Jamie Oliver, the vanquisher of the turkey twizzler, is back on his campaign against childhood obesity. At a meeting with the celebrity chef earlier this May, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon set out her plans to cut child obesity in half by 2030.
Details of the Scottish government’s plans will be published later this summer, but Sturgeon said they will particularly target two-for-one deals and adverts on unhealthy food. “We will tackle junk food promotions and the marketing of unhealthy food such as multi-buys that encourage overconsumption,” she said at a press event announcing the initiative. Earlier this month London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his own plans to ban junk food adverts from Tube stations and buses.
But these campaigners are missing the bigger picture. We are facing a dual crisis of both obesity and food poverty. And these two are just symptoms of a much more pervasive poverty, a poorly functioning economy and a government that has failed to help people with low incomes.
Although obesity appears to be income-agnostic, policies intended to tackle unhealthy eating will disproportionately impact the working poor and those in receipt of welfare. In both these groups, food poverty and obesity are higher than in the general population.
While we all need to eat healthier and exercise more the issues among low income groups are more complex. Those on low incomes pay what is called a ‘poverty premium’ for goods and services. They end up paying more – out of their lesser incomes – for services such as electricity, the internet and rent. They don’t have access to credit so cannot take advantage of online offers of cheap goods. They often live in areas where access to healthy and affordable food, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, is limited.
Despite all this, the tendency is to locate the debate within a hectoring approach that tells people to eat more healthily. This overlooks a real need to understand poverty and the restrictions it places on people.
Life is complex and for those managing on low incomes or zero-hour contracts, things are even more difficult. Before the end of 2007, the UK was fast approaching a situation similar to that we see in the USA, where people spend a large portion of their income on eating food prepared outside of the home. When the recession hit, it brought with it a new consciousness around eating out, driven by food prices which rose by 30 per cent between 2007 and 2012.
During this period, overall restaurant and takeaway purchases declined but those on lower incomes continued to eat out. Why? Because they were making tough decisions about whether to heat the house or buy that new pair of shoes for the kids. For people on lower incomes, takeaways make economic sense. The food, although unhealthy in the long term, is filling and – even more importantly – readily available for people living in areas where there aren’t healthy options readily available.
Of course, not everyone buying two-for-one pizzas is on a low income, but some will be buying because of the stresses of modern society, pressures from work, family commitments and perhaps a lack of cooking skills. In the past, Oliver has warned that a lack of cooking skills might be fuelling the obesity crisis, but this is way off the mark.
Data shows that the rich are more deficient in cooking skills than those on low incomes but do we hector them to learn how to cook? We don’t need to, as their diets are generally healthy for other reasons mainly to do with income, they can buy fresh fruit and vegetables and not worry about them going to waste a luxury not available to all on low incomes. For people on lower incomes, however, it is nearly impossible to purchase a healthy food basket, even if they wanted to.
If the Scottish government really wants to tackle obesity, it might start by listening to the experts: the very people who live in poverty. A recent report from the Scottish government quoted one respondent describing food poverty as “cooking cheap food in the microwave because you can’t afford to use the oven.” We should trust these people and provide them with an adequate income that lets them buy the healthy food they need.
We can trust people and provide them with an adequate income to afford to buy healthy food. Public debates over money for welfare and food often hinge on how we cannot trust people as they will spend it on alcohol, cigarettes or chocolate. The evidence is that if you give people, particularly women, money they will spend it wisely in the best interests of the family.
Government and policy makers should recognise the similar root causes of food poverty and obesity. Perhaps this latter point can also apply to policy entrepreneurs such as Jamie Oliver. Food charity developments such as food banks need to be seen for what they are – failures of the system not as celebrations of community good but, as one of my colleagues put it, “a symbol of our society’s failure to hold government accountable for hunger, food insecurity and poverty.”
This portrayal of poverty as an individual failing and a lack of ‘get-up and go’ places the responsibility on individuals, not governments. Solutions to food poverty and obesity will be found in policies which set minimum welfare and income levels commensurate with the ability to purchase a healthy, culturally appropriate basket of food. This should be supported by polices around marketing, promotions, location of food outlets and the composition of foods.
Read more: From rotting crops to migrant worker shortages, times are hard down on the farm that Brexit built
There is, at least for me, a wider dimension necessary which is about setting standards to enable family life to be enjoyed by controlling employment and zero hour contracts as has been done in New Zealand; controlling working and opening hours of shops (as in France and Germany) so that families have time together and finally via a broader approach to food culture as in done in Japan. This latter example works through the Basic Law of Shokuiku which applies to all citizens of Japan. Enacted in 2005, the law defines ‘Shokuiku’ as food education, knowledge about food and the ability to make appropriate food choices,’ and mandates education in education in nutrition and food origins.
Hayley Squires, the star of I, Daniel Blake, summed the hypocrisy of food poverty policies in an interview with the Observer Magazine. “Why are you talking about food banks existing, if you don’t talk about why they exist," she said. “It’s like pouring water into a boat that’s leaking. There’s no point in me giving the information about what we need to do to help, when you’re not talking about the root cause of it.” Jamie Oliver should take note.
Martin Caraher is professor of food and health policy at the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London. He has worked and consulted for the UK Department of Health, the World Bank and the World Health Organisation.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
