Showing posts with label diabetes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label diabetes. Show all posts

Friday, 20 March 2026

Moving from blame to support: rethinking food insecurity in diabetes

Posted by Ruth Boocock, Associate Professor and Dietitian, Teesside University, in Nutrition and Hydration Week.

This work started with a deceptively simple question: ‘How do clinicians identify food insecurity in people living with type 2 diabetes, and what actually helps once they do?’

By clinicians, I mean the people working directly with patients, for example GPs, nurses, dietitians, and others working in busy, often stretched diabetes services.

To explore this, I reviewed published research from across the world. Over many coffees, I read and debated papers, regularly asking other colleagues: ‘Is this really a pattern, or am I reading too much into it?’

What came through very clearly were the human stories beneath the data. Clinicians wanting to help, but constrained by time and systems. People with diabetes trying to manage blood glucose, while also worrying about whether there is enough food at home.


Asking about food only works if there’s something to offer next

Many clinicians want to ask patients about access to food and some already do, but the evidence shows that screening alone is not enough.

Without time, clear processes, or obvious referral routes, screening often stalls. I repeatedly came across similar experiences: ‘I asked the question. They said yes. And then I didn’t know what to do’. That moment matters. It can leave clinicians feeling stuck and distressed, and patients feeling exposed and unsupported.

One of the key messages from the evidence is that this isn’t about individual clinicians doing more. Food insecurity needs to be part of everyday systems, with prompts, shared responsibility across teams, and links to support that actually exists. Without that organisational backing, raising the issue of food tends to fall down the priority list, especially on busy clinic days.


Trust makes disclosure possible


You can’t script disclosure about food insecurity. People tend to talk when they feel listened to and not judged.

Shifts in practice, even just small changes in language came up repeatedly. A nurse replacing ‘Why aren’t you following the diet?’ with ‘What gets in the way?’ or a GP explaining ‘We ask everyone about access to food, because it can affect diabetes management.’

These shifts matter, they help move conversations away from blame and towards problem‑solving.

There was also a consistent tension between dietary advice and financial reality. Guidance may be clinically sound but still impossible to follow when money is tight. Recommended foods and ideal meal plans don’t always match what someone can afford or access.

Across the evidence, one message stood out, ‘Starting where people are really matters’. Advice framed around better, not perfect is far more likely to support engagement than aiming for an ideal that feels unreachable.


This isn’t something clinicians can fix alone

Many clinicians described feeling unsure where to send people for help. Knowledge of local food support was often limited or quickly out of date. Some avoided the conversation altogether, worried about raising an issue they couldn’t help with.

Where things seemed to work better was in areas with strong links between health services and community organisations such as food banks, pantries, community kitchens, and social prescribers. Not just signposting, but relationships and connection.

Another common theme was confidence and skills. Here, even when people accessed food support, they didn’t always feel able to turn unfamiliar ingredients into meals that worked for diabetes. Practical, community‑based support, including cooking sessions or simple recipe swaps helped bridge that gap.


What did I learn?


One of the biggest surprises was how rarely food insecurity appeared on its own. Transport costs, prepayment meters, missed appointments, and medication routines were often part of the same picture.

Stigma also ran throughout the existing research. Many people felt blamed for their diabetes and ashamed of needing help with food. Seen in that light, it becomes easier to understand why disclosure feels risky.

Perhaps most surprising was the impact of small system changes. Adding two evidence-based questions to patient records and a clear referral route doesn’t sound transformative. In practice, it can change conversations and access to support in very real ways.


Where I’ve landed

I started with the academic literature. I ended with a clearer sense that while food insecurity shows up in clinical settings, it isn’t something clinicians can or should be expected to solve alone.

If we want better diabetes outcomes, we need systems that make it:
  • easier to ask about food
  • realistic to respond to what we hear, and
  • normal to work alongside community organisations beyond clinic walls.
My review is now published and available here.

If you’ve tried something that worked, or something that didn’t, I’d really like to hear about it. Being open about the messy space between screening and support feels like a good place to start.

