Big Brother is watching…your diet
In the past there was controversy and conjecture over the line between church and state. Now there is a new line that seems to be getting finer – the one between state and retailer. Governments are directly guiding retailer marketing, especially when it comes to health and wellness products.
Elsevier Food International, Vol. 10, Number 3, September 2007
Elsevier Food International, Vol. 10, Number 3, September 2007
Karen Willoughby
There seems to be a big drive from governments to make us healthier, but as the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. By issuing, and more importantly pushing nutritional guidelines*, they started a marketing frenzy that does not seem to have an end in sight.
It seems as if every retailer and manufacturer has a ‘healthy’ promotion or product line and in almost every instance they are directly linked to the latest ‘recommended nutrition’ based on government research. Although this research may be flawed or, at best, inaccurate, retailers promote it and consumers, well, eat it up.
In the beginning…
In 1894, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed the first food composition tables and dietary standards for Americans. Over the years, a series of research reports and recommendations for healthy eating were produced. By 1977, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs issued the Dietary Goals for the United States. This was followed by the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released in 1980 by the USDA which has been revised every five years since then.
Marion Nestle, chair of New York University's Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, managed the production of the first (and only) Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health in 1988. Nestle states: "My first day on the job, I was given the rules. No matter what the research indicated, the report could not recommend 'eat less meat' as a way to reduce intake of saturated fat....The producers of food that might be affected by such advice would complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would never be published."
In a similar vein, Nestle says, the USDA weighed industry interests along with nutrition science as the food pyramid was built. The National Cattlemen's Association, for instance, launched a heavy campaign to stop promotion of the pyramid's release.
In 1992, The Pyramid was approved as a means to simplify the information contained in the guidelines. The original pyramid was issued under heavy pressure from food industry lobbyists. Many feel that the USDA Food Guide Pyramid is really just a marketing brochure for the food lobby, with foods that are most strongly recommended on the pyramid being those with the greatest lobbying budgets.
In the meantime, serious problems began to emerge. In 2005, the cost of providing US employee health benefits exceeded profits for the Fortune 500's largest corporations. Employers realised that the only long-term solution to these rising expenses was wellness – programmes that increase fitness and prevent disease from occurring in the first place. The food industry was now facing a more formidable foe – big business.
The cry of big business reached the ears of governments, which in turn realised that preventing disease and maintaining good health are the only solutions to the rising medical costs that threatened their economies. While the government wellness push may have begun in the US, it is now growing even faster outside the United States.
You heard what your government said: Eat your veggies!
In 1999, the UK Department of Health (DH) introduced its 5 A DAY message, which recommended that everyone eat five portions of fruit and vegetables each day, after research revealed that eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day could help to prevent heart diseases and some cancers. The DH launched an official 5 A DAY logo intended to indicate items that contain at least one portion of fruit or vegetable, in 2003. In less than a year, 334 brands and companies signed up to use the office programme logo. By 2005 there were over 500 licences issued for the logo.
In January 2007, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) found UK household expenditure had risen by 12.9 per cent for fruit and 6.3 per cent for vegetables and fell for confectionary, soft drinks and alcohol in the previous year. So British customers seem to be eating healthier, but retailers are also benefiting.
Tesco introduced its Fruit & Veg Pledge at the beginning of 2007 which offered at least five different 1/2 price offers on fruit & vegetables every week. However, by early March reports were everywhere about Tesco cheating and misleading the public. It seems that prices on items featured in the promotion rose abruptly just days before the start of the offer. The "half-price" offer was half the higher price.
Tesco spokesmen did not deny the sharp pattern of price changes in the highlighted products but claimed it was due to seasonal price fluctuations; but a spokeswoman for ASDA claimed the contrary. As a result, the UK Trading Standards Institute called for an overhaul of the national pricing code, and accused Tesco of “grossly exploiting” loopholes through its Fruit and Veg Pledge.
