Ill health, obesity, chronic disease, or even death with long term use. Does it get your attention?
Ever popular is the discussion of a food tax for controlling obesity, but what about another equally
polarizing strategy: warning labels on food. There are no countries with food health warnings in effect to date, but some of the keen places who have implemented the so called 'fat tax' have talked about it.
A warning label for food would feature statements and explicit pictures about the harmful effects of
consuming certain foods or nutrients in excess. You've probably noticed we currently have optional
and regulated claims on food which showcase its healthfulness, making it easily identifiable for a
consumer that this product is a good choice. E.g. "a healthy diet low in saturated and trans fat may
reduce the risk of heart disease" is often found on food which meet the statement nutritional criteria.
So why not have the opposite? It isn't that far fetched when you think about it in those terms. In fact, a study this year in the Journal of Consumer Affairs actually suggested that a warning label system might work better than a food tax. With their examination, price alone wasn't enough to stop people from buying certain foods, and interestingly enough those who had the least resistance to increased prices were also the heaviest people. A warning label however, well it did make more people not purchase that food, or go for a healthier alternative. Obviously this study is only one piece of the research pie, but it's a tasty one none the less.
package example, we might be hard pressed. Comparing nutrition to smoking, is like comparing
apples to oranges. All in all we know smoking isn't good for us. Whether it's us ourselves smoking,
or second hand smoke, it doesn't really matter. Food isn't so straight and narrow. We need certain
amounts of nutrients, some more often than others. Foods are often stated are 'good' or 'bad', and in an
ideal world we try and want to try and have a balance- remember the rainbow! But even in some of
the so called 'bad' foods there can actually be a little 'good' nutrition. Take French fries as an example. Even though they are deep fried, high in saturated and trans fat, and don't forget sodium, an unnamed favorite takeout's medium size can also have % daily value of 20% for fiber and 15% for vitamin C. (% daily value basically lets you know if a food have a little or a lot of nutrients. 5% or less is a little, 15% or more is a lot. In the run of a day we want to have more of the healthful nutrients, things like fiber and vitamin C, and less of the not-so-healthful). It's easy to see that food is complex, and it's not a one situation fits all, like smoking. Food is essential for life, but it's also about enjoyment. So it's finding that line between nourishment and pleasure. Dietitians encourage people to have and enjoy treats as part of a balanced diet, it's all a part of moderation. When it comes to smoking that's not so much.
During this history of smoking and poor nutrition choices there are events which seem to suggest
poor food choices are following in the smoking shadow. The ban of smoking in public areas, some
restaurants and food manufactures in other parts of the world are actively banning trans fats. Lawsuits
against tobacco companies, and now the same for fast food giants due to chronic health problems and
obesity. The previously socially accepted, now shunned cigarette, where now that has shifted to being
overweight or obesity. Due to the high rates of obesity and associated chronic disease seen not only
here in Newfoundland, but across North America there is evidence that we need to do more. But what?
Most would say there is a lot of information on food packaging already. Could it be effective helping
consumers, or add to the confusion? Would a warning label on food with a picture of a blocked
arteries, or morbidly obesity make you think twice about consuming it?
As seen in The Telegram November 28 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment