It has been an interesting few years for public debate and advice on food- and diet-related matters. There has been a plethora of high profile and government-associated recommendations/legislation, much relating to the health of children and young people, including the publication and implementation of new school food regulations as part of the School Food Plan in 2014/2015 (see Gray 2014), the Public Health England (PHE) evidence package on sugar reduction (PHE 2015) and the re-launch of the government's modified eatwell plate, now called the Eatwell Guide (PHE 2016), as discussed in this edition of Nutrition Bulletin (Buttriss 2016a). The much heralded and delayed Childhood Obesity Strategy is also expected shortly. All this has gone on against a background of continuing debate concerning the pros and cons of reduction in ‘carbs’ versus ‘saturated fat’, and specifically the role of sugars, in helping to turn the ever-rising tide of obesity and associated disorders such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This debate has played out through the media, driven in part by articles in prominent medical journals (Malhotra 2013; Teicholz 2015), and has been further whipped up by the celebrities, bloggers and vloggers who freely contribute ideas that seem far more appealing to the public, especially to the so-called millennials, than the balanced, evidence-based advice of the nutrition profession. The ‘noise’ around sugar that has preceded the anticipated publication of the Childhood Obesity Strategy has served to place tremendous emphasis on the importance of this one ingredient in the fight against obesity, particularly in the context of child health in the UK. However, this single nutrient or ingredient focus can be problematic for a number of reasons, not least in failing to take account of the total macronutrient and micronutrient composition of the diet, and in obscuring the broader concept of the balanced diet. An example of what can go wrong when one nutrient is given excessive emphasis as part of public health campaigns is the way attitudes to fat developed during the 1980s and onwards in the US. Concerns about the rising toll of heart disease from the mid-1970s led to the publication of the first Dietary Goals for the United States, the so-called McGovern Report (US Senate Select Committee 1977) followed by the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) (USDHHS/USDA 1980); subsequently, the DGAs have been reviewed and updated every 5 years (Rowe 2014). These publications strongly emphasised restrictions in fat intake (including saturates and cholesterol) with a greater proportion of total energy derived from carbohydrates. Although these DGAs were supported by educational materials (Rowe 2014), any subtleties concerning dietary balance in these reports were rather lost and fat became public enemy number one in the US until the last decade, when the tide against fat began to turn, although now, arguably, it has swung too far in the other direction, with growing vilification of ‘refined’ carbohydrates (Lustig et al. 2012). It is wrong to over-simplistically imply that the so-called obesity epidemic can be attributed to the early and persistent anti-fat advice. However, it does appear that the advice had unintended consequences, in that over time, people ate less fat but more foods rich in added sugars and that this, together with the proliferation of fat-reduced products with a high content of free sugars and of poor nutritional value, may have contributed to the burden of metabolic dysfunction and obesity in the US (Mozaffarian & Ludwig 2015). The most recent DGAs, published at the end of 2015, focus for the first time on eating patterns and their nutritional characteristics, rather than on single foods and nutrients (USDHHS/USDA 2015). Total fat and cholesterol are no longer highlighted as ‘nutrients of concern’, and tellingly, there is a warning that ‘the consumption of low-fat or non-fat products with high amounts of refined grains and added sugars should be discouraged’. Returning to the current situation in the UK, such a narrow, single ingredient focus also risks throwing the proverbial ‘baby out with the bathwater’ – in this case, failing to embrace the very real issues of micronutrient insufficiencies that exist in the UK population – notably for folate, vitamin D, calcium, iron and iodine, and for which public awareness is surprisingly low (Miller et al. 2016). Whilst the focus on sugar as part of the government's obesity strategy in children and in particular measures to reduce sugar intake as a means of reducing overweight and obesity in young people are clearly of importance, the issue of micronutrient intake must not be overlooked. As Miller et al. (2016) observe, dietary needs are increased during adolescence, coinciding with a time when dietary quality is often poor because of developing autonomy in eating behaviour. National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) data suggest that this period is associated with an increased risk of inadequate intakes of several micronutrients, including potassium, magnesium, iodine, selenium, zinc, vitamin A and folate, as well as iron and calcium amongst some teenage girls (Miller et al. 2016). People consume foods as part of wider dietary patterns and an unbalanced emphasis on one nutrient can distort the significance of that one nutrient or group of foods in disease causation and prevention, at the expense of providing information on the total macronutrient, micronutrient and fibre content of the diet (Buttriss 2016b). Green (2015) sought to answer the question of whether foods or nutrients should be the focus of guidelines for healthy eating and concluded that both can play a part, provided that both are founded on a strong evidence base and are well-communicated. In the case of sugar, although the scientific evidence base is strong (SACN 2015), the communication of the messages has been distorted and it could be argued that dietary balance has been sacrificed (Buttriss 2016b). There is no doubt that excessive consumption of sugars is to be discouraged and that current levels of sugar consumption amongst children and young people in the UK are unacceptable, but the advice offered to people must include information on vegetables, pulses, fruit and grains, as well as on milk and dairy foods, meat and fish, so as to ensure that needs for fibre and micronutrients are met. The constant barrage of anti-sugar activities has really obscured the idea of the ‘balanced diet’ that is implicit in the Eatwell Guide and, as Buttriss (2016b) points out, this lack of a holistic approach in nutrition is definitely a cause for concern. It would be argued that people, who follow a balanced and varied way of eating, as laid out in the