Category Archives: nutrition

High sugar frozen drinks innapropriate in AU

http://www.foodnavigator-asia.com/Policy/Fast-food-chains-slammed-for-cashing-in-on-high-sugar-frozen-drinks/

Fast food chains slammed for ‘cashing in’ on high-sugar frozen drinks

Post a commentBy RJ Whitehead , 30-Jan-2014

Health groups in Australia have hit out at fast food chains that they say are “cashing in” by promoting seductively cheap frozen drinks that in many cases contain what they call “surprisingly large” amounts of added sugar.

Food Vision

To a backdrop of an obesity epidemic in the country that is showing no signs of slowing down, products and promotions like McDonald’s “Frozen Sprite Splash” range with free refills and Hungry Jack’s A$1 (US$0.87) deal on large frozen Cokes are being heavily marketed to Aussie consumers through comprehensive advertising campaigns and point-of-sale promotions.

More than expected

According to Craig Sinclair, director of prevention at Cancer Council Victoria, people might rethink their frozen drinks if they knew how much sugar was in them.

A large frozen Sprite Splash from McDonald’s followed by a free refill contains 120 grams of sugar, equivalent to 30 teaspoons. A large frozen coke from Hungry Jack’s includes about 84 grams, or 21 teaspoons of sugar, and will set customers back just $1.

If consumers are feeling particularly thirsty, for one extra dollar they can upgrade to an extra large serve that equates to 30 teaspoons of sugar—equivalent to the sugar content of ten fun size Mars bars or three cans of Coke.

The World Health Organisation, World Cancer Research Fund and Australian Dietary Guidelines all agree we need to limit the amount of added sugar in our diets and recommend that sugary drink consumption be restricted or avoided altogether,” Sinclair said.

At a time when nearly two thirds of Australian adults and a quarter of children are overweight or obese, actively promoting excessive consumption of such high-sugar products is completely irresponsible.”

Consumer awareness

Since 2003 the WHO has recommended limiting the intake of so-called “free sugars” to 10% of total energy intake, referring to sugars added to food by the manufacturer, cook or consumer.

Sinclair believes consumers should be wary of marketing ploys that normalise the excessive consumption of high sugar products like frozen soft drinks.

Fast food chains are in the business of making money, not in the business of health, and they have enormous marketing budgets to push this type of sugar-laden product into our diets.”

It’s important for consumers to be aware of what they’re drinking, including how much sugar is in these products and the potential detrimental impact to their health from high consumption.”

In defence of Big Food

If only we agreed with them, they’d be happy. Powerful stuff.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2014/01/28/how-big-foods-attckers-are-undermining-their-cause/

How Big Food’s Attackers Are Undermining Their Cause

This article is by Hank Cardello, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a consultant on socially responsible products and practices, and the author ofStuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat.A big shot in the simmering war between the food industry and its attackers was fired this month at Robert Redford’s annual Sundance Film Festival: the launch of an anti-food industry documentary called Fed Up. (Forbes staffer Dorothy Pomerantz last week interviewed the film’s producers, who interviewed me a while back when they were researching the topic.) Early reviews indicate that it casts the food industry as a coven of bad guys out to make people fat and sick. It also paints the U.S. government, including First Lady Michelle Obama, as complicit. Ironically, such attacks on “Big Food” could actually undermine efforts to reduce obesity—by driving away an industry that’s already come to the bargaining table on how to make it products more socially acceptable. In short, overzealous activists are shooting themselves in the foot.

Food activists serve three very important roles. They create public awareness about an important societal issue like obesity; they change attitudes and buying behavior; and ideally, as a result, they spotlight the next best revenue opportunity for industries that meet these new needs. However, a point comes when activism stops being constructive and becomes counterproductive hyperactivism. With respect to obesity, we’ve reached that point.

The problem is that instead of laser focusing on solving the biggest issue related to food consumption, obesity, hyperactivists bundle a host of food-related problems together and remain unsatisfied if all of them are not solved their way. So instead of zeroing in on obesity, which is a caloric matter, they throw their distaste for “Big Food” company practices into the mix: processed foods; the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms); Bisphenol A (BPA) in bottled water containers; and excess levels of salt, sugar, and fat. Activists’ lack of focus promises only to inflame their war against the industry and wreak havoc with more constructive interaction between the public health community and the food industry.

