Two weeks ago I gave a talk at Ottawa's 6th Biennial Championing Public Health Nutrition Conference. I was part of a group of speakers talking about the how can it possibly not be published yet new Canada Food guide.
I was struck, both during the other presenters talks, and during the question and answer period, how focused people were on how the Food Guide will be utilized by individuals.
In my opinion, as a direct tool, it pretty much won't be. That's not to say it can't or won't have an impact on Canadian dietary patterns (it will by way of its impact on policy), nor that a person who picked it up couldn't choose to follow it, but rather speaks to the simple fact that education alone doesn't seem to be enough to change behaviour. Because time and again we learn that education, even when tied to terrifying events like heart attacks, doesn't seem to be able to consistently lead people to sustain consequent lifestyle changes, nor does genetic knowledge of specific disease risks.
The reasons why are likely myriad, but probably boil down to a combination of normal human nature and change being difficult, along with the impact of a person's food environment and social determinants of health.
For a food related example of this, take this recent paper regarding perceptions about the consumption of fast food. In it, among many other statistics, the authors note that 73% of weekly fast food consumers reported that they believed fast food wasn't good for them.
When it comes to behaviour change, knowledge alone does not seem to correlate particularly strongly with power.
No comments:
Post a Comment