The Government's Response To The Obesity Crisis: An Infringement On Personal Freedom, Or A Necessity?
Trigger Warning - Eating Disorders
In an attempt to ‘empower’ adults and children to live healthier lives post-COVID, the UK Government have recently unveiled their newest initiative to tackle our country’s obesity crisis. The stats initially seem to speak for themselves: 63% of adults in the UK are “above a healthy weight” and ⅓ of children are leaving primary school “living with obesity” (GOV.UK), but using an outdated body mass index ‘BMI’ scale is bound to produce misleading information. Some may say that the ‘Better Help’ intervention is a necessity, but how effective these initiatives truly will be is yet to be discovered, and I unfortunately do predict that a lot of people are going to struggle with this confrontation along the way.
What’s the Plan?
Described much like a lifeless business ‘strategy’ plan at the Government’s unveiling of the scheme, it was quickly recognised that a one-size-must-fit approach will un-ironically be taken. This approach, it seems, does not take into account the external factors which impede on weight, nor does it recognise the impact that these initiatives may have on those struggling with their weight and mental health.
Matt Hancock faced yet another bout of public ridicule in the press and on social media after the scheme’s unveiling coincided with the closure of Public Health England, the previously existing body that was responsible for tackling obesity. Though the Institute for Health Protection has been intended to take its place, it has been made clear by the Health Secretary that the new institution will not be responsible for this type of job either. An excellent start.
The basic outline of the scheme includes the following -
TV and online adverts for foods high in salts, fats and sugars are to be banned before 9pm
Foods high in salts, fats and sugars will not be available on ‘buy one get one free’ deals
Calories to be displayed on menus to encourage “healthier choices”
The liquid calories of an alcoholic beverage may be displayed on menus
New front-of-packaging labelling system in consultation
For the majority of the time, although I would welcome knowing how many calories will be in my next martini (out of sheer curiosity), I also know that on a bad day that figure could be the final push to not eating a bite over the succeeding days. I am aware that I am privileged to be in a position where this scheme will impact me only on certain days, but that has definitely not always been the case.
This is me at the moment: a size 12-14 average woman, whose BMI still identifies me as obese. This is a label which has weighed me down for as long as I can remember, and has spurred a long-lasting negative relationship with food and nutrition. As a teenager, it wasn’t an easy time, but the more compliments you receive as the weight falls off, the sicker you get with the accompanying confidence boost and sense of accomplishment. It’s addictive. When did we become a nation so proud of encouraging eating disorders rather than accepting people of all shapes and sizes for having healthy bodies and nutrition-full tummies? I never like to say that I suffered with an eating disorder, as I was too happy with my figure at the time to begin to consider seeking advice (and remain un-diagnosed to this day). But I will definitely say that my relationship with food is the most unhealthy thing about my daily life. I am angry if I eat ‘too much’ (even if it’s delicious), and told off by housemates if I don’t eat at all - a vicious cycle that always ends in confrontation somewhere.
External Factors
As soon as the Government described the scheme as a ‘strategy’ plan, it was clear that the general consensus behind the initiative was that diet and exercise were the only things that could impact a person’s health and weight. This is of course not the case at all: our environment, genetics, age and culture are all large factors. And, with an NHS 2018 study finding that children from poorer background are being disproportionately affected in the rise of childhood obesity nationally, we can see that our socio-economic status is yet another external factor to add to the list. As evidence taken from the study proves how the price of nutritious and organic foods has increased to a level difficult to afford, it is understandable that these ingredients don’t make it to the table often in poorer households. With a floret of cauliflower costing more than a value-range processed ready meal in our local supermarket, you can understand how parts of your 5 a day are continuously left on the shelf by some families.
COVID-19 - The Pandemic Factor
Another reality that the plan fails to recognise is that the COVID-19 lockdown has not only led to more snacking and irregular mealtimes, but has also led to the increased social pressure to lose weight and stick to a brand new, high-intensity, summer shred plan every fortnight. If the pressure of navigating a global pandemic wasn’t enough, we now all have the visions of emerging from our chrysalis-emulating homes as beautiful glowed-up butterflies. It isn’t going to happen, and that isn’t a negative thing in the slightest. Lockdown has been extremely challenging, and has likely had detrimental impacts on every aspect our lives, so I can only encourage you to eat whatever you like and stay well.
Of course, it is important to maintain a healthy diet and exercise regularly when possible. Due to the physical and mental health benefits, now may be the best time to consider finding a programme that suits your body and requirements, and completing it healthily. Exercise shouldn’t have to be for weight loss, and activities such as mindfulness yoga or a stroll in the park are perfect examples of this!
Necessary?
The reality of consumption is that very few obstacles have traditionally stood in the way of the general public eating and drinking what they want. This newest scheme does appear necessary, following the statistical evidence provided by the government. However, as I have hopefully proved, BMI can often mean nothing at all.
The laws outlined by the Government so far do not seem to have the potential to become harshly enforced just yet. This does not mirror the vigour with which Boris Johnson spitefully described us, the overweight population, as needing to regulate consumption for the sake of the nation’s health in a post-pandemic Britain. The reinforcement of an idea that a person’s value lies purely on their aesthetic contribution to society strikes again, and is particularly problematic considering that nearly 60% of women do not fit these archaic societal beauty standards.
I think that it should be our choice whether or not we are confronted with calorie totals in restaurants, and we should be given the opportunity to enjoy a meal out or special occasion without being ridiculed by a printed menu. Of course, many do like to know what fuel their body is taking in, but for those who could be excruciatingly damaged by these small changes, is it really worth the infringement upon our personal freedom? By choosing to tackle the public health crisis and encouraging significant weight loss, Downing Street are demonstrating why they need to dedicate as much time, if not more, to those who are increasingly suffering throughout.
Written by Caitlin Parr
Hey, I’m Caitlin! I’m a student at Cardiff University about to embark on an MA in Journalism, Media and Communications. I work a lot in advocating for better mental health and sex ed provisions in the student community and also in media and communications for a variety of welfare, youth education and international development organisations outside of Uni.