The obesity crisis - how credible is the government's rhetoric?

The government’s recent strategy for tackling obesity calls for more forthright public awareness campaigns, based on the findings of various NHS and Public Health England reports. How does such a proclamation play out in the climate of distrust fostered by the government’s volatile pandemic strategy? And how can the government ensure its warnings are received as credible rather than questionable?

How does such a proclamation play out in the climate of distrust fostered by the government’s volatile pandemic strategy?

The UK population is no stranger to the government’s periodic call to arms against the obesity crisis. In 2005, Jamie Oliver’s overhaul of the school meals system received £280 million of funding from the government. In 2013, UK doctors produced a report described as a ‘prescription’ for the obesity epidemic, setting out 10 recommended changes for the government to adopt. In 2014, medical specialists formed the lobby group ‘Action on Sugar’ to alert the government to the excessive amounts of added sugar in many drinks, resulting in the introduction of a Sugar Tax in 2018.

The stark contrast between the messages of the two initiatives has led to the scheme having been criticised as undermining the obesity campaign as mixed messages are shown to the public.

So it is clear that the government’s stance on the obesity crisis has remained consistent over the years - however, this time round, the alarm bells are falling on ears already desensitised as a result of the vague and sometimes unconvincing governmental strategy. The many broken pledges and U-turns of late have led to diminishing confidence in the government’s decisions. Take the abrupt change in direction with the school meal voucher scheme. The fiasco saw footballer Marcus Rashford intervening to successfully lobby the government to extend the programme they announced it would not be continuing.  On top of this, there is also an ironic discrepancy between the government’s obesity crisis and the promotion of the Chancellor’s “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme. A stunning 35 million discounted meals have been served in the first two weeks of August alone, with Monday to Wednesday being dubbed the ‘new weekend’. The stark contrast between the messages of the two initiatives has led to the scheme having been criticised as undermining the obesity campaign as mixed messages are shown to the public.

So how can the government ensure its repetitive warnings are being taken seriously?

2016, saw then Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt refer to childhood obesity as a “national emergency”; ever since, the government has time and time again brought the dilemma to the country’s attention with urgency. While it is undeniable that the government’s despair is founded in credible health surveys, recurring public awareness campaigns lose their weight over time and the urgency dissipates. Arguably, a more credible form of change is needed to give weight to the issue: legislation. 

A legislative proposal would mimic the objectives and hopefully results of the successful 2018 Sugar Tax, which introduced an industry levy to encourage soft drinks manufacturers to reduce the sugar content of their drinks. Since it came into force, there has been a reported 29% reduction per 100ml in retailer own-brand products, and consumers have been more likely to purchase zero sugar drinks. 

Furthermore, a legislative proposal in the current climate would be well-supported by research carried out by Public Health England on the link between BMI and COVID-19. The report found that those with a BMI of over 40 had an increased risk of death by 90%, and 8% of those critically-ill with COVID-19 had a BMI of over 40. Such statistics would lend greater credibility to the government’s concerns about obesity, and minimise the damaging impact the “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme has had. 

Dr Joshua Wolrich … advocated against restrictive dieting in adolescence, citing it as the direct source of many physical and mental puberty-related issues.

Acknowledgement to the other side of the government’s approach is important, to then see why they have decided to take action in the manner that they did. As always, there is controversy over even the most fundamentally accepted facets. At the forefront of the debate, the controversial BMI itself is under fire due to how sweepingly it can be used as a barometer of health. Furthermore, the government’s additional suggestions of introducing calorie labelling on restaurant menus, and conducting weigh-ins for school children have both been criticised as an oversimplification of healthy eating. The concept of weigh-ins raised fury amongst health experts such as NHS surgeon, Dr Joshua Wolrich. He took to Twitter to urge the government to “stop conflating weight and health”, and advocated against restrictive dieting in adolescence, citing it as the direct source of many physical and mental puberty-related issues. Before the passage of any legislation, the government would need to acknowledge the mental health aspect of the ‘war on obesity’, and acknowledge its influence on harmful obsessive eating behaviours. 

Ultimately, the inconsistent nature of the government’s recent directives has led to much confusion throughout the pandemic. However, their long-term dedication to tackling the obesity crisis is evidence of their commitment to the cause. Such dedication forms the groundwork for meaningful change and a recovery of public confidence, so long as significant legal strides are taken in such a direction.