Wednesday, 11 September 2024

Food insecurity in pregnancy is putting women’s health at risk and babies at a health disadvantage. That is unfair and unjust

Posted by Zoë Bell, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, King’s College London

In the three years since we started this project a lot has changed, and nothing has changed at the same time. Just as the pandemic was leaving a shadow behind us, we entered a new chapter of social and economic challenge; notably, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Brexit fuelling a cost-of-living crisis with huge impacts on our food system and food prices. These events, in their own unique ways, have left households more vulnerable to experiencing poverty, and the topic of this blog, food insecurity.

During this time, we’ve witnessed food insecurity become a more prominent feature in the news with the help of celebrity advocates and mutual aid groups which brought communities together to support one another. Headline examples are Marcus Rashford’s campaign supporting the extension of free school meals over the summer holidays, and most recently, Taylor Swift’s donation to food banks in cities across the UK as part of her tour. Within the context of a decade long erosion of the social security safety net, the charitable sector has stepped in to provide food relief; but it’s clear this is just a sticking plaster.


While temporary economic, social and nutrition policies were put in place during the pandemic to support vulnerable families, long-term commitment has been lacking.

Time is ticking and it is the most vulnerable who are paying the price. Indeed, pregnancy is a time when the consequences of inadequate support come at a premium cost.

We know how important it is for pregnant women to eat a nutritious and well-balanced diet for their own health and for their developing baby. This is where our research fits in. We set out to pull together all the available evidence to explore whether there are differences in pregnancy risks for women and babies when they experience food insecurity.

Our two new reviews of the evidence around food insecurity in pregnancy and the links with maternal weight, diet, and pregnancy health show worrying results, including both physical and mental health risks. While we were expecting to see some health implications, the extent of the risk for poorer health was shocking. Pregnant women experiencing food insecurity were significantly more likely to have poor mental health, obesity, poor quality diets, develop Gestational Diabetes and dental problems.

Infographic to translate the review findings co-designed with experts by experience during an engagement workshop in Newcastle
Upon Tyne, North East England. Funded by Tilly Hale a Newcastle University Faculty Medical Sciences Engagement fund.








Noticeably, these reviews lacked studies from the UK with studies mainly from the USA. You might ask does this matter? Yes. Why? Because the USA has long-standing nutritional support for pregnant women, with evidence of having beneficial impacts on women's diet and health. This embedded support might have reduced or completely masked some of the associations that food insecurity has with pregnancy risks reported in these studies. Whereas in the UK nutritional programs are not as extensive and women lack support. This means we might find that the risks are worse and the need for support is greater than we currently think it is in the UK.

We acknowledge these reviews are based on observational data, exploring association rather than causation. Women experiencing food insecurity are likely living with multiple other causes of stress that could be contributing to food insecurity and pregnancy risks. Nevertheless, we see from the evidence to date that these women are at risk and need more support. Our ongoing work exploring experiences of food insecurity during pregnancy also suggests that current support initiatives are not doing enough, and further policy-related intervention is required, further emphasising the need for action now.

Our new reviews show that food insecurity during pregnancy contributes to health inequalities, putting women’s health at risk, and babies at a health disadvantage from before a they are born. For example, when babies are exposed to gestational diabetes or maternal obesity, they are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes or obesity themselves later in life. That is unfair. That is unjust. So, we ask, how much more evidence is needed before urgent policy action is taken to mitigate food insecurity?

Much more support from government is needed to make sure that women and babies are protected from food insecurity during pregnancy. Only time will tell if tides will turn under this new Labour government.

So, what do we suggest?

First, an uplift in the value of the Healthy Start scheme, a policy directly related to nutrition during pregnancy and early years. Second, greater integrated care across multiple sectors for women during the pregnancy period. Thirdly, considering the wider interlinked, structural barriers for families living in poverty (and based on our broader research program) removal of the two-child benefit cap, continued expansion of childcare support and of free school meals. These policies would relieve financial pressures on households with young families.

In the meantime, watch this space as our research team has two ongoing reviews exploring pregnant women and people's experiences of food insecurity and its relationship with breastfeeding and infant feeding. Some of our other ongoing studies are exploring the experiences, risks and support needs of women during pregnancy and in the postnatal period after birth, and their families across a diverse UK population in Gateshead, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Lambeth and Bradford.

If you are inspired to help add evidence and advocate for food security amongst mothers and children, then please consider becoming a member of our Nourishing Futures Network. This was established by Fuse members working with international colleagues. The network’s mission is to lead knowledge exchange and generate knowledge in this emerging field around food insecurity before and during pregnancy and in the first 2001 days of life.


Find out more

This research has been summarised in the following:

Thursday, 14 November 2019

A tale of two families: diabetes and rugby

Posted by Ruth Boocock, Senior Lecturer in Dietetics, Teesside University

The rain is coming in sideways, the mud is three inches and counting, a Sunday afternoon somewhere in the North of England. My rugby family. Amongst the rain, probably beneath four or five bodies, my seventeen year old daughter is having fun.




A whistle goes and a rain sodden, mud covered monstrosity jogs towards her family on the touch line. An upper arm extended, a mobile phone waved at a discreetly protected sensor and a blood glucose level read. Sometimes it’s an insulin pen to compensate for the adrenaline, other times a sports drink to refuel, such is the trial and error process of educating herself on what management routines work for training and matches. Blood glucose responses to physical activity for this recently diagnosed teenager with type 1 diabetes are highly variable based on activity type and timing and require different adjustments (Colberg et al, 2016)1. There are looks of course. Some parents are confused but a hurried whisper and the confusion is quickly replaced by respect. No mess, no fuss, just ordinary life. There are more important and more exciting things to do. Opponents to fell, tries to be scored. Rugby here, really has no barriers. A progressive, modern, attractive, dynamic and inclusive sport played by all (World Rugby, 2017-2025 vision)2.

Today is World Diabetes Day and the theme for 2019 is ‘The Family and Diabetes’. The aim, to raise awareness of the impact that diabetes has on the family and support network of those affected, as well as promoting the role of family in the management, care, prevention and education of diabetes.

On the rugby pitch my personal and professional life comes into sharp focus. I have spent the last twenty years as a dietitian sharing the journeys of people with diabetes. From the familiar insulin dose adjustment which offers greater freedom to eat and exercise while minimising glycaemic excursions (changes in blood glucose levels), to the battle of weight management and diabetes polypharmacy (the use of multiple medications). Weight loss for those with type 2 diabetes unlocking a future without diabetes or at least the ability to rationalise the use of diabetes medications.

Willowy wings take to the pitch alongside broader hardier oaks. At its best they complement each other wonderfully. From helping to prevent and manage medical conditions to reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes, the benefits of sport and activity on a person’s physical wellbeing are huge. But only 63% of adults are physically active for the recommended 150 minutes weekly, with figures lower still for children (Department of Health and Social Care, 2019; Sport England, 2019)3,4.

Rugby helps to maintain or improve aerobic capacity (the ability of the heart and lungs to get oxygen to the muscles), strength and balance and bone health and contributes to meeting the physical activity guidelines. Other benefits to exercise include reduced stress and improved self-esteem. Rugby reminds these girls that nobody’s self-worth comes from how they look or the perfect make-up or beautiful hair or high fashion clothes of online celebrities. There is a wonderful freedom here but also a challenge. Obesity. There is a fine line between giving girls and women confidence in their bodies and shape while also encouraging those patterns of healthy eating that will allow them to play at their best and get the most out of their training and their life. We do not always get the balance right. Push come to shove however they are out there two-to-three-times a week, come rain or shine working incredibly hard, growing as team mates and women, and reducing their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 30-40%. That has to be an excellent beginning.

On the pitch there is just the team, on the side lines the wider rugby family. Sometimes also the diabetes family. Nicknames abound. Banter flows. Yet there are no labels. There are no diabetics, no 'fat girls', just a team and its friendships, its victories and losses, its celebrations and of course, lots and lots of mud.


Ruth’s current doctoral studies seek to identify barriers and enablers to the implementation of diabetes remission strategies for adults with type 2 diabetes recently diagnosed within general practice in one of the most deprived local authority districts in England.


