When people think of combating obesity, they tend to think of educating about and raising awareness of high calorie foods, their effects and the healthy alternatives. Billboards, TV ads, etc - they share a common goal in getting the individuals they're aimed at to affect a change within themselves. Though marketing and advertising is a powerful force, on their own they can only change the targeted demographic's perception of their environment, not the reality of the environment itself. Organic foods are still more expensive, there's still no place to exercise and there's no time to figure out a way around any of this anyways, no matter how good of an idea the man on TV says it is.
Northeastern University professors Carmen C. Sceppa and Jessica Hoffman are working to change this. Spearheading the "Healthy Kids, Healthy Futures" initiative (HKHF), they work to prevent childhood obesity by providing areas that allow for healthy choices in the three major environments where young children live, learn and play (home, preschool and the overall community). Dr. Sceppa agreed to speak to Sugar Rush about the city's campaign and tactics in combating the epidemic. Dr. Hoffman gave a similar interview in February issue of The Northeastern Voice (page four).
Do you think Menino's soda ban will affect anything?
One of the ways we can look at this initiative is that there needs to be a major policy and systems change in the environment that is contributing to childhood obesity. I think this is a very good move because it's changing the environment.
Changing the environment works for young children - do you think the same will work with adults? That seems to be what the ban is doing - removing a factor from the environment where people work.
Healthy kids, Healthy futures is a family initiative - impacts everybody in the community, not just the children attending the program. I have done work with adults about healthy aging, specifically the Meals on Wheels program - evaluating nutritional value of the food. Same reasoning can be applied to adults as with school children - except replace "where they learn" with "where they work."
Is the reasoning behind the ban too basic, since sugary drinks are only a part of the high calorie diet, which in turn is only a part of the overall lifestyle that causes obesity?
Still has to be done - we're trying to impact the most possible people in areas where change needs to occur. The battle is pretty big and spans multiple fronts beyond diets. We have to deal with marketing and industry - there's a whole science behind marketing of trying to get individuals to buy certain products and become loyal to those new products - you have to make nutrition accessible. That goes for exercise too, so we have to provide a place to be physically active that is accessible, affordable and fun. This is what HKHF's Saturday Open Gyms is all about.
Many good initiatives falter because they need to be sustained - one of the ways we do this is by getting as many groups involved as possible. This is what our partnership with Boston Centers for Youth and Families does - they see HKHF as the only family engaging physical activity program that promotes physical activity and provides it free of charge.
Joslin Diabetes Center doesn't have vending machines. Carney Hospital has also banned high sugar drinks. Has been suggested that hospitals in Longwood Medical Area should stop selling drinks sweetened with HFCS. Should health institutions follow suit with City?
These institutions must work with the providers of healthy products in terms of advertising and marketing so the agreement is mutually beneficial. It may be a dream, but only when we start working together with the corporations will it stop being an uphill battle. To succeed in this battle, I believe it is important to make the healthy choice the default choice. When you want to eat healthy, you have to ask for the salad, you have to ask 'can you put the dressing on the side' - people have to actively pursue these healthy choices and for that they have to know about them. We hope to make the more healthful choice the default.
Science articles say that "the obese can't help but eat" since they may innately have less impulse control than the non-obese when their blood sugar drops below a certain level. If a predisposition to obesity is genetic, how do you think that should be approached policy wise?
The genetic part, you cannot change, what you can change is the environment and that includes food and physical activity. By taking care of the environment, you can influence one's physiology and metabolism to some extent. There would still be that predisposition that is there no matter what, but the environment plays a big role. There are studies that look at specific genetic disposition for overweight or obesity and when these individuals are provided with a healthy choice, they respond favorably even though their genetic make up says otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment