Is there hope for a thinner future?

There is not much progress made in combatting the overweight and obesity epidemic. That is a conclusion drawn in a recent paper of the prominent researchers Peter Herman and Janet Polivy: 'Self-regulation and the obesity epidemic' (Social Issues and Policy Review).  I found it an inspiring paper. Both authors are highly influential and experienced in the field of experimental psychology of eating behaviour and obesity. Because of their outstanding track record, I recommend reading their paper and think about it. Their take home message is not a positive one, however.   

Picture: Rudd Center Image Gallery



The basic premise of the article of Herman and Polivy is that researchers should be sceptical about interventions, both at the individual and societal level. They state that many researchers suggest that progress is being made or just around the corner. But actually, this is not true. Their review of the literature coupled with the decades of  professional experience made them conclude the following: ‘Scrutiny of the statistics, however, suggest that not much progress has been made so far in combatting the problem; in fact, it is probably easier to make the case that things are continuing to get worse’.

The best interventions at an individual level (e.g. clinical interventions) are expensive or impossible to implement on a community-wide basis. Although the authors agree with many scientists that interventions at a societal level (e.g. reshaping of the environment) are needed, they are not optimistic. Basically, many ideas for interventions will not work or even backfire, they argue.



Obesity is a very serious problem. Herman and Polivy stress that it not ok to implement unproven interventions. They warn that scientists should be cautious about applying solutions that turn out to be ineffective as the little trust that the public has in social scientists should not be destroyed.

What do you think? Is there really not much progress made? Is there hope for a thinner future?

Consortium starts research to promote sustainable and healthy foods

This morning, the press release about the start of our consortium went out! It is a very interesting and exciting nudging project (see a previous blog post about nudging).

This is the English brief version of the press release:

Many consumers support the importance of sustainability and health. Could you help these consumers in making the right choice by changing the shelf lay-out of sustainable products in supermarkets? Or by including healthy food products in the default options of restaurant menus? A consortium consisting of Wageningen University, Schuttelaar & Partners and other parties started with a study on nudging. This entails ways to nudge consumers into choosing sustainable and healthy products without limiting the freedom to choose. The project is commissioned by the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (EL&I).

For the interested Dutch readers, here is the complete press release in Dutch:

PERSBERICHT

Consortium start met onderzoek naar het bevorderen van duurzaam en gezond voedsel.

Consumenten geven massaal aan duurzaamheid en gezondheid belangrijk vinden. Kun je deze consumenten helpen door bijvoorbeeld duurzame producten een prominentere plek te geven in de supermarktschappen? Of door gezondere producten op te nemen in de standaardmenu’s van een restaurant? In opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (EL&I) is een consortium gestart met onderzoek naar nudging. Dit zijn manieren om consumenten een duwtje – een ‘nudge’ – in de goede richting te geven bij kiezen voor duurzame en gezonde producten, zonder hierbij de keuzevrijheid te beperken.

Consortium
Het consortium dat het onderzoek gaat uitvoeren bestaat uit Wageningen Universiteit, Schuttelaar & Partners, HAS KennisTransfer en het Restaurant van de Toekomst. Andere partijen die hun medewerking aan het onderzoek verlenen zijn PLUS supermarkten, Servex, het Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, Ziekenhuis Gelderse Vallei, Stichting Max Havelaar en Stichting Ik Kies Bewust.

Onderzoek
Het onderzoek richt zich op mogelijke nudges om de consument te ondersteunen bij de keuze voor duurzame en gezonde producten. Dit gebeurt door middel van kleine veranderingen in de context, bijvoorbeeld een andere inrichting van het supermarktschap. Een ander voorbeeld is het laten zien van het percentage consumenten dat al heeft gekozen voor een bepaald product. Consumenten die duurzaamheid en gezondheid wel belangrijk vinden kiezen nog niet altijd voor deze producten. Het onderzoek richt zich specifiek op deze groep consumenten. Behalve onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van de nudges zal ook de ethische aanvaardbaarheid van de interventies worden beoordeeld.

Implementatie
Naast de wetenschappelijke onderbouwing richt het project zich vooral ook op de praktische uitvoerbaardheid. Om te kijken of de nudges daadwerkelijk werken in de praktijk zal onderzoek worden gedaan in onder andere een virtuele supermarkt en in verschillende real-life situaties, zoals bedrijfsrestaurants, zorginstellingen, stationskiosken en supermarkten.

Resultaten
Het onderzoek zal een beeld geven van nudges die effectief en ethisch aanvaardbaar zijn bij het stimuleren van de keuze voor gezond en duurzaam voedsel. Deze resultaten kunnen van belang zijn voor zowel overheidsbeleid als voor marktpartijen. Het project loopt tot eind 2012 en de eerste resultaten worden verwacht in het najaar van 2011.



Can we nudge consumers towards healthier choices by changing the way we organize supermarket shelves?



The six reasons why overweight is a wicked problem

No quick fixes and simple solutions. That is the case with the current overweight and obesity epidemic. You can read this important message in the recently published book 'Tegenwicht. Feiten en fabels over overgewicht', written by Jaap Seidell and Jutka Halbertstadt. The translation of this Dutch title would be something like 'Counterweight. Facts and myths about overweight'.

I really liked reading this book, because it describes in easy-to-read and understandable language the current state of the scientific knowledge on overweight and obesity. What struck me most was that science has not yet come that far in understanding how various factors interact in creating the overweight problem and providing effective solutions. A key reason for that, Seidell argues, is that overweight is a wicked problem. This term was first mentioned in relation to the highly complex problems of social planning, but it can also be applied to overweight and obesity.

Basically, there are six reasons why overweight is a wicked problem:

Reason 1: You know what the problem is, when you have the solution. Since it is hard to define what exactly the problem is, it is difficult to find a solution. This definitely applies to overweight. For example, experts often disagree what the major causes are of overweight: lack of physical activity or overeating? Bad genes or bad eating habits?

Reason 2: The solution process does not have a clear end-point. As Seidell wonders; it is not exactly clear what the purpose is of preventing overweight: halting the rising trends or reducing the number of people with overweight to zero?

Reason 3: Solutions are not right or wrong. All involved stakeholders (such as food companies, authorities, consumers, health professionals) have an opinion about the problem and often disagree. For example, last week we had the No Diet Day (or 'Anti-Diet-day' in the Netherlands). Although the day aims at body weight acceptance, it led to debates about the usefulness of particular diets and the risks of overweight. 

Reason 4: Each wicked problem is unique and new. The involved actors and concrete situations are different. The causes and potential solutions are similarly not the same for different groups of overweight individuals.

Reason 5:  There is no room to experiment. It is impossible to check beforehand whether a particular solution will be effective. Essentially, it is often a matter of critically informed trial and error.

Reason 6: There is no clear set of solutions and there can be many solutions or only one. Solutions are hard to find. As a result, Seidell argues that the overweight and obesity problem requires a holistic solution. For example, schools, food industry, health authorities and consumers should work together in exploring solutions that seem promising. After all, there is a lot at stake: overweight is not just a medical problem, but also a social one. 

Trish Groves likewise argues in the British Medical Journal that obesity seems to be the classic example of a wicked problem. Consequently, we need more innovative and collaborative approaches. I completely agree. Acknowledging that overweight is a wicked problem might help getting a more realistic overview of the problem instead of over-simplistic and one-sided analyses and claims for solutions. It also shows that as researchers we should look across the boundaries of traditional research fields and become more creative in contributing to the search for solutions.