The severity of this crisis means we need an overarching “obesity test”, now. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why all new legislation should face an obesity test

Obesity is not a future theoretical threat, it is a present catastrophe.

David Cameron convened another COBRA meeting last week. Normally associated with terrorist threats and natural disasters, this time it was for a crisis in health. We’ve known about it for years, we’ve seen the catastrophic effects on individuals, we have had a plethora of advice on prevention and we have some frightening numbers of the cost to the economy. Were they discussing the greatest threat to the nation’s health and possibly economic security, ie obesity? No. Obesity, which has been blubbering for attention from politicians for a couple of decades, was elbowed aside by the far more fashionable ebola.

Obesity is not a future theoretical threat, it is a present catastrophe. In the past 20 years, the proportion of adults that are obese has risen from 13.2 per cent to 24.4 per cent among men and from 16.4 per cent to 25.1 per cent among women. Including being overweight, the numbers are far worse: 57.6 per cent to 66.6 per cent among men and from 48.6 per cent to 57.2 per cent among women. Most people have heard of the repercussions of being obese: diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, though less known tends to be the rising association with cancer. In 2007 the cost to the UK economy of overweight and obesity was estimated at £15.8bn per year, including £4.2bn in costs to the NHS. 2007 was also the year that the Labour government brought out its seminal Foresight Report on “Tackling Obesities” which set out to answer the question “How can we deliver a sustainable response to obesity over the next 40 years?” The project assembled evidence and expertise from diverse academic disciplines as well as interested organisations within and beyond government.

Eight years on, one fifth of the way through the report’s timeline, and it’s safe to say the situation has not improved. We’re still getting fatter and we still have fat-sugar-responsibility-blame demonising headlines on a loop. The Foresight Report rightly asked for a system-wide approach and a portfolio of policies to be put in place. Politicians can point to things that have since been done, but they are self-evidently inadequate. The approach has remained to piecemeal, to voluntary, to weak, to uncoordinated and to blaming.

In “Careless eating costs lives” we have responded to the obesity crisis by putting together a portfolio of policies, acknowledging both that only a cross-cutting, robust approach will suffice and that there are more avenues to explore. Where previous activity has been limited, we are calling for extended application; where schemes have been half-baked, we are setting out a considered whole-sector approach; where good things have begun, we ask for them to be embedded in law as the new foundations of progress.  For instance, the coalition government’s much debated voluntary “Responsibility Deal” has actually seen 713 different organisations and manufacturers sign up to one or more “pledge” to improve labelling, content, nutrition or workplace health. They have shown it can be done, so why not now phase in this deal as mandatory for all manufacturers, just as the Disability Discrimination Act was phased in over a period of years, allowing a reasonable amount of time for companies to adjust? Likewise, the ban on advertising unhealthy foods on TV aimed at children, needs to be now extended across daytime TV, not just during the early-afternoon. Having calories detailed on some menus now needs to become the norm, from KFC to Starbucks to Pizza Hut.

Above all, the severity of this crisis – the drain on individuals, economies and the NHS – means we need an overarching “obesity test”. All government departments need to consider the impact of proposed policy on eating behaviours and public health, to ensure it does not compound the crisis. This is essential because the causes are so complex and multifaceted. Health, education, business, treasury, transport, trade, farming and local government all have their part to play, but if the “obesity” question is not being asked, the unintended consequences of policy could be a more obesogenic environment than we have already.

If a new policy or initiative makes it easier to supply fast food, harder to walk to the shops, more difficult for schools to serve balanced meals, cheaper to buy junk grub then it should be rejected. Those are obvious. But due consideration should also be given to prevention: mental illness and counselling services, early years support and cooking classes are all vital to ensuring problem symptoms are tackled before they turn into the signs of excessive weight gain. One friend remarked to me that everyone in the over-eaters anonymous groups that she had ever attended had reported a history of abuse.

No, obesity isn’t as captivating as ebola. And as ever, those with the least resources, the lowest resilience, and often the easiest to ignore are the hardest hit. But with a tidal wave of calories surrounding us, we can’t go on ignoring obesity – because it will sink all of us if we do.

Julia Manning is Chief Executive of 2020health

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.