Health and wellbeing is a very broad topic and this week the discussions were much more engaging in the group tasks, since this was something we were all very familiar with but did not have one opinion surrounding the topic. There was a lot of going back and forth when we were discussing the government and the people’s role in the context of “Big Food” consumption.
The reading by Stuckler & Nestle (2012) was particularly interesting as it outlined three main approaches people have when discussing regulation of Big Food companies. This being voluntary self-regulation, partnership with the industry and, finally, the critical view which criticizes both. I found this interesting since I previously would have been a strong advocate for partnership with the industry as they are not going to go away anytime soon due to their economic value and therefore regulating and making changes from within (e.g., lowering salt and sugar content) is the most plausible. I also would have said that voluntary self-regulation is also better than telling people to stop consuming junk food as education on balance is to me the best way to encourage a population to eat healthier. It also allows for poorer communities that may rely on these cheaper food options to not be disregarded.
The article was therefore useful as it introduced a new view that I was not aware of, the critical view mainly supporting public regulation as well as public health experts regulating industry progress in improving the quality of their foods. In our group discussion, however, we did feel that there weren’t enough detailed solutions provided by the article – it was somewhat vague. We therefore came to the conclusion ourselves that ultimately some government control will be needed for the regulations to be fulfilled. Unfortunately, this sort of control will be difficult to achieve since governments themselves benefit from Big Food companies.
This reluctance to better the nutritional consumption of the people can also be seen in cases where countries take part in a trade exchange where one country gains healthy produce whilst the other do not. This is the case with Mexico and the United States and the NAFTA pact, where the US receives produce like avocados from Mexico and, in exchange, junk food and soft drinks were imported into Mexico. I came across this case in an episode of Patriot Act, a Netflix show run by Hasan Minhaj where he combines educational content with comedy.
In this episode he discusses the influence the USA has had on the global food industry and the resulting obesity that has come as a consequence of this. Companies like Coca-Cola and McDonalds have become staples worldwide and their high sugar and fat content have made them even more addicting. Despite this, Coca-Cola ridiculously denied its link to obesity and even promoted exercise as part of a combatting this issue. In this instance, it can be seen therefore the extent of the problem and therefore change made solely by the consumers or lay people can never be enough. There needs to be a fight for a top-down change.
This government control and interference can be explored in other areas. From a wellbeing perspective, considering the current pandemic, mental health is another area that can be taken into account. Mental health has deteriorated in the UK, and even in a report from June last year (see here), it was found that the lockdowns and pandemic in general had taken a toll on the people and that COVID-19 could widen mental health inequalities.
“Groups of people whose mental health is at greatest risk include those with existing mental health problems, people with long-term physical conditions, women and children experiencing violence and abuse, and Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.”
The above quote highlights how those that are at a greater risk are more likely to already be suffering in some sort of way in British society. The report itself makes it clear that in the recovery from the pandemic it is important to address these mental health inequalities. I hope that this will be the case, and that on a global level mental health will be given more priority due to the pandemic.
The concept of interdisciplinarity can be applied in this context, as the inequalities can and have to be addressed from multiple disciplines. Of course, from a psychological perspective, those that are already suffering from mental health conditions will need to be provided for. From an economic lens, people that are poorer or are struggling financially will also struggle and therefore the country will in fact be trying to improve its economy and life of its citizens. Lastly, the inequalities that women and children facing abuse, as well as minority groups, face, will be addressed from a sociological perspective; such inequalities and discriminations should not be existing in a society. It looks like, in overcoming the pandemic and its effects on people’s mental health, multiple disciplines will need to come together to combat these existing inequalities.
References
Stuckler, D., & Nestle, M. (2012). Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med, 9(6), e1001242.
Netflix Is a Joke (2019, December 23). How America Is Causing Global Obesity | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj. [Video File]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmo6lZcdkO0
Centre for Mental Health (2020, June 18) Covid-19 could widen mental health inequalities for a generation, says Centre for Mental Health report. https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/news/covid-19-could-widen-mental-health-inequalities-generation-says-centre-mental-health-report
Commenti