NUTRITION & HEALTH
The problem is refi ned fructose that’s found in fast foods and – ironically – many low-fat items
If facilities are to become a hub for advice, they’ll need to look at their own food and beverage off erings
A STRATEGIC RESPONSE Stacked up like this, the arguments for target- ing added sugar in the battle against obesity and chronic disease certainly seem compel- ling. But what, if anything, can we do about it? Jebb remains unconvinced that sugar should be singled out for attention. “Obesity is caused by eating more calories than you need: you can’t generalise and say it’s caused by one type of calories more than another,” she says. “Plus other conditions sometimes attributed to sugar, such as diabetes, are a consequence of obesity.” She is, however, very much in favour of reducing the population’s overall calorie intake, to which sugar is a major contributor – and, as chair of the Food Network of the government’s Public Health Responsibility Deal, she believes that working with, rather than against, the big food companies is the best way to achieve this. Set up a couple of years ago, the Respon- sibility Deal is a UK Department of Health initiative aimed at encouraging businesses and other organisations to improve public health by taking action on food, alcohol, physical activity and health in the workplace, through both their actions as employers and their commercial and community activities.
To become partners, food manufacturers must sign up to at least one of a number of pledges. These range from clearer calorie- labelling, to helping to reduce overall calorie intake through steps such as product/menu reformulation, reviewing portion sizes, edu- cation and shifting their marketing focus to lower-calorie options. Companies signed up to date include big names such as Coca-Cola, Mars, Nestlé and Subway, all of which have made specifi c commitments to cut and cap calories across a range of products. Dave Stalker, the CEO of fi tness body ukac-
tive, feels that the fi tness and food industries can work more closely together. To improve their overall health profi le food manufactures could offer health club passes and promo- tions on their packaging, for example. Not everyone is convinced that col- laborating with the food industry can work, however. In the Nature article, Lustig and his colleagues shun such ideas in favour of legislative controls that curb the availability of sugar in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. Their proposals include tightening licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars in schools and workplaces; introducing zoning ordinances to limit the
82 Read Spa Business online
spabusiness.com / digital
number of fast-food outlets and stores in low- income communities and around schools; restricting sales of sugary products during school hours; setting a lower age limit of 17 on the purchase of such products; banning TV advertising of such products to children; and introducing a ‘sugar tax’ on all foods containing added sugar. In the US, there have been numerous
attempts to introduce these kinds of meas- ures though almost all have come to nothing when faced with the vast lobbying power of ‘Big Food’. In early 2012, however, anti-sugar advocates in the US gained a small but signifi - cant victory when New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg successfully introduced a ban on the sale of super-sized soft drinks across the city. Meanwhile, in Europe, a soft drink tax approved by the French government is approaching its fi rst birthday.
TO TAX OR NOT TO TAX? One of the thorniest issues in the debate is whether or not a sugar tax is a workable idea. Mills has no doubt it’s the only way forward. “If you look at tobacco, education programmes and smoking bans are great, but it’s tax that has made the difference,” he
Spa Business 1 2014 ©Cybertrek 2014
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM/ART ALLIANZ/AFRICA STUDIO
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110