Home

Well since we launched on Melbourne Cup Day in 2006, it’s been an incredible journey that has helped change the lives of thousands of people.

Now it’s time to pass the baton to our very own Fitstyler’s who take control and continue to bring awesome health and fitness services.

I’II be involved in a exciting new project in the fitness industry involving cycling, stay tuned:))

Finally, a tick for common sense!  The Heart Foundation has changed direction in its accreditation of fast food companies.

What message has the Heart Foundation really been sending by endorsing fast food outlets?

It may have finally understood that endorsing fast food was only damaging the Heart Foundation brand and, more importantly, the credibility of its big healthy tick.

Giving the tick to McDonalds was very strange, particularly as the fast food giant seemed to bury any of the items deemed to be its healthiest choices deep into its menu.

Walk into any McDonalds anywhere in the world and it’s immediately obvious the majority of the presented menu is selling hamburgers, fries and frozen desserts. You really have to look hard to find where their salads and healthier choices are located.

If McDonalds was really committed to changing the perception of fast food and promoting healthier lifestyles, why would  products endorsed by a leading health organization be hidden?

It really begs the question as to whether the Heart Foundation’s tick is merely being used to capitalise on the healthy food market to maintain a connection with customers who may go elsewhere. With increasing rates of obesity, Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease, a vendor of fatty, sugary and salty foods runs the risks of becoming a dinosaur unless drastic steps are taken.

To me, it seems to be business as usual.  For instance, billboards on freeway overpasses still show $1 burgers during lunchtime. Is this a corporation that’s really serious about promoting healthier food choices?

It’s like buying a Ferrari and putting a speed limiter that stops you from going over 100 km per hour. You have an engine powerful enough to propel 1300 kg to 100 km/h in under 4 seconds with a top speed of over 300 km/h, yet you can only drive 100km/h.

We all know we can only drive at the speed limit, but would it stop you buying a Ferrari if you had the means?

By moving away from fast food operators and placing a greater focus on cafes and restaurants with random sampling to determine fat and salt content, the Heart Foundation should be applauded for speeding in the right direction.

Written by Andrew Talati

The Gillard Goverment’s announcement that the Labor government will not be introducing the junk food tax begs the question whether the government is truly taking this issue seriously or will they merely commission another report to confirm what we already know.

One such investigation to improves the country health, in particular managing and reducing the countries growing obesity rate is the report generated from the Preventative Health Task Force that recommended introducing a tax on energy dense foods or commonly referred to as junk food.

This comes at a time when childhood obesity is at epidemic levels with the recent report into Child Development and Play commissioned by homeware’s giant Ikea found that a disturbing 66% watch more than four hours of TV per day.

A similar report from the US from the Journal of pediatrics similarity found 66% of preschoolers viewed more than two hours per day of content from a TV or computer screen.

Unfortunately implementing strategies and policies which at a the minimum stop the obesity rate let alone reduce the percentage of children overweight or obese seems to be weighted down by bureaucracy and the effects it will have on the food manufacturers and distribution landscape.

While childhood obesity, or more specifically obesity for the general population is a complex issue, we need to be a cohesive approach from not only government, but the educational providers, parents and media companies.

The key areas that need to be addressed but may prove to be unpopular are:

1.Introducing a junk food tax

2.Restricting marketing of junk food to children through all types of electronic and printed media

3.Food labeling laws to remove misleading and confusing packaging

4.Changing the school canteen menu to exclude food & beverages that are high is salt, sugar and fat, limiting processed foods and supplying fresh fruit while encouraging the consumption of tap water

5.Subsidies for healthier foods at day care centres, pre school and primary schools

6.Parents limiting sedentary behavior such as watching TV, playing video games, surfing the internet, talking on mobile phones, sending sms and watching DVD or streamed content from the web

7.Stopping the sponsorship of any event that is primarily attended by or marketed to children by junk food companies

8.Programs to increase childhood exercise

9.Educating children about the benefits of healthy eating

10.Stopping the association of brand ambassadors with junk food

While there seems to be a genuine government interest in tackling childhood obesity, we need to see action rather than debate or the commissioning of more reports, or reports that analysis all the existing reports.

If this situation is allowed to continue unabated, we will have a generation of children with Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease dying before there parents.

A recent publication by the medical Journal of Australia made a recommendation of a 10% tax on all junk food.

With Australia’s obesity rate now at 60% of Australians are overweight or obese.

The proposed introduction of a junk food tax is based on the findings by Monash University researchers established that junk food had the same misuse and costs to society as alcohol.

The proposed tax is aimed at changing the consumption habits by making the price point a determinant in deciding whether a purchase will take place.

The Federal Governments Preventative Health Taskforce also make a recommendation to introduce a tax against energy dense foods that takes into consideration “fatty” and “sugary” foods.

The Preventative Health Taskforce report also sited that the French Government was to increase their existing value added tax of 5.5% to19.6%, which will capture all foods high in fat, salt and sugar. The premise being that the tax would be applied to foods traditional perceived as being healthy, an example in Australia are the health/muesli bar market.

The great thing about this tax is it doesn’t have to discriminate, it is based purely on the fat, sugar and salt content of the processed food product.

So if their product is low in any of these nutrients, then their is nothing to worry about:))

The great things about the tax is:

1.Price affect demand based on peoples available money, with Australia credit card debt over 40Billion and house affordability creating mortgage stress, something has to give
2.Healthier options become more attractive as the price deferential isn’t as great
3.Big corporates like to maximise shareholder wealth so less demand = less $$$, so recipes will have to be adjusted to maintain sales levels.

However you really need to make junk food something consumed occasional rather than regularly so I would like to see a 50% junk food tax, a substantial increase to really effect buyer behavior.

This would be based on the products having the tax based on the % of fat, sugar and salt per 100gms being over an agreed amount. So instead of buying a chocolate bar every day, they may buy one every second or third day.

This would not impact on those suffering economic hardship as there are healthier cheaper options available.

The Depart of Sustainability and Environment as currently reviewing their fee structure for commercial operators of crown land that includes personal trainers and other fitness operators.
Currently local councils administer parks and foreshore reserve on behalf of the DSE with the existing fee structure being overlaid with the relevant council’s general fee structure for the use of open space.

While the review is geared towards the sustainability of public land, the new system is to reduce the administration of the licensing process and stimulate operator performance.

This is all about to change next year as the DSE look towards having a consistent fee structure imposed across all parks, state forests and foreshore reserves across Victoria. Fortunately the fee is based on the administration expenses incurred in the implementation and management of crown land rather than not adding additional fees that are not aligned with the income generation capacities of the end users.