Page 74 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1

AEI Insights, Vol 4, Issue 1, 2018

In answering the question ‘Have you read anything provided by governmental agencies on
what you should eat?’, there were 84 Yes responses (52.4 per cent) from Sweden and 94 Yes
responses (47 per cent) from Malaysia.

The following question asked whether it was easy to understand the information. The majority
of both groups, who had read official information found it easy to understand, a total of 74 for
Sweden and 76 for Malaysia. To the question ‘Was the information you read from government
agencies useful for you?’ the respondents could add none, one or more than one specifications.

In terms of usefulness of information, the Malaysian Malays mentioned that the materials were
informative and easy to understand and Swedes listed responses such as ‘useful’ for
information about food contents, information in the debate and ‘useful’ for food and health
recommendations and clear information. Responses from the Swedes, who chose to
specify/motivate their responses are listed below:

Positive (yes-responses):
 Useful for facts about food contents, facts in the debate (14)
 Useful for food and health recommendations (6)
 Clear information (5)
 You can read them and do the opposite to be healthy (2)
 No specification given (2)

Negative (no-responses) were specified as being:
 Outdated (15)
 Wrong (13)
 Biased/Can not be trusted/Commercial (7)
 Would make me ill/more ill /Dangerous for certain diagnoses (7)
 Don’t know/ Yes and no / Maybe/ (6)
 Not written by experts (4)
 Too general (3)
 Difficult to understand/Boring/Unclear (3)
 Already know the information (2)

The Malaysian Malays listed the below responses:
 Informative (32),
 Easy to understand (14)
 Other (21) e.g.: Advice from my mother, Unsure, As a health guideline, From an accurate
source

However, among the Swedes who actually read information from government agencies, there
were many negative comments, as can be seen above. Two of those who found the information
useful even claim that they did so, because you can do the opposite (of what the agencies
advice) to be healthy. Outdated, wrong, not expert, too general, not trustworthy, dangerous,
and difficult are some of the negative judgments. On the other hand, the lower number of
respondents who found the information useful, appreciated that they could look up
recommendations for healthy food and especially the contents of different types of food and
also thought the information was clear. This looks like contradictory opinions and that is
probably precisely what it is. The responses can be directly linked to the ongoing Swedish
debate on what is healthy food, where many of our respondents seem to be adherents of the
LCHF (low carbohydrate high fat) type of diet, while the government agency web pages stick

74