References:
  1. Colberg et al. (2016). Physical Activity/Exercise and Diabetes: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care; 39(11): 2065-2079. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-1728
  2. Accelerating the global development of women in rugby 2017-25. https://www.world.rugby/womens-rugby/development-plan?lang=en 
  3. Department of Health and Social Care (2019). UK Chief Medical Officers' Physical Activity Guidelines. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-activity-guidelines-uk-chief-medical-officers-report
  4. Sport England (2019). Active Lives Adult Survey: May 18/19 report. https://www.sportengland.org/media/14239/active-lives-adult-may-18-19-report.pdf

Images:
  1. 'Logo for the World Diabetes Day' by International Diabetes Foundation via Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Diabetes_Day_logo.svg
  2. Published by: West Park Leeds Girls Rugby ‘Meet your #innerwarrior’ event, with thanks to Kurt Nutchey

Friday, 16 December 2016

Understanding the health benefits of the ‘sugar tax’: how will the soft drinks industry respond?

Guest post by Oliver Mytton, Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) & MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge
Today our paper, a health impact assessment of the government’s proposed ‘sugar tax’ was published in the Lancet Public Health. The government’s proposal, announced in April of this year, took health campaigners by surprise. Not only was it unexpected, but the government’s proposal was unusual.


Other countries, notably Mexico, have introduced a sales or excise tax on sugary drinks. However, the UK government proposed a levy on soft drinks manufacturers or importers based on the volume of sugary drinks sold. There will be two levels of tax, a higher level on drinks with more than 8g per 100ml, and a lower level on drinks with 5g to 8g per 100ml.

With others, I have previously modelled the potential health benefits of a ‘simple’ excise tax on sugary drinks, but the industry levy is more complicated.

Industry levy – how it might work  


The levy might lead to a reduction in sugary drinks consumption through a number of pathways, and from listening to industry experts and reviewing statements made by soft drinks manufacturers, it was apparent that nobody knew quite how the industry would respond.

The nature and magnitude of these responses might lead to very different health outcomes, which is what we describe in our paper. For our health impact assessment, we identified three broad responses that the industry might make:
  1. reformulation (reducing sugar content); 
  2. price rises that pass the cost on to consumers; and
  3. changes in marketing practices to ‘shift’ consumer preferences, e.g. away from high sugar drinks to diet drinks.
For each response, we then identified a ‘best case’ and ‘worst case’ scenario.

Modelled health benefits


From these six scenarios, we were able to estimate changes in consumption of sugary drinks. We then estimated changes in health, using data describing the relationship between sugary drinks consumption and three outcomes (dental caries, type 2 diabetes and obesity).

The most beneficial modelled scenario for health was reformulation (reduction of sugar content by 15% for ‘mid-sugar’ drinks and 30% for ‘high-sugar’ drinks), with an estimate of 140,000 fewer adults and children with obesity; 19,000 fewer incident cases of diabetes each year, and 270,000 fewer decayed, missing, or filled teeth annually in the UK. Important reductions in disease were also associated with the maximum expected price increase (equivalent to half the levy cost being passed onto consumers) and changes in marketing share.

The least beneficial modelled scenario for health was a change in market share that resulted in consumers switching not only from high-sugar drinks, but also from diet drinks, to low sugar drinks. This might result in an (small) increase in consumption of sugary drinks and consequent (small) increase in disease (using the measures we looked at). If the price is passed on to all soft drinks (rather than just sugary drinks) the health benefits were also substantially reduced.

Across the scenarios the most striking finding was the concentration of the health benefits in terms of obesity and dental caries amongst children and younger adults. They are the major consumers of sugary drinks. Diabetes follows a different pattern with many more cases likely to be prevented amongst adults than children, because there are relatively few incident cases of type 2 diabetes among children and young adults.

In doing this, we have not made an overall estimate of the health benefits of the new levy, rather we have identified the benefits attributable to different industry responses to the levy and put upper and lower bounds on those responses.

Policy implications

Consumers appear to be turning away from sugary drinks


Our assessment shows that the health benefits of the levy will be greatly affected by how the industry responds. We have identified scenarios where the health benefit is minimal (or conceivably negative). However, we think this is unlikely: there are strong signs from industry that there will be significant reformulation, consumers appear to be turning away from sugary drinks and most of the scenarios we modelled were beneficial for health.

While we are not as optimistic about reformulation as others, our work does further suggest that reformulation of sugary drinks has potential to mitigate some of the health risks associated with regular consumption of sugary drinks. Reformulation of soft drinks probably has more scope than I previously thought. The government levy may, particularly by using two tiers, be a relatively effective tool to incentivise reformulation.

