Obesity and the food business — a hefty problem

Five years after the ranks of the obese overtook the number of malnourished in the world,numerous governments are acting to tackle a problem that is taking its toll on public health,healthcare budgets and workplace productivity alike.

That has sparked a debate over the role played by the food and drinks industry in setting the policy agenda. For its part,the industry argues that it is working in partnership on the issue and that self-regulation will prove more effective than measures,such as taxes and advertising restrictions,which it says will have costs that struggling households can ill-afford.

But can an industry that is seen as a big part of the problem also be part of the solution? The question was highlighted in New York last month at a UN summit on non-communicable diseases,many of which are caused by obesity.

“The reason we are particularly anxious they should not be there at the policy formulation stage is some of the policies one wants to discuss are controls on the market,” says Tim Lobstein of the International Association for the Study of Obesity,funded in part by the European Commission and the World Health Organisation.

Foodmakers retort that they too have an interest in prolonging life. “We want consumers coming back to us in the long term,enjoying products that are good for their health,or we will lose them,from a purely business point of view,” says Derek Yach of PepsiCo. Some governments appear to buy this line. On the Responsibility Deal Food Network,Britain’s task force on the issue,business interests have more representatives – six out 12 – than any other group.

A cross the Atlantic,the industry fended off the recent move towards tougher rules by marshalling numbers,rhetoric and a dose of ridicule to keep airing advertisements to children over the age of 11. “Does anyone seriously believe that ‘voluntarily’ removing corporate icons such as Tony the Tiger or making ‘Snap,Crackle and Pop’ Public Enemy Number 1 or removing pictures of well-known athletes from cereal boxes would materially reduce childhood obesity?” wrote Daniel Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers,a US marketing organisation,in congressional testimony.

There is,however,evidence to the contrary. After the UK government ordered curbs on advertising fatty,sugary and salty foods to children,children’s body mass index dropped,a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found. In the case of self-regulation,“the effects of the intervention were assumed to be half of those produced by formal regulatory measures,because of possibly looser limitations self-imposed on advertising and a less than universal compliance to the voluntary arrangements,” the Paris think-tank concluded.

For Rhona Applebaum,chief regulatory officer of Coca-Cola,taxes conjure up pictures of a Big Brother state. “It’s almost a rat in a cage model,where they are giving us the food and taking our choice away. We’re not going to control all human behaviour,nor should we strive to. If you give people the information,99 per cent of the time they’re going to make the right decision.”

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest,a US consumer advocacy group,Coca-Cola has spent nearly $25m on government lobbying in the past six years,and PepsiCo close to $19m. Both complain about being unfairly targeted as culprits of obesity,while acknowledging that their products should be used in moderation and not marketed aggressively towards children.

Lobbying is not the only weapon in companies’ arsenal. Producers are themselves removing fats,sugars and salt by the truckload. Nestlé recites the tens of thousands of tonnes of bad fats,salt and sugar it has cut from its output worldwide. Kraft has set a goal of reducing sodium by an average of 10 per cent across its North American portfolio by next year and has reformulated about one-quarter of its products in the US since 2005.

Even these moves raise cavils,however. For one,cautions the obesity association’s Lobstein,the small print does not always bear out the headlines. He cites PepsiCo’s pledge to reduce the average sugar level in its drinks. It can do this,he says,while keeping sugar amounts constant – just so long as it sells even more cans of low- or zero-calorie drinks. Second,voluntary pledges can be overturned on a whim.

In China,which has seen the biggest growth in diabetes in both percentage terms and absolute numbers,the debate shaping a public agenda on obesity is just beginning. India trails even further behind.

Beyond China and India are a long list of smaller countries that are no match for the might of business: 60 per cent of the world’s nations have an economic output lower than the annual turnover of the top five food and beverage companies,according to one academic’s calculations.

It is in these countries too that particularly questionable tactics for marketing to children are in evidence. Consumers International,a UK-based watchdog,points to Kentucky Fried Chicken’s Chicky Club in Malaysia,the biggest children’s membership organisation in the country,which offers discounts on unhealthy products directly to children. In the Philippines,Nestlé’s “fuel for school” television commercial alludes to increased academic performance from eating its high-sugar Koko Krunch cereal. Nestlé says the advertisement merely “communicates that eating breakfast is a good start to help children perform well at school”.

For the industry,this is all part of its well-meant efforts. But as the survival of Ronald McDonald and Tony the Kellogg tiger suggests,the common ground only goes so far – perhaps just so far as agreeing that no one wants to be fat.

Louise Lucas,Alan Rappeport & Andrew Jack© 2011 The Financial Times Limited