By Paul Homewood
The Mail reported last week on the recent Lancet Commission on Obesity report:
Powerful corporations are driving the obesity crisis by promoting junk food in the way tobacco firms push cigarettes, experts have warned.
A major report today calls on all governments to unite against 'Big Food' in the way they once took on 'Big Tobacco'.
The Lancet Commission on Obesity, compiled by 43 academics from 14 countries, accuses politicians of 'decades of inertia'.
They claim there is a 'fundamental and irreconcilable conflict' between much of the food industry and the health of the nation.
The experts have now called for a global treaty to limit the political influence of Big Food, modelled on the UN agreement signed on tobacco 15 years ago. And they demanded taxes on red meat and other unhealthy food to subsidise vegetables and schemes that promote walking and cycling.
The report was last night condemned by critics as 'nanny state' authoritarianism and rejected by the food industry as 'deeply irresponsible'.
But the authors said the health crisis is urgent – with one billion people globally suffering malnutrition and two billion eating too much.
In Britain alone, two thirds of adults are now overweight – resulting in soaring rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Professor William Dietz of George Washington University in the US, a report author, said: 'In 50 years, if we are not able to reduce this, we will have this incredible scourge of both obesity and undernutrition and the planet will be burning.'
He added: 'Although food clearly differs from tobacco because it is a necessity to support human life, unhealthy food and beverages are not. The similarities with Big Tobacco lie in the damage they induce and the behaviours of the corporations that profit from them.'
Professor Boyd Swinburn, of the University of Auckland, added: 'Until now, undernutrition and obesity have been seen as polar opposites of either too few or too many calories.
'In reality, they are both driven by the same unhealthy, inequitable food systems, underpinned by the same political economy that is single-focused on economic growth, and ignores the negative health and equity outcomes.'
The academics said food giants are also wrecking the environment by creating a global 'syndemic' – three simultaneous pandemics of obesity, malnutrition and climate change.
And the scientists accused food manufacturers of trying to 'obstruct' obesity prevention with sophisticated lobbying campaigns.
The 61-page report says strategies include 'undermining and contesting scientific evidence' and 'framing nutrition as a matter of individual responsibility'.
Soft drinks companies spend £38million a year trying to counter efforts to reduce fizzy drinks consumption, they said.
The report calls for new taxes on unhealthy foods – particularly red meat – and scrapping subsidies for farming and fuel.
Using the cash generated to promote health diets and exercise would be a 'triple win' – hitting obesity, improving healthy eating and reducing climate change by cutting car use.
They insisted governments need to introduce new laws because voluntary agreements – such as ones that defined David Cameron's obesity strategy – have failed.
Professor Corinna Hawkes of City University in London, another report author, insisted the commission 'is not trying to put the food industry out of business'.
But she added: 'People are just encouraged to eat too much and this means there is over-consumption in some areas and under-consumption in others.'
The report calls for a new 'Framework Convention on Food Systems' – modelled on the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – to help fight junk food firms.
It said: 'Such a commitment would recognise the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict that exists between some food and drinks industries' interests and those of public health and the environment.'
But Tim Rycroft, of the Food and Drink Federation, said: 'Drawing a comparison between tobacco and food is deeply irresponsible. Food and drink are essential to sustain life while even the smallest dose of tobacco is harmful to health.
'Only those with the most extreme of viewpoints could believe that denying our industry a seat at the policy-making table would help to improve UK diets and nutrition.'
Christopher Snowdon, of the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank, added: 'Nanny-state zealots are no longer hiding their intention to use the anti-tobacco blueprint to control other areas of our lives.
'They are openly contemptuous of freedom of choice and make no secret of their desire to bypass democracy and use unaccountable global institutions to further their agenda.
'If these authoritarian regulations are introduced, a thriving and competitive food market which responds to consumer demand will be replaced by a 'state-anchored approach' in which bureaucrats and activists decide what the public is allowed to eat.'
This latest is another in a series of highly politicised reports, following on from others on climate change and air pollution. Indeed this one even dares to drag climate change into its arguments.
All three reports share the same characteristics:
1) They are written by fanatics. Indeed, I wonder who appoints them, or do they appoint themselves.
2) They don't stick to objective analysis, but also enter the field of politics by advocating specific policies.
3) Themes such as social justice, poverty and redistribution are an underlying basis throughout their work.
4) The reports have a strong left wing bias, and tend to be anti-capitalist.
5) Solutions all seem to favour an authoritarian, anti democratic, and global institutionalised approach.
Just read again what Christopher Snowden had to say:
'Nanny-state zealots are no longer hiding their intention to use the anti-tobacco blueprint to control other areas of our lives.
'They are openly contemptuous of freedom of choice and make no secret of their desire to bypass democracy and use unaccountable global institutions to further their agenda.
'If these authoritarian regulations are introduced, a thriving and competitive food market which responds to consumer demand will be replaced by a 'state-anchored approach' in which bureaucrats and activists decide what the public is allowed to eat.'
His comments could equally apply to the Lancet's earlier reports on climate change and air pollution.
Let's be totally clear about this. The Lancet report is not just another of those irritating "Nanny knows best" pamphlets from the likes of Public Health England, with which we are all familiar.
As the report itself makes clear, it is aimed at global policy making, and even talks about "national and international governance", and "a radical rethink of business models".
https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global-syndemic
Am I the only one to find the fact, that the Lancet gives this far left propaganda the semblance of respectability, truly frightening?
from Climate Change Skeptic Blogs via hj on Inoreader http://bit.ly/2S94FDS
No comments:
Post a Comment