Introduction:
We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic which the Department of Health and Social Care has declared is “one of the biggest health crises the country faces”. Government statistics show 63% of adults in England are overweight or obese and one in three children leave primary school overweight or obese. The cost to the NHS of treating obesity and its associated conditions is £6 billion a year and is expected to reach nearly £10 billion annually by 2050 with some experts warning health services could go bankrupt within 11 years if nothing changes. Given the nation is already in the grip of a health crisis due to Covid-19 and the government has identified reducing obesity as being key to fighting the coronavirus pandemic now is the perfect time to re-assess the government’s dietary guidelines. Evidence from a growing number of scientific studies shows these recommendations are not preventing or reducing obesity and could be having the opposite effect. The solution would not only improve public health but also have positive ramifications for the environment.
The challenge:
The Covid-19 pandemic presents the government with the perfect opportunity to reconsider its dietary guidelines. Evidence from a growing number of scientific studies shows high-carbohydrate diets lead to insulin resistance and the resulting state of inflammation in the body is a major factor in diseases such as obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Questions have also arisen about the efficacy of scientific data the UK based its dietary guidelines on when they were adopted from the United States in 1983. Nutritional science has evolved but the government’s recommendations have yet to catch up. This could explain why it is only in the last 40 years as highly processed carbohydrates have become a major source of food in the UK the nation has been gripped by life-shortening conditions such as obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Prior to 1983 government advice was to “avoid fattening starchy foods”. Current government guidelines advocate people eat “starchy high fibre carbohydrates” and avoid saturated fats (The Eatwell Guide) but nutritional scientists are now saying our bodies are not metabolically designed to eat large amounts of carbohydrates, based on evidence from our evolutionary roots. Recent scientific studies have shown carbohydrates highjack the appestat, a hormone regulating appetite in the brain and as we age our brain’s ability to metabolise glucose decreases. It is said this combined with over-consumption of carbohydrates leads to obesity and also neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Scientists suggest reducing insulin resistance and the resulting inflammation can help strengthen people’s immune systems against Covid-19 – something the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has identified as being key to fighting the virus. Whilst how much the influence the government’s dietary guidelines have on consumer choices can be debated, there is little doubt they control the narratives around what is healthy eating. They guide what food companies produce and what is stocked in supermarkets which provide around 90% of our food and have become even more relied upon in the wake of Covid-19. The government’s approach also influences messages which are delivered by the food industry, health professionals, schools, colleges and universities, gyms and sport clubs, the hospitality sector, the media, choice offered in workplaces, at food banks and what makes up food parcels given to needy families by the government.
The solution:
Updating the government’s dietary guidelines to bring them in line with the latest nutritional science and creating a better balance in structure of the Eatwell Guide by moving towards a more ancestral way of eating that our bodies are more metabolically designed for would not only benefit people’s health but also the environment. It would lead to greater emphasis on eating in line with the seasons and therefore buying more local produce, cutting consumers’ carbon footprint and would necessitate a move away from factory farming towards regenerative agriculture.
1725-11