Such engagement is having far better results than the bomb-throwing. Case in point: the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF)’sannouncement a few weeks ago that its member food and beverage companies sold 6.4 trillion fewer calories in the U.S. in 2012 than in 2007. Their original goal was cutting 1.5 trillion calories by 2015; they exceeded that goal by 400% and three years ahead of schedule. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, two of the most credible authorities on public health, calculated and verified the results, which involved major packaged food and beverage companies.

While the American Heart Association and the Obesity Society praised the HWCF’s achievement, several hyperactivists remained unimpressed. The eyeball rolling, skepticism, and criticism began nanoseconds after the HWCF’s announcement. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food industry critic, told Advertising Age that the 6.4 trillion calorie drop could have resulted from health-conscious consumers voluntarily eating less, and that the food industry had nothing to do with it. Michele Simon, a food policy advocate and author of the book Appetite for Profit, told Politico that major food companies are selling more of their full-calorie foods and beverages overseas. Many suggested that food companies were manipulating the numbers. Others carped about the HWCF’s research process. A few purists called for regulation instead of voluntary programs.

A review of the facts suggests the criticism is unmerited. A study released January 16 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows Americans are eating118 fewer calories a day per person. The HWCF members’ 6.4 trillion calorie reduction is nothing to scoff at; it amounts to 78 calories per American per day. Considering that this 78-calorie reduction came from just the HWCF’s member companies, which sell only 36% of the packaged food and beverages purchased in the U.S., comparable contributions from the other 64% would make a serious dent in the average American’s food intake. These and other studies demonstrate a per capita decline in U.S. soda calories  of 24% to 28%over the last decade, an increase in sales of lower-calorie foods and beverages, and a 90% reduction in beverage calories shipped to schools. All in all, serious progress against obesity is being made through public health/food industry collaboration—not through war.

The hyperactivists don’t applaud these facts because they can’t resist the urge to pile on, even when the aircraft carrier has already started to turn. We’ve seen them do this in other issues and campaigns besides obesity. They haveblasted Michelle Obama for her “Drink Up” campaign, alleging that her message to drink more water is really a plug for the bottled water industry. They criticized California Gov. Jerry Brown after he signed the nation’s strictest fracking regulations, claiming that nothing less than a total ban on fracking would do. They piled onto General Mills moments after the company announced it was removing GMOs from Cheerios. Why not Honey Nut Cheerios too, they argued.

If the more combustible activists follow Fed Up’s call to demonize the food industry and legal warfare ensues, further cooperation might become difficult. (In fact, one author and food industry critic, Gary Taubes, declared in the film, “If you want to cure obesity, you have to demonize some food industries.”) Some in the food industry see such messages as potentially setting the stage for multi-billion-dollar class-action lawsuits and cries for new regulation. With the prospect of a public and legal hanging, food companies may become too suspicious and worried about ulterior motives to see the market opportunities that lie underneath the activists’ attacks. The last 100 years of activist-industry wars provide vivid testimony of how social progress can slow when an industry is cast as Public Enemy No. 1.

To be sure, many industries have been guilty of bad behavior after being targeted by activists who railed against their products and practices. Rachel Carson, an early environmentalist, was attacked by the chemical industry as an alarmist after she published her seminal book Silent Spring in 1962.  General Motors, instead of capturing the market for safer cars, which was ultimately co-opted by Volvo and Mercedes Benz, hired  prostitutes to try to entrap Ralph Nader, while 50,000 people died each year in automobile crashes. Most tragically, about 2.5 million people died from smoking-related causes while tobacco companies fought for five decades against labeling and limits to smoking. These were not industry’s finest moments.

Some degree of skepticism is never a bad thing. Like good reporters, the food industry’s critics must ask the right questions, draw public attention to problems and issues, and keep their targets on their toes. Great social and public health changes, such as the eight-hour workday and sanitary meatpacking plants, have resulted from the spark of activism and the seismic shifts in public opinion that followed. But once the problem has been identified and the targeted industry shows a willingness to address it and delivers measurable results, the time comes for activism to take a more constructive turn.

Food activists should take a bow and congratulate themselves for generating high levels of awareness for America’s obesity epidemic and for helping drive demand for lower-calorie, better-for-you products. But the knee-jerk urge to demonize business, an all-or-nothing attitude toward how to address a problem, and the public-image, legal, and regulatory warfare that inevitably follows accomplish nothing.  We should all be fed up with that.

