Saving People from Obesity

I had an idea to day about saving people from obesity and saving the public health system millions of dollars. .

If this discussion is all about stopping people from over eating and killing themselves and saving the massive cost on public health the solution is simple.

What we need is responsible service of food RSF just like we do with Alcohol. After all, many people die of illnesses related to being overweight just like alcohol related deaths according to some experts and the cost to public health is enormous. RSF is the answer.

It would be quite simple to make work.

In all outlets where “junk food” is sold there would be signs stating:

It is Illegal to serve or obtain food for overweight or obese people or serve people who may be at risk of obesity.

It is Illegal to serve or obtain food for children under six who may be at risk of gluttony.

It would be simple to enforce as well, in fact it would be easier than assessing drunk people.  At every fast food service area, built under the floor would be scales that would weigh people as they stand at the counter. This would be correlated against the persons height by a computer that measures you as you stand there. The computer would then lock the register if you were over the recommended government figure, making it impossible to sell food to that person. 

Through this system we could save food, save lives and save millions for the public health system. If it works for alcohol and is justified by telling the public we are saving lives and minimising health costs so why not food? And don’t tell me you can’t stipulate or put a figure on what constitutes overweight, it’s been done for alcohol on the same justification.

The Old Grey Gum.

            

He holds his secret tight in his grip and will never let it go.

It has belonged to him for centuries now and he guards his secret well

His fingers twist and hold it tight, its precious lustre dull

It will never see the light of day, it belongs to him alone.

The old grey gum has seen it all from drought to pouring rains.

He has protected his treasure through fire and snow cradled in his arms.

There are many who have looked and searched but can never see so deep.

The old grey gum holds it safe and sound in the cool clean earth beneath.

It came to him millennia ago washed along in flood.

And once he had it in his steely grip he would never give it up.

Through countess years through boom and bust many have come and gone.

But the old grey gum stands silent still his treasure safe in his arms.

Some have come with pick and shovel some have come with Axe.

But never can they look beneath the old grey gums vast grip.

He grips the earth with roots of iron and rock and earth combined.

To hold the gold that all would seek until the end of time.

Beer and sushi - Yum

I may not have always respected other peoples culture as much as I should have in the past but as one gets older and grows to appreciate the depth life has to offer you find that there is a lot of wonderful things out there in this big, wide, wonderful world.

I was traveling through Japan a few years ago; it was my first trip to Tokyo so everything was new and exciting. Tokyo, for those of you who have not been is one of the most vibrant cities I have ever seen. It is truly Asian but so simple and easy to get around with a lot of signage in English and people who are friendly and only too willing to give you advice or help if you look lost. As there is so much to see and do in Tokyo I set out with a friend from the hotel early. Our first stop was the Tokyo fish markets, one of the largest fish markets in the world. It was everything I had been told and more. A huge sprawling complex of open sheds filled with fish of every shape, size and kind. It is a buzz of activity with people, buying, selling or just haggling, it is a feast for the eyes, the ears and the nose. We move in and around the different stalls among fish mongers and buyers and eventually exit the sheds to the side of the markets. As we come out of the relative darkness of the sheds and into the light we walk into what looked to me like a 1940s movie set. The area was made up of old ramshackle wooden 2 story buildings with open fronted shops and small sushi bars is rows. All the little bars looked quite intimidating in a strange way packed with people who seemed to know what they were doing and while an avid sushi lover here in Australia ordering sushi in Tokyo can be a different prospect all together, as it was early and we had not had breakfast we decide to take the plunge.

