Struggling Over Healthy Lifestyles

In the second half of the twentieth century, advice on healthy living became pervasive in Western societies. While scholars have shown how the output of health educators echoed scientific consensus and ideas about ‘good citizenship’, the impact of their interactions with government and food industry representatives, and especially their complicated relationship with audiences, remains underexplored. This article centres the experiences of the staff of the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau – now known as the Centre for Nutrition (Voedingscentrum) – by examining health educators’ own observations about the efficacy of their work. Using sources such as internal guidelines, surveys, minutes of meetings, and annual reports, it demonstrates how the bureau struggled to position itself towards government ministries and commercial parties. Furthermore, it shows how unsuccessful attempts to reach the general population frustrated educators, and proposes that these struggles partially explain the transformation of the bureau’s lifestyle advice in the 1970s into a ‘healthist’ narrative about the responsibility of individuals. Hence, by analysing the complex interactions between health educators and other actors – in particular their audience – this article sheds light on the historical development of the genre of lifestyle advice.Actualiteitsparagraaf
‘Je moet het zelf maar (w)eten’? Hoe het Nederlandse Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding de strijd tegen ‘overgewicht’ verloorNet als in 2017 zal het toekomstige nieuwe regeerakkoord ongetwijfeld een passage over ‘overgewicht’ bevatten. Zeventig jaar geleden zag het Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding, de voorloper van het huidige Voedingscentrum, de bui al hangen. De steeds dikker wordende Nederlander, zo waarschuwde dit Bureau al in de jaren vijftig, bracht de volksgezondheid in gevaar. In een artikel in BMGN – Low Countries Historical Review 136 (1) laat Jon Verriet zien hoe het Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding met miljoenen folders en gelikte filmpjes het tij in dit vroege stadium probeerde te keren. Uit archiefstukken blijkt echter hoe de voorlichters van dit Bureau, zelfs met hun alom bekende Schijf van Vijf, de Nederlandse burger maar moeizaam wisten te bereiken, mede door het gebrek aan steun vanuit het kabinet en de tegenwerking van de oppermachtige voedselindustrie. Het artikel volgt de groeiende frustratie van het enigszins hautaine Bureau (‘Waarom doet men niet zoals men wordt voorgelicht?’), en laat zien hoe de voorlichters in de jaren zeventig de strijd in zekere mate opgaven. Vanaf dat moment werd een gezonde levensstijl steeds vaker gepresenteerd als de verantwoordelijkheid van de burger zelf – een visie op gezondheid en ‘overgewicht’ waarmee we ook anno 2021 maar al te zeer bekend zijn.


Introduction 1
In the second half of the twentieth century, advice on healthy living became pervasive in Western societies. Convinced that people's rising body weight and sedentary lifestyles were detrimental to their well-being, health educators disseminated guidelines on dietary choices and physical exercise. 2 In the Netherlands and in other countries, these instructions increasingly treated people as independent consumers whose individual lifestyle choices shaped public health. This way of thinking, termed 'healthism' by political economist Robert Crawford, moralised personal health as one of the duties of a 'responsible citizen'. 3 While this way of thinking was not new 4 , article -artikel in the mid-1970s the belief gained significant ground that people would be able to regulate their own health through disciplined and healthy lifestyle choices. 5 In critical nutrition studies and fat studies, scholars have identified the problematic effects of such narratives 6 , arguing that the advice given by health educators constituted a form of biopolitics. 7 According to these critical perspectives, a significant consequence of the pronounced 'healthist' discourse of the 1970s was the further stigmatisation of the body weight of individuals, which intersected with existing sexist, racist, and classist ideas. 8 However, this focus on the healthist implications of lifestyle advice limits our understanding of health educators as historical actors themselves.