This balloon is not a magic pill

  • pity about the $2000 cost… reckon it’ll work.
  • Left in stomach for 3 months
  • Can have up to three of them in the stomach at a time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/this-weight-loss-pill-turns-into-a-balloon-to-fill-your-stomach/283399/

This Weight-Loss Pill Turns Into a Balloon to Fill Your Stomach

A novel treatment in clinical trials
Spire Healthcare/Vimeo

This is the Obalon system. It is a pill that has a balloon inside. Obalon is a weight-loss device, marketed as an alternative to bariatric surgery, that claims to help people eat less and “push back from the table sooner.”

Obalon begins to work when you swallow Obalon and it lands in your stomach. Obalon remains temporarily attached to a thin tube, through which doctors can inflate it. They then remove the thin tube, and the balloon stays in your stomach for up to three months, bobbing around like buoy in gastric waters. You can take up to three at a time, the manufacturers say.

The idea is that balloons partly fill your stomach to make you feel full, so you eat less. They are too big and buoyant to pass beyond the stomach. After twelve weeks, a doctor deflates the balloons and pulls them back out through your mouth.

Swallow the pill attached to the thin tube. (Spire Healthcare/Vimeo)
It’s weird, but just swallow it.
Down the throat
Down the esophagus
Into the stomach
Doctor pumps air through the tube to inflate the balloon
Doctor detaches the tube and pulls it out of your mouth
Orange food pours into the stomach. The balloon occupies space.
The balloon has made a friend.

“This balloon will act to educate [people] about portion size and retrain their brain and their mindset a little,” Dr. Sally Norton, a U.K. bariatric surgeon, told CBS News.

“Health experts warn that the balloon is not a magic pill.”

My initial reaction was the same as that of fitness expert Tim Bean. This balloon procedure does not make the stomach smaller, and seems like it could possibly make it bigger. I’m intrigued by the idea but skeptical of its long-term effectiveness. It also costs £2,000 ($3,321).

The Obalon balloon pill is approved for investigational use only in the U.S. However, it is approved in the E.U. and is available in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Spain. What better way to see Europe than with expensive stomach balloons?

Ornish at TED

http://deanornish.com/

  • Wellness vs Illness – We vs I
  • 95% of NCD is preventable
  • NCDs are also reversible
  • Prostate Cancer, Breast Cancer susceptible to diet change
  • Obesity Trends in the US – new categories on the US map
  • Has worked with McDonalds and Pepsi to advise on products – didn’t go anywhere

Ornish Healthways Spectrum Program
http://deanornish.com/ornish-spectrum/

16 min: Healing Through Diet
http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_ornish_on_healing.html

3 min: Your Genes Are Not Your Fate

3 min: Killer Diet

Fear + Clear Action = Effective Behaviour Change

  • people indulge in unhealthy behaviours to relieve stress and anxiety
  • ads that cause stress and anxiety can drive unhealthy behaviours
  • one solution is to couple compelling threats with clear and specific paths to behaviour change
  • another approach is to apply the adicitive rewards that video games create for real life challenges
  • SUPERBETTERLABS.COM build video games which build resilience and maintain motivation while working to overcome injuries, anxiety and depression

 

http://www.iodine.com/blog/anti-smoking-ads/

Why Graphic Anti-Smoking Ads Make Some People Smoke More Cigarettes

Jessica Goldband

If these images make you squirm or want to click away, you’re not alone.

get-unhooked-man-1anti_smoking130328_anti_smoking_ad_thumb

How, then, can this type of message change the choices you make? Can we really be motivated by something that turns us off, rather than on?

You’d think, perhaps intuitively, that the scarier the ad, the more powerfully it affects our behavior. And the research supports that argument. Indeed, since the classic 1964 Surgeon General report on “Smoking and Health” came out 50 years ago this month, that’s been the basic strategy for health communication around the issue. But there’s a catch. A BIG one.

While we’ve seen a significant drop in global smoking rates (down 25% for men and 42% for women) since those landmark reports in the 1960s demonstrated the link between smoking and lung cancer, many people continue to smoke: 31% of men and 6% of women. In the U.S., 18% of adults (down by half since 1964) continue to do something they know might kill them.