However, some retailers do have the consumer's best interest at heart. Hannaford Bros. (US subsidiary of Delhaize) has an innovative programme called Guiding Stars. It is one of the most comprehensive whole-store wellness programmes. Products carry a shelf label with a rating of zero, one, two, or three stars – the more Guiding Stars, the more nutritional value. Not every manufacturer agrees with the ratings applied to its products, mostly because Hannaford’s definition of healthy is considerably stricter than the rules the FDA applies to food. For example, many products in ConAgra Foods’ Healthy Choice line earned zero stars.
Say "low-fat cheese"!
The World Health Organization (WHO) is particularly worried about an obesity epidemic striking the young and bringing future health risks with it, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. WHO warns that more than 15 million people, of which an estimated three million children, in the EU are now technically obese or overweight.
Recently, the French government ordered food ads to carry cautions telling the French to stop snacking, exercise, and eat more fruit and vegetables. The new health guidance affects advertisements on television, radio, and billboards and the Internet for processed, sweetened, or salted food and drinks. Other European countries have already taken measures along the lines of France. Sweden and Norway forbid broadcast advertising aimed at children. Ireland imposed a ban on TV ads for sweets and fast food and prohibits using celebrities and sports stars to promote junk food to kids.
In May, European Union Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou issued an ultimatum to Europe's food and drink industry, giving it three years to take action against obesity.
Does this mean the death of the candy bar? Not necessarily. As Guido Barilla said, "The food industry needs to bear in mind that human beings are not mere nutrient assimilators. Medical posturing can cause anxiety. This should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that food also means pleasure…" Marion Nestle points out that the problem with nutrient-by-nutrient science is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle; meaning that within the context of a complete lifestyle and diet, there is nothing wrong with a candy bar.
I'm healthy! I think.
So how does the consumer choose what to eat? Whose advice (advertising) should they listen to? People's perception of ‘healthy’ can vary, and in many instances, ‘healthy’ people do not make ‘healthy’ choices.
In research conducted by marketing research company TGI, the diet of ‘healthy’ EU residents in Germany, Spain, France and Great Britain was compared to the general population. From a sample group of 55,122, a ‘healthy’ target group of 5,603 was selected based on their own diet awareness, e.g. "I always check the nutritional content of food" and have a physical exercise regime. But as Anne Benoist of BMRB research explains, "What is 'good' appears to be more the consequence of existing perceptions, often fuelled by media and advertisers, rather than medically or otherwise informed decisions." The results showed a negligible difference between consumption of products, such as colas, between the ‘healthy’ group and the general population. (See Graph: Who is healthy?) [Click here for complete report.]
Cultural and economic differences play an enormous role in food purchases and consumption. In the United States, it is generally the low-income segment that will purchase prepared meals. People in this category may live in single-parent households or have more than one job, leaving little time to search for ingredients to make healthy meals. They tend to be more susceptible to media influences. However, in a country like China, those with new-found wealth indulge in the luxury of prepared foods, and are now also becoming overweight and unhealthy.
Other factors, such as age, also play a role. The levelling determinant is education. People with higher levels of education are better able to sift out media hype and marketing from fact. Nevertheless, it still takes a great deal of individual effort and initiative to look past the government recommended nutrition and do private research on what is really healthy. For example, in almost all Western cultures, dairy products are considered healthy. There is advertising by dairy producers to drink milk and national recommendations all include dairy products. Yet, scientific studies show that lactose intolerance is normal in humans. Humans are designed to lose the ability to digest milk sugar (lactose) effectively after the end of the weaning period. Those that are not lactose intolerant are, for lack of a better word, mutants. You will not see that printed on the USDA Pyramid anytime soon.
We know that retailers and producers are not in the charity business. They exist to fill a need and to make a little profit along the way. No one expects them to stop making candy bars and start selling carrot bars; and if the government hands them a free marketing tool, they cannot really be admonished for using it. However, retailers might want to reflect on the words of the Roman physician, Galen: Primum non nocere, Trans: Above all, do no harm!
*For more information on national food labelling, see "Food health labels: Trick or treat?" from EFI Vol. 10, No. 2, May 2007 at www.foodinternational.net/0705/healthylabels/ .