We eventually decide on a sushi bar that looked “right” for us but on entering realise that the shop is barely 3 meters wide and full of people, divided down the center by a counter doubling as work area for the sushi chef on one side and customer seating on the other it was a tight fit, cramped and well…..”very intimate”. We manage to squeeze past customers with our backs against the wall and find 2 stools right at the back. After taking our seats we look for a menu and realise that there is no menu and had to order from the glass cases filled with a wide and strange selection of exotic sea food. We had no idea what to order so we decide to put off the actual fish ordering and order Miso soup, every sushi bar has Miso soup, right? The small middle aged waitress shuffled over and bowed politely and we say in our best Japanese “Miso thank you”. As she stood there just looking at us with a blank expression on her face we repeated our request assuming that she had not understood. At this point she turns to the sushi chef and says something and looks at us with a very puzzled look and we say again “Miso please” only this time we also use our best miming skills to indicate the drinking of soup from a bowl. At this she looks back at the sushi chef smiles and hurries off. After about 10 minutes we are beginning to wonder why it would take so long to get Miso soup and it is only then that we realise that no one is drinking Miso but they are drinking beer. Note for later reference: Beer with sushi in the morning!

Eventually our soup arrives and we show our appreciation by drinking it down greedily and smiling and nodding our heads approvingly but the fish will not wait. As we peer into the glass case I see things that I could not even describe let alone had I seen before. We eventually take a deep breath and begin to order. To this day I am not one hundred percent sure what we ordered or what we ate but I can tell you it was a memorable experience and while we did not speak Japanese and our hosts could not speak English we both knew one thing; beer and sushi in the morning – you have got to love a country that has beer for breakfast.

It's not about the science

I have found the whole discussion regarding the proposed super trawler fishing in Australian waters over the last few weeks very interesting. From the outset I would say allowing this trawler to fish in Australian waters sounds like a bad idea to me but I have not investigated the merits for or against it. 

What I have found interesting is the way this government has 2 standards when it comes to a

ccepting or rejecting scientific data. Prior to this week’s decision to ban the trawler for 2 years the government’s own department had approved the trawler based on scientific evaluation. Prompting Brian Jeffriess from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association to say after the announcement that “the move to block fishing in Australian waters goes against all the current scientific data”.

So let me get this right:

Government Scientists say that the trawler should be allowed to go ahead based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against the trawler. The Government cancels the project, not based on any scientific evidence but protest groups. The Government says that there needs to be more work done on the science indicating the Government scientists got it wrong.

The Government Scientists say global warming is real based on best scientific evidence. Mass protests erupt against a carbon tax. The Government goes ahead to introduce a carbon tax despite saying it would not introduce one saying the jury is in and there is not more research needed. This is despite contrary scientific evidence from around the world to say that there is no conclusive evidence that humans directly cause global warming. It looks like this government is happy to accept their own science when it best suits them.

The same government rejects the science from its own government scientists that says the trawler is not damaging to the environment saying they got it wrong and accepts local environmental groups claims (not science) that it is damaging and cancels its agreement. The government accepts the global warming science despite credible scientific evidence to the contrary and say their scientists have it right. Why did the government accept one report from its own scientists and reject the other? I wonder if the government could make as much money off the trawler as they will off a new tax if they would make the same decision?

Corporate Social Responsibility and Your Customers.

I have recently been confronted, in my position at work by the issue of what I call conscientious purchase marketing. While I have some knowledge of the issue involving CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) marketing principals I was confronted by the lack of reliable data surrounding this marketing concept. While this marketing approach is not new and the company I work for supports a number of charitable organisations it has recently been decided that our organisations USP (Unique Selling Proposition) is in fact our social mindedness/ responsibility.

To be honest at first I was bemused but as I have watched some in upper management embrace this new position I have become increasingly alarmed from a brand / marketing perspective. Our organisation, a manufacturing and consumer product based business has recently undergone work to become a 100 percent carbon offset company. While I support this move I have growing concerns that the management think that this position of social responsibility should become our USP and will think it will be a “silver bullet” to improve sales and our market position.

Recent market research undertaken by our organisation identified that our customers (with out prompting) highly valued our products and services and customer service. On issues such as our environmental position this ranked lower in terms of importance to our customers. We also tested the market to the fact that we were 100% Australian owned and this, while ranking lower than our products and services in importance ranked higher than our environmental position.

Feed back from non customers was equally lukewarm to the environmental / social issues. However non customers also did not value our products and services (obviously as they have not experience them). However what non customers did rate as high importance was price over quality and service, the Australian owned question followed by our environmental position rating lower down the list.

