Nutrition policy might appear to be a concrete concept describing something meaningful and weighty, but it has no greater impact and no greater importance than the individual’s perception of the need to change—and more fundamental than that, the actual changes it induces. In a nutshell, the government and private health organizations can promote change all they like, but if the citizenry makes no change based upon the policy, the policy has done nothing.
Applying Benford’s Law of Controversy to nutrition policy: Passion in the generation of public nutrition policy is inversely proportional to the amount of information available. That is, we may be passionate in creating a policy, setting daily limits on certain macronutrients and food groups, but we risk the effect of scientific research updating current understanding and potentially showing our “policy” to be at best outdated and at worst flat wrong.
The public was universally confused in just this manner with the butter versus margarine debates over the past thirty years (actually the last 100 years). Many who flipped back to butter after the trans fat scare of the late 1990’s, are now filtering back to margarines with low trans fat content. However, ask the average shopper about the health risks of either and you get a rambling confused diatribe of concepts and fears brought on by the conflicts between science and public health policy.
Nutrition policy is ideally designed to inform and change behavior based upon a consensus of information derived from current and past science. The implication is that changing eating behavior rewards the individual with a more favorable health outcome. An example might be directed at children: Eat fewer calories, more fruits and vegetables and less saturated fats from animal sources, and enjoy lower rates of heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and a host of other issues and problems. The policy, however, is actually directed at their parents and the public institutions where they learn. The policy is directed toward the prevention of obesity, heart disease and the other conditions mentioned, without directly targeting the susceptible audience (a roundabout bid once again for essential nutrition education in classrooms). What that implies, is the significance of nutrition policy is disease specific, asks a caretaker (parent or government) to administer the policy and offers no real roadmap to accomplishing the terms of the policy. It tells the parents and schools, in essence:
“We’ll tell you what to feed your children for the next twenty to thirty years, even though it’s less satisfying and offers a somewhat reduced taste experience. And we have no idea how to discourage them from eating all the good tasting, bad-for-you foods. After that, we’ll see if it prevents disease.”
And there are few real world examples of a policy that takes 30 years to bear fruit. In fact, no policy can be 100% sure of all outcomes and a policy that prevents a disease 30 years in the future is vulnerable to say the least.
The seatbelt law represents a wonderful example of a public policy that had legislative backing and thus moved quickly from policy to law. The change is immediate if one encounters another car head on at just forty miles-per-hour. However, food policy takes decades to see potential benefit. And what if the policy makers overlooked an intervening exposure? Intake of certain fruits and vegetables over time with low levels of pesticides may be found to promote certain cancers. What would we tell the populous in twenty years if the last assertion were found to be true? In truth, no policy can capture all possible conditions and situations. And no policy is perfect. But nutrition policy to prevent lifestyle accumulating disease is without question on a very buttery slope.
Applying Benford’s Law of Controversy to nutrition policy: Passion in the generation of public nutrition policy is inversely proportional to the amount of information available. That is, we may be passionate in creating a policy, setting daily limits on certain macronutrients and food groups, but we risk the effect of scientific research updating current understanding and potentially showing our “policy” to be at best outdated and at worst flat wrong.
The public was universally confused in just this manner with the butter versus margarine debates over the past thirty years (actually the last 100 years). Many who flipped back to butter after the trans fat scare of the late 1990’s, are now filtering back to margarines with low trans fat content. However, ask the average shopper about the health risks of either and you get a rambling confused diatribe of concepts and fears brought on by the conflicts between science and public health policy.
Nutrition policy is ideally designed to inform and change behavior based upon a consensus of information derived from current and past science. The implication is that changing eating behavior rewards the individual with a more favorable health outcome. An example might be directed at children: Eat fewer calories, more fruits and vegetables and less saturated fats from animal sources, and enjoy lower rates of heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes and a host of other issues and problems. The policy, however, is actually directed at their parents and the public institutions where they learn. The policy is directed toward the prevention of obesity, heart disease and the other conditions mentioned, without directly targeting the susceptible audience (a roundabout bid once again for essential nutrition education in classrooms). What that implies, is the significance of nutrition policy is disease specific, asks a caretaker (parent or government) to administer the policy and offers no real roadmap to accomplishing the terms of the policy. It tells the parents and schools, in essence:
“We’ll tell you what to feed your children for the next twenty to thirty years, even though it’s less satisfying and offers a somewhat reduced taste experience. And we have no idea how to discourage them from eating all the good tasting, bad-for-you foods. After that, we’ll see if it prevents disease.”
And there are few real world examples of a policy that takes 30 years to bear fruit. In fact, no policy can be 100% sure of all outcomes and a policy that prevents a disease 30 years in the future is vulnerable to say the least.
The seatbelt law represents a wonderful example of a public policy that had legislative backing and thus moved quickly from policy to law. The change is immediate if one encounters another car head on at just forty miles-per-hour. However, food policy takes decades to see potential benefit. And what if the policy makers overlooked an intervening exposure? Intake of certain fruits and vegetables over time with low levels of pesticides may be found to promote certain cancers. What would we tell the populous in twenty years if the last assertion were found to be true? In truth, no policy can capture all possible conditions and situations. And no policy is perfect. But nutrition policy to prevent lifestyle accumulating disease is without question on a very buttery slope.
No comments:
Post a Comment