Conflicting messages and agendas must disappear from the food industry - and its associates - if it is to improve the health of Europe’s consumers, said Dr Marc Danzon, in London this week.
Danzon, right, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) regional director for Europe, was speaking at a Chartered Institute of Marketing event - Food and health - why the conflicts? “Conflict is no way to progress,” he said, adding that there is one simple common message that should unite the food sector. “Whether food is dangerous for the health is a complex question. In itself, the WHO believes it is not. What is dangerous is dietary habits.
“If we want to change consumer behaviour, we need first to look at the world as it is and not as the world would like to see itself. There is a shared responsibility; the health sector has a role to promote healthy behaviour, there must be government legislation, and the industry itself must participate. [WHO] has opened dialogue with all stakeholders to discover whether it is just a dream that we could find common ground. We need to find a common direction - if not, we will never get very far.
“I think the health sector is often seen as naïve and even infantile by industry. That’s wrong. We have a difficult relationship at times with the food industry, because our priority is to defend the consumer. But we take the problems of industry seriously and we’re looking for a partnership based on mutual respect. If we can solve both the economic and health issues, we will be making a very important breakthrough.”
Chairing the event, James Le Fanu, the Daily Telegraph columnist, said the major casualty of conflict is too often common sense.
The subject of food has been a “minefield” since “extraordinary claims about the western diet” began to surface as far back as the late 1980s, he said. “We have all been confused by contrarian advice from medical experts, with a major conflict between those trying to save the world with messianic zeal, and the scientific truth. Powerful imagery has been implanted in our minds and maintained circulation for many years, while the medical evidence in its favour is much weaker.”
No comments yet