Public health agencies have spent years communicating the dangers of smoking. Their anti-smoking ads have grown increasingly disturbing, threatening us with graphic images of bulging tumors and holes in our throats — possibly to try to reach that last stubborn segment of the population that hasn’t kicked the habit.

Why aren’t these ads working?

Turns out, the most recent and comprehensive research on so-called “fear appeals” and attitude change says that this kind of messaging does work, but only if the person watching the ad is confident that they are capable of making a change, such as quitting smoking. Public health gurus call this confidence in one’s ability to make a change “self-efficacy” — and threats only seem to work when efficacy is high. (The reverse is also true.)

If someone lacks efficacy, ads with fear appeals don’t help. In fact, they make the behaviorworse. How? Many people engage in unhealthy behavior because it makes them feel better and relieves their anxiety.

If you threaten someone who has little to no confidence they can change their behavior, their anxiety goes through the roof. What do they do? Perhaps turn off the threatening ad, walk away, and light up a cigarette — the very behavior you were trying to prevent. This same principle applies to other coping behaviors, such as eating unhealthy types of food or just too much of it.

Unfortunately, anxiety is quite common in this country. According to arecent Atlantic article, 1 in 4 Americans is likely to suffer from anxiety at some point in life. Making big life changes is tough, and it seems as though fear and anxiety don’t energize people, they just paralyze them.

So what’s the solution?

A step in the right direction would be for ad campaigns to couple compelling threats with equally clear and specific paths to behavior change. Or why not apply the rewards built into reaching a new level in addictive video games to apps that people can use for real-life challenges? One great example of this is Superbetter, a social online game to help people build resilience and stay motivated while working to overcome injuries, anxiety, and depression.

Stand-alone threats implicitly assume that people don’t already know how bad their choices are, and can drive them to the very behaviors they wish they could change. Truly effective ad campaigns might still appeal to our fears, but they should also let us wash it all down with a confidence chaser that empowers the more anxious among us to act on our fears.

Flexitarians – 9% meat consumption reduction 1990-2009

  • meat consumption in the developed world is reducing
  • FAOSTAT indicates that in Western Europe, Europeans ate 87kg of meat per capita in 2009 vs 95.5kg in 1990
  • This is meat reduction, not increased vegetarianism
  • Vegetarianism is reported at 9-10% in Italy and Germany
  • Three quarters of Dutch consumers say they have at least one meat free day per week; 40% say they eat no meat at least three days per week
  • Flexitarianism is not cool – low identification factor
  • contributing factors include: rising meat prices; poor economic conditions; environmental concerns; animal welfare; health concerns
  • Some interesting trends in developing countries with rising incomes

“Given the enormous environmental impact of animal-protein consumption and the apparent sympathy of consumers for meat reduction, it is surprising that politicians and policy makers demonstrate little, if any, interest in strategies to reduce meat consumption and to encourage more sustainable eating practices.”

 “It is expected that increases in meat consumption will taper as incomes rise, a pattern that is already evident for China, as shown by the almost straight line of rising meat consumption against logarithmic increases in income. For Brazil, however, it seems that the tapering is less pronounced,”

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financial-Industry/Plant-based-diets-The-rise-and-rise-of-flexitarian-eating

Plant-based diets: The rise and rise of flexitarian eating

Meat reduction – or ‘flexitarian’ eating – is on the rise. In this special edition article, FoodNavigator asks why are consumers reducing meat, and how prevalent is the trend?

Food Vision

In large parts of the developing world, meat consumption is increasing, but in some developed nations – including in parts of Europe – it is declining. According to FAOSTAT figures, Western Europeans ate about 87 kg of meat per capita in 2009 compared to 95.5 kg in 1990 – a drop of 9% in less than 20 years.

This reflects a trend of meat reduction, rather than of rising vegetarianism, although the proportion of Europeans who identify as vegetarian has increased too, with rates varying from about 1-2% in some countries, to about 9-10% in Italy and Germany.

Meanwhile, a new dietary pattern has cropped up. Dubbed flexitarianism, it refers to meat reduction rather than fully fledged vegetarianism.

Growing trend – but it’s not cool

Germany and the Netherlands lead the way in this ‘flexitarian’ way of eating. Research from Wageningen UR last year revealed that more than three-quarters of Dutch consumers say they have at least one meat-free day per week – and 40% eat no meat at least three days a week.

