Obesity prevention and personal responsibility: the case of front-of-pack food labelling in Australia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Australia, the food industry and public health groups are locked in serious struggle for regulatory influence over the terms of front-of-pack food labelling. Clear, unambiguous labelling of the nutritional content of pre-packaged foods and of standardized food items sold in chain restaurants is consistent with the prevailing philosophy of 'personal responsibility'. An interpretive, front-of-pack labelling scheme has the capacity to encourage healthier patterns of eating, and to be a catalyst for improvements in the nutritional quality of food products through re-formulation. On the other hand, the strength of opposition of the Australian Food and Grocery Council to 'Traffic Light Labelling', and its efforts to promote a non-interpretive, voluntary scheme, invite the interpretation that the food industry is resistant to any reforms that could destabilise current (unhealthy) purchasing patterns and the revenues they represent.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This article argues that although policies that aim to educate consumers about the nutritional content of food are welcome, they are only one part of a broader basket of policies that are needed to make progress on obesity prevention and public health nutrition. However, to the extent that food labelling has the capacity to inform and empower consumers to make healthier choices - and to be a catalyst for improving the nutritional quality of commercial recipes - it has an important role to play. Furthermore, given the dietary impact of meals eaten in fast food and franchise restaurants, interpretive labelling requirements should not be restricted to pre-packaged foods.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Food industry resistance to an interpretive food labelling scheme is an important test for government, and a case study of how self-interest prompts industry to promote weaker, voluntary schemes that pre-empt and undermine progressive public health regulation.</p

Obesity prevention advocacy in Australia: an analysis of policy impact on autonomy

Abstract Objective: To explore obesity policy options recommended by stakeholders and identify their impact on individual autotomy. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. A content analysis of submissions to the Australian Government's Inquiry into Obesity was conducted. Each recommendation was categorised by its impact on autonomy, according to existing frameworks. Chi‐square test for independence was used to explore the association between autonomy and stakeholder support defined as frequency of recommendation. Results: The extent of support for a policy option was significantly associated with impact on autonomy (p<0.001). Options that reduce autonomy were least frequently recommended in every setting; but more likely in schools (27%) than other settings (<1%). Recommendations to provide incentives (9%) were more common than disincentives (2%) or restrictions (3%), and those that enhance autonomy were most widely recommended (46%). Conclusions: Stakeholders advocated policy options that enhance individual autonomy to a greater extent than those that diminish autonomy. Implications for public health: Targeting obesity policy options that enhance rather than diminish autonomy may be more politically acceptable across most settings, with the exception of schools where more restrictive policy options are appropriate. Re‐framing options accordingly may improve leadership by government in obesity policy

CanPrevent: a telephone-delivered intervention to reduce multiple behavioural risk factors for colorectal cancer

Background: This pilot study aimed to test the acceptability and short-term effectiveness of a telephone-delivered multiple health behaviour change intervention for relatives of colorectal cancer survivors.Methods: A community-based sample of 22 first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer survivors were recruited via a media release. Data were collected at baseline and at six weeks (post-intervention). Outcome measures included health behaviours (physical activity, television viewing, diet, alcohol, body mass index, waist circumference and smoking), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36) and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Intervention satisfaction levels were also measured. The intervention included six telephone health coaching sessions, a participant handbook and a pedometer. It focused on behavioural risk factors for colorectal cancer [physical activity, diet (red and processed meat consumption, fruit and vegetable intake), alcohol, weight management and smoking], and colorectal cancer risk.Results: From baseline to six weeks, improvements were observed for minutes moderate-vigorous physical activity (150.7 minutes), processed meat intake (-1.2 serves/week), vegetable intake (1 serve/day), alcohol intake (-0.4 standard drinks/day), body mass index (-1.4 kg/m2), and waist circumference (-5.1 cm). Improvements were also observed for physical (3.3) and mental (4.4) health-related quality of life. Further, compared with baseline, participants were more likely to meet Australian recommendations post-intervention for: moderate-vigorous physical activity (27.3 vs 59.1%); fruit intake (68.2 vs 81.8%); vegetable intake (4.6 vs 18.2%); alcohol consumption (59.1 vs 72.7%); body mass index (31.8 vs 45.5%) and waist circumference (18.2 vs 27.3%). At six weeks participants were more likely to believe a diagnosis of CRC was related to family history, and there was a decrease in their perceived risk of developing CRC in their lifetime following participation in CanPrevent. The intervention retention rate was 100%, participants reported that it was highly acceptable and they would recommend it to others at risk of colorectal cancer.Conclusions: Positive behaviour change achieved through this intervention approach has the potential to impact on the progression of CRC and other cancers or chronic diseases. A large scale randomised controlled trial is required to confirm the positive results of this acceptability and short-term effectiveness study.Trial registration: ACTRN12612000516886