Obesity is certainly a hot topic at the moment. The fierce debate regarding blame and possible solutions rages on with everyone from politicians to confectionery producers involved. Bernice Hurst takes a look at recent developments, including the rows sparked by the World Health Organisation’s statement on daily sugar intake and Cadbury’s Get Active campaign.
It isn’t the sugar, stupid. Although it is widely accepted now that obesity has increased worldwide and that the causes are a combination of over-consumption and under-activity, those with suggestions for improvement are frequently motivated by commercial incentives. Finger pointing has become prevalent and, while consumers are being urged to take responsibility for what they eat, manufacturers and retailers are declining to take responsibility for what they are marketing and promoting.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Much of the current dispute was set in motion when the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that we reduce our daily sugar intake to 10% of our total calories and the American sugar industry responded by lobbying to have their government’s contributions to WHO’s budget withdrawn.
WHO rapidly backtracks
The United Nations rapidly stressed that the report contained advice only and not regulations which would have to be implemented. The Financial Times quoted Jacques Diouf, Director General of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), as saying that the recommendation “is not meant to be a precise quantitative limit derived from scientific experiments but the best compromise based on current knowledge…the recommendation to limit the intake of free sugars is meant to be a desirable population nutrition goal, not a standard to be regulated.”
This was just one of several incidents occurring within weeks of one another that sparked a number of related debates.
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 GlobalDataBack in September 2002, just-food.com reported that the Australian sugar industry denied responsibility for the country’s obesity problem. John Burman, chair of the Australian Food & Grocery Council Sugar Forum said that it was “simplistic and incorrect” to blame the sugar industry, blaming instead what he called the “slothful behaviour” adopted by today’s consumers.
Should confectioners take responsibility?
Confectioners, including chocolate makers Cadbury’s, as well as soft drink manufacturers, vehemently agree with this assessment. Attempts both sides of the Atlantic to reduce the availability of sugary soft drinks and the vending machines which sell them from school premises have been met with the joint stone walls of the “responsibility” and “exercise” arguments.
Any attempt to attribute obesity or health problems to over-consumption of particular foods results in an immediate reminder of our falling levels of exercise. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Cadbury’s launched its Get Active campaign in the UK this Spring. Consumers and schools were encouraged to collect vouchers from chocolate bars and exchange them for sports equipment.
Although there were immediate protests, Cadbury’s itself, the Food and Drink Federation and indeed the British government were just as quick to defend the campaign.
Cadbury’s sparks an active debate
Martin Paterson, Food and Drink Federation Deputy Director General said: “Food and drink manufacturers take a very responsible view of their relationships with consumers, including children. Snacks and drinks can clearly form a part of a balanced diet. The drop in children’s levels of activity has been identified as one of the key factors in increasing obesity and schemes that encourage healthy active lifestyles can make a real contribution to children’s health.”
Meanwhile the chairman of the government’s obesity taskforce, Professor Philip James, said, “This is a classic example of how the food and soft drinks industry are failing to take on board that they are major contributors to obesity problems throughout the world. They always try to divert attention to physical activity.”
Catherine Collins, spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association added: “We are running an Eat to be Fit campaign at the moment warning children of obesity. Our research shows 31% of children are overweight and 17% are obese. Activity is a vital part of staying fit and linking it with eating chocolate is not on.”
A spokesman for the Department of Sport tried to justify its endorsement by saying it did not believe the £9m (US$15.1m) marketing push would encourage children to buy more chocolate. “The campaign will encourage children to realise that when they eat chocolate they need to do it in the context of a balanced life and being active.”
In its own defence, Cadbury’s said it expected “the wider community to club together to use their wrappers from the chocolate they are already eating”.
In whom do we trust?
Another part of the problem, of course, is understanding the information we are given, wading through contradictory studies and proclamations and trying to decide who to trust. Many consumers temper their daily diets with a healthy dose of scepticism.
In a phrase reminiscent of American General Norman Schwartzkopf’s reference to bovine scatology, Observer business columnist Frank Kane uses the expression “members of the porcine species would develop independent means of aeronautical propulsion” to describe scepticism. It can be difficult to decipher the code names and numbers, percentages and comparisons written in small print on labels, particularly in the midst of a time-pressured lifestyle. For every study or argument there is always a counter one. Relying on officials to offer sensible advice means deciding which are most objective and how much evidence they have on which to base that advice.
Just after Canada reported its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in May 2003, the US government halted its import of beef from across the border. US Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, in an effort to reassure the public that this was sufficient to protect them, reportedly told CNN, “At this time, we see no reason for any consumer to be concerned about the safety of the food supply. In fact, I intend to eat a steak tonight.” She did not go into detail about the pedigree of the meat.
When British consumers first became concerned about BSE back in 1990, then Minister of Agriculture, John Selwyn Gummer, famously fed his four year old daughter a beefburger to prove his confidence. It took several years for the industry to recover and for other countries to begin importing British beef. And it now turns out that the incubation period for the human equivalent of BSE can be 20 years or more.
With the best will in the world, there is incomplete knowledge and no one, yet, has mastered the art of reading a crystal ball. We are all demanding, and expecting, enough information to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own lives. All we can do is minimise the risks. After all, it is our own diet that we each have to follow.