“Reducing meat consumption is a growing trend, but the majority of people keep to their current pattern of meat consumption,” say the researchers, led by Hans Dagevos from the university’s Agricultural Economics Research Institute, adding that only 13% of consumers described themselves as flexitarians.

“Reducing meat consumption is not seen as ‘cool’. There is a low identification factor.”

But even if there is little acceptance of the term ‘flexitarian’, what is behind this shift in eating patterns?

Meat-free movements

There are several key reasons: In the past few years, rising meat prices have coincided with a struggling economy, meaning that many western consumers have cut consumption on the back of shrinking incomes; shoppers are becoming more aware of the environmental impacts of eating meat; animal welfare issues have also gained attention; and consumers have started to question how healthy it is to eat large quantities of meat.

Meat reduction has also been boosted by regional meat-free movements, generally coordinated by NGOs, including vegetarian, animal protection and environmental organisations.

In another recent paper on sustainability issues and meat reduction , Dagevos wrote: “Given the enormous environmental impact of animal-protein consumption and the apparent sympathy of consumers for meat reduction, it is surprising that politicians and policy makers demonstrate little, if any, interest in strategies to reduce meat consumption and to encourage more sustainable eating practices.”

According to his analysis, flexitarians tend to value non-meat protein sources more highly than their heavy-meat eating counterparts. These include cheese, eggs, nuts, mushrooms and pulses, alongside meat sources such as chicken and fish.

Rising meat consumption elsewhere

Meanwhile, meat consumption continues to rise in developing countries – but could those in developing countries be convinced to adopt a similar way of ‘flexitarian’ eating, even as rising incomes allow them to choose more meat products for the first time?

recent paper from the Overseas Development Institute (ODI ) pointed out that meat consumption does not rise endlessly in tandem with income, and this pattern is expected even in emerging markets – although it depends on the nation’s food culture.

“It is expected that increases in meat consumption will taper as incomes rise, a pattern that is already evident for China, as shown by the almost straight line of rising meat consumption against logarithmic increases in income. For Brazil, however, it seems that the tapering is less pronounced,” it said.

Diet drinks are compensated for by obese people

  • Large study N=23,000
  • Diet soda drinkers eat more calories from food that regular soda drinkers
  • A link between artificial sweeteners to greater activation of reward centres in the brain may explain why they found higher consumption of solid food among heavy adults who drink diet beverages.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Food-compensation-means-diet-drinks-are-not-a-weight-loss-solution-warn-researchers/

Food ‘compensation’ means diet drinks are not a weight loss solution, warn researchers

Post a comment

By Nathan Gray+

22-Jan-2014

Overweight people who drink more sugar-free and diet sodas counterbalance their lower caloric intake by consuming more sweet snacks, warn the researchers,

Overweight people who drink more sugar-free and diet sodas counterbalance their lower caloric intake by consuming more sweet snacks, warn the researchers,

Overweight and obese adults who drink sugar-free or diet beverages consume more calories from food than overweight people who drink regular soda, according to new data.

Food Vision

The results of a large US-based study involving more than 23,000 adults has suggested that people who are overweight or obese drink more sugar-free beverages than people of a healthy weight. However, the study which examined patterns in adult diet beverage consumption and calorie intake, also found that overweight and obese adults who drink diet beverages consume more calories from food than obese or overweight adults who drink ‘regular soda’ or other sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) – thus counterbalancing any reduction in calorie intake from drinking the sugar-free beverage.

“Although overweight and obese adults who drink diet soda eat a comparable amount of total calories as heavier adults who drink sugary beverages, they consume significantly more calories from solid food at both meals and snacks,” explained Dr Sara Bleich an associate professor with the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management and lead author of the paper.

Writing in the American Journal of Public Health, Bleich and her colleagues suggested that earlier research linking artificial sweeteners to greater activation of reward centres in the brain may explain why they found higher consumption of solid food among heavy adults who drink diet beverages.

Study details

The team used data 23,965 participants who took part in the 1999-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to investigate national patterns in adult diet beverage consumption and caloric intake by body-weight status.

Overall the team found that 11% of healthy-weight, 19% of overweight, and 22% of obese adults drink diet beverages.

While this data supports the notion that obese and overweight people wish to monitor caloric intake and reduce their weight, the team also found that overweight and obese drinking diet beverages consumed “significantly more solid-food calories and a comparable total calories than overweight and obese adults who drink SSBs.”

