Re: Michelle Obama takes on childhood obesity (and product labeling)

Hi, Rob --

>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/decade-of-spending-on-health-messages-has-had-little-effect-1894551.html

Very interesting piece.

I've been thinking a lot about related issues of late, so I have a few 
comments....


** re. raising "awareness" **

I agree that building "awareness" is not enough, as summarized in the 
photo caption,

	"Health awareness has risen but actual intake has hardly
	changed".

Making people "aware" is not the same thing as *educating* them, and 
we need to do this latter kind of consciousness-raising -- and a great 
deal more, I think -- if we are serious about changing 
individual/group behavior.

So I, too, am leery of approaches which assume that mass "awareness" 
will somehow lead eventually to the desired health outcomes, which is 
what I took away from the statement:

	"A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said: 'One of the
	things we are encouraged by is that there’s much more
	awareness and 5 a day is onen of the best health mesasges out
	there and now the challenge is to convert that awareness into
	actual increases in intakes.'"

It's going to take a whole lot more than simple "awareness" to get us 
to overcome our human propensity for "mindless eating" (from book of 
same name by food psychologist, Brian Wansink).


** re. limiting "junk food marketing" **

Not exactly sure what is meant by "obeseogenic culture":

	"Richard Watts of Sustain, the alliance for better food and
	farming said: [...] 'Where the government has introduced
	tough rules, such as improving school food, genuine progress
	has been made but unless we really challenge our
	"obeseogenic" culture by doing things like introducing proper
	protections from junk food marketing, these worrying trends
	will continue.'"

but here in the U.S., where obesity has yet to be regarded as 
"telegenic," I expect it would translate to things like the "Battle of 
the Big Burgers," begun by the fast food chain, Carl's Jr., back in 
2001 (about which a male advertising executive is reputed to have crowed,

	"I'm lovin' it. Carl's Jr. always brings automatic weapons to
	a knife fight."

;-).

Clearly, the "nanny state" doesn't stand a chance in this kind of 
street fight over how & where we spend our food dollars.

Nor is there much appetite within the U.S. public (or the Roberts 
Supreme Court) for the recommended imposition of "proper protections 
from junk food marketing," whatever these might be.

This leaves the health-conscious consumer -- and yes, some of us who 
consider ourselves "health-conscious" DO actually like convenience 
foods, and don't wish to have to give them up! -- with pretty limited 
options.

But even so, there *are* options and trade-offs we can make ... which 
is where I think the need for better, more targeted information comes in.

According to _Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter_ (some of 
which is posted online at

http://tuftshealthletter.com/

although this particular article on the "Battle of the Big Burgers" is 
not),

	"Going into the 'burger battle' armed with information --
	check the restaurant chains' websites for nutrition data --
	is the smartest strategy. But if in doubt, do the opposite of
	what's touted in the eateries' ads: Think small."

Of note, in this case, the facts are probably at odds with general 
"awareness," since

	"Burger King's Tendergrill Garden Salad ... has more calories
	(460) and saturated fat (7 grams) than its Whopper Jr. (370,
	6 grams)."

and

	"McDonald's regular burger actually has fewer calories than
	any other sandwich on the menu, and its 3.5 grams of
	saturated fat is the same as the grilled Chipotle BBQ Snack
	Wrap, which has 10 more calories at 260."

As one who does study the nutritional information given at the 
websites of fast-food chains I frequent, I know first-hand that the 
charts are often misleading (e.g., by breaking out condiments, etc. 
separately, and not always listing all of these, either), as well as 
sometimes difficult to navigate (e.g., broken up over multiple Web 
pages, making meaningful comparisons extremely difficult, or sporting 
online calculators that require you to plan an entire meal in order to 
retrieve numbers, thus making it impossible to comparison-shop one 
item against another).

I could be wrong about this, but it's my suspicion that the 
nutritional information is deliberately designed to put people off and 
make it harder for us to uncover what it is we want/need to know.

This, I would think, *could* be better regulated, and still leave 
Carl's Jr. -- where, for the record, I do NOT choose to eat, having 
been turned off long ago by their burgers, and more recently, by their 
he-man ads, which for those of you who haven't had the pleasure, are 
designed to disgust girly-men and women like me, and pretty much do 
(to the delight of their target audience, which can then bond & 
consume around this ;-) -- to exercise its unfettered rights to free 
speech in the marketplace.

One other thought on this topic: improved nutritional labeling must be 
at least somewhat effective, because restaurants and the fast food 
industry are always quick to vigorously fight any regulation in this 
area (let alone "tough rules"), and to co-opt the design of 
nutritional messages at every opportunity.

In May 2009, Tufts' _Health & Nutrition Letter_ ran an article on the 
multiple nutrition-scoring systems introduced by supermarkets in the 
U.S.: "NuVal," "Smart Choices," "Guiding Stars," "Overall Nutrition 
Quality Index," "Nutritional Quality Index," another "Nutritional 
Quality Index" modified by a researcher at Texas A&M University, 
"Nutrition IQ," and "Naturally-Nutrient Rich." Unfortunately, the 
Tufts article is not available online, but a brief update on the 
matter is at

http://tuftshealthletter.com/ShowArticle.aspx?RowID=772

and is useful.

What I draw from this long list of competing, confusing nutritional 
standards is that, in the U.S. at least, the science & art of 
"nutrient profiling, labeling and density" is, as the post-modernists 
like to say, highly contested terrain. ;-)

There are many competing stakeholders when it comes to the design of a 
"fair" scoring system and visual standard, and it makes sense to me 
that IDers, with their different set of professional values, have 
something to contribute here, too.

