“IL FAUT manger pour vivre et non pas vivre pour manger.”

Moliere’s advice to 17th century France falls on deaf or uncomprehending ears in 21st   century Britain. “Eat to live, not live to eat?” Big Mac and double fries to go please.

The health select committee (HSC) report into obesity is bleak and un-compromising. Two-thirds of the British public are either obese or overweight. The number of obese people in Britain has increased by 400 per cent in the last 25 years and if this trend continues more people will die prematurely as a result of obesity than will so die from smoking.

But to combat obesity the government faces obstacles not unlike those it has had to surmount in obtaining some limited victories in the long battle against smoking.

Many solutions suggested by the HSC are similar to those currently used in at-tempts to cut smoking; given the reliance on these methods, the committee should perhaps have looked at how effective they have been in cutting down on smoking.

Examining the stages in the struggle for anti-smoking measures so far suggests that the government will indeed eventually have to legislate – at least in the areas of food labeling and advertising regulation. But there are some tricky issues to tackle first.

They’ll have to resolve the debate about causes. Obesity clearly results from a sustained imbalance between energy consumed and used. It is also seen as a mental state brought on by boredom and disappointment. But how should liability (and thus need for action) be allocated between the three deadly sins of gluttony (of  the individual), sloth (of government and couch potato) and avarice (of food producers)?

Government must grapple with powerful pressure groups such as the British Retail Consortium and the Food and Drink Federation. As with smoking, it will need to provide sustained resources and political priority for education and legislation.

For every pound that is spent in the UK on promoting healthy diets, almost £1,000 is spent by the food industry encouraging us to eat their products, especially fast foods.

Any health education campaign must be designed on the anti-smoking model, plainly spelling out the health risks of obesity and the nutritional decisions causing it. It must also underline the importance of physical activity in reducing weight levels.

Clarity of labeling and agreement about definitions is paramount, or the food industry will continue its misleading and dishonest use of weasel words to promote products that ought to be consumed with caution as if they were the food of the gods.

As the anti-smoking campaign has been bedevilled by mixed message from ministers (such as on work-place smoking), the early signs are sadly much the same with obesity.

For goodness sake get them all reading from the same menu. Don’t ministers in the health department talk to one another? Or are we going to hear soon on the Today programme from John Reid (say) that prohibition of fast food advertising aimed at children will not apply on council estates because they don’t get much fun otherwise?

Which brings us to an issue beloved especially by right-wingers who often castigate obesity campaigners as “nanny stateists” obsessed with bans, taxes and regulations.

Why should we apologise for some-times sounding like Mary Poppins (a first-rate nanny if ever there was one) in trying to encourage or promote sensible ideas and sound diets? A spoonful of sugar will often help (government) medicine go down.

So how far should any government be able to prescribe or advise what we eat? Shouldn’t we respect the individual’s absolute right to choose whatever they want? This is just how people like Forest still argue against any restrictions on smoking.

Unfortunately many of the current diet choices have resulted in a demonstrable decline in public health; a trend that will, if it continues unchecked, cost the taxpayer billions of pounds in costs to the NHS and lost working days to the economy.

The question is how far is the government prepared to go in combating obesity and regulating what we eat? How far is the public prepared to let it go? Will educating the public be enough or will more stringent measures be needed? If so what? And when?

Given the “nanny stateism” angst, many of the health select committee’s solutions are voluntary or aimed at a  local level, putting the emphasis on local schools and area health trusts in combination with national awareness campaigns.

The HSC says the food industry is to be worked with on a voluntary basis. The tobacco industry precedents are not encouraging. It has been a story not of co-operation and shared objectives, but insidious foot-dragging and unsubtle opposition, which has degenerated into a French farce. At least Moliere would have approved.