A recent posting featured two important research syntheses on overweight and obesity. Another, especially useful for non-specialist audiences, appeared as a special report on “The big picture” in the December 15 issue of The Economist.
Commendably, the report does not sugar-coat the difficult politics of reducing overweight and obesity. It notes, for example, that “while lots of people remain fat, the associated ailments represent big business for the drug companies.” It is candid about the role of companies like soft-drink manufacturers and fast-food chains in contributing to the epidemic of overweight, and the conflicts of interest that can arise in partnerships like one between Nestlé and the International Diabetes Federation, or the “Responsibility Deal” between food and alcohol companies and Britain’s Department of Health. (In negotiations about the action plan that emerged from the UN Summit on non-communicable diseases in September 2011, Canada was among the countries pressing for removal of text that mentioned such conflicts.) And it presents a succinct overview of efforts to deal with overweight and obesity through taxation and regulation. So far, those efforts have met with modest success, although that may be a consequence of modest ambition rather than of limitations intrinsic to the available policy instruments.
Unfortunately, the report is not open-access, although non-subscribers will be able to read part of it online. Unfortunately as well, the report pays insufficient attention to connections between the built environment and overweight, or to the cost of a healthy diet. Nevertheless, it is a refreshing signal that approaches going beyond the usual health promotion nostrums are moving into the policy mainstream.
Shortly before the Economist report appeared, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released its annual Family Food Survey for the year 2011. Among the survey’s disturbing findings: fruit and vegetable purchases were 10 percent lower in 2011 than in 2007, with an even larger decline among the bottom fifth of Britain’s income distribution. Households in the lowest tenth of the income distribution were spending 17 percent more on food in 2011 than in 2007. A report in The Guardian quoted the director of the consumer protection organization Which? as saying: “One in six people say rising food prices are making it difficult to eat healthily,” and the preceding month a report in the same newspaper warned of a “nutrition recession” - this in a country where benefit caps planned for 2013 will cut the incomes of many people in full-time jobs as well as those who cannot find work.
Closer to home, Ottawa's deparment of public health released the lastest issue of an annual calculation showing that if you are living on social assistance and paying market rents in the city, it is arithmetically impossible - as it is much of the rest of the province- to pay for the diet recommended by Ontario's Public Health Standards. In the capital of a weathly G7 country, 48,000 people a month turn to food banks. Against the background of ongoing concern about health care spending and areport recommending an immediate increase in Ontario social assistance rates to " the lower rate category, single adults receiving Ontario Works, as a down payment on adequacy while the system undergoes transformation," it may be worth asking`just how does making healthiy diets unaffordable contribute to a healthier population and lower health system costs down the road?