Because scholars of critical nutrition studies and fat studies often present their instructions as the logical product of ideas about 'good citizenship' and scientific consensus, health educators are treated as a somewhat isolated group, with a significant amount of agency. While some research examines the interactions between health educators and representatives of government and the food industry 9 , it is particularly the complex relationship between these lifestyle educators and the general population -their principal target audience -that remains underexplored. Therefore, this article centres the experiences of health educators themselves to examine if and how their perceptions of (their relationship with) government officials, the food industry, and especially their target audience shaped their instructions. By investigating educators' own observations about the reception of their work, this article aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of the genre of lifestyle advice, and the developments that led to the start of its transformation in the 1970s.

verriet
To analyse lifestyle educators' changing perception of their target audience in the post-war era, I focus on the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau (Voorlichtingsbureau voor de Voeding, now known as the Centre for Nutrition, or Voedingscentrum). The archives of this bureau allow for an analysis of detailed material on the attitudes and reflections of nutrition educators, which is rare in both the Dutch and the international literature. 10 Founded in 1941 and nominally an independent foundation from 1956 onwards, the bureau was set up and principally funded by the Dutch government to encourage healthy eating habits among the general population. 11 In reality, its ambitions went far beyond diet, as it tried to improve public health by promoting broad lifestyle changes. There is good reason for focusing on the Netherlands, since the country played a pioneering role in the history of European nutrition education. Not only did several Dutch nutrition experts join the Mixed Committee on the Problem of Nutrition of the League of Nations (1935)(1936)(1937) and the fao/who Joint Expert Committee on Nutrition (1948 to date), but the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau itself also aspired to be a global leader in education methods and material. 12 From an international perspective, the bureau's high ambitions, broad scope and comparatively early start make it a compelling target for studying the changing attitude of lifestyle educators to their audience.
The source material used for this article can be divided into three categories. First, I examined minutes of board meetings and advisory board meetings, and internal guidelines and surveys. These allow for a look 'behind the scenes'. Both boards discussed, among other things, new methods in education and ways to maintain an (inter)national network. The second category of sources consists of communications from the bureau to external health professionals: its yearly reports, and a selection of articles published by bureau staff in Voeding (the Netherlands Journal of Nutrition, 1939Nutrition, -1998. 13

article -artikel
The former contain statistics on material that was published by the bureau, and reported on contacts made with Dutch health professionals, foreign experts and their audience. In addition to being published in Voeding, the yearly reports were sent to ministers, schools for home economics, and consumer and women's organisations. The third type of source comprises promotional material geared directly towards the general population: press releases, leaflets and two films. As this article focuses on the changing attitude of the bureau towards its target audience, the first two categories of sources are most pertinent to its narrative. This focus also means that sources pertaining the bureau's long-term goals were of more interest to this research than those aimed at passing pursuits of the bureau, such as brochures on growing beets or pamphlets about hygiene in industrial kitchens.
The article roughly spans the period of 1940 to 1980. This periodisation is crucial, as insight into the period of 1940-1970 helps to understand health educators' evolving perception of their target audience, and more specifically their changing approach in the 1970s. The first two sections explain the bureau staff's perception of the parameters within which they worked. The first section contextualises the foundation of the bureau and sketches its initial post-war ambitions. The second provides a short analysis of how the bureau conceived its evolving relationships with two actors, the Dutch government ministries and the food industry. Then, the article's last three sections examine the bureau's work within the perceived parameters, zooming in on its complex relationship with its target audience. They show how the bureau conceptualised and addressed the Dutch population, and how the reflexive approach and the constantly evolving methods of educators could not prevent their increasing frustrations in trying to reach and influence their audience. The article ends with the second half of the 1970s, when the disillusionment of bureau staff led, in part, to a lasting change in the way nutrition educators approached the population.