It also suggests that the industry levy may not be a ‘simple’ intervention. Whilst we have described discrete responses, it is possible that the levy may stimulate several changes. Not just the changes described in our study but others, e.g. changes in consumer attitudes, reductions in portion sizes and introduction of new low sugar products. If it does do this, the government’s approach may be very effective, perhaps more effective than a ‘simple’ excise tax.

On the flipside, it may also be more uncertain or risky as its success depends on how industry responds. This creates a potential role for government and health organisations to apply pressure on industry to respond in ways that improve health. This uncertainty also underscores the need for a careful evaluation that can capture the important industry responses.

Finally, whilst there are reasons to be optimistic and the government should be applauded for this initiative, it does underscore the need for ‘brave and bold’ action across a variety of areas concerned with food and physical activity (which the recent Childhood Obesity Plan failed to deliver) to markedly reduce obesity. As I have written before, this measure alone will not ‘solve’ obesity, but it can be an important step towards improving population health.

Thursday, 20 October 2016

Who wins: the tortoise or the hare in the race for health benefits?

Posted by Liane Azevedo, Fuse staff member and Senior Lecturer in Physical Activity and Public Health, Teesside University

At the 63rd American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting in Boston, USA this year, an interesting debate took place which was titled ‘Who Wins: the Tortoise or the Hare?'. The debate discussed the latest research findings on a hot topic in physical activity research: what is better for your health; high intensity exercise or reducing sedentary behaviour in favour of light to moderate exercise? I was expecting a heated debate; however, the session was quite balanced with both sides presenting the pros and cons of their approach, followed by a talk on the middle ground by Tim Church suggesting that the best is exercise in moderation (the benefits of regular moderate-intensity exercise).


Let’s start with the arguments for reducing sedentary behaviour. The sedentary behaviour ‘defence’ was presented by Genevieve Healy from the University of Queensland. She talked about a study which showed that a reduction in sitting, in favour of more standing or stepping, could both promote cardio-metabolic benefits (concerning heart disease and metabolic disorders such as diabetes) to improvements in glucose and lipid metabolism (the synthesis and breakdown of glucose and fatty acids). Similar results were shown in other presentations at the conference with a number of studies also showing that interrupted sitting with walking (rather than just standing) can improve insulin response, resting blood pressure and lipid concentration. Moreover, Genevieve provided a number of examples of interventions for the workplace and for older populations, such as Small Steps, Stand Up For Health and Stand Up Australia, which have all shown to be effective

I presented evidence of this argument myself at the conference in a poster about a systematic review which we conducted on sedentary behaviour interventions for children. We found that sedentary interventions are mostly ineffective to reduce BMI (body mass index) in a mixed-weight population but can be effective for treatment of an overweight or obese population.

In the case of sedentary behaviour major questions still remain, for instance, are the risks of sedentary behaviour for cardiovascular diseases independent of physical activity? In other words, if you have a job like mine that requires you to sit for long hours and you try to compensate for this behaviour at the end of the day by doing 30-40 mins of moderate to vigorous physical activity, does this mean that you still have the same cardiovascular disease risks as, for instance, someone who does not exercise? The answer appears to be no; the risk seems lower (phew … ). However, the data in the literature is still contradictory. But it was interesting to see well known scientists in the field like Charles Matthews recognising that these behaviours might not be as independent of each other as it was originally thought when it relates to health risks.

The case for the opposite argument - that high intensity exercise is more important for your health - was made by Professor Ulrik Wisløff from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He presented a number of studies which showed the additional benefits of vigorous activity compared to moderate or total physical activity on a number of health indicators, such as all-cause mortality, improvement of maximum aerobic capacity and in endothelial (the inner lining of blood vessels) function, and as an effective treatment of arterial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm) in unhealthy patients.

The audience questioned Professor Wisløff about the risk of injury when doing high intensity exercise, how to translate these findings into physical activity guidelines, and the long term sustainability of this type of exercise. Wisløff said that in their studies there were no report of injuries, but admitted that long term sustainability still needs to be investigated. A starting point for demonstrating the feasibility of high intensity exercise in a real-life setting can be found in the study completed by Dr Kathryn Weston at Teesside University. In the study she investigated the effect of a school-based high-intensity interval training on cardio-metabolic health. She found that the high intensity exercise did not only improve some cardio-metabolic parameters but was also delivered as intended.

