The food industry can be part of the solution

I find it disappointing that author David Gillespie, in his recent article, “The real truth on childhood obesity” has sought to characterise the 2007 Australian National Children’s Nutrition and Physical Activity report as nothing more than a telemarketer “weigh-in”.

I’m not sure how the highly respected research teams from the CSIRO and the University of South Australia, who designed and conducted the survey, would feel about being called telemarketers, or about having their ethical integrity questioned, with his chiding that the survey’s results had been cooked up by big multinational food companies trying to “pull the wool” over consumer’s eyes.

The survey, the most comprehensive of its kind since 1995, collected data on food intake, physical activity levels and the physical measurements of more than 4,000 children across Australia. Children aged between 2-16 years were initially interviewed face-to-face in their home by trained researchers, with parents or guardians responding for children below the age of nine years. Participants were asked to complete a 24-hour food recall, which required them to list all of the food, beverages and supplements consumed in the 24-hour period prior to the survey. Participants were then followed up with a telephone interview 7-21 days later and asked to complete another 24-hour food recall. Not exactly a telemarketer weigh-in!

Mr Gillespie’s tirade demonstrates two things: one he has failed to read the report’s methodology, and two, that he, and others like him who continue to undermine the role of industry in helping to find solutions to difficult problems, are now becoming part of the problem themselves - sitting on the sidelines throwing spears at those that dare to stick their heads up rather than offering constructive advice.

Mr Gillespie is correct in stating that the food industry helped to fund the study, however, so did the federal government. The study was one-third funded by the food and grocery sector, one third funded by the Federal Department of Health and Ageing, and one third funded by the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, $3 million in total - a small price to pay to gain a better understanding of the health issues affected Australian children.

His insistence that the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) is capable of exerting influence over survey’s results - despite the involvement of two government departments, one expert government agency, and a University of South Australia research team - says more about his understanding of the report than it does about the AFGC’s so-called powers of manipulation.

Whether Mr Gillespie likes it or not, the survey shows that the number of young Australians who are overweight or obese has plateaued in the last 10 years - there is NO spiralling childhood obesity epidemic; however, that does not mean that there isn’t a problem.

Let’s get one thing straight. The Australian Food and Grocery Council, like many Australians, believes that any level of childhood obesity is of concern.

But, it seems that the old adage that if you are not apart of the solution, then you are apart of the problem still holds much currency in contemporary society.

As Mr Gillespie has demonstrated, the food and beverage industry is often cast as a pariah when conducting constructive debate on public health issues. Our critics would have you believe that the sector actively sets out to deceive our customers into eating unhealthy foods, and that any proactive measures industry takes to promote positive public health messages are nothing more than just another shrewd marketing gimmick designed to hook unsuspecting consumers.

In short, to our critics, the food industry is not just a part of the problem, rather we are the problem. This could not be any further from the truth.

Those in the food industry have long recognised that our direct and in many cases long term relationships with customers puts us in a strong position to be a force for good when it comes to promoting positive public health messages: that is exactly what we have been doing and what we intend to continue to do.

Those who say industry has no role to play in promoting positive public health solutions - including everyone from the public health academics seeking to justify their existence and secure that next research grant, to media savvy commercially inclined nutritionists, and even those who occasionally write about sugar - all have one thing in common, they are better at playing the blame game than they are at matching industry in offering credible solutions to serious problems.

Such critics should consider the negative impact that their sometimes ill-informed, mostly obstructionist, and always antagonistic approach may be having on the debate. In recent times it has been mainly industry driving change when it comes to how consumers interpret, use and assess the health and nutritional benefits of our products.

One example of industry input is the recently announced, Responsible Children’s Marketing Initiative which provides a framework for food and beverage companies to help promote healthy dietary choices and lifestyles to Australian children. This initiative, developed by the industry, sees a new requirement for companies to abide by a set of core principles that ensures industry only advertises healthy products and lifestyles during designated children’s TV programming.

The initiative covers advertising on free-to-air television, pay television, the internet, the use of licensed characters, and publications aimed at children. It will be underpinned by a transparent compliance program and a public complaints mechanism. Leading food companies have already made publicly available individual company action plan that spells out what they will advertise and how they will advertise it.

Another example?

We have headed advice that shows many people in the community do not understand what they are putting in their mouth and how that fits in with their broader nutritional requirements. That is why the food industry, without any prompting from government or our critics, has developed a front of pack labelling scheme which assists consumers in shaping a more balanced diet.

Daily Intake Guide labelling gives information about what is in a single serve of a product on the front of the pack - where it’s easier to read - and helps by placing this information in the context of an individual’s overall dietary requirements. Rather than just simply saying there are good food and bad foods, the daily intake approach helps consumers construct a nutritious balanced diet based on variety and moderation. Daily intake labelling currently appears on more than 1,000 product lines available in Australia and has the support of nutritionists, food scientists, retailers, and most importantly consumers.

The response from our critics to public health issues relating to diet, nutrition, and advertising is simple: regulate, regulate, regulate. However, much like the Prime Minister’s recently announced bank guarantee, regulation often has unintended consequences.

The point I seek to make is that it is easy to play the blame game, but finding credible solutions to serious problems is much harder, and credible solutions to serious public health problems harder again.

The food industry is the first to acknowledge that some of the gravest preventable health issues facing the 21st century stem from the way people view and consume food and beverage products. Equally important, though, is providing solutions to these problems. Iconic brands and food companies have well established networks, brand recognition and integrity already in place, the likes of which cannot be bought overnight by an overzealous public health advocate preaching from a soapbox.

In industry’s opinion it is better to have everyone, including our critics, inside the tent. The food industry is already seeking to change how we respond to the way our products are viewed, used and in some cases abused, and in addition, we are seeking to actively work with governments and third parties to form long lasting, constructive alliances.

Health and well being of the community is no longer just an idle concept to which company CEOs, working on their bottom-line, pay lip service to, but rather an ideal to be upheld and promoted as a new way of doing business. It is in this tradition that industry want feels that it is can provide solutions to these intractable problems. We know that we can’t do it alone, but until others take their seats at the table with us we will be forced to.