The foundation and the ambitions of the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau
In many European countries, the period between the two world wars was one of rising governmental concern about nutrition. 14 The growing number of malnourished individuals -a consequence of the Great Depression -showed an increasing need for a comprehensive approach to food policy. This, along with the discovery of vitamins, gave a clear impulse to nutrition education. 15 struggling over healthy lifestyles 9 verriet Paradoxically, the economic crisis restrained government funding. Therefore, European initiatives for governmental nutrition education remained few, even by the end of the 1930s. In countries such as the uk and the Netherlands, nutrition science and education were underfunded before the Second World War, and the Dutch government agencies concerned with nutrition, such as the Health Council, saw several budget cuts. 16  In a relatively short time, a small group of government officials had created an infrastructure for Dutch nutrition policies. These initiators  Figure 1. Cornelis den Hartog (1905-1993, the strong-willed director of the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau from its foundation in 1941until 1969 struggling over healthy lifestyles 11 verriet often took on roles as nutrition scientists and educators that blurred the lines between academia and the government. 22 One notable example is the prolific Matthieu J.L. Dols (1902Dols ( -1980, who was intricately involved in the foundation of the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau. After the Second World War, he would go on to become director of the Nutrition Council and chairman of the bureau's board. However, he also remained active in nutrition research as an endowed professor in Nutrition and Food Supply at the University of Amsterdam and as a board member of the journal Voeding. 23 Though few nutrition scientists or educators had careers as notable as that of Dols, many staff members of the bureau contributed to scientific discourse and served on committees. During the war, however, the bureau's main aim was to distribute information 'to every Dutch person' on how to compose healthy meals despite food rationing and scarcity. 24 Its fifteen educators -all women -worked with other agencies to provide leaflets, films, lectures and cookery lessons for housewives. 25 Director Cornelis den Hartog (1905Hartog ( -1993 (Figure 1) travelled the country, disseminating the bureau's messages about cooking economically and the importance of vitamins. This young physician would turn out to become a very influential figure in both nutrition science and nutrition education, not just as the bureau's director from 1941 to 1969, but also as a professor in Human Nutrition at the National Agricultural University of Wageningen (from 1954 to 1972). Known for his -at times stubborn -dedication, Den Hartog would go on to produce over two hundred publications. 26 After the Second World War, the continued existence of the bureau was far from certain. As most food rationing had been lifted by the end of the 1940s and the affluence of the Dutch population rose, malnutrition seemed a problem of the past. 27 In 1947, the Dutch government slashed the bureau's budget by no less than 40 per cent. 28 As the Netherlands became a society of consumers, a new justification for nutrition education was needed.
Consequently, the bureau's focus shifted towards prosperity-related issues: dental caries and, more importantly, 'overeating'. By 1949, an internal document as well as the annual report mentioned the disadvantages of eating struggling over healthy lifestyles 13 verriet to excess, and 1952 saw the bureau's first press release on body weight, titled A slim figure (De slanke lijn). 29 At the same time, per capita consumption of sugar and fats -seen as an important threat to public health -doubled in the Netherlands between 1947 and1957. 30 Accordingly, by the end of the 1950s, overeating had become the bureau's core issue. 31 The year 1958 saw the publication of From overweight to good weight (Van overgewicht naar goed gewicht, see Figure 2), an eight-page leaflet that generated 'great interest'. 32 It stressed the relationship between body weight and health, claiming that 'extra pounds place an extra burden on our heart', but ended on a positive note: Your self-control will be rewarded.
You will feel much, much better.
You will look much, much better.
Your friends and family will admire You for the result that You managed to achieve. 33 The Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau's change in orientation in the 1950s was part of an international re-evaluation of (Western) food habits.
A key moment came in 1951, when the fao/who Expert Committee on Nutrition zoomed in on the intake of carbohydrates and fats, and called overconsumption 'a problem of major significance'. 34 Though government warnings against 'disproportionate' sugar and fat consumption were not new in the United States, the first serious analyses of the effects of excessive eating took place in the 1950s. 35 All over Europe and in the us, scientists saw what Germans called a Fresswelle (feeding spree), and by the 1960s obesity had become the number one issue in nutrition journals. 36 In little more than ten years, the message of nutrition educators had reversed completely: from 'eat more' to 'eat less'. The fate of nutrition science had briefly been uncertain,

article -artikel
but was now 'rescued by obesity', as one prominent nutritionist later put it. 37 As overeating grew into what many considered an important societal problem, the relevance of nutrition education increasingly seemed indisputable.
