Consumers

Public, consumer and government interest in healthy living is big and growing exponentially. But where does responsibility lie to address the issue: with consumers to moderate their consumption? With governments to regulate? With producers to reformulate their products? And in what combination?

Focusing on the companies, some are clearly getting ahead of the curve, though too many are still being reactive and defensive, sheltering behind the mantra of "better labelling and more product information, so consumers can make informed choices".

There is also a tendency for companies to rely on the collective 'second tier' messages from trade associations and business federations. More boldness is needed on the communication front, if the big brand name companies are to get back on to the front foot. The government's salt reduction campaign sets a benchmark: Sid the Slug is nothing if not bold. The approach must be - don't dissemble, still less mislead; the spotlight is well and truly on you, and you risk being found out and pilloried.

However, if they are really to make an impact, companies need to think beyond packaging and marketing. Consider the Prudential's new healthy living-friendly insurance scheme, where you get lower premiums and rebates if you take action to improve your own health prospects (and ultimately the Pru's health care costs). This is a genuine and bold product innovation, one that should give them a business edge while emphasising their CSR credentials and credibility. Creative innovations like this could have a more profound and positive impact on the nation's health than the grudging withdrawal of king-size confectionery.