The growing numbers of people in the UK classified as overweight or obese pose a well-documented problem of ill-health and the threat of soaring NHS bills to treat the consequences of poor diet.
Being obese or overweight increases a person’s risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, developing type-2 diabetes and some types of cancer.
But when people aren’t eating healthily it can just as easily increase their risk of malnutrition, something that older and more vulnerable people are particularly prone to, especially if other risk factors such as dementia are combined with their age or impairment.
And when you have taken into account the straightforward, if far from negligible, cost of medically treating people for the complications that arise from poor diet, there are the wider costs to business and society of chronic ill health. Combined, the bill to the nation could run to a staggering £90bn by 2050 unless we start eating for health.
No wonder governments, starting with Labour’s under Tony Blair and continuing through the current coalition, have periodically wrung their hands over the problem and launched a series of not-obviously linked public health initiatives over the last 10 years.
These have ranged from the genuinely radical School Food Nutritional Standards through to the recent Responsibility Deal agreements under which suppliers and caterers have been encouraged to sign-up to an agenda promoting healthy eating.
Unfortunately the school food standards, which have been counted a success by groups like the Local Authority Caterers’ Association (LACA) and the School Food Trust, are being steadily undermined by the Coalition Government’s refusal to make academies and free schools follow them.
And while few would doubt the sincerity of the catering companies following the Responsibility Deal recommendations, there are certainly questions over their ability to significantly change people’s diets through them.
Which is why those in Government now, and certainly those who would hold power after the 2015 General Election, should welcome the Health and Nutrition in the Public Sector Report 2012, produced by Canadean Consumer Research.
Commissioned by the PS100 group, it quite clearly shows that although poor diet and nutrition are behind many of the growing health concerns in the UK, the Government is failing to use its influence to drive home the ‘eating for health’ message.
A year on from the inaugural meeting of the most influential people in public sector catering (PS100), their report on nutrition and health is a call to the Government to take action.
Backed by solid research, it shows that a coordinated approach to improved diet in the UK eating is possible by utilising the influence the state has and the funding it provides. The report says up to a third of the UK population is fed at some stage each year by the public sector, which is responsible for one in every 15 meals eaten.
There is no shortage of words from the Government words on the need for consumers to eat better to reduce obesity levels and malnutrition; so the question now is: ‘Are ministers ready to put into practice what they preach’?
The recent changes in school governance and control that has seen the removal of nutrition standards from schools, particularly academies, has only helped to unmask the inadequate controls that exist, wherever the public purse funds or supports the feeding of the nation.
There are no minimum standards expected and monitored in hospitals, care homes, prisons, further education establishments, emergency services or schools.
Successive governments have had a clear ‘do as we say, not as we do strategy’.
The report spells out the health, social and economic cost of poor diet in the UK and makes clear how making the right investment now could stand to save taxpayers many times more in reduced NHS spending and business costs in future, not to mention the huge social benefits that will flow from a healthier population.
But while research shows the health cost figure of dealing with this could be as much as £43bn by 2050 – which doesn’t even include the wider cost to industry of reduced productivity and absenteeism – there is the fact that the government also has significant influence over the issue.
This comes through the direct role it has, for example, in funding free school meals, NHS spending on hospital meals and feeding residents in publicly-funded care homes.
The Government also has direct input through its ability to dictate standards for meals in schools, for patients, for prisoners etc.
Moreover, it has power through its legislative role to lay down minimum standards for meal times, such as how long the lunch break lasts in schools or protecting patients from interruption while feeding in hospital.
The report shows that 2.94 billion meals were served in the public sector in 2011, with education through school meals accounting for 1.42bn or 48% of that total.
Serving these meals to basic nutritional standards must improve the health of the nation and will most certainly improve understanding by the consumer of the kind of meal required to be healthy and nutritious.
The healthcare sector, primarily hospitals, accounts for another 0.99bn meals, with lesser contributions coming from military and civil defence, welfare and government offices.
Paying for that food and drink costs the public purse £2bn a year, which means the Government is both a major provider of meals and a significant buyer of products.
In addition to the 12.2m children in England’s schools, 140,449 hospital in-patients, 86,900 prisoners and 85, 607 care home residents, there are millions of people working as teachers, doctors, nurses, civil servants, police officers and prison warders who rely on meals from the state.
The report estimates the combined total to be about 19.25m people in the UK – about a third of the population – with whom the Government has significant potential influence when it comes to health and nutrition.
Obesity is the biggest threat to the NHS and potentially to public health generally over the next 40 years. Yet, the consumer is quite often gloriously unaware of the impact that a poor diet, obesity and malnutrition can have on them.
Moreover, the Government’s legislative role gives it the power to lay down minimum standards for meal times, such as how long the lunch break lasts in schools or protection from interruption for patients at hospital mealtimes.
In 2011, the Government’s public spending amounted to £681.3bn, of which about £2bn went on food and drink in the public sector.
The Health and Nutrition Report shows the significant cost of not improving our nation’s diet.
It says type-2 diabetes – seen as the next health ‘time-bomb’ – can have a clear effect on people from an early age. And the current cost to the NHS of treating people for diabetes will rise by 2020 in correlation with rising diabetes projections.
The cost to the NHS of obesity, diabetes, hypertension and liver failure, for instance, is likely to be immense, based on current projections. There is clearly a benefit to the Exchequer and to society of encouraging healthy eating habits at school and using whatever influence is available through the workplace.
Absenteeism as a result of conditions that have a direct link with poor diet, such as obesity, diabetes and hypertension, as well as susceptibility to colds or flu have an impact in lost working days reflected in both the public and private sector.
The research into the issue of lost productivity related to absenteeism makes the link between poor nutrition and falling behind during education, which can reduce a person’s chances of going on to reaching further education or university.
It points out that there is a clear correlation between a person’s level of education and their income, and that better-educated people tend to be healthier and pay more tax.
In prisons, where the Government has maximum control over the quality of meals, nutrition and health, taking the right action holds the potential reward not only of reduced medical spending but also of improved prisoner behaviour through a better diet.
In hospitals, the research points to clear benefits because better-fed patients mean a reduced number of days in hospital as a result of faster recovery rates.
And the number of days that people in care homes need to spend in hospital each year because of poor nutrition will also be cut if steps are put in place to improve the quality of food and the overall eating experience.
The research also highlights an alarming lack of awareness among consumers of what exactly good nutrition is and the health problems that can be caused by poor diet.
What is PS100?
The brainchild of Cost Sector Catering magazine, the PS100 group comprises public sector catering operators, dietitians, health experts, contract caterers and suppliers who all have a responsibility for the diet and welfare of people where Government spending or standards apply.
This includes children at school, students in further and higher education, patients in hospital, residents in care homes, recipients of community meals, prisoners and young offenders, members of the UK military and staff working in the public sector such as the police and fire services.
The group wants joined-up thinking in public sector catering so that the Government’s aims to reduce obesity and health-related problems such as type-2 diabetes are matched by actions to promote good nutrition and healthy eating.
Its three key aims are:
- protecting mealtimes
- introducing lifetime nutrition plans
- appointing a food, drink and nutrition ‘Tsar’.
You can find out more by visiting the PS100 section of the Cost Sector Catering website: http://costsectorcatering.co.uk/ps100