In taking on the issue of overeating, the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau set itself a formidable task, although such great ambitions were typical for the organisation. In 1946, it had already expressed the desire to make 'every Dutch person "food-minded"'. 38 Even in these early days, the bureau refused to limit itself to diet, going as far as handing out tips on doing laundry. 39 From 1945 onwards, annual reports, board meetings and articles in Voeding all demonstrated the great sense of responsibility felt by bureau employees. The prevailing belief was that the bureau could and should play a significant role in correcting the lifestyle habits of the Dutch population.
The organisation grew in size to accommodate these expansive goals. Its government subsidy rose from 125,000 guilders in 1942 to around 900,000 in 1965, facilitating an increase in staff levels from 17 to 41 employees. 40 With its turn towards addressing overeating in the late 1940s, the bureau again showed its high ambitions. In its attempts to curtail weight gain and cardiovascular disease, the organisation did not restrict itself to nutrition education, but took on the much broader goal of lifestyle reform. Specifically, physical exercise was a constant concern. From 1947 onwards, publications focused on the diet of athletes and 'nutrition in sport'. 41 The 1958 leaflet on weight loss, From overweight to good weight, already made mention of sport as a sensible part of a weight loss regime. Physical exercise -burning calories -was becoming part of the conventional wisdom in the fight against overeating.
In the same year, in a meeting of the board, chairman Dols pointed out that a campaign on overeating should pay 'great attention to the absolute necessity of sport and games'. 42 A year later, the bureau's first film with a soundtrack, titled The family portrait (Het familieportret), showed an average Dutch family that had gained weight because of 'an excessive diet and too little physical exercise'. 43 struggling over healthy lifestyles 15 verriet the bureau's publications and lectures. 45 Monitoring one's physical fitness was no longer just for professional athletes. Diet and exercise were presented as the two factors of greatest importance to healthy living -a mantra that became commonplace in the 1960s. 46 The focus on exercise dovetailed with the bureau's shift towards children as a key audience. Several publications aimed directly at children played into the idea that one of their great desires was to be 'fit'. As one leaflet put it: 'you want to be not just big, but strong, one of the best at gymnastics'. 47 It should be clear then, that as early as the years immediately after the war, the bureau -despite its name -was working to effectuate not just dietary changes, but broad adjustments in individuals' way of living.

The bureau's relationship with the food industry and the ministries
Before expanding on the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau's relationship with its target audience, I want to establish the way its staff perceived and managed their relationship with the food industry and a changing group of officials at two ministries. In the eyes of educators, these two crucial parties significantly affected their room for manoeuvre in trying to alter the lifestyles of the Dutch population. Over time, the bureau revised its stance towards both as it discovered the possibility (or impossibility) of cooperation with industry and government officials.
The bureau's initial attitude towards the food industry was one of trust. Before its foundation in 1941, cooperation between for-profit and non-profit food advisors had been common. 48 Accordingly, when Voeding was founded in 1939, industry representatives obtained seats on its board.
The bureau took a similar approach: it felt that advertisers could and should be partners in bringing about sensible food habits for the Dutch public. 49 According to that logic, it made sense to grant companies the opportunity of sponsoring the 'Wheel of Five' ('de Schijf van Vijf', a diagram depicting the five 'food groups' that comprised the ideal diet). As part of the deal, their product would feature more prominently on the wheel. 50 In some areas, the bureau article -artikel had an even closer relationship with the food industry: its fish department was partly sponsored by the fishing industry.