Eatwell Guide, should be most likely to be able to consume adequate amounts of nutrients associated with optimal health. However, a study carried out in 2012, using data from the NDNS Rolling Programme, demonstrated that extremely few people were meeting the nutrition guidelines implicit in the then eatwell plate (Harland et al. 2012). The revision of the eatwell plate was necessary to take account of the SACN recommendations on both free sugars and fibre (SACN 2015). It is hoped that the publication of the revised model, the Eatwell Guide, which should form the basis of nutrition education programmes in the UK, will help to renew the focus on balanced eating and help redress the imbalance caused by the excessive emphasis on sugars in recent times. However, there will be much work to be done to ensure that the messages that it carries are reaching the right audiences. Perhaps a good starting point and a strong basis for reinforcing the Eatwell Guide messages is to pay more attention to dietary patterns that are associated with better health – the approach recently adopted by the US 2015 DGAs. The Mediterranean-style diet, characterised as being rich in vegetables, fruit, nuts, beans, cereal grains, olive oil and fish and containing moderate amounts of dairy foods and relatively small amounts of meat (NHS Choices 2015), has received much attention and is usually put forward as a prime exemplar of a healthful diet associated with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. It can be combined and incorporated easily into the Eatwell Guide messaging but although there is good evidence that adherence to the Mediterranean dietary pattern is associated with improved health status (Sofi et al. 2008), adherence, even in Mediterranean countries where it represents the traditional way of eating, is diminishing (da Silva et al. 2009). It may also be relevant to look more closely at the healthy Nordic diet, which to date is less well known in the UK (Olsen et al. 2011). Whilst the modern Nordic diet has been subject to the same influences that have pervaded most Western dietary cultures in recent decades (low intakes of vegetables and fruit; high intakes of sugar, meat and full-fat dairy products), the traditional Nordic diet is characterised by a prevalence of cruciferous vegetables such as cabbages, root vegetables, apples, rye and oat products, fish and berries – as determined by the climatic and geographic conditions in Nordic countries – foods associated with health benefits (Olsen et al. 2011). These authors developed a ‘healthy food index’ based on the first six foods, which was used to examine all-cause mortality in a large cohort of middle-aged Danish men and women (50–64 years), followed over 12 years. They demonstrated a significantly lower mortality amongst individuals who scored highly for these six foods, particularly those consuming high levels of wholegrain rye products. Most recently, this dietary pattern has also been shown to be associated with lower risks of disability and better physical performance amongst older adults in Finland (Perälä et al. 2016). However, any encouragement to incorporate the beneficial aspects of both Mediterranean- or Nordic-style traditional diets is likely to require practical, balanced recipe information to support it. Whilst people enjoy watching the multitude of cookery programmes that the media of television serves up, it appears that as a nation we cook less than ever before. Recent data indicate that home cooking is not really a popular activity in Great Britain, with 54% of the sample surveyed stating that a lot of ready-to-eat items are consumed in their household (Statista 2016). Both web-based and conventional media are abound with recipe information, but to some extent, this field has been hijacked by those who believe gluten may be at the root of all modern ills (O'Connor 2012) and that ‘new’ ingredients such as coconut products are the only way forward (Lockyer & Stanner 2016). In this context, the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) plays an important role in helping to promote cooking in schools as part of a number of different schemes. These include the Food Teacher Professional Portfolio, a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programme for secondary school food teachers, based on the new food teaching guidelines developed by PHE and BNF; Food – a fact of life, BNF's free education programme, which provides up-to-date, curriculum compliant materials for schools throughout the UK and contains modules on cooking skills; and the BNF Healthy Eating Week, which includes cooking amongst other activities, and in 2015, reached over 7000 schools. BNF, in conjunction with PHE, Food Standards Agency (FSA) Northern Ireland, FSA Scotland and the Welsh Government, also updated the government's Core competences for children and young people aged 5–16 years, which includes a progression framework for cooking skills together with other food- and diet-related knowledge, such as healthy eating and food safety, and also includes the theme of active lifestyles (Ballam 2014). All these activities should help to support future generations of children to have better access to cooking skills and balanced healthy eating messages to help them make informed food choices through life. The apparently simple concepts of ‘variety’, ‘moderation’ and ‘balance’ in eating, which have been the cornerstones of public health nutrition education for the past three to four decades and which underpin the new Eatwell Guide, are surprisingly difficult to communicate successfully. The ‘balanced diet’ is possibly seen as too simple, boring or obvious, whereas the single nutrient focus appears more attractive and is much easier to grasp. However, as demonstrated here, the single nutrient focus can also have unforeseen and risky consequences and does not help people to achieve the desired endpoint of a balanced intake. Dietary patterns that feature groups of foodstuffs associated with better health, such as the traditional Mediterranean and Nordic patterns, offer useful information but must be supported by practical simple and affordable recipe and cooking advice. In this context, the introduction of compulsory cooking and nutrition for children and young people aged 5–14 years as part of the National Curriculum for England, bringing them in line with existing compulsory food education in the three other countries of the UK, is certainly a move in the right direction (see Ballam 2014). Finally though, as Ballam (2014) also observes, to address the problems of overweight and obesity in children (and adults), we must not overlook the fact that the balanced diet is only one aspect of healthier lifestyles, with physical activity being the other important counterpart.