The position taken by management has been that anyone can say they have great customer service or great products and despite the importance of this in our customer’s opinion have decided that our USP should be our social and environmental responsibility / activities.

Taking a look through the available market research and public information there are numerous articles espousing the great benefits of this kind of marketing. However if you delve a little deeper it would seem that there is not all that much market research on the subject of CSR and the relationship between the consumer and purchasing decisions to warrant the level of faith in the practice. In fact there are very few who have looked at this issue with a critical eye in my opinion and time and time again in the few in-depth studies I found the same comment was made that” there was limited research available”.

When I started looking into business and their position on corporate responsibility and customer purchasing I began by looking at a few of the larger companies around the world like Microsoft. Knowing that as an organisation they have a strong CSR position I could not help but notice something. None of these companies general marketing material such as web sites talked about charities, CSR or causes that they are involved with. When you dig a little deeper you can find it but why is it not obvious? Thus my dilemma, our company has a strong product and we perform well against our competition. Market research identified we have a clear market position in our customers mind and our products and pricing are positioned in such away that we would be able to attract new customers based on those attributes.

Many of the research documents I have found talk about the value action gap. This is the gap between the customer concern of the issues and their willingness to pay for it. This brings into question the influence that a cause has over the purchasing of a product. Our own market research concluded that environmental issues (social issues) are a “nice to know and play a role when other benefits are aligned”. Or to put it another way; so long as we have our product and services, customer service and pricing right the social issues is a reassuring “nice to know”. Other research documents also talks about the role of education and CSR. Many conclude that with out education of the issues involved your support of a cause may make little difference to your customers. 

So why a USP based around this CSR approach? I get the good corporate citizen thing, don’t get me wrong and I can see that for some people it will have an influence on their purchasing decision and it should form part of our marketing message. But build your entire marketing on this as a foundation? I find it risky.

In a recent online marketing article titled Cause marketing has become ubiquitous and high risk. It was pointed out how there is a growing concern in marketing fields that the cause marketing approach was increasingly seen as “a ubiquitous “last ditch” tool to capture market share and drive sales when all else has failed”. And that they “run the risk of being targeted as opportunistic by socially-conscientious consumers”. I find this particularly concerning given the consumers obsession with social media and the ability to go on line and voice an opinion on any number of online consumer sites about a product or service right or wrong.

What I don’t get is why you would focus 80% of your budget on an audience that may only make up less than 5% of your customer base at the expense of other marketing messages / opportunities identified as strong in your own market research.

I personally get the feeling with these types of campaigns that they are more akin to guilt marketing where a company tries to make you feel a level of guilt by not purchasing its products and services. Purchasing should be about pleasure at some level not guilt. I am sure that when a person goes to McDonald's to buy a burger they buy it for the level of pleasure that the purchase brings them whether it is the price, convenience or (god forbid) taste and not because of the charity they support. In fact we probably buy products from companies that support charitable organisation without even knowing it. However knowing that they support a charity is a “nice to know” and not a purchase driver. McDonald's don’t make a secret of their charitable endeavours but nor do hey make it 80% of their advertising message. In fact I would be amazed if it made up 5% or of their over all advertising message.

To me the companies that seem to make the most of their CSR positions are those who don’t make a “song and dance” about it but rather just get on with it just gently reminding their customers that “it’s a nice to know” and giving their customers reassurance that they are doing the right thing. 

Sorrow without Forgiveness

I grew up in a typical Australian family in the 60s and at that time we still considered that we were a country built on traditional values and friends mattered. When I was a kid I was told that when your friends said sorry it was up to you to forgive them. I was also told that it was bad-mannered not to forgive someone who asked for forgiveness. You would never consider not forgiving a friend because mateship is part of our consciousness as a nation. It was through this process of apology and forgiveness that allowed you to make up with your friends and carry on the relationship no matter what they had done.

To day our world is different our values and our composition as a nation has changed but dose the basic formula of apology and forgiveness still work? Is mateship still the overriding definition of who we are as Australians? There was a time when you would forgive your mate for anything, but do we still have it in us today?