By the beginning of the 1960s, the rapidly expanding food industry appeared to be getting a firmer hold on popular nutrition discourse in the Netherlands. Food advertisements were ubiquitous, with about a third of them containing a health claim. 51 However, most large companies went far beyond advertising, using sophisticated marketing methods in an attempt to forge an 'emotional' connection between consumers and their products. 52 One example is Unilever, which had invested heavily in the development and popularisation of new products, instituting a sixfold increase in their r&d budget over a period of just thirteen years. 53 It appears that the bureau observed these developments with growing apprehension, as it slowly came to see the interests of corporations as fundamentally different from its own. Unsure about the validity of commercial nutrition education, director Den Hartog openly expressed the concern that consumers were being 'bombarded' with health claims. 54 52 Hartmut Berghoff, Philip Scranton and Uwe 17 verriet same board was deliberating the need for 'counter measures' (tegenacties) to correct the messages from food manufacturers. 56 Though some members expressed doubts about the use of a more combative tone, a television spot taking aim at biscuits (koeken), marketed towards children, followed in 1968.
Firmly warning against these sugary products, the spot formed one of the bureau's first public, explicit counter messages. 57 A few years later, the annual report of 1972 echoed this change in approach. It castigated the industry, stating that many commercials contained 'highly questionable information' that at times could form a 'threat to public health'. At the same time, the report pointed out the shifting power dynamic, explaining that the bureau had only very limited opportunities to fight this giant. 58 Ministry officials were the intended audience for these subtle complaints about the bureau's modest means. Though it did not make a habit of openly criticising its funding, allusions to the bureau's disappointing financial opportunities had been an occasional part of annual reports, the topic of many board meetings and the subject of several letters to its two sponsors, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Public Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishery and Food Supply. 59 The bureau intended to signal to policymakers that its financial situation limited its opportunities: the frugal salary budget established by the ministries, it claimed, had a direct effect on the quality of nutrition education in the Netherlands.
Bureau staff may have been aware that a more general lack of interest in public health existed in the political sphere. 60 Overeating, the organisation's main concern from the 1950s onwards, was hardly ever mentioned in the chambers of parliament. 61 As late as the 1970s, even the more general topic of nutrition was rarely featured in the programmes of political parties. 62 This, in part, explains the fact that the archives of the article -artikel bureau contain little information concerning interactions with politicians or with the ministries -although some meetings, of course, were 'off the record'.
Criticising politicians or officials at the ministries for a lack of interest required a delicate touch on the part of the bureau. In 1956, the organisation had deliberately been classified as a foundation (stichting) to prevent the appearance of propaganda. 63 This meant that according to its statutes, the bureau could operate without any ministerial interference. At the same time, however, the foundation was almost entirely dependent on the ministries for its funding. As Den Hartog himself warned, this financial dependence meant the government could 'exert great influence on the bureau'. 64 In the end, the general lack of ministerial interest gave the bureau significant room to set its own agenda, but when the ministries did speak up, it was inclined to listen.
Hence, the strategies of the ministries as well as those of the food industry were seen as crucial by the bureau, which claimed that both parties limited its efficacy in reaching the target audience.

Conceptualising and approaching the target audience
Carefully positioning itself with respect to the ministries and to commercial parties, the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau set out to reach its target audience to the best of its ability. In the decades after the Second World War this complicated relationship hinged, in part, on the bureau's approach of its audience and had significant consequences for the ambitions of its staff.
Though this article focuses on the direct relationship between the bureau and its target audience, it should be noted that the organisation also tried to forge an indirect relationship with the Dutch population through what it called its cadre (kader) -intermediaries such as external health professionals, school teachers, the media and consumer organisations. The bureau's collaborations with this cadre, however, were marked by increasing frustration. Some organisations proved ideal partners in the quest for healthy living, such as the Consumers' Union, which consulted the bureau before publishing anything food-related 65 , and the Dutch Heart Foundation, which found a willing partner in the bureau for its promotion of dietary moderation and physical exercise. However, the annual reports, articles in Voeding, and the minutes of meetings suggest little success was achieved with two vital groups: health professionals and school teachers. Den Hartog wrote in 63 'Yearly dneb Report 1956', vmbv (1957  verriet frustration in 1964 that teachers were 'generally ignorant of even the simplest principles of nutrition'. 66 Doctors were hardly any better, according to an annual report, which called them 'completely unaware of the importance of food for health '. 67 Year in and year out, the bureau was unable to reach these professionals, either with its promotional material or through Voeding, which, despite various efforts, neither group read. 68 This might explain why the bureau, after shifting some of its focus to intermediaries around 1955, had opted for a re-intensification of direct communications with the general population by 1970. 69 Such direct interaction between the bureau and the public was more immediately gratifying. Frequent contact was also necessary to be able to adequately conceptualise audiences in order to optimise the organisation's messages. Even before the foundation of the bureau, educators had segmented their audience and differentiated their instructions. A 1940 guideline on nutrition education, for instance, contended that it was time to look beyond the housewife. 70 Other articles stressed the difference between the city and the countryside, noting that messages should be 'as individualised as possible '. 71 It should be noted that much of the bureau's material still addressed women.
