>>ethical questions raised by the Atkins diet - John White, director, Federation of Bakers
There are very few people, supportive or not, who would deny that the Atkins diet has been a phenomenon. More than 3 million Britons have bought the late Dr Atkins’ book and countless more are said to be on the diet. And this is nothing compared to the US, where an astounding 30 million Americans are estimated to have signed up to the diet.
The Atkins diet initially promoted the consumption of high protein foodstuffs at the expense of high-carbohydrate foods such as potatoes, bread, and pasta.
The Atkins Nutritionals range was introduced into UK Boots and Holland & Barrett stores in January and it is arguably just a matter of time before the larger retailers follow suit and make the decision to stock the products.
Most diets will, at some point, come up against some form of resistance. But the intensity of the accusations made against the Atkins diet surpasses all that came before: high blood pressure, kidney and heart damage, bowel problems and an increased risk of certain cancers, as well as increased cholesterol levels and bad breath, are just some of the problems its critics say that it can cause.
In August, Dr Susan Jebb, the country’s leading obesity expert, called the Atkins diet ‘pseudo science’ and I am not aware of any credible doctor, nutritionist or dietitian who advocates a diet or eating plan that recommends omitting whole food groups.
This raises an interesting question: where does the responsibility lie for consumers’ diets? Do retailers have a responsibility to deny consumers products that, safe in themselves, might cause harm as part of a particular diet regime? Or is it all about individual choice: if consumers do not care about the health consequences of what they eat, why should retailers?
These questions of principle resonate loudly with the arguments on obesity. There is universal agreement that obesity will continue to be a problem.
But there is no appetite among retailers, manufacturers or government to ‘nanny’ people - the feeling being that consumers should be treated like adults. At the same time adults can do things which are not in their own best interests - like over-eating, taking little exercise or indeed cutting out carbohydrates.
And in our society we accept that those
with the power to do so (stakeholders to use the favoured vernacular) should, on occasions, facilitate self help in others or discourage the harmful.
Judging from the recent FSA ‘diet time bomb’ discussion, this is now well accepted in the obesity debate.
The solution, of course, lies in each stakeholder taking their proportionate responsibility to help those who don’t eat well, or who take little exercise, to change their lifestyle.
In a market economy, the best way of ensuring those changes are delivered is to create the demand for them.
Government must take the principal lead in creating demand, the food industry in satisfying it.With everyone pushing in the same direction there is no reason that change could not occur. Choice will always, rightly, be available. It is the message that goes with it that’s important. Put another way, if consumers want to go low carb they can do so - the food industry has plenty of products there for them already.
But at the same time that choice should take place in the full glare of a healthy eating message that says a third to a half of your energy intake should be coming from the starchy carbohydrates.
Clearly retailers will judge the potential commercial opportunities against their corporate ethics and the current cultural eddies when deciding what to stock, but with the focus on food and health right at the top of the political agenda, the ethical questions around faddy diets like Atkins have got a lot harder.
There are very few people, supportive or not, who would deny that the Atkins diet has been a phenomenon. More than 3 million Britons have bought the late Dr Atkins’ book and countless more are said to be on the diet. And this is nothing compared to the US, where an astounding 30 million Americans are estimated to have signed up to the diet.
The Atkins diet initially promoted the consumption of high protein foodstuffs at the expense of high-carbohydrate foods such as potatoes, bread, and pasta.
The Atkins Nutritionals range was introduced into UK Boots and Holland & Barrett stores in January and it is arguably just a matter of time before the larger retailers follow suit and make the decision to stock the products.
Most diets will, at some point, come up against some form of resistance. But the intensity of the accusations made against the Atkins diet surpasses all that came before: high blood pressure, kidney and heart damage, bowel problems and an increased risk of certain cancers, as well as increased cholesterol levels and bad breath, are just some of the problems its critics say that it can cause.
In August, Dr Susan Jebb, the country’s leading obesity expert, called the Atkins diet ‘pseudo science’ and I am not aware of any credible doctor, nutritionist or dietitian who advocates a diet or eating plan that recommends omitting whole food groups.
This raises an interesting question: where does the responsibility lie for consumers’ diets? Do retailers have a responsibility to deny consumers products that, safe in themselves, might cause harm as part of a particular diet regime? Or is it all about individual choice: if consumers do not care about the health consequences of what they eat, why should retailers?
These questions of principle resonate loudly with the arguments on obesity. There is universal agreement that obesity will continue to be a problem.
But there is no appetite among retailers, manufacturers or government to ‘nanny’ people - the feeling being that consumers should be treated like adults. At the same time adults can do things which are not in their own best interests - like over-eating, taking little exercise or indeed cutting out carbohydrates.
And in our society we accept that those
with the power to do so (stakeholders to use the favoured vernacular) should, on occasions, facilitate self help in others or discourage the harmful.
Judging from the recent FSA ‘diet time bomb’ discussion, this is now well accepted in the obesity debate.
The solution, of course, lies in each stakeholder taking their proportionate responsibility to help those who don’t eat well, or who take little exercise, to change their lifestyle.
In a market economy, the best way of ensuring those changes are delivered is to create the demand for them.
Government must take the principal lead in creating demand, the food industry in satisfying it.With everyone pushing in the same direction there is no reason that change could not occur. Choice will always, rightly, be available. It is the message that goes with it that’s important. Put another way, if consumers want to go low carb they can do so - the food industry has plenty of products there for them already.
But at the same time that choice should take place in the full glare of a healthy eating message that says a third to a half of your energy intake should be coming from the starchy carbohydrates.
Clearly retailers will judge the potential commercial opportunities against their corporate ethics and the current cultural eddies when deciding what to stock, but with the focus on food and health right at the top of the political agenda, the ethical questions around faddy diets like Atkins have got a lot harder.
No comments yet