I believe sorrow and forgiveness are built into our very fiber as humans; we don’t like it when people are not happy with us. Most of us would normally seek forgiveness when we do the wrong thing and we would normally give forgiveness in return for an apology given, but for some sorrow is not always acknowledged and forgiveness is replaced by dissatisfaction and feelings of victomisation and resentment. It is at this point that relationships break down irreconcilably and nothing can save it, there is never reconciliation.

Reconciliation can be viewed as a process, a process made up of two parts; sorrow or apology and forgiveness or acceptance of the apology. What responsibility is there between the parties who take part in this process? This process can lead to restoration of the relationship or the breakdown and destruction of the relationship depending on the path chosen in the process. So where will the Australian government apology to Aboriginal Australians lead us? Following the apology some years ago there has been much discussion of compensation and restitution but there has been no discussion of forgiveness the important second ingredient in reconciliation. Can there be reconciliation without the acceptance of the apology and without a genuine forgiveness?

The long term impact of the Federal Parliament’s apology will be a measure of the spirit of the parties involved. For so long we have been told that the reconciliation process could not continue without an apology and that without an expression of sorrow we would not heal as a nation. If this is true then there is obviously an important role for sorrow in the process of reconciliation. If that statement is true then forgiveness must also play an equally important role. This places a burden on Aboriginal leadership, for with an expression of sorrow should there not be acceptance and an expression of forgiveness? Sorrow without forgiveness will never lead to reconciliation but could plunge us into irreconcilable breakdown.

If reconciliation between us was the true motivation for the Government’s apology and it is the true desire for Aboriginal Australia for reconciliation then there can only be one response because sorrow without forgiveness is only half the process. If this country still holds to the values of the past and mateship is alive and well there is reason for hope. Reconciliation is the responsibility of each party and it takes the elements of sorrow and forgiveness to bind the friends together again

Baiame Cave

A lot of people know the story of Genesis and the God spoken of in the bible but have you ever wondered where that story may have really come from? In the bible story God created the earth and everything in it and then he created man. God even gave Moses sacred stones to look after and told us that our names and deeds will be recorded for final judgment.  Last week I came across a place in the Hunter Valley in NSW which has a very similar story and it made me think.
Baiame Cave is a very sacred location for the Wanaruah people just outside Milbrodale. Situated just off the Milbrodale Road in the Hunter Valley the Aboriginal paintings at Baiame Cave have been carbon dated at around 3,000 years old.  The cave itself is little more than a rock over hang, half way up an escarpment among the sandstone hills of the area. There is nothing remarkable about the cave at first inspection but once you take the short walk up to the viewing platform it soon becomes clear that there is something quite special about this place.

As you enter the overhang and your eyes adjust to the shade you lift your eyes to the ceiling. Like a natural rock cathedral  in the midst of the bush there on the ceiling is a painting of Baiame with arms out stretched.  His long arms spread out across this place of worship to protect the Wanaruah people that came together in the valley below him . As I stood there under his protective gaze and I looked into Baiames’ face I noticed that he had no mouth. But who is he?

Baiame is the creator God of the Wanaruah people.  He came down from the sky to Earth and created all the beautiful things in life including the forests and rivers the kangaroo and Emu.  He also created the birds and Eaglehawk to protect the land. Lastly he created Man and women and laid down the rules of life, songs and tradition. Baiame also carved the Lore stones which are all over the land to record man’s conduct and are to be looked after by the Elders of the people.  If all the lore stones are broken then he will return and will reward and punished men according to their conduct. When Baiame was finished, he returned to the sky from where he came. So why does Baiame have no mouth? He has no mouth as Baiame speaks from his heart.

Dose the story sound familiar? Do you think it’s the same God mentioned in the Bible or is it just a coincidence that the Wanaruah people had this story 3000 years ago long before Australia was discovered by Europeans. Standing there looking up at his face made me sad to think that this story could be lost and it made me sad to think that the people who once held this story so sacred are long gone from the valley. But if the people are gone who is looking after the lore stones and how many more lore stones need to be broken before he returns?

Baiame Himself