Not only because of gendered language or the use of certain imagery, but also because meal preparation was a thoroughly gendered practice in the post-war Netherlands. 72 As a consequence, despite the bureau's intentions, it was predominantly middle-class housewives who tended to show up for its lectures and buy its leaflets.
Reaching all segments of society proved difficult for the bureau. Its strenuous attempts to communicate with what it termed the 'most vulnerable groups' are illustrative. 73 The bureau's own research indicated that income and education levels correlated with both knowledge of and adherence to the bureau's lifestyle advice. 74 When a 1954 leaflet aimed at factory workers was criticised during a board meeting, one staff member confessed that 'it had been difficult to get a sense of the interests of factory workers'. 75 Moreover, the bureau received feedback suggesting that its leaflets contained language article -artikel that was too complicated for some. 76 Suppressing personal proclivities in the production of new material appears to have been difficult for bureau staff. It is therefore no surprise that a small survey found the organisation's lifestyle advice was especially popular among its own personnel. 77 Some measures were taken to acknowledge and overcome this middle-class bias. One example is that the bureau made efforts to keep its publications and lectures affordable. 78 To facilitate communication with the 'socially lower classes' (sociaal lagere klassen) it had started early on to pre-test material using a council of housewives 'stemming from different groups of the population'. 79 It also relied on intermediaries for getting its message across in communities that were culturally or religiously dissimilar. 80 The complex relationship the bureau had with sections of its audience was nevertheless still apparent at times. Despite its efforts at accommodating people who were having trouble following the bureau's recommendations, Den Hartog also appeared to resent their lifestyle choices. In 'culturally backward areas', he wrote in Voeding in 1961, he found people 'tenaciously clinging to certain food habits'. In these cases, he believed, 'culture' was mostly an obstacle: Though at first sight nutrition may seem to be exclusively a matter of biology, the nutritional adviser soon learns that culture is of great importance in human nutrition. The adviser is continually confronted with the fact that, owing to the established values, standards, purposes and expectations of the group, the scientifically founded nutritional advice is disregarded. 81 Internal reports that remarked upon audiences' presumed preference for televisions, Solexes (light motorbikes) and inbreeding (inteelt) seem to confirm feelings of superiority among the educators. 82 Consequently, some audiences might have felt alienated from bureau employees, both because of class differences and the palpable condescension of educators. Hence, similar to communications with intermediaries, direct interaction with the public was a continuing challenge for the bureau throughout the period from 1941 to 1980.

