the Greens support the use of Marijuana and Ecstasy.
There are some of us who do not want to see the Greens out of the Parliament, however you are on to a sure vote loser by pushing this barrow.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
1) the Greens don’t support the use of any drug, our policy states that we recognise that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest.
2) only one single Green (me) has supported E, not the Party as a whole.
3) the Greens are not pushing this issue, they are studiously ignoring it.
4) how come you constantly harp on about personal responsibility and the “nanny state” and how the Greens want to ban things, but you are quite happy for the state to prohibit what substances individuals choose to ingest?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Yes the Greens are being consistent in treating one addictive substance that is unhealthy if taken in excess (junk food) just like another (marijuana). This of course means taking a harder line of food and a softer line on drugs than that advocated by main stream society to bring them back into line. So it is ironic that it is the Greens who are accused of being inconsistent. You may not agree with the Green policy on addictive substances (I don’t agree with all of it), but one thing you cannot accuse it of being is inconsistent.
I see I was wrong about an immigrant with a high BMI being turned down, but reading the link it appears she was turned down not because she was fat but becuase the authorities judged she would be a financial drain on the already overstretched health system. Something I thought right wingers with their continuous demand for less “freeloading” immigrants would have agreed with.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:32 am
BB said: Can you please issue a press release Toad, it is about time that the voters in NZ were aware that the Greens support the use of Marijuana and Ecstasy.
BB, the Greens do not support the use of either marijuana or ecstacy. They don’t support the use of alcohol either, for that matter, or any other drug. Opposing prohibition is not the same as supporting use.
Green policy is that marijuana and alcohol should be treated similarly. My personal belief is that ecstacy should be in the same category, since it is a drug that is no more harmful, and probably less harmful, than alcohol. But I can’t get the party membership to agree with me on that one, so it is not Green Party policy.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Toad
“But I can’t get the party membership to agree with me on that one, so it is not Green Party policy”
Thank goodness for that.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am
i do wonder just how much grassroots support will be lost this coming election from cannabis ( medical and recreational supporters) votes due to the extremely obvious back down on cannabis crimilisation especially for medical use that our green party is displaying. Very keen to take praise for the many wonderful bills etc such as anti smacking and others yet happy to allow medical cannabis patients to die and be abused in prison . How a party can justify this i have no idea. I believe 2% of voters will swing away this election because of Greens weak kneed pc approach to this very subject.. Sadly I will be one of these.