The Personal Responsibility Trap

WHEN IT COMES to protecting children in schools, the debate should not be about whether children and parents need to make better choices. It should be about whether governments are willing to fulfil their obligation to create environments that support those choices in the first place.

The Caribbean is facing a crisis of childhood overweight and obesity. Recent data shows that nearly half (42%) of Barbadian children are living with overweight or obesity, up from 33% just a decade ago. These children face an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), which we are already beginning to see; imposing an enormous burden on families, communities, the healthcare system and the economy.

A recent public discussion in Barbados, spurred by the launch of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Barbados’ ENOUGH campaign calling for the regulation of marketing of unhealthy foods in schools, repeatedly returned to the importance of personal responsibility. Parents undoubtedly play a critical role in shaping children’s habits, including encouraging them to make healthier food and beverage choices, but with no support through a notable change in the environment, how do we expect them to navigate the predatory nature of the pervasive marketing seen at every corner of the school environment? Children have also been encouraged to become advocates for healthier lifestyles.

Families matter. Education matters. Personal choices matter.

However, when nearly half of a nation’s children are affected by the same problem, we must ask whether we are confronting a failure of individual responsibility or a failure of the environment surrounding them.When 42% of children are living with overweight or obesity, we are no longer looking at a failure of individual responsibility. We are looking at systems, environments and policies producing predictable outcomes. This distinction matters because the current debate is centred on whether harmful food and beverage marketing should be permitted in school environments. Would we allow tobacco companies to sponsor school events, distribute branded materials to students while building brand loyalty among children and then tell children to exercise greater self-control? Would we permit alcohol companies to market products in schools and then place responsibility on children to resist?

We recognize that schools should be protected spaces where children’s wellbeing takes precedence over commercial interests.

Yet when it comes to foods and beverages linked to obesity and diet-related NCDs, the conversation often shifts back to what children and parents should do differently. We are told that children are exposed to highly sophisticated marketing.We are told that they do not possess the same capacity as adults to critically evaluate these messages.We are told they deserve special protection. Therefore, if children cannot critically evaluate sophisticated marketing, then we cannot reasonably expect them to consistently resist this marketing.

Barbados had spent more than $6.1 billion on healthcare over the last 15 years; yet taxpayers, families and the public healthcare system, continue to bear these costs while industries whose products and marketing practices contribute to the problem retain the profits. The evidence is clear. Ultra-processed foods including sweetened

beverages are aggressively marketed to children including in the school environment. Brand loyalty of unhealthy foods and drinks is cultivated from an early age through sponsorships, promotions, giveaways and other techniques specifically designed to influence behaviour in and around schools.

Unfortunately, when debates about public health regulation arise, governments often find themselves repeating a narrative long favoured by commercial actors: that a key issue is personal responsibility. This shifts responsibility, reassuring industry that its practices need not be scrutinized too closely while reducing pressure on governments to regulate.

History shows us where this leads to.

For decades, tobacco companies argued that smoking was simply a matter of personal choice.

Alcohol producers continue to emphasize responsible drinking while resisting measures that restrict marketing and availability. The language changes. The strategy does not.When the conversation focuses primarily on personal responsibility, responsibility is placed on those with the least power to shape the environment while accountability is removed from those with the greatest power to shape it.

Public health progress has never been achieved through personal responsibility alone. Seatbelt laws did not save lives because drivers suddenly became more responsible. Tobacco control successes did not occur because smokers received better advice. Progress occurred because governments accepted their responsibility to create environments that made healthier and safer choices easier.

The same principle must apply to childhood obesity. If we are serious about reducing the burden of NCDs, we must stop asking those with the least power to solve a problem created by those with the greatest power. The focus cannot remain on parents and children while the industries that profit from unhealthy diets escape meaningful scrutiny and accountability. Parents and children cannot decide what products are marketed to them in schools.

They cannot determine public policy. They cannot negotiate with corporations seeking to cultivate lifelong consumers.

By: Maisha Hutton, Executive Director of the Healthy Caribbean Coalition (HCC).The HCC was informally established in 2008, arising out of the 2007 Declaration of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on non-communicable diseases (NCDs, and officially registered as a non-profit in 2012.