EDITORIAL: Relieving us of need to choose

[Guest guest]

EDITORIAL: Relieving us of need to choose

20.05.2006

Parliament this week debated the weighty subject of obesity. For

anyone intent on managing our lives on our behalf, the question of

diet offers rich pickings.

The irony is that the more our MPs take on the role of public

appetite (as well as conscience) the less reason there is for the

rest of us to be troubled with tough decisions. It lends new meaning

to spoonfeeding the public.

During a debate on fat and diabetes Green MP and committee

chairwoman Sue Kedgely, bellwethering the fight against flab, waved

a box of Coco Pops which included a free CD, as an example of " bad

food " being pushed on children.

No mention of parental ignorance or of the virtue of moderation. No

suggestion that even " good " food (presumably of the non-corporate

kind) can, when taken to excess, cause the same nasty health

problems that feed her campaign.

The Obesity Action Coalition views as a national benchmark the

inability of some parents to deny their children's desires when it

says marketing is swamping society and parents struggle to make good

choices when their children want products so they can enter

competitions or get free gifts.

Much of the problem with obesity is that many of those so afflicted,

despite recognising the fact, are likely to cling to any reason that

makes them eat to excess and neglect to exercise regularly.

However quaint it might seem in an age of instant gratification,

little comes without determination and effort. And the same goes for

child-rearing.

Self-deception, Ibsen observed gloomily, is the stimulating

principle of life. The easiest course available, if we have a

problem, is to externalise the cause of our misfortune and

everything is made instantly tolerable.

When our leaders attack the hidden persuaders who market the food

fabricated by the evil multinationals, it endorses the belief that

the obese are all simply victims of someone else's villainy.

Why should those " victims " suppose otherwise? If our wrong choices

can be blamed on someone else, then it relieves us of fault and the

unpleasant feeling that we might have been responsible for messing

things up.

It is an unintended insult that relegates all to the status of

sheep. It might have the virtue of boosting our shepherds' stocks

but condemns the rest to perpetual childhood.

The first step in combating obesity is to encourage overweight and

unhealthy people to acknowledge - as should wheezing smokers -

responsibility for their condition. That is not draconian,

judgmental or unfair. It is humane and sensible.

For children, it is essential parents are reminded of their

responsibilities (a concept strangely absent whenever the government

or its agencies address the fallout from inadequate parenting).

Those who say " yes " too often need reminding they should reclaim the

right to say " no " and mean " no " .

Banning the promotion of certain foods as " bad " is like banning all

sharp or breakable objects in an infant's world. An environment free

of risk ensures we can never learn from our mistakes. The freedom to

choose also means that we might make unfortunate choices.