Tuesday 4 December 2012

Time for a Health Bottom Line

December.  Time to reflect on the November 'Bebi Drinks' activity; there will be more products like this and there are already many on our shelves.  Why did we care so much about this product that so many people piped up?

Australia, like many OECD nations, is gaining weight.  As a dietitian, who uses her calculator, and, has tried to support people achieve their weight goals, I know how easy it is to gain weight and how incredibly hard it is to lose.

A main reason drinks are targeted in weight loss programs is because it is far easier to drink more than you need, than it is to bite, chew and swallow a whole food.  Drinks don't always get calculated in our daily intake - because they are a drink.

For many people, giving up their non-water drinks is difficult, almost overwhelmingly difficult.  This is because 'it' has become part of our lives: we have been introduced to a taste, a brand, a shape, a colour, a fun treat, early enough in life that it is our normal.  This, of course, is the intended outcome for the manufacturer.

Taste, and the experience of taste, is intentional, and of course, essential: the right amount, type, and mix of ingredients to get maximum satisfaction and heightened response...short-lived but intense in your mouth...leaving you wanting more.  Then there is the brand loyalty, price drops, gimmicks, competitions, re-branding of the same product....all to keep you interested for the course of your life.  Food companies know, the earlier they create a 'brand loyalty' the longer they will have sales, and increases the likelihood of brand dominance (which then goes on to other branded products and world domination).  Sales. Profit. Organic growth. And taking over new markets.  Nothing.  Else.  Matters.  Definitely not health.

I can hear you singing Metallica in your head... Stop.  Collaborate and listen.

So here is the thing with Bebi.  It is juice.  For infants (6mths+).  With a ready to go teat.  Brand loyalty...starting at 6months.  Sweet drink...sweeter than water is all I need to know.  Bebi epitomises everything "health" is trying to undo at the other end...when there is excess weight...so hard to get off....food preferences for sweet....reliance on ready-to-go.....habit forming....brand loyalty......you had it, so you will feed it to your children.....

Buuut, lets not flog dead horse...

The segue to the 'health bottom line' is this: I knew Bebi was 'wrong'.  But of the three 'organisations' set up to be the checks and balances for food products, ACCC, FSANZ, and in this case, the MAIF, it was difficult to make a case.  In fact, of the complaints I made, the responses, in general were that the product did not fall under their jurisdiction and/or 'problem' was unclear.

If a product like this can enter the market uncontested, but then, if it weren't for some fired up parents, would have stayed on the shelves because there was nothing 'wrong', tells me, its time to change the rules.  If governments are truly serious about health, a productive economy, and equity, it is time for a Health Bottom Line to be adopted and completely supported across health and social policy.

The intention of the Health Bottom Line is to influence the food supply toward a 'healthy normal'.  Health Bottom Line, applies to me as a health professional, to food processors and manufacturers, and to food retailers.

Australia already has a reference point, a set of guidelines against which to benchmark products against to achieve a healthier Australia, these are the Australian Dietary Guidelines (aka the healthy eating plate and that pyramid).

*Ahem* mi-mi-mi-miiiii...*gets high horse out of stable*
.........................
A HEALTH BOTTOM LINE MEANS....

1.  Food Industry
If the product you are thinking about developing does not meet the Australian Dietary Guidelines, don't develop it.

2.  Retailers
If it's not on the pyramid, it's not on the shelves.

3.  Health professionals (and advocacy groups and consumers)
Publicly oppose any product that enters the market that does not meet the Australian Dietary Guidelines.  Products targeting and/or marketed to children (<15 years) will be particularly scrutinised.

Support innovation and marketing that closes the gap on making healthy choices easy choices (relative to all other choices).

Have a responsibility to speak up and oppose the importing, distribution, development and sale of any product that contradicts the Australian Dietary Guidelines.
...........................

Before you hammer me with economic arguments for why we should maintain the status quo...I recognise the economic fragility, the global market, and Australia's position.  However, we know from history, where one market fails, another takes its place.  At the moment, we are tracking toward an economy at the expense of health. We cannot continue down this trajectory.  I support the 'free market' to move away from a reliance on packaging and processing, to health and shared global sustainability.  And, I believe, this IS possible.

Even simpler: it is a false economy when governments choose to spend millions (and lose millions in lost productivity and opportunity cost) to try to fix a problem they might have avoided. 

Epilogue
The Bebi case has highlighted a total absence of checks and balances for food items that contradict making healthy choices the easy choices.  This gap can be filled by the Health Bottom Line.

Tips du jour
1.  'Health' is the new 'environment': the addition of 'environment' to bottom lines applies to 'health'
2.  The benchmarks for a Health Bottom Line are already available! the Australian Dietary Guidelines
3.  Nothing else is working

2 comments:

  1. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I particularly like this bit - 'However, we know from history, where one market fails, another takes its place'. Is this true? For reasons similar to those that I do not enjoy working in hospitals (i.e. the tediousness of decoding other languages and having to care about details), I know nothing about economics and am unlikely to ever try to learn more... but this sounds impressive. I might pull that line out in future. Would like to hear more about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. hello broomefruitveg, thanks for your comments :D

    True? of course! You only need to think back to our grandparents generation (even our parents) to remember the types of trades and occupations available then to what we have now. There is an evolution and change in markets because of an inherent desire for individuals to "achieve".

    Individuals are "self-fulfilling utility maximisers" - which doesn't sound flattering but it is actually important for people to desire to do well (aka ego). The SFUM simply means: we all want the same thing - to do well, to be safe, to provide for those closest to us, and to be happy.

    Imagine if the government didn't pour money into the banks to "save them" during the GFC. Just like any other business that has maintained its position by "keeping things the same and reminding people they exist" as their strategy rather than "watching and listening to the market, learning from mistakes, and creating a flexible organisation and workforce" well, it's their time to go. But because they were "saved" it takes away the incentive to do better....and in the long term, is not good for the market, and not good for consumers. Especially consumers that want "choice" of services.

    Sure jobs will be lost. Sure it will be AWFUL for many individuals and their families. But sometimes, such devastation and unplanned chaos grows new things, new ideas, can be liberating for many. And as a role for government, that money that went to banks could have gone to new endeavours - new ideas that contribute to the economy and fulfil a SFUM dream for the benefit of many.

    Community gardens, the rise of organic produce, seed savers, boot camp.... non existent or very small markets ten years ago... and there is room for more. http://www.seedchallenge.vic.gov.au/video/video/show?id=6617926%3AVideo%3A3255

    mvx

    ReplyDelete