I can well understand Tim Lang’s anger at the demise of a body to which he belonged and which, at least in his view, was doing good work (Second Opinion, 12 November). I had a similar reaction when the Better Regulation Task Force, on which I served for four years, was abolished.

Are these bodies axed because they are too threatening to the status quo, or simply past some unseen “use-before” date devised by a political adviser who just happens to fi nd them in the way of another agenda? In Tim’s case it may be his group fell victim to the ongoing cull of quangos, although given three out of four have yet to be chopped, that seems unlikely. Maybe the complexity of its analysis just didn’t suit those who want simpler, shorter-term solutions.

Unhealthy lifestyles and their consequences are the modern-day equivalent of the Gordian knot. Despite countless expert reports, government initiatives, ministerial exhortations and publicity campaigns, the incidence of obesity continues to rise.

We apparently consume on average a similar number of calories every day as the French do, yet our death rate from weight-related diseases is twice as high. Broad-brush comparisons, however, only provoke more questions.

Supermarkets have been off ering their customers a wide range of low-fat, low-salt, low-sugar products for long enough to have had an impact on these trends. Anyone who wants to change their diet has only to visit their nearest superstore to fi nd the means. If they don’t, maybe the motivation just isn’t there. Or maybe these “healthy” foods are too tasteless and unsatisfying for those who most need to eat them. And maybe when real incomes are falling, many shoppers go for the food that gives them the biggest bang for their buck.

Obesity, like alcohol abuse, is a problem for particular people in particular places. The highest incidences of both are to be found in the old, declining industrial areas of the UK. It would seem, therefore, that devolving responsibility and resources to local authorities to deal with the problem as they see it, as Mr Lansley proposes to do, makes some sense.

But to do this job they need an analytical framework to help them understand cause, eff ect and remedy so scarce money isn’t wasted. Top-level supply-side “responsibility deals” are not the answer. 

Source

Kevin Hawkins

Topics