Health researchers are calling on the Government to take childhood obesity seriously, saying if current trends continue, the public health system won't be able to handle the spiralling costs.
Their solution? There's no silver bullet, but drastically cutting the amount of advertising of unhealthy food directed at children would be a start, as well as a sugar tax – which the Government has ruled out.
The New Zealand Medical Journal today carries two commentaries on the topic – an editorial by Steven Kelly of department of general surgery at Christchurch Hospital, and Boyd Swinburn, professor of population nutrition and global health at the University of Auckland; and an accompanying opinion piece by Prof Swinburn with Stefanie Vandevijvere of the University of Auckland's School of Population Health.
A third of Kiwi kids are overweight or obese but Mr Kelly and Prof Swinburn say many parents don't believe it, with a recent survey showing more than half of parents of obese children think they're of normal size – that figure rising to 90 percent when it comes to pre-schoolers.
"The cause for the rapid rise in obesity over the last 30 years is due primarily to an over -consumption of calories. The particular problem is that the calories have been in an energy dense and nutrient poor form in both food and sugary drinks," they write.
"We are continually told that if we exercise more we will lose weight. This is a myth – you cannot eat your way out of a bad diet."
Children can't be blamed for their obesity, and Mr Kelly and Prof Swinburn say while education on healthy eating is important, it won't change the underlying problems of living in an "obesogenic environment", in which food companies are able to target young, impressionable Kiwis through advertising and sponsorship. Recent examples they note include KFC's sponsorship of the Cricket World Cup and McDonald's' partnership with hit TV show The X Factor NZ.
"This sponsorship is sending a clear message to children that promotes consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food. It implies that by consuming this food, children will be healthy like their idols. It assumes that if they eat junk food all they need is some exercise to prevent obesity and stay healthy. This is clearly wrong and exploits the vulnerable nature of children."
A tax on sugar and unhealthy food, like that currently applied to cigarettes, would be the most cost-effective approach to take – but limiting "powerful, pervasive and predatory" advertising to youngsters should be considered also, argue Prof Swinburn and Dr Vandevijvere.
"It is powerful because it influences children’s food preferences, purchase requests, and consumption," they write. "It is pervasive because modern, integrated marketing ensures that brands engage with children across multiple media platforms. It is predatory because it exploits the credulity of children for commercial gain."
About two-thirds of all food advertising on TV at times when kids are likely to be watching is for unhealthy food, according to studies mentioned in the article. Adverts in outdoor areas around schools in Wellington were found to be 70 percent for unhealthy food, while about 60 percent of food sold in schools was considered unhealthy.
Looking at cereals on display in supermarkets, researchers found of all those with kid-friendly characters on the box, 72 percent were unhealthy. Magazines targeted at children and teenagers have been found to contain far more advertisements for junk food than magazines aimed at other markets, such as adult women.
Prof Swinburn and Dr Vandevijvere say the industry can't be trusted to regulate itself when it comes to marketing, "because the sector has too many vested interests in perpetuating the status quo".
"The voluntary controls on marketing unhealthy food to children currently in place by the Advertising Standards Authority are narrow, weak and ineffectual, and their continuation in their current form is not a credible option for protecting children."
Before leaping head-on into a regulatory framework however, they say the food industry should be given a chance to improve its practises under a "quasi-regulatory" system, which has worked in the UK to reduce sodium content, and in Australia in introducing a health-star rating system.
"Expectations should include clear timelines for outcomes, common definitions, transparency and reporting requirements. Regular monitoring of the extent and nature of unhealthy food marketing through various media by an independent body is important to significantly strengthen and improve food industry initiatives."
Health Minister Jonathan Coleman says he is preparing a Government-run obesity programme, but a sugar tax won't be a part of it.
"All my discussions with [chief science advisor Sir Peter Gluckman] have been around the intervention around the perinatal period… and that's what the medical evidence is starting to show is very important – that, exercise and education,” he told TVNZ's Q+A last week. "Not this fixation with advertising and sugar taxes."
Mr Kelly and Prof Swinburn says restricting marketing, taxing sugary drinks and implementing healthy food policies in schools are "all based on good scientific evidence".
"Dr Jonathan Coleman must be congratulated for making childhood obesity a priority issue. Through an all-of-society approach with assistance from the Government, we can now expect to see a reversal in childhood obesity. In essence, this will be producing a society where the healthy choice is the easy choice."
The OECD has estimated obesity costs New Zealand about $1 billion a year.
3 News
source: newshub archive