Therefore, I would say that the answer to the question ‘who wins the tortoise or the hare?’ is that both are winners. For some people high intensity exercise can be the most exciting way to exercise, while for others just the substitution of sedentary to light and moderate is the suitable (also it doesn’t need to be one or the other). The most important point is to choose something that will encourage you to do physical activity, because the health benefit is there for both.

Acknowledgment: Liane Azevedo would like to thank Fuse and Teesside University for the support to attend this Conference.


Photo attribution: “Image from page 216 of "St. Nicholas [serial]" (1873)” by Internet Archive Book Images via Flickr.com: https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14781657201

Thursday, 21 July 2016

What should we do about children and young people’s consumption of energy drinks?

Guest post by Shelina Visram, Fuse Associate and Lecturer in the Centre for Public Policy & Health, Durham University

Did you know that cigarettes are the only product on the market that, when used exactly as intended by their manufacturers, will kill around half of their users? And yet you can buy them legally in every country of the world, with the exception of Bhutan? But you probably knew that already (except maybe the bit about Bhutan). It’s just one example of the type of paradoxical situation that occurs when public health evidence suggests we should do something and this is then contradicted by the actions of government and industry.

Here’s another example: did you know that energy drink consumption by school-age children is linked to hyperactivity, risky behaviours and health complaints such as headaches and stomach aches? And yet children of any age can buy these drinks in a variety of shops? You may have heard that the supermarket chain Morrisons banned sales of energy drinks to under 16s, but this was a trial that ended in early 2015. Some retailers choose not to sell energy drinks to younger children – often in response to pleas from teachers at nearby schools – but they do this on a voluntary basis and have to accept that they will probably lose revenue as a result.


Regular readers of this blog may be aware that Fuse members have been involved in conducting research on youth energy drink consumption over the past couple of years (you can read previous blog entries here and here). You may have read our Fuse brief, seen us present our findings at a seminar or conference, or downloaded our report from the HYPER! study website. So why the renewed call for action? At a time when the Government’s delayed childhood obesity strategy has been described as "pathetic", we need to take every opportunity to push for clear messages around food and health. We have worked with the Food Research Collaboration (FRC) to produce a briefing paper – published today – that clearly sets out the main ingredients of energy drinks, the current market situation, the scientific evidence base, and existing interventions, ranging from school-based educational activities to country-wide bans. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations on what could (and should) be done by policy-makers and others to address this issue.

To go back to the example of cigarettes, we know that sales and marketing restrictions are key factors in preventing uptake of smoking by children and young people, even if they do not eradicate the problem completely. Obviously energy drinks are nowhere near as harmful as cigarettes. They do not kill one in two consumers. But, like all sugar-sweetened beverages, they do contribute to increasing levels of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes, as well as poor dental health. By law, energy drink labels must include the following warning: “High caffeine content. Not recommended for children or pregnant or breastfeeding women”. So isn’t it time we stopped sending out conflicting messages and made it clear that these drinks are not suitable for children and young people?

Download the briefing paper Energy Drinks: What’s the evidence? written by Shelina Visram (Durham University) and Kawther Hashem (Action on Sugar).


Illustration: Cathy Wilcox via http://www.essentialkids.com.au/food/nutrition/caffeine-concern-over-teens-and-energy-drinks-20130905-2t6hb

Thursday, 15 October 2015

Obesity: How neoliberalism made us fat

Posted by Ted Schrecker, Fuse Associate Member and Clare Bambra, Fuse Associate Director

A 2010 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association warned: “If left unchecked, overweight and obesity have the potential to rival smoking as a public health problem, potentially reversing the net benefit that declining smoking rates have had on the US population over the last 50 years”. Obesity increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), certain types of cancer, Type 2 diabetes, and orthopaedic problems. At the end of the 1970s it was estimated that 15% of US adults were obese. By 2012, this had more than doubled, to 35%. Among adolescents the increase is even more striking – from 5% at the end of the 1970s to 20% in 2012. In the UK, it is estimated that obesity nearly tripled between 1980 and 2002, from 6% amongst men and 8% amongst women to 23 percent and 25 percent women respectively. Amongst children in England, obesity has increased from 11% among boys and 12% among girls in 1995 to around 20% today.