The efficacy and the revision of methods
Despite the cultural differences between its staff and sections of its audience, the late 1940s and most of the 1950s formed a markedly optimistic era for the 76 'Yearly dneb Report 1955Report ', vmbv (1956   With the dominance of the food industry over representations of healthy living still far from absolute, the bureau's report of 1954 claimed that people were increasingly seeing the value of nutrition education, and that they were turning towards the bureau in growing numbers. 83 Lacking scientific indications of its actual impact, the bureau often took its considerable output as proof that it was changing lives (see Table 1). The growing number of people who knew about the Wheel of Five was taken as another manifestation of the bureau's influence, though the wheel's actual ability to affect lifestyles was not measured. 84 The fact that people's familiarity with the bureau's message was in no way a guarantee of a broad change in everyday habits was ignored: the yearly report from 1955 concluded that inadequate dietary practices were 'generally' the result of ignorance. 85 83 ' Yearly dneb Report 1954Report ', vmbv (1955 1968) and Voeding (1967,(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1978)(1979)(1980) and Bureau, first as head of education , then as head of general nutrition affairs and nutrition research (1965)(1966)(1967)(1968)(1969)(1970) Despite difficulties in measuring the bureau's impact, there had been early signs that called for some scepticism. The 1953 yearly report commented on discrepancies between the public's knowledge and their lifestyle choices: though 90 per cent of a lecture's audience knew that brown bread was 'the best bread' and while 'everyone' was aware that they were supposed to drink three-quarters of a litre of milk per day, the educator had found that actual practices deviated greatly from these standards. 97 Around the same time, one bewildered advisory board member asked a simple question, foreshadowing things to come: 'why don't people do as they're told?' 98 By the early 1960s, the rapidly increasing consumption of fats and sugar -the two things the bureau rallied against -seemed to indicate that the bureau's output was having little effect on actual lifestyle choices. In the 1960s, using small-scale surveys, social psychologists increasingly confirmed that nutrition education was having a disappointing impact. A 1965 article in Voeding by Mathilda Jansen was representative of the shifting mood. In this piece, titled 'Changes in behavioural patterns in the case of nutrition education, seen through the eyes of the social psychologist', she warned that she was curious about: [w]hether people genuinely think that the food habits of people can be changed just like that. As a psychologist, this seems far from self-evident to me. A person changes their behaviour sporadically, and even then, very slowly. 99 Surveys substantiated this conviction. A 1947 study from the us, cited in Voeding in 1957, found that the effect of nutrition lectures on audiences' food habits was discouraging. 100 It confirmed that the lack of impact was an international problem: in countries like the us and West Germany, most people were listening 'to a sermon of moderation while eating away to excess'. 101 In 1967, Dutch research produced similar results: housewives with greater knowledge of nutrition did not serve 'healthier' meals than their peers (see Figure 4). Efforts to critically examine the bureau's efficacy increased. By She raised the concern that certain educators still preferred the outdated leaflet format, and that some persisted in a 'just do as I say' attitude. 105 More structural issues lay at the core of the troubles with personnel. struggling over healthy lifestyles 29 verriet body was becoming both an individual moral goal and a duty towards others.
Educators, conceivably because they were overwhelmed by the magnitude of their task, found merit in this way of thinking.
By the mid-1970s, the bureau decidedly changed course. struggling over healthy lifestyles

verriet
There was another sign that the adherence to the logic of healthism might have been somewhat superficial. While their goal in the 1970s was the 'emancipation' of the general population, bureau employees also increasingly called for direct government interventions, such as prohibiting the use of particular ingredients, levying import duties on certain products, making clear food labelling mandatory, and incorporating nutrition education into schools' official curricula. 126 Hence, the bureau took an ambiguous position in the 1970s. Cognisant of the influence of powerful societal actors and of a public that was uncertain yet unresponsive, it was forced to re-evaluate its stance. The turn to the healthist narrative of 'emancipation' formed only a partial solution.

Concluding remarks
The post-war decades turned out to be an era of increasing frustration for the Dutch Nutrition Education Bureau. Not only did it find that its interests deviated more and more from those of the powerful food industry and the Dutch ministries, but it also strained to reach all audiences, struggling to get its message heard -and more importantly, implemented. Despite these difficulties, the bureau broadened its scope. Starting from the position that effectively changing people's lifestyles meant comprehensively changing people's lifestyles, it turned towards the issue of physical exercise and even to smoking, stress management and sleep. Eventually, to resolve the discrepancy between its expanding mission and its uncertain societal impact, it latched onto the healthist discourse of 'emancipation'. From the mid-1970s onwards, the bureau would inform the public, but individuals would keep full authority -and responsibility -over their own lifestyle decisions.