The Food Industry's Role
The food industry has one purpose: to make money. This does not make the industry inherently evil; after all, the United States is a capitalist society. But every action taken by the food industry has to be seen through this lens. The industry does not care about consumers' health and well-being. If companies can make more money by selling every imaginable kind of processed, calorie-laden, nutrient-deficient product, then that's exactly what they'll do. If they can make even more money by hooking young, impressionable kids on those products, then that's what they'll do. And if health professionals or the government appear to threaten the industry's ability to keep making money, then it will strike back against those critics.
"Eat More"
Food advertising is big business. In 2004, food manufacturers spent nearly $7 billion on advertising, and restaurants spent over $4 billion. This includes over $614 for McDonald's, $246 million for Coca-Cola, and nearly $100 million for Hershey's chocolate. Even Altoids mints have a marketing budget of $10 million per year. Compare all that to the paltry $2 million that the National Cancer Institute has to promote its "5-A-Day" fruit and vegetable program.
The advertising isn't just for branded products, either. After all, do you know "what's for dinner" or what "the other white meat" is? Or what "does a body good"? As Marion Nestle points out in Food Politics, every product has its own trade association or public relations firm that works to promote a positive image for its products among consumers, professionals, and the media.
The Best (Nutrition) Advice Money Can Buy
[Content coming about the industry's influence on creating federal nutrition recommendations and on how it influences nutrition and health professionals]
Throwing Its Weight Around
The food industry is not satisfied to spend billions of dollars advertising to consumers or working to influence legislators and nutrition professionals. It is also prepared to strike back—hard—whenever its interests are threatened, as the following examples show.
Don't Label Us
In 1990, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was passed, mandating that packaged foods carry a "Nutrition Facts" label by 1994. The restaurant industry fought for, and won, an exemption to this act. In 2003, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) proposed the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL), which would close this loophole and require restaurants that have more than 20 franchises to provide nutrition information for all menu items. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) claims that the MEAL is unnecessary, in part because most fast food restaurants already provide this information.
And that's true to a degree-nearly every fast food restaurant makes nutrition information available on its corporate Web site (though sometimes it's necessary to drill down several levels to get to this information), and the information is also provided in pamphlets and on posters. However, more in-store facts should be available as some consumers may lack ready access to the Internet.
Moreover, the NRA's stance overlooks a growing segment of the restaurant industry-the family-oriented chain restaurant. Applebee's, Chili's, Olive Garden, Outback Steakhouse, Red Lobster-either these chains either don't make any of their nutrition information available, or they reveal nutrition information only for selected "healthy" items. And since these chains haven't acquired the same reputation for unhealthy offerings that fast food restaurants have, people can be lulled into thinking that these restaurants offer better choices. The truth, though, is that these restaurants provide even bigger portions of more fat-, sugar-, and calorie-laden foods than their fast food counterparts could dream of.
To its credit, the Ruby Tuesday chain did make nutrition information available right on the menu for about five months in 2004. However, that practice was discontinued within a few months; the chain claimed that frequent menu changes made printing costs prohibitive. Information is still available for items designated as "Smart Eating," which includes low-carb items in addition to low-fat and low-calorie items-so it's still possible to find out that the Double Cheese Chicken Quesadilla in a whole-grain tortilla has 1,254 calories and 98 grams of fat.
In October 2005, McDonald's announced that it would begin providing nutrition information on product packaging. Some critics, including Michael Jacobson of CSPI, argue that this measure doesn't go far enough-customers only get the nutrition information after they have ordered, and cannot use this as a basis for making a decision.
WHO and the U.S. Sugar Industry
In the spring of 2003, the World Health Organization made a number of recommendations aimed at fighting obesity, including a recommendation that sugar intake be limited to no more than 10 percent of total calories (the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine both recommend an upper limit of 25 percent of total calories). In response, the U.S. Sugar Association attacked the report as "misguided" and "non-science-based." It threatened to lobby Congress to withdraw U.S. funding of WHO ($406 million per year) unless the report was withdrawn.
The industry found a supporter in William Steiger, director of Global Health Affairs for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In a 28-page letter to WHO's director-general, Steiger criticized the sugar recommendations and called for an emphasis on "personal responsibility" over regulation. He even questioned "the linking of fruit and vegetable consumption to decreased risk of obesity and diabetes."
The Center for Consumer Freedom
Don't be fooled by the grassroots-sounding name—the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is an advocacy group funded by the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Over the years, CCF has attacked every group that it perceives as "anti-consumer," including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and even Mothers Against Drunk Driving (and the campaign to set the legal blood alcohol limit to 0.10).
In the spring of 2005, a study revealed that a previous report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had overestimated the number of annual deaths linked to obesity—instead of 400,000 people dying per year as a result of obesity-related illnesses, the actual number was closer to 100,000. The new study also found that the risks of being slightly overweight (as opposed to obese) may have been exaggerated. In response, CCF launched a $600,000 ad campaign telling consumers that they had "been force-fed a steady diet of obesity myths by the 'food police,' trial lawyers, and even our own government." CCF insists that obesity is a result of physical inactivity alone, not food choices. It also emphasizes "personal responsibility" over government recommendations.
In other words, large portions of fattening foods don't cause obesity … but if you believe this and eat large portions of fattening foods and end up obese, it's your own fault.