Bleich and her colleagues added that although total caloric intake was higher among adults consuming sugar-sweetened beverages compared with diet beverages (2351 kcal/day vs 2203 kcal/day; P = .005), this difference was only significant for healthy-weight adults (2302 kcal/day vs 2095 kcal/day; P < .001)

“Among overweight and obese adults, calories from solid-food consumption were higher among adults consuming diet beverages compared with SSBs,” they said.

As a result, the team suggested that adults who drink diet beverages will need to reduce solid-food calorie consumption to lose weight.

“Overweight and obese adults looking to lose or maintain their weight – who have already made the switch from sugary to diet beverages – may need to look carefully at other components of their solid-food diet, particularly sweet snacks, to potentially identify areas for modification,”Bleich added.

Source: American Journal of Public Health
Published online ahead of print, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301556 
“Diet-Beverage Consumption and Caloric Intake Among US Adults, Overall and by Body Weight”
Authors: Sara N. Bleich, Julia A. Wolfson, et al

Katz: The power of the possible in public health

 

The case for the power of the possible in public health is clearcompelling and data-driven. Were we to commit to the policies required to eradicate tobacco use, establish moderate daily physical activity as the prevailing cultural norm and turn healthful eating into the new “typical” American diet, we could eliminate 80 percent of all chronic disease.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/healthy-life_b_1176506.html

David Katz, M.D.

Director, Yale Prevention Research Center

 

What If? A New Year’s Public Health Reverie

Posted: 12/31/11 11:50 AM ET
 

Democracy, it has been said, is the worst form of government except for every other form. As the long season of our political discontent drags on, the liabilities of consensus-based governance are on prominent display, salient among them a perennial lack of consensus. The situation seems unlikely to improve as a new year dawns, for it is, after all, an election year.

All of which serves to deepen the longing I suspect we each have cause to feel for a world where what we believe should be done, reliably gets done. Since Plato’s “Republic,” we have acknowledged that the challenges involved in conceiving what would make the world better are the lesser impediment to enhancing our destinies. Navigating such ideas, ideals and aspirations through the gauntlet of democratic dissent and past the intransigence of the status quo is the greater. The execution step is where good ideas all too often go to die.

The unnecessary death of good ideas — and of people — is much on my mind as the new year looms, with its promise of fresh starts. For far too long already, a failure to turn what we know into what we do has cost us dearly.

The case for the power of the possible in public health is clearcompelling and data-driven. Were we to commit to the policies required to eradicate tobacco use, establish moderate daily physical activity as the prevailing cultural norm and turn healthful eating into the new “typical” American diet, we could eliminate 80 percent of all chronic disease.

Do take a moment to let that sink in. Statistics have the capacity to be stunning and dull at the same time. We tend to need faces and names to get our passions going.

So consider this. If someone you love has ever had heart disease, cancer, a stroke or diabetes — there are eight chances in 10 that better use of feet, forks and fingers would have prevented that adverse fate outright. Viewed from altitude, eight out of 10 of us who have suffered through the anguish of a serious chronic disease with someone we love — wouldn’t have had to if what we knew about disease prevention were translated into what we routinely do about it.

Health promotion is what I do, so such musings are vocational on my part. But I, too, have loved ones laid low by chronic diseases that need not have occurred. So this is up close, and intensely personal.

As the new year dawns, then, my thoughts are irresistibly drawn to what might be. What if knowledge were power? What if what we know became what we do? Preoccupied by such reflections, I indulge myself in a reverie. Here’s what I would do if I were the philosopher-king of public health in 2012.

I would declare that a flood of factors — from highly-processed food, to labor-saving technologies, to clever marketing of insalubrious products — conspires against our health. I would proclaim that every person, family and community deserves to be protected by a levee of empowering, health-promoting tools and programs. I would call on personal responsibility for making good use of such resources — but I would acknowledge that before people can take responsibility, they must be empowered. As public health philosopher-king, such empowerment would be my job.

I would eradicate tobacco use. This pernicious scourge has taken years from life and life from years for far too long already. Those currently addicted to tobacco would need authorization from a physician to get it, and would at the same time receive every assistance modern science can offer to help them quit. But the substance, and any marketing of it, would be banned for all others. No young person should ever again be seduced into this calamitous boondoggle.

