Andrew Lansley's decision to scrap the advertising budget for the Change4Life campaign will come at a high cost to public health
by Monty Don
Andrew Lansley's decision to scrap the government's £75m advertising budget to promote the Change4Life campaign in exchange for industry funding is deeply depressing. The junk food companies are to be let off any kind of government control as long as they chuck a tiny fraction of their profits at a notional health campaign that will no doubt prominently feature their products. Kerching! A change4thebetter!
In his speech, the health secretary went on to applaud Jamie Oliver's school dinners campaign, which, for the record, was initiated by the great Jeanette Orrey and is the result of work done by many groups, not least the Soil Association's Food For Life campaign, by saying: "He got that it's not just about a witch-hunt against saturated fats, salt and sugars. It's about creating a better understanding of, and relationship with, good food and diet. And even more, it's about self-confidence – it's about building self-esteem."
Well, Mr Lansley, no it is not. You do not build a 10-year-old's "self-esteem" in order that he might elect to eat healthily and well at home and school. It simply does not work like that.
From the very earliest age, children and their carers are bombarded with messages from purveyors of saturated fats, salts and sugars to consume their products precisely by engaging in their sense of self-esteem. The advertising makes these "foods" seem fun, cool, delicious and empowering. But they do so with the sole aim of maximising the profits of their vastly wealthy companies. The health of the consumer is of no concern to them whatsoever.
Consumption of these foods leads to poor health. and as such they are poisoning our children.They are all highly addictive; by the time children reach the kind of age where they can reasonably exercise choice, let alone be equipped to make one, they are hopelessly hooked on junk.
For the government to step away from direct involvement and regulation in what and how we eat is disingenuous and irresponsible. Without a government-led, long-term campaign to promote sustainable, healthy food from infancy to adulthood, we will not have a healthy society. At the moment, our national food policy is controlled by the iron hand of a tiny group of multinational companies, from producers such as Cargill and Nestlé to retailers such as Asda and Tesco.
The majority of school meals are provided centrally by just a few companies such as Compass, which have resisted regulation. Their lobbying power is enormous. The foodstuffs they produce rely upon a vast consumption of fossil fuels, water and cheap labour, vile animal welfare and a poisonous chemical regime. They ravage and pillage this planet and are responsible for most of our public health problems such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes. These are the people that the government is looking to promote our "self-esteem" in order that the nation might be healthier.
By failing to control and regulate the consumption of transfats, sugars and salt in our diet, let alone consider the way in which we might nurture the planet for a sustainable future for our food, Lansley is not just making a wrong decision in the name of saving public money but also a disastrously expensive one both in the health of our children and cash for healthcare.
|
