A minimum age for buying fast food? This proposal from a report by the Scientific Institute (WI) for the CDA caused a lot of discussion last week. Several political parties found it “patronising”. FVD, BBB and JA21 stated that people should be able to decide for themselves what food they buy, and that the government should not interfere. CDA MP Anne Kuik said the same day that the House of Representatives faction does not see any point in such a proposal. Gerard Adelaar, author of the report Healthy livingfinds that difficult to understand, he says in an interview with NRC† “If you make a correction as a government, it is not patronizing, but rather an encouragement to lead a healthier life.”
What do you think of the fuss over the idea of a minimum age for fast food?
“It is not right that this is taken from the report. A broad package of measures is proposed. Including healthy school lunches, a better prevention agreement and price regulations for food. Partly because of the commotion, the report received a lot of attention. That is valuable, because the improvement that is needed is going too slowly.”
Do you still support the minimum age proposal for fast food?
“Yes. For this measure, the report states: ‘Consider’ setting a minimum age for fast food, similar to that for purchasing alcohol and tobacco. All other proposed measures state ‘make’, or ‘ban’. If parties in the field themselves do not take action, this measure is intended as a big stick.”
A number of politicians call the proposal ‘patronising’. Can you imagine something with that?
“I understand the argument of a ‘patronizing’ government somewhere, but the current situation is patronizing. People don’t know what’s good for them. The prices for unhealthy food are low and the commercials are sneaky. There is no escaping it. If you make a correction as a government, it is not patronizing, but rather an encouragement to lead a healthier life. There really needs to be a turnaround. We allow people to live a healthy life.”
Also read: Do you live in a Vinex neighborhood? Then you live eight years longer
What do you think of Anne Kuik’s announcement that the CDA’s parliamentary group is against this proposal?
“On the one hand, that’s a pity. On the other hand, I am pleased that she considers the report to be a justified combination of measures. If the parliamentary group says that it does not want it about this proposal, and that it does about the rest, then we are happy.”
What is the broader message of the report?
“In practice, it can be seen that our lifestyle, exercise and food, are far from what our body can handle. The artificial substances in processed foods and the sugars cause unnecessary health damage. With these measures we want to move towards a new food culture. Eating is more than just throwing something in when you need energy. It’s part of living well.”
Until now, the CDA has been against government interference. In 2017, the sugar tax was removed from the program. The report now includes an idea for a sugar tax. Why this cover?
“I see a lot of willingness from the House of Representatives to do something with this theme. I have faith in that. We want the whole idea of healthy living to come from the market parties and society itself. But because processed food is so tempting, and market parties show little interest in improving, the government will have to give it a push now and then.”
Out research van de Leeuwarder Courant shows that health insurers invest millions in fast food chains. What does this show?
“It shows that the line we have written in the report is correct. There is just so much wrong in our society. We first make people sick through an unhealthy lifestyle, and we think that is perfectly normal. Then we will treat those people medically. We have come to consider that normal. It really doesn’t make sense, but it happens anyway. Such misalignments must be removed from society.”