In our book Neoliberal Epidemics: How Politics Makes Us Sick we argue that obesity in high–income countries is partly the result of political and economic choices made since the 1980s. Since the early 1980s, neoliberalism or “market fundamentalism” has dominated politics and economics across much of the globe, perhaps nowhere more conspicuously than in the post-Thatcher UK. Obesity is a neoliberal epidemic – one of four, along with austerity, stress, and inequality. They are neoliberal because they are associated with or exacerbated by the rise of neoliberal politics. They are epidemics because they are on such an international scale and have been transmitted so quickly across time and space that if they were a biological contagion they would be seen as of epidemic proportions.
North American contrasts between rich and poor urban areas, less than a mile from one another
Photo: T. Schrecker
Other high-income countries have also experienced increases in obesity. Obesity has no single cause; the many influences include changes in the food environment (including advertising, marketing, accessibility and affordability); the growth of sedentary work occupations and leisure time activity, such as television viewing; changing settlement patterns, notably the rise of a privatised approach to planning organised around driving rather than walking or the provision of public transportation; and changes in the built environment that reduce the safety and attractiveness of physical activity, especially for those who do not live in leafy places. However, countries that have gone farthest down the neoliberal road, the UK and the US in particular, have experienced greater increases in obesity – suggesting that neoliberalism has magnified and accelerated trends that are present to some extent throughout the high-income world.

Obesity is a neoliberal epidemic for several reasons. These include: (1) economic and social policies that have meant fewer people can afford a healthy and balanced diet; (2) increasing time poverty, as when the demands of work (often on unpredictable schedules), transportation, and (especially for women) child care within ‘flexible’ labour markets are combined, there is not much time or energy left for eating a healthy diet and the attraction of a quick stop at the shopping park’s fast food outlet are strong; (3) the role of aggressive corporate marketing of unhealthy, energy-dense foods, notably as multi-national supermarkets, manufacturers of ultra-processed food and fast food chains expand into developing economies with the lowering of barriers to foreign investment. This helps to explain why overweight and obesity are now also rising rapidly in many middle- and some low-income countries, with prevalence in Mexican adults comparable to levels in the United States.
Corporate food systems and time poverty interact at the shopping park.
Photo: T. Schrecker
A fourth connection was addressed at a groundbreaking workshop at the University of Oxford in 2009: political structures such as welfare state regimes. More specifically, higher levels of economic insecurity – associated with neoliberal policies like the rollback of welfare state protections and opening up labour markets to the “creative destruction” that Joseph Schumpeter extolled as a defining virtue of capitalism – are causally linked with a higher prevalence of obesity through both biological (stress-related) and psychosocial (comfort eating) mechanisms, in addition to the more direct effects on time and food budgets.

Public health researchers, who agree on little else, recognize that reducing overweight and obesity is a formidable challenge. A first step is to avoid the lifestyle trap. A recent literature review on policy interventions to tackle what has been called the obesogenic environment produced by the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy provides some useful directions. Its authors do not shrink from arguing the need for large-scale interventions that may be expensive or challenging to vested interests, noting (for example) that the transport mode split in urban areas is 84% by car versus 9 percent walking in the United States, while it’s 36% by car versus 39% walking in Sweden. “Suffice it to say, it has been a concerted combination of infrastructure provision, integrated transport planning and disincentives for private cars which has helped to bring about the higher active travel rates.” We have no easy solutions, but emphasise that neoliberalism and the associated political choices have exacerbated the obesity crisis. Obesity is an example of how politics makes us sick.

Links: Schrecker, T. and Bambra, C. (2015) Neoliberal Epidemics: How Politics Makes Us Sick, Palgrave Macmillan, available at: http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/how-politics-makes-us-sick-ted-schrecker/?K=9781137463098

Professors Schrecker and Bambra will be discussing their new book 'How Politics Makes Us Sick' at an event at Durham University on 15 October 2015. For more details click here.

