As it says How When How, these two images, are better understood together.
We moderate for whom?
Do you have to recommend a "Moderate consumption" of insane food?
Among those of us who are fortunate enough to have some means of communication or informative platform trust us in giving us a voice to offer health advice and food to the population, there is a long-standing dilemma that gives title to this article.
We debated between the kind and customary advice of "for a little nothing happens", "you do not have to be so radical", "everything in excess is bad", "for a cookie nobody has died", "I have breakfast with cocoa all my childhood and I'm healthy "... And the least easy and hardest advice is "how much less food is better insane".
Before continuing to delve into the subject, let's take a moment to examine the context in which we are giving these messages:
Is it appropriate to the social context of my environment?
If we talk about spreading in Spain, it is important to bear in mind that we are targeting a population with high obesity and overweight rates, both in the adult and infant population. Which is also a population with access to food, which does not go hungry.
A population whose consumption of fruit, vegetables, legumes and nuts is low, while white bread, pastries and meats take the top positions in what energy contribution of the diet is concerned.
A population that is heavily bombarded by advertising and messages from the food industry encouraging it to consume unhealthy products. And that not only does not have in its National Health Service a reference professional in food issues, but even medical and / or scientific societies extend the hand to profit in exchange for giving their logo in deplorable products from the nutritional point of view.
In this context, giving messages recommending a moderate consumption of unhealthy foods (soft drinks, alcohol, pastries, biscuits, sugary dairy products, refined cereals, sausages and highly processed products in general) is totally counterproductive. First of all because the meaning of "moderation" is not clear is it three times a week or once a month? A single insane product or several?
And secondly because the population already consumes, in excess, all these products, without needing to be reinforced as sanitarians. Who already consumes "with moderation" those foods, if he stops doing it thanks to our message, will improve his diet. And who makes excessive consumption, will not find in it an excuse to keep disguising moderation, risk that if we run with the sweetest message.
But are not we getting very radical?
When we fight against an industry that invests true fortunes in spreading its message, we can not afford that the few times that they let us speak, the idea goes out of the blue.
Every time we recommend "wine in moderation" we are missing the opportunity to recommend drinking water.
With each "cookie in moderation" that comes out of our mouth we stop recommending that the consumption of fruit be increased.
When the message is "the ham is healthy" we are squandering the opportunity to recommend healthier and more sustainable protein sources such as legume, to reinforce the consumption of processed meat, which is already high in itself, while we do not reach minimum levels of legume. .
With each accusation of "Taliban" towards colleagues who give a message with less "moderation" than ours, we are missing the opportunity to reinforce an irreproachable advice from the point of view of public health.
We are the only voice that faces a powerful giant, we are the David in this fight. We can not afford equivocal messages or the slightest truce to the already overflowing food problem that we have established.
