Breaking: BoJo solves....obesity?

In the midst of a pandemic, Boris Johnson has decided to put his effort where it counts.

Being transparent about the governments approach to coronavirus? No.

Acknowledging the devastating impact of the virus on care homes? No (because it’s obviously their fault…)

Taking accountability for measures not being brought in soon enough or enforced? No.

What, you might ask, has he done, then?

Started a new ‘battle’ against obesity, of course!

In a ‘totally not deflecting from genuine changes that could be made’ move, Boris Johnson has decided that the reason the UK has been hit so hard by coronavirus isn’t due to inadequate preparation, lack of clear rules and measures or strong leadership…it’s because of obesity.

Now, of course we can acknowledge that obesity is a risk factor in how an individual may be affected by the virus, that much is clear.

But to imply that the devastating effects of the virus on England specifically are due to obesity is not even a remotely subtle way of trying to divert our attention elsewhere.

So, let’s get a few things straight, shall we?

Whilst Jamie Oliver may be under the impression that removing full sugar syrups from our coffees and making high school children weep over their dinner selection is good for health, that doesn’t mean our government should take the same reductionist approach.

Instead of acknowledging the social and economic factors that strongly play into diet and health, the government (or Boris Johnson) have decided that obesity can simply be cured through shame tactics.

Are we teaching children and adults about macros? Of course we aren’t!

Are we publicising the importance of moderation rather than starvation or elimination of what we enjoy? Why, of course not!

Why would we do that, when banging calorie counts on restaurant and takeaway menus is guaranteed to do so much more than fill people with shame and guilt?

Multiple eating disorder charities and organisations have brought forth their concern about presenting menus with calorie information on display, and it’s no surprise.

Not only is it a tactic rooted in shame, but it’s also redundant.

Food packaging currently has calorie information presented on it, alongside the information of sugar and fat contents.

Now, something rarely noticed is the sly methodology brands use to escape the scrutiny of their ill-balanced foods.

Instead of presenting the full calorific content of their foods, they will instead use terms such as ‘per three squares’, for chocolate, or ‘per 100g’ for a 265g product.

This may seem insignificant, but it presents a very understated issue – businesses don’t want to present calories properly.

Even in an ‘ideal world’ in which restaurants and takeaways were perfectly accurate in their use of calorie information on menus, I have to ask what the specific purpose is other than to put someone off their meal purely because of a number.

If we want genuine, fundamental change in people’s dietary habits, shame is not the route to go down.

As someone who has gone through periods of extreme restrictions in their diet and binge eating, I can say that the last thing we should be doing is increasing the shame around eating, because that is one of the largest contributing factors to disordered eating.

The message should be one of moderation, of informative discourse, telling people that food groups aren’t inherently bad but that you can create a meal with a healthy mix of food groups.

Calories mean very little when one slice of cake can equal the same calorie intake as a healthier alternative.

When we also consider the percentage of families who have to access food banks to survive, most of which have limited access to fresh fruit and vegetables, then we have to ask where the real crisis is.

Is it obesity, or a lack of more affordable, accessible healthy options?

If a family of five can get a set of ready meals for 1/3 of the price of a meal made with fresh vegetables, salad or fresh meat, where does the problem lie?

It’s not just the cost we should consider – fresh foods expire faster, and most families don’t have the luxury of being able to do more than a weekly shop.

This thinly veiled attempt to seem like the government are taking steps towards minimising the risk of the virus to the public is not only insulting, but misses the mark entirely.

If we truly want to put an emphasis on tackling obesity and helping people to have more balanced diets and approaches to food, guilt isn’t the way forward, nor is the assumption that everyone has the means or money to access a balanced diet 24/7.

The last time I checked, the NHS staff and key workers pulling 12-hour shifts with a family to provide for can’t pay for their ‘healthy’ weekly shop with claps.