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here



About the authors

In June 2013, Ted Schrecker moved from Canada to take up a position as Professor of Global Health Policy, Centre for Public Policy and Health, Durham University (UK). Since 2002, most of his research has focused on the implications of globalization for health; he also has long-standing interest in issues at the interface of science, ethics, law and public policy. A political scientist by background, Ted worked as a legislative researcher and consultant for many years before coming to the academic world, and co-edits the Journal of Public Health. Among his publications, he is editor of the Ashgate Research Companion to the Globalization of Health (2012) and co-editor of a four-volume collection of key sources in Global Health for the Sage Library of Health and Social Welfare (2011). Ted is also an Associate Member of Fuse. Ted can be followed on Twitter @ProfGlobHealth.

As well as being an Associate Director of Fuse, Clare Bambra PhD is Professor of Public Health Geography and Director of the Centre for Health and Inequalities Research, Durham University (UK). Her research focuses on the health effects of labour markets, health and welfare systems, as well as the role of public policies to reduce health inequalities. She has published extensively in the field of health inequalities including a book on Work, Worklessness and the Political Economy of Health (Oxford University Press, 2011). She contributed to the Marmot Reviews of Health Inequalities in England (2010) and Europe (2013); the US National Research Council Report on US Health in International Perspective (2013); a UK Parliamentary Labour Party Inquiry into international health systems (2013), as well as the Public Health England commissioned report on the health equity in the North of England: Due North (2014). She is a member of the British Labour Party and can be followed on Twitter @ProfBambra.

Tuesday, 8 September 2015

Translating local action to national policy

Guest post by Robin Ireland, Chief Executive, Health Equalities Group and Director, Food Active

North West England (NWE) has some of the worst health statistics in the country calling for transformative and challenging approaches by its local public health community. Merseyside-based social enterprise, the Health Equalities Group (HEG) including heart health charity Heart of Mersey has worked with and supported NWE’s Directors of Public Health since 2003.


Obesity and maintaining a healthy weight present huge problems both now and in the future. Balancing the need for a population-based prevention approach whilst government policy focuses on targeting individuals with expensive weight management programmes is particularly difficult. At the same time individual stigmatisation is both unhelpful and particularly damaging. Somehow we have to work towards changing cultures so that junk food is less easily available, that healthier food is the popular choice and walking and cycling are positively encouraged.

The NWE Directors of Public Health asked HEG to develop a collaborative approach to healthy weight in 2012 and the Food Active campaign was eventually launched in November 2013. It calls for policies to:
  • Control the marketing of junk food to children and young people
  • Place a duty on sugar sweetened beverages
  • Enforce 20mph speed limits in urban areas (lower traffic speeds make cycling, walking and play safer)
In the same way Liverpool and the NWE played an important role in the development of smoke free policies, Food Active hopes to bring local pressure to bear on government in calling for a more upstream approach to addressing obesity.

We began by building the evidence base around attitudes towards sugary drinks and modeling the effects a tax on such drinks may have on consumption. This in turn can be compared with the prevalence and cost of type 2 diabetes, and bariatric surgery etc. As data show teenagers are the highest consumers of sugary and ‘energy’ drinks, we established a media-friendly campaign called ‘Give Up Loving Pop’ to raise the debate and heighten the pressure for action. In the same way that regional tobacco control organisations have worked closely with national charities such as Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Food Active has developed relationships with the Children’s Food Campaign and Action on Sugar.

In 2014, learning from ASH and the excellent work of local government on the Local Authority Declaration on Tobacco Control, Food Active started to develop a similar declaration on healthy weight. A regional meeting followed by workshops with three North West authorities showed that such a declaration could:
  • Raise with elected representatives and the public that local authorities have a role to play in addressing obesity
  • Help to show a wide range of policies (such as transport, planning and leisure) all have a part to play in promoting healthy weight
A Local Authority Declaration on Healthy Weight is more complex than its tobacco control equivalent and it is being developed in two parts; the first with some generic commitments (such as agreeing that obesity and overweight are a priority), the second more locally focused and aligning with local policies and priorities (for example Local Transport Plans).

As previously, the North West’s health needs will help to make the call for more concerted and resourced national action.


Robin will be speaking about the Food Active campaign tomorrow (9 September) at the CPPH Seminar - Sweetness, social norms and schools: factors influencing children and young people’s food and drink practices 

Robin Ireland
robin.ireland@hegroup.org.uk
@robinHEG

Did you enjoy reading this post? If so, please vote for Fuse in the UK Blog Awards 2016 by clicking here