Plus, it's my understanding that the design of restaurant menus has 
already fallen prey to the desire for obfuscation over transparency, 
in at least one area.

The following is from _Marketplace_'s interview of 1/22/2010 with 
William Poundstone, author of the recently-published _Priceless: The 
Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It)_:

	"RYSSDAL: Context is everything. You have this great diagram
	of a menu, I think, from a New York City restaurant and you
	break down, you know, which price is where and why it's all
	set out. It's all about how the consumer perceives that data.

	"POUNDSTONE: Mmhmmm. Yeah, menus are an area where price
	consultants have had a huge effect. They've found that if
	they use center justification of the menu item, so the prices
	don't end up all in a straight column, you pay a little less
	attention to them. So you're more inclined to order what you
	really want, which often tends to be kind of expensive."

(The full text transcript is at:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/22/pm-priceless-q/

).

So, if you're an intrepid Information Designer hoping to subvert the 
prevailing visual rhetoric concerning what & why we eat as we do, 
where do you start?

Can you make your case for better information design to a 
restaurateur, without needing a government mandate requiring that they 
do as you say? <vbg>


** re. "modifying the food supply" vs. modifying behavior **

Again, I don't think there is the political will in the U.S. for this 
sort of thing:

	"Professor Sanders said: 'All the sucecssful nutrition
	interventions have always been about modifying the food
	supply rather than changing individual’s behaviour.'"

although if someone out there can prove me wrong in this, I would be 
delighted. ;-)

That said, some of the specifics of Sanders's proposal could, and 
probably will, be implemented here, as long as they're not framed as 
government "interventions."

	"Tom Sanders, professor of human nutrition at King’s College,
	London [...] suggested the Government’s focus on the
	five-a-day campaign had been a mistake because evidence
	showed that making improvements to the offer of food rather
	than relying on individuals. Schools should, he said,
	increase the teaching of cooking; supermarkets end 'buy on
	get one free' offers; cafes, restaurants and other catering
	outlets stop suggesting larger or extra portions through
	upselling and manufacturers introduce the FSA’s traffic light
	labelling system with guideline daily amounts and calorie
	counts."

For some time now, I have been collecting stories about schools in the 
U.S. planting/sponsoring community gardens and local farmers; 
integrating lessons about nutrition and food (not only where it comes 
from, but also how to prepare & serve it) into the curriculum; 
overhauling cafeteria menus and meal-plans with student input; getting 
vending machines off-campus; bringing local farmers' markets on to 
college campuses; etc.

So these sorts of things are already going on, and I think Michelle 
Obama's White House garden, and recent children's health initiative -- 
building as it does on her own first-hand experience with making small 
and manageable "lifestyle overhauls" -- takes the right approach, and 
will galvanize even more schools and families around the issues ... 
especially given the pull of celebrity, which makes this popular First 
Lady and her children even more of a model and inspiration.

But our obesity problem -- and its attendant diseases -- is about more 
than just food.

And getting people in post-industrial economies to exercise (or 
"move," as re-branded by Obama) enough to counteract their excessive 
caloric intakes is perhaps even more of a challenge than selling us on 
a healthier diet.

I think information designers can play a role here, too, because 
there's such a disconnect between our calculations of calories-in vs. 
calories-out. We need to make these sorts of calculations habitual to 
modern life, and yet, they are far from being any such thing.

I personally would love to see a whole lot of simple charts about 
this, explaining how the body burns calories (even at rest) ... how 
the ratios change with age and the loss of muscle mass ... and how 
even daily chores, such as gardening and housework, can be effective 
forms of exercise.

In my experience, the calculations over calories can get pretty 
complicated, and we're often working from inadequate or erroneous data 
to begin with (e.g., the "calories burned" counters on many exercise 
machines are about as reliable as the marketing claims concerning how 
many pages your inkjet cartridge will print).

Plus, the numbers can be a real turn-off when you learn, say, that 300 
minutes a week of moderate-to-high-intensity exercise is required "for 
controlling weight." For many of us, this is NOT a trivial number, and 
we need a comprehensive strategy and many creative tactics -- not more 
"awareness" -- in order to achieve it.

I have seen a couple such charts promoting more mindful eating while 
educating us about the food trade-offs most of us need to make in 
publications like _Consumer Reports on Health_ and CSPI's _Nutrition 
Action_. The latter's "Can You Afford the Extras?" (from the Jan./Feb. 
2008 issue of _Nutrition Action Healthletter_, vol. 35, no. 1, pg. 9), 
showing how much exercise a 150-pound person would have to do in order 
to burn off the calories consumed from eating a few popular foods, 
just barely scratches the surface, though. (I've temporarily posted a 
facsimile of this to my website at

http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/NAH2008-v31n1_p9.jpg

for those following this discussion, and will leave it there while 
discussion is ongoing.)

So to me, this is a whole subject area, about which few of us know 
enough, sorely in need of some innovative treatments.

And FWIW, even *I* think this is a clear case where creative visual 
language can excel at delivering the information. ;-)


... As for me, I'm now off to use up about 5 minutes of a 30-min. 
session on my elliptical exerciser burning off that handful (only 
one-quarter cup!) of supposedly "healthy" trail mix -- almonds, 
peanuts, cranberries, raisins, & wasabi peas -- I snacked on earlier 
today, consuming 130+ calories in the process. (As usual, I didn't 
actually measure my serving size, and like to pretend that a heaping 
handful must be about 1/4 cup since my hands are so small. ;-)

Deborah
_____

Deborah Taylor-Pearce
[email protected]
___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________