Other related articles:
Nutrition rating systems to battle for acceptance, supremacy
There seems to be a big drive from governments to make us healthier, but as the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. By issuing, and more importantly pushing nutritional guidelines*, they started a marketing frenzy that does not seem to have an end in sight.
It seems as if every retailer and manufacturer has a ‘healthy’ promotion or product line and in almost every instance they are directly linked to the latest ‘recommended nutrition’ based on government research. Although this research may be flawed or, at best, inaccurate, retailers promote it and consumers, well, eat it up.
In the beginning…
In 1894, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) developed the first food composition tables and dietary standards for Americans. Over the years, a series of research reports and recommendations for healthy eating were produced. By 1977, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs issued the Dietary Goals for the United States. This was followed by the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released in 1980 by the USDA which has been revised every five years since then.
Marion Nestle, chair of New York University's Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, managed the production of the first (and only) Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health in 1988. Nestle states: "My first day on the job, I was given the rules. No matter what the research indicated, the report could not recommend 'eat less meat' as a way to reduce intake of saturated fat....The producers of food that might be affected by such advice would complain to their beneficiaries in Congress, and the report would never be published." In a similar vein, Nestle says, the USDA weighed industry interests along with nutrition science as the food pyramid was built. The National Cattlemen's Association, for instance, launched a heavy campaign to stop promotion of the pyramid's release.
In 1992, The Pyramid was approved as a means to simplify the information contained in the guidelines. The original pyramid was issued under heavy pressure from food industry lobbyists. Many feel that the USDA Food Guide Pyramid is really just a marketing brochure for the food lobby, with foods that are most strongly recommended on the pyramid being those with the greatest lobbying budgets.
In the meantime, serious problems began to emerge. In 2005, the cost of providing US employee health benefits exceeded profits for the Fortune 500's largest corporations. Employers realised that the only long-term solution to these rising expenses was wellness – programmes that increase fitness and prevent disease from occurring in the first place. The food industry was now facing a more formidable foe – big business.
The cry of big business reached the ears of governments, which in turn realised that preventing disease and maintaining good health are the only solutions to the rising medical costs that threatened their economies. While the government wellness push may have begun in the US, it is now growing even faster outside the United States.
You heard what your government said: Eat your veggies!
In 1999, the UK Department of Health (DH) introduced its 5 A DAY message, which recommended that everyone eat five portions of fruit and vegetables each day, after research revealed that eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day could help to prevent heart diseases and some cancers. The DH launched an official 5 A DAY logo intended to indicate items that contain at least one portion of fruit or vegetable, in 2003. In less than a year, 334 brands and companies signed up to use the office programme logo. By 2005 there were over 500 licences issued for the logo.
In January 2007, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) found UK household expenditure had risen by 12.9 per cent for fruit and 6.3 per cent for vegetables and fell for confectionary, soft drinks and alcohol in the previous year. So British customers seem to be eating healthier, but retailers are also benefiting.
Tesco introduced its Fruit & Veg Pledge at the beginning of 2007 which offered at least five different 1/2 price offers on fruit & vegetables every week. However, by early March reports were everywhere about Tesco cheating and misleading the public. It seems that prices on items featured in the promotion rose abruptly just days before the start of the offer. The "half-price" offer was half the higher price.
Tesco spokesmen did not deny the sharp pattern of price changes in the highlighted products but claimed it was due to seasonal price fluctuations; but a spokeswoman for ASDA claimed the contrary. As a result, the UK Trading Standards Institute called for an overhaul of the national pricing code, and accused Tesco of “grossly exploiting” loopholes through its Fruit and Veg Pledge.
However, some retailers do have the consumer's best interest at heart. Hannaford Bros. (US subsidiary of Delhaize) has an innovative programme called Guiding Stars. It is one of the most comprehensive whole-store wellness programmes. Products carry a shelf label with a rating of zero, one, two, or three stars – the more Guiding Stars, the more nutritional value. Not every manufacturer agrees with the ratings applied to its products, mostly because Hannaford’s definition of healthy is considerably stricter than the rules the FDA applies to food. For example, many products in ConAgra Foods’ Healthy Choice line earned zero stars. Say "low-fat cheese"!
