Giving away free pedometers, switching to healthier cooking oil, cutting the salt content of products… These are just some of the ways the food industry has been demonstrating its willingness to tackle the obesity crisis. But is the industry to blame for expanding waistlines, or does responsibility lie elsewhere? Kate Barker reports on the latest moves by the food industry to tackle the problem.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The obesity crisis is threatening to spiral out of control. In 2002, the World Health Organisation said that globally, overweight was more of a health problem than underweight. Last week, European Union Health Commissioner David Byrne warned that increased healthcare spending due to obesity-related diseases could spell disaster for Europe’s economy. In 2001 obesity was estimated to have had a £2bn (US$3.6bn) impact on the UK’s economy, including costs to the National Health Service and lost working days.
As obesity rates continue to rise, the food industry has increasingly been targeted by those looking for a cause of or solution to the problem, which was the main focus of a recent RSSL Food Industry Training seminar entitled “Obesity: A Food Industry Problem?” Blamed for big portions, high salt content and energy dense foods, food manufacturers have argued that it is today’s sedentary lifestyles that are particularly to blame for the prevalence of obesity, rather than their products. So does it all come down to personal responsibility? Or should food manufacturers take some of the blame? And can they be part of the solution?
Although much of the attention in the obesity debate has been focused on food, lack of exercise is, of course, a major factor. One of the main reasons waistlines are expanding in the western world is that people today need far fewer calories than people did 30 years ago. Improvements in technology, such as remote controls, and improvements in private and public transport, mean that people are exercising less as part of their daily routine and therefore burning fewer calories.
Strategic inefficiency
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataIn an effort to help solve the problem, some companies in the US are taking drastic action to improve the health of their workers. Strategic inefficiency, as it has come to be known, involves initiatives such as having car parks a short way from work, so that employees have to walk five or ten minutes from the car to the office. Photocopiers and water coolers are moved three floors up so that employees have to walk to get there. Lifts are slow and small, while stairs are light and airy, encouraging people to take the healthier route to and from the office. Strategic inefficiency takes personal responsibility out of the equation, by forcing people to burn more calories during their working day. Healthier employees, after all, mean fewer costly sick days.
The UK’s food industry, which is always keen to emphasise the importance of exercise in the fight against obesity, has decided to do its part by encouraging healthy lifestyles amongst its employees. The Food and Drink Federation, which represents UK food and drink manufacturers, says its members are committed to “establishing and promoting healthy workplace schemes on diet and lifestyle in premises belonging to companies in the food chain and within their communities”. Examples include the “Fit for Life” lifestyle education and activity programme run by UK confectioner Cadbury Trebor Bassett for its employees; a “healthy living” week put on this summer at Kraft Foods’ UK office to promote healthy eating and regular exercise; and Nestlé UK’s MindBodySoul initiative, which includes fitness events, encouragement of lunchtime activities and healthy eating initiatives in staff restaurants.
One of the most dedicated companies in this respect appears to be Unilever UK, which runs an employee initiative called Vitality in the workplace, aimed at, among other things, encouraging staff to be physically active, reducing absenteeism and increasing staff productivity. The Vitality initiative includes the provision of exercise classes and subsidised gym membership, flexible working practices, Weight Watchers food options in the staff canteen, and one-to-one measurement of blood pressure, weight and cholesterol. Many non-food companies have these types of initiatives already in place, but for food manufacturers, particularly makers of unhealthy foods, it is especially important. It shows the company takes health seriously; after all, having healthy-looking employees can only benefit the company’s reputation.
Investing in public education
Outside of the company, many UK food manufacturers also take part in public education schemes. In its recent Food and Health Manifesto, the FDF said its members are committed to “participating, together with the rest of the food chain and advertising industries, in a government-led campaign of public education on healthy eating and healthy lifestyles”. The campaign includes actions such as delivering health messages on product packaging.
In addition to this, the FDF has an established a “foodfitness” campaign aimed at promoting enjoyable healthy eating with increased moderate physical activity. The campaign’s five key messages are: aim for five fruit and veg a day; base meals on starchy foods; check out more lower fat choices; be active in your daily life; and take pleasure in active leisure. Last year the campaign launched an interactive CD ROM and teachers’ pack to all 25,000 primary schools in the UK. The CD ROM was designed to be incorporated into a school’s Personal, Social and Health Education programme.
Cadbury Trebor Bassett, which has been criticised in the past for its Get Active marketing scheme in which chocolate bar wrappers could be collected and exchanged for sports equipment, has several education initiatives underway, including the distribution of free unbranded activity starter packs to 6,200 schools. The company has also set up an unbranded activity fund entitled “Free Grants for Active Schools”, and an ongoing tracking study into obesity in the UK in partnership with Taylor Nelson Sofres.
Meanwhile, one of Kellogg’s initiatives was to part-fund entry into the 2004 10k Great Manchester Run for 135 residents of Wythenshawe, a disadvantaged area of Manchester, to participate alongside 60 Kellogg employees.
PepsiCo’s UK crisp manufacturer Walkers, which has been criticised for using sports stars such as footballer Gary Lineker to promote its products, supports the development of youth football at Lineker’s former club Leicester City F.C. and has also recently linked with sports equipment maker Umbro to provide over 16,000 free football kits to schools and clubs in the UK. The company is also giving away five million free pedometers to consumers in the UK; a purchase of Walkers crisps is not required.
