Inactivity Model vs Shared Accountability Model Feb 2011

[Paul Murphy]

• essage

Inactivity Model vs Shared Accountability Model

            Currently, many agencies and health plans are trying to address the childhood obesity crisis. Some are heavily funded by special interest groups, and are restricted to the simplest of messages and mandates. Others are unorganized and have no formal funding partnerships and can be considered to be free lance, or can be considered all over the place. In looking at the two varying plans, one can identify both similarities and differences between them then first plan relates to blame and inactivity, while the second is based on the food environment and acceptance. One must examine who, or what industry is supporting the inactivity model, and we then need to understand why this is so heavily funded. One must also examine why other programs such as the Shared Accountability Model continues to barely exist, and is unable to attract any media attention.

            Both plans have their similarities and must be commended for trying to impact this complex issue. The issue of obesity is the basis of this connection and many are trying to offer support and encouragement.  Plans are trying a variety of ways to reach out to children that are at risk for developing obesity. Obese children run the risk of developing chronic illnesses, and both plans are trying in earnest to change the course from our current staggering numbers and statistics related to obesity. They share an overall sense of urgency, and have been actively seeking feedback from stakeholders to try and create a meaningful intervention. All agree there is an impending health crisis and  plans are actively seeking meaningful solutions. There are a myriad of health issues related to obesity, and they can include heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. Both plans have strong proponents and can be entrenched in their thinking. The inactivity model has embedded itself into the school system and the shared accountability model continues to seek out such a well organized setting.

 

            The inactivity crisis is sponsored by the food industry, media and the weight loss industry. Our billion dollar diet industry has its bread and butter built on blame. They continue to feast at the weight loss, try harder, lifestyle trough. They all have a vested interest in keeping to the status quo. Blaming Parents, Moms and Dads for the childhood obesity issue draws a major difference between the two plans. Shared accountability is focused on the food environment, and harm reduction and it is created to promote wellness. The plan introduces food as a substance, and it is strongly related to finding balance between physical activity and our food environment. It is strongly linked to the notion of acceptance this allows the food industry to avoid any level of accountability, and continue to sell junky foods and sell weight loss products. Shared accountability encourages the individual to be present and accountable for the food choices one makes. But it moves past the blaming model, while the inactivity model remains entrenched into blame.

            The Shared Accountability Model is based on acceptance and works to improve food environments. It works to offer support and lowers the amount of blame and fat hatred that continues to be plastered on our media outlets. When we offer support for individuals and communities we lesson the likelihood of children obtaining low self-esteem and reduce the amount of unhealthy food relationships. Children are at risk for developing eating disorders, when obesity is related to blame .This plan encourages you to eat, enjoy your food and be mindful of your body as you slowly taste and savour your food intake. It does not focus on weight loss, but it does. When one feels better, one eats better and the obesity will take care of itself.  The current media attention to childhood obesity is unprecedented, but one must wonder how such attention could inadvertently create unhealthy food relationships, and cause eating disorders. After all, obesity is a by product, and acceptance could go a long way, when children are encouraged to take care and protect their health. Obese children are not the enemy.

            In closing, hopefully one will have examined both initiatives and we have offered some light on the subject of childhood obesity. How can the media report on the childhood obesity, when they are collecting revenue dollars for advertising countless weight loss and junk food products? On the other hand how can an individual try to get past the iron curtain of funded programs that are solely based on physical activity? Hopefully, one day the Inactivity Crisis Plan and the Shared Accountability Model will be put to the test. At some point both plans could assist and support one another and individuals, who are trying to address childhood obesity. The first step could be related to acceptance, and the second could be a full on exploration of our food environment. Perhaps one can work toward an open-ended discussion on childhood obesity, and both plans can be integrated so as to inspire a community driven action plan.

www.obesitythunderbay.ning.com  

 

           

Please see and share.

[Paul Murphy]

Does the food industry have a conflict of interest?