Making a difference and Merry Christmas

A few weeks ago I raised the issue of a BHF report condemning the fact leisure centres offered unhealthy food options. I remember thinking at the time that this was a thorny issue and that perhaps we might be guilty of this, to a lesser or greater extent.

However, having obtained some fantastic feedback from over 20 individual leisure centres and a number of the Contract management groups (a big thank you to every one of you, because your feed back was invaluable), I realise that we have no reason to be apologetic.

We met with the BHF earlier this week and told them that

• 100% of respondents told us that they offer healthy food options

• 25% do not offer chips or chocolates and only retail healthy drinks

• 65% offer low sugar/low fat foods, as well as non-fat fried crisps

What was interesting was the fact that Consumer choose to buy:

• 25-40% more Coke than health drinks

• 66-100% more chocolate bars than health bars

These were the facts. But more importantly was the issue of effecting behavioural change. A very strong theme in all the responses was the fact that we cannot force consumers to eat healthily. We must allow them to choose to do so by underpinning choice options with engaging and informative education. As one respondent said, “Removing choice drives them round the corner to satisfy their needs – after all, prohibition didn’t stop Americans drinking alcohol in the 30s.”

The arguments were compelling and BHF could not fault the logic. To give you a feel for the responses:

o “Whilst we can influence people’s purchasing choices, we do need to meet our customer’s needs.”

o “.......we mustn’t patronise them or force their choice.”

o “We cannot force our customers to buy something they personally do not find appealing”

o “....foods like chips, pizzas and burgers sell more. If these were taken off the menu then the cafe would close.”

o “There is no question that cutting income received through vending machines would directly affect the service we would be able to offer. During lean economic times perceived luxuries, such as leisure centre membership, are often the first costs to be looked at by families and therefore maximising income in the current climate is of paramount importance.”

The good news is that the BHF has agreed to work closer with us moving forward – at FIA CMO/BHF Associate Medical Director level: giving us sight of future reports before they are publicized: offering to help us develop guidelines for POI/POS.

Addressing adverse commentary is half the battle: preventing negative commentary is the other half so with the New Year around the corner and in anticipation of the media backlash as per my last blog entry, get those case studies over as quick as possible. The BHF response shows that when we unite together we will be listened to.

Finally this is it from me until January so wishing you all a Merry Christmas. Tonight is the Promote PR Christmas party I suspect the BHF would not rejoice at the much anticipated excesses we will all enjoy but hey Ho it Christmas, time for the “Calorie in” brigade to rejoice!

David Stalker

Executive Director at the FIA

Healthy choice the food debate rumbles on

The responses to my last blog about the BHF conclusion that leisure centres they surveyed offer “... a barrage of unhealthy products through vending machines and junk food meal deals...” have been flowing in thick and fast. The overall mood is that in an ideal world they would be right, but we live in a world of real people, who want to and like to make their own choices.

To gain a better understanding of the issue we are conducting our own survey of leisure centres and, despite trying to be impartial, our findings add a lot more ‘colour’ and realism to the issue. For example, visitors are offered both ‘healthy foods’ and, what the BHF would deem “unhealthy foods”. As we start to unpick this conundrum we realise that a simple “unhealthy = bad= out” is an unrealistic equation and not one that can be used by organisations that are involved in the commercial delivery of exercise/activity.


It is as unrealistic and untenable as suggesting that GPs should cease prescribing medication to anyone who does not achieve their 5 x 30 minutes of vigorous exercise a week. So let’s not get lost in the ether of hypothetical debate.


Our research has shown that:


• Facilities have to sell “..quick food which is affordable...”
• Menu choice is key, which is why food, snacks and drinks from both ends of the spectrum are offered
• Healthy living and”..holistic positive life choices..” are promoted
• Low fat/healthy snacks and low-sugar drinks, as well as fruit juices and smoothes are offered extensively, as are fresh fruit and vegetables
• Baking v deep fat frying is extensively used
• Some places don’t sell “fizzy drinks” or crisps at all


But perhaps the most compelling feedback was from a Manager who said “... the vending machines support the cafe operation which does offer healthy products – which do not sell. The so called ‘unhealthy’ foods, like chips, pizzas and burgers sell much more (than ‘healthy’ foods). If these were taken off the menu then the cafe would close.”

That is the issue. We must give our visitors a choice, but we cannot force them to make the ‘right choice’.


As someone commented, “It’s naive to hold the ‘healthy school meal’ example as one we should follow because the reality is those most at risk simply stopped eating school meals and instead, went round the corner to the fish and chip shop.

“We must not patronise or force this choice.”


Another interesting decision is that in one location, fizzy drinks outsold energy drinks by up to 50% a day and chocolate bars outsold healthy bars by 150% a day.

Is it wrong to offer a choice and let consumers make their own decision? Or should we make that decision for them and introduce our own era of prohibition?


On December 8th I will meet the BHF and need to present a balanced industry view ....... so what would you like me to tell them?

David Stalker, COO at the FIA