In every hierarchy, the most important decisions are the creative ones, which involve leaders initiating and fashioning events, guiding their followers into the future rather than being dragged along by external forces.

Whatever the specialism of EHPs, whether it be infectious disease control, food safety, environmental protection or housing, the basic tenets have not radically changed since Edwin Chadwick's 1842 report argued there was a desperate need for public health reform or when John Snow took the audacious step of confirming his theory regarding the spread of cholera in 1854, by removing the handle of the Broad Street pump.

Hence, I cannot help feeling more than a little disappointed with the long-awaited public health white paper and the missed opportunity for radical change. It has been suggested that the paper shows a commitment by the government for improving public health, yet I disagree.

The negative link between food advertising and children's diets has been known for almost 10 years and as I recall it was a government led nutrition taskforce that first raised general awareness of the issue. Similarly, the links between passive inhalation of tobacco smoke are long established and yet the health secretary will prevaricate until 2008 to introduce legislation to ban smoking in public and workplaces. So, I would argue that if there is a "commitment" tucked away somewhere within the pages of the white paper it is a faltering, timid pledge which shies away from the vital transformation needed in public health policy.

As human beings we are unique and have our own ideas and ways of seeing events. I was recently struck by an example in a book called Brain child which depicts how narrow our minds have become. It recounts the story of a multiple choice IQ test taken by a child who is shown four cubes, each containing a different image. The first image is of the sun; the second, the moon; the third, of the earth; the fourth a lemon. The child chooses the image of the earth but is marked down, as the obvious, "correct", answer is the lemon. When questioned it transpires that to the child the logical answer was the image of the earth because it was blue and all the other images were yellow. Although, the child did not select the obvious answer, the choice displayed an originality of thought by seeing the pictures in a way that the assessors had not.

There is little originality of thought in the white paper with its half-hearted measures such as the traffic light scheme alerting consumers to food that may not be so healthy. Somehow, I cannot imagine any food manufacturer happily parading a red traffic light, with all its connotations, on their bar of chocolate, burger or pizza. In any case, attaining a healthy diet should not be the chore that many consider it is.

I have long argued that a change revolution at local, national and international level to address the issue of food access is needed. In my book, Food deserts, I reasoned that every local authority should implement a food access strategy which focuses on the provision of readily available, healthy, affordable food. The unwieldy traffic light scheme merely states the "obvious" and offers little in the way of solutions to address the fundamental changes needed to improve the health of the population.