Reformulating food products
But despite these and many more initiatives being carried out by the food industry, it is still coming under heavy criticism for not doing enough to combat the obesity crisis. Many people believe it is not enough to encourage exercise and personal responsibility over food choices, especially when the obesity crisis threatens to have such a dramatic impact on the country’s health and economy. Instead the very nature of the food we eat should be adapted. There have been repeated calls for companies to lower the amount of salt, fat and sugar in their products and reduce portion sizes. These calls have been reluctantly answered, but only up to a point.
The UK’s food industry has been repeatedly criticised for not doing enough to cut salt levels in its products, but the FDF says its members are committed to reducing levels of sugar, fat and salt in products and providing healthier alternatives “where technologically possible, safe and acceptable to consumers”. And therein lies the problem. Food makers are understandably concerned that if they alter their products too much, consumers may find the taste has changed and switch to another product.
In the US, the government has had a certain amount of success in reducing the presence of trans fatty acids (known in the UK as partially hydrogenated vegetable oils), which are believed to be more harmful to health than saturated fat, in food products. After increasing pressure and high-profile campaigns from health-related charities and consumer groups, the US Food and Drug Administration decided to introduce mandatory labelling of trans fats from 1 January 2006. The new rule requires that the amount of trans fat in a serving be listed on a separate line under saturated fat on the Nutrition Facts panel on food product labels. The threat of having to label such an unhealthy ingredient has spurred many companies into action, with food manufacturers desperately trying to remove trans fats from their products before the labelling rules come into effect.
In the UK, one supermarket chain is trying a similar method to encourage healthy eating. By introducing on-shelf traffic-light labelling of salt, sugar and fat content, the Co-op is hoping to see how the system influences shoppers’ product choices. In a trial run, the Co-op will place “high”, “medium” and “low” shelf labels on 300 branded products, according to how much salt, sugar and fat the products contain. Whether food manufacturers would accept this kind of practice on a larger scale is not clear, but for the moment they appear to be watching and waiting to see the results of the trial.
Supersize me no longer
Another area where the food industry has come in for criticism is portion sizes. Supersize meals, king size chocolate bars and large bags of crisps have become commonplace in food retail outlets. Consumers have long been encouraged to buy more in the belief that it is better value. But this could all be about to change. In the US, fastfood giant McDonald’s is phasing out its supersize portions of French fries and soft drinks, while in the UK, Cadbury Trebor Bassett is planning to phase out all non-segmented/non portioned King Size bars and discontinue the King Size nomenclature from the end of the first quarter of 2005.
The UK’s FDF, whose members include Cadbury, said it is committed to exploring new approaches for individual portion sizes to help reduce over-consumption. However, not all companies were keen to ditch the king size versions of their products. Nestlé said it offers a limited range of king size confectionery products that it says are aimed at certain consumers (typically younger men) who “find that these products fit with their active lifestyles”, but that these products represent only a very small proportion of its confectionery range. Likewise Walkers says it has a “full range of sizes offered to meet different consumer needs”.
Kraft Foods UK meanwhile has said it will use and show appropriate serving sizes in its advertising and marketing and avoid the suggestion of over consumption. It also said it is developing single-serve portion options for some of its cheese, chocolate and savoury snack products, and re-closable packaging to encourage people not to eat the product all at once.
In the US, Kraft is attempting to make its nutrition labelling easier to understand. In response to the US Food and Drug Administration’s call for clearer nutrition information, Kraft is to provide nutrition information on certain snack products, such as its Ritz Chips “Big Bag”, not just on a per-serving basis but also for the whole packet. The new label on the Big Bag lists the nutrition information – including calories, fat, cholesterol and sodium content – for both a single serving and the whole bag, and the total number of servings is stated on the front of the package.
Lance Friedmann, Kraft’s senior vice president of global health and wellness, says that with the new labels people can instantly see just what they’ll be consuming if they choose to eat the entire contents of a package.
Outside the US, where regulations differ, Kraft says selected smaller size packages will include improved information, including the total number of calories and advice that the package should be consumed on more than one occasion.
Although this makes it easier for consumers to see more easily exactly what they are eating, it may not actually stop people from consuming the entire contents of a snack package at once. Again it comes down to personal responsibility. Smaller-sized products may be the answer, but there is nothing to stop someone from buying, and eating, two chocolate bars instead of their previous king size treat.
Health warnings and the dreaded ‘fat tax’
Short of banning the sale of chocolate and crisps, is there realistically much more the food industry can do? Is it now simply a question of education and personal responsibility? For many people, the issue of personal responsibility is a difficult one. Many people want to eat more healthily but find restrictions on time and poor availability of healthy foods often lay waste to their good intentions. Better availability of healthy convenient foods would mean people would be able to choose when to treat themselves to a chocolate bar, rather than feeling forced to through hunger and lack of a healthy alternative. Healthier options in vending machines in stations would be one way of encouraging people to choose a healthy snack. If governments really want to encourage healthy eating, then one step would be to make sure healthy food choices are affordable, easily available and clearly labelled.
Despite the efforts of consumer groups, government and the food industry itself, there does not appear to be a clear-cut solution to the burgeoning obesity crisis. Exercise is key, but so too is education, particularly through clearer product labelling. Changes in food formulation can surely only do good, as can slimmer portion sizes. Perhaps a combination of these initiatives will succeed in encouraging healthier eating and slimmer waistlines. And if not, then what next? Are taxes and tobacco-style health warnings on snack foods set to become more than a distant possibility?
