Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion Junk for code
parliament house.gif
Think Tanks
Oz Blogs
Economic Blogs
Foreign Policy Blogs
International Blogs
Media Blogs
South Australian Weblogs
Economic Resources
Environment Links
Political Resources
South Australian Links
"...public opinion deserves to be respected as well as despised" G.W.F. Hegel, 'Philosophy of Right'

Adelaide Festival of Ideas 2007: eat well be well « Previous | |Next »
July 5, 2007

afilogo.jpg Suprisingly, given the low profile of health issues in the federal election, the 2007 Adelaide Festival of Ideas has a strong theme of health running the different sessions with a strong emphasis on good nutrition. Eat well be well is an argument running through the 'Before You Eat' session on Friday. Kerryn Goldsworthy at Pavlov's Cat has some interesting comments on this.

It is most explicit in Marion Nestle's ' 'What to Eat' talk on Saturday which takes us into food and health policy. Fox News, that Republican cheer squad, is not impressed by this kind of approach, which it sees as another example of junk science.

This approach works within the health policy reform agenda of prevention and primary care. This health reform argument persuasively expressed by the Centre of Policy Development is a simple one:

Governments are always talking about taking the pressure off public hospitals and reducing spiraling costs. The current Howard Government says it can do it by subsidising the Private Health Insurance industry, which hasn't worked. The states argue that they could cut hospital waiting lists if only the feds gave them more money. Both arguments miss the point. The best way to take the pressure off hospitals is to ensure that most people don't need to go there in the first place.

Australia faces spiraling rates of chronic illness, including many that could be prevented, mitigated or cured through early intervention. Without change, we will keep spending more and more to achieve less and less. Too many people have to fight their way through a complex maze of services and funding systems to deal with common illnesses that could easily be addressed at their local health centre or family medical and non-medical practice.

What is missing is the willingness of state and federal governments to take on the challenge of real health reform despite obesity being a real problem. The establishment of 'one stop shop' primary health care centres staffed with all the expertise needed to manage the overall health of the local population. These centres would form the backbone of a high-quality universal health system, benefiting Australians of all backgrounds and incomes, rather than a limited ‘safety net’ service designed to catch the fallout from a two-tier system.

Robert Phiddian's notes for the 'Before You Eat' session say that though food is at the centre of our lives constantly, a social as well as a physical staple, we in the developed world are further from the production of food than we have ever been before. The chain from farm to plate is now fantastically long and increasingly invisible to individual consumers, many of whom even do precious little cooking these days.

He says that his main point is that the food chain is attenuated, and we consumers don’t know much about what we are putting in our mouths. In particular, we could afford to know more about any or all of:

the risks to health (real as opposed to imagined) from chemical inputs in the food chain; the costs and benefits to individual health of highly processed foods; the costs (nutritional as well as environmental) of having everything in season all the time; the further dietary implications of affluence that mean most people in the developed world can eat what would once have been luxury foodstuffs most of the time; the alleged ‘obesity epidemic’ and what we can do about it.

We are right in the core of food and health policy. Nestle's talk, based on her 'What to Eat' book, directly tackles junk food and food politics from a health perspective. As she observes when it comes to the mass production and consumption of food, strategic decisions are driven by economics—not science, not ethics, and certainly not health.

A consumer driven society we have lost sight of wellbeing as a flourishing life understood as healthy functioning. We are reaping the consequences with obesity and ill health.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:15 PM | | Comments (4)


I think we are hoping in vain if we expect the government to do much about these issues unless we make them. Too much money to be made in producing processed food, overconsumption and then addressing the resultant symptoms through the private sector (pharmaceutical interventions, private health cover, wonder foods). The major parties are not really going to open up the can of worms that is how individual preferences are created and massaged by advertising, which make a mockery of much of the 'market' rhetoric that goes mostly unexamined in the mainstream media.

You are probably right. The effort of state and federal governments seems to be on self-responsibility and health promotion, with a minimal committment to primary health care centres.

The trouble with health promotion is that people know they eat junk food and are overweight but find it difficult to do anything about it. Some deny whilst some even resist(Aussie beer gut male).

It has become easy to say, and it appeals to “commonsense “and populism, that a lot of health care costs could be avoided if we had greater emphasis on prevention. This is true for a lot of things but by no means all things or perhaps even most things.

A lot of the demand on our tertiary and secondary health system is not something that can be prevented and in fact is, paradoxically, a result of us enjoying better health and nutrition.

Hospitals can be said to be mainly full of older persons. This is because we are living longer and also because advances in drugs in particular, and technology, enable the fixing of problems that not so long ago would have killed us or we would have stoically lived with.

Cataract waiting lists all over the country are huge. In general one can say that cataracts are not preventable by any particular early intervention. Not so long ago cataracts were a fairly serous, longish operation requiring a hospital stay of 4 or 5 days. Most people who had a cataract never contemplated surgery.

Now it’s in at 2 pm and back home by 6 pm. One or two days restricted activity then bingo miracle vision. All without almost any pain. In the Netherlands your friends and relatives can watch your operation on CCTV while they wait to take you home.

It’s fair to say that a big proportion of hospital demand is driven by these kind of demands.

Not as much demand as many would like to think is able to be reduced by prevention or even early intervention.

yes those are good points. But we could distinquish between the crisis care that hospitals are designed for and those treatments that can be done by day surgery in a non-hospital clinic and musculoskeltal problems that can be treated by a chiropractor in private practice.