The World Health Organization (WHO) is particularly worried about an obesity epidemic striking the young and bringing future health risks with it, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease. WHO warns that more than 15 million people, of which an estimated three million children, in the EU are now technically obese or overweight.
Recently, the French government ordered food ads to carry cautions telling the French to stop snacking, exercise, and eat more fruit and vegetables. The new health guidance affects advertisements on television, radio, and billboards and the Internet for processed, sweetened, or salted food and drinks. Other European countries have already taken measures along the lines of France. Sweden and Norway forbid broadcast advertising aimed at children. Ireland imposed a ban on TV ads for sweets and fast food and prohibits using celebrities and sports stars to promote junk food to kids.
In May, European Union Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou issued an ultimatum to Europe's food and drink industry, giving it three years to take action against obesity.
Does this mean the death of the candy bar? Not necessarily. As Guido Barilla said, "The food industry needs to bear in mind that human beings are not mere nutrient assimilators. Medical posturing can cause anxiety. This should not be allowed to overshadow the fact that food also means pleasure…" Marion Nestle points out that the problem with nutrient-by-nutrient science is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle; meaning that within the context of a complete lifestyle and diet, there is nothing wrong with a candy bar.
I'm healthy! I think.
So how does the consumer choose what to eat? Whose advice (advertising) should they listen to? People's perception of ‘healthy’ can vary, and in many instances, ‘healthy’ people do not make ‘healthy’ choices.
In research conducted by marketing research company TGI, the diet of ‘healthy’ EU residents in Germany, Spain, France and Great Britain was compared to the general population. From a sample group of 55,122, a ‘healthy’ target group of 5,603 was selected based on their own diet awareness, e.g. "I always check the nutritional content of food" and have a physical exercise regime. But as Anne Benoist of BMRB research explains, "What is 'good' appears to be more the consequence of existing perceptions, often fuelled by media and advertisers, rather than medically or otherwise informed decisions." The results showed a negligible difference between consumption of products, such as colas, between the ‘healthy’ group and the general population. (See Graph: Who is healthy?) [Click here for complete report.]
Cultural and economic differences play an enormous role in food purchases and consumption. In the United States, it is generally the low-income segment that will purchase prepared meals. People in this category may live in single-parent households or have more than one job, leaving little time to search for ingredients to make healthy meals. They tend to be more susceptible to media influences. However, in a country like China, those with new-found wealth indulge in the luxury of prepared foods, and are now also becoming overweight and unhealthy.
Other factors, such as age, also play a role. The levelling determinant is education. People with higher levels of education are better able to sift out media hype and marketing from fact. Nevertheless, it still takes a great deal of individual effort and initiative to look past the government recommended nutrition and do private research on what is really healthy. For example, in almost all Western cultures, dairy products are considered healthy. There is advertising by dairy producers to drink milk and national recommendations all include dairy products. Yet, scientific studies show that lactose intolerance is normal in humans. Humans are designed to lose the ability to digest milk sugar (lactose) effectively after the end of the weaning period. Those that are not lactose intolerant are, for lack of a better word, mutants. You will not see that printed on the USDA Pyramid anytime soon.
We know that retailers and producers are not in the charity business. They exist to fill a need and to make a little profit along the way. No one expects them to stop making candy bars and start selling carrot bars; and if the government hands them a free marketing tool, they cannot really be admonished for using it. However, retailers might want to reflect on the words of the Roman physician, Galen: Primum non nocere, Trans: Above all, do no harm!
*For more information on national food labelling, see "Food health labels: Trick or treat?" from EFI Vol. 10, No. 2, May 2007 at www.foodinternational.net/0705/healthylabels/ .
Other related articles:
Nutrition rating systems to battle for acceptance, supremacy
.jpg)