I would make everyone a nutrition expert by putting an objective, evidence-based, at-a-glance measure of overall nutritional quality on display everywhere people and food come together, and thus close every loophole to marketing distortions. Then, I would attach to this metric a system of financial incentives so that the more nutritious the food, the less it costs. The incentives would not constitute a new cost, but rather an opportunity for savings. They would be paid by the entities that currently pay the costs of disease care — insurance companies, large employers and the federal government. The costs of subsidizing cabbage are trivial compared to the cost of CABG, so says the king (not to mention the world’s leading health economists). Incentivizing healthful choices could save us a lot of money. Everyone can win.

I would make physical activity a readily accessible and routine part of everyone’s day. This can be done in schools with programming that embraces the time-honored adage: sound mind, sound body. This can be done in a way that honors personal preference for different kinds of exercise. In my kingdom, every school would have such programming.

So would every worksite. And every church. And little by little, we would do the requisite hard work on the built environment throughout the kingdom so that every neighborhood and town was designed to take physical activity off the road less traveled, and put it on a path of lesser resistance. This would cost money in the short term, but save both money and lives over time. Until this job was done universally, we would not just wait on the world to change — but would provide those in acute need access to the oases of comprehensivehealth promotion that already exist.

Every school would teach children and their parents the skills required to identify and choose more nutritious food. Every cafeteria would be designed to encourage, without forcing, better choices. School food standards would be unimpeachable — and a slice of pizza would not qualify as a serving of vegetables.

Businesses would adopt schools (as they now adopt highways) to provide the resources required for state-of-the-art health promotion programming, and so that parents and children could get to health together. We are otherwise unlikely to do so at all.

Guidance to nutritious restaurant meals wherever they are available would be at the fingertips of all, in the service of loving food that loves us back. In my kingdom, we would not mortgage our health for the sake of dining pleasure — nor vice versa!

Robust economic modeling would be conducted to guide biomedical research so that it translated most efficiently into measurable and meaningful improvements in the human condition. In my kingdom, such data would drown out diatribe, epidemiology would trump ideology, and we would prioritize the practices subtended by the best data, not propagated by the loudest shouting or dictated by the deepest pocket.

In my kingdom, every clinician would be trained to be expert in lifestyle counseling, and serve as an effective agent of health-promoting behavior change.

We would construct a comprehensive sandbag exchange so that every one of us, no matter what we do or where we do it, could contribute to the levee. In my kingdom, no one would be part of the problem because everyone would be part of the solution. And as sandbagsaccumulate, we would gather evidence to know just how much needs to be done to turn the toxic tide of chronic disease. We would devise the tools needed to disseminate effective strategies, while honoring the need for local control and customization.

We would take patient-centered care to the next level by establishing a mechanism for participant-centered research, giving the true “beneficiaries” of biomedical research a chance to call the shots. We would shift subsidies and marketing from foods with the longest shelf lives, to foods that extend the shelf lives of the people eating them! We would pursue our health in conjunction with efforts to preserve the health of the planet. We would do what it takes to find ourselves eating food, not too much, mostly plants.

In my kingdom, we would do this, and more, until the 80 percent of all chronic disease we know we can eliminate were actually eliminated. Until forces that conspire against years of life, and life in years, were banished. Until eight times in 10, the phone did not ring with bad news; the ambulance did not need to be called; the anguished visit to the ICU or CCU did not need to happen. And then, we would figure out what we could do about the remaining two!

The best way to predict the future is to create it. We cannot create what we don’t first conceive. From Plato to Dr. Seuss, we have been invited to consider what the world could be like if the right people ran the zoo.

And yet we are right, of course, to renounce the tyranny of Plato’s philosopher-king — for tyranny it would be. Along with the absolute power required to implement good ideas at will comes the power to do the same with bad ideas — and it can, at times, be awfully hard to tell them apart. And then there’s the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The benevolence of despotism is not to be trusted. Which leaves us thankful for our democracy — dysfunctional though it may be at times.

Still, it is vexing to stand at the gulf yawning between what we know and what we do. It is painful to concede that knowledge is not power. It is tantalizing to imagine a world where that translational divide is bridged.

And so I do. I ponder the power of the possible as the New Year dawns — and invite you to join me. We don’t need a philosopher-king to change the world, just a small (or preferably large!) group of thoughtful and committed citizens. That could be us. This could be the year. What if?

-fin

Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz