Is the food industry pulling its weight?

Drinking too much and smoking are bad for your health. Everyone knows that so there are restrictions on how and where the companies who make these products can advertise them. As British blokes get fatter, could food adverts be next?

Isn't the food we buy pretty heavily regulated already?

In the UK, food is regulated by both EU law and domestic law like the Food Standards Act 1999 but the government is calling on the food industry to do more in the fight against obesity.

It wants them to impose voluntary restrictions on advertising high-fat and high-sugar foods, especially to children. The European Union have made similar threats. If the government's not satisfied, it says it will impose restrictions by law in 2007. New company reporting regulations will also impact on the food sector.

So how, er, big is the problem?

In the UK it is estimated that some 20% of men (1 in 5) and 25% of women (1 in 4) are obese. As many as 30,000 people die prematurely every year from obesity-related conditions. The National Audit Office estimates the cost of obesity and related diseases to the NHS at least £500m a year. For a definition of obesity and how to tell if you are obese, click here.

And selling food is big business, is it?

The biggest. Supermarket giant Walmart — which runs Asda — has been the most-profitable company in the USA for the past three years. In the UK, the 'big five' supermarkets made £3,355 million profits in 2003. Up 300% in 15 years. UK supermarkets now make over £10,000,000 profit every single day of the year.

Fat profits. What do the experts say?

The National Obesity Forum (NOF), who are beginning to work with food companies on making their products more healthy, reckon that this 'assisted self-regulation' can work. NOF's David Haslam says the government's strategy is 'pretty shrewd' as it encourages self-regulation but at the same time sets a tight deadline for it.

'The first thing the food industry needs to do is hold its hands up and admit there's a problem,' says David Haslam. 'They do in private but in public they still say there's no such thing as a bad food only bad diets, they still say obesity is about exercise not diet, they still say they're not trying to attract children with their advertising. None of these things are true.'

Do other countries have regulations on ads?

Yes, food advertising is already regulated to some degree in Belgium, Denmark, Quebec, Australia, Finland and the Netherlands. In Sweden all advertising aimed at children under 12, all advertising between programmes and all advertising before and after kids' programmes is banned. Their economy has not collapsed. In fact, Swedes have higher average incomes than Brits. They also live longer.

So do food companies lie in their advertising?

No. But like all of us — businesses, governments, blokes in general — they simply present the information in the way that is best for them.

Take these examples which are both mentioned in 'Broadcasting Bad Health', a 2003 report by the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations for the World Health Organization:

'Experts continue to agree that for health and enjoyment, we should aim to eat more carbohydrate foods of all kinds, including sugars and starches.' (from British Sugar's Energy for Life education book, 2003)

'All soft drinks are healthy because they provide the vital fluids our bodies need.' (from the British Soft Drinks Association's website)

Both of these statements are true but they don't tell the full story. The 'vital fluid' in question is water. 'Carbonated and still drinks are 86% water,' the site says later. True. The question is what's in the other 14%.

But nobody makes you stuff your face, do they?

No. We're all responsible for our own behaviour. In the same way, people selling us food products are responsible for theirs. They need to tell us clearly what's in their food and what these ingredients can do.

David Haslam would like to see far more accurate labelling. 'We are seeing the end of 85% fat-free labels on crisps which is good. That was completely misleading. But it is still no good to call a reduced fat product healthy if it's been bulked up with eight tablespoons of sugar.' He welcomes the Food Standard's Agency (www.food.gov.uk) consultation on a signposting system which would show levels of all ingredient types, good and bad.

But is it just about advertising?

No. For David Haslam, who is also a GP, the key issue is actually food content. He's not asking for dramatic changes. 'We need small adjustments, a little at a time. Salt levels have been edging up and up and up. Our tastebuds have been numbed. We need to reverse that trend in salt, in sugar, in fats, in additives and in portion sizes.'

Sounds like it could help. What else are campaigners doing?

Criticising food industry profits misses the point. Food companies like all public companies are obliged to maximise their profits for their shareholders. That's their job. Campaigners for healthier food are developing a more sophisticated strategy: encouraging the public to demand healthier food.

Easier said than done.

True. In Britain, demand for ready-meals grew by 44% between 1990 and 2002. We now consume twice as many ready-meals as the French and six times as many as the Spanish. Longer working hours, rising incomes and increasing numbers of parents out at work mean this pattern is likely to continue.

That sort of food is cheap too.

That's what people think but it's not always true. Supermarkets may be cheaper on 'loss leaders' like milk, baked beans and bread but on many items, especially fresh ones, they're not. Check it out for yourself. Organic fruit and veg from a local shop is often cheaper than pesticide-plastered stuff from the supermarket. The recent panic following withdrawal of products containing an illegal colouring — Sudan 1 - has also drawn attention to the dangers of processed food.

True. What else are campaigners saying?

Campaigners — like those at adbusters - are also making sure that consumers know who really makes their favourite processed foods, pointing out the environmental damage done by food processing and drawing attention to animal cruelty.

But they're not health arguments.

No but a lot of people are concerned about these things. Did you know, for example, that popular food brands Kraft Dairylea, Terry's Chocolate Orange and Maxwell House are actually owned by tobacco company Phillip Morris.

What was that about the animals?

Well, take cows. Cows eat grass, right. No, not any more. Most commercially raised cows are fed on grain. This is bad for your health because meat from grain-fed cows is higher in fat, higher in bad cholesterol and higher in calories than meat from gass-fed cows. It's also bad for the cows but it does mean they get fat enough to kill and sell in fifteen months instead of five years.

OK, so buy organic meat or become a vegetarian. But big food companies do a lot for society already. They give computers to schools and things.

True. It's called CSR.

CSR? Isn't that a super-bug?

No, it stands for corporate social responsibility and it's very welcome but not all of those schemes are actually very healthy. One crisp company, for example, gave books to schools in return for tokens from their packets. Even the 'cheapest' book required the child to eat 50 packets of crisps. That weighs in at more than 7,500 calories and over half a kilo of fat.

See what you mean. Can this moral pressure work?

Maybe. That particular crisps campaign is not going anymore and despite their huge size and large profits, many food companies are far more vulnerable to changes in public opinion about their products than you might think.

What do you mean?

McDonalds' profits are 99% dependent on what might be called 'less healthy food products', Cadbury's 90%, Coca Cola's and Pepsi's over 70% and so on. And the public are getting wise to this. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority now receives more complaints about food advertising than about any other product. Complaints rose a record 175% between 2001 and 2002 with McDonalds and Unilever attracting the most concern.

Banks are now warning investors that food companies seen as unhealthy could be putting their share price at risk. In December 2002, Burger King was sold by Diageo to a group of private investors for $1.5 billion, about a third less than the price agreed six months earlier.

Neil Matthews of law firm Eversheds, says: 'food businesses are especially affected because of their major consumer-facing brands. Many are having to reposition accordingly and institutional investors are now shunning companies who don't have good CSR policies in place. Such companies risk being downgraded.'

In the end, will the government have to legislate?

Self-regulation works only if the companies concerned want to play ball. The trouble is that they have a legal obligation to maximise their profits for their shareholders. Whether legislation is needed or whether the threat of it is sufficient depends how companies interpret this obligation. If they, and their share-holders, take the view that small changes now will be more profitable than larger changes later, there may be no need for new laws.

So have they got the stomach for it?

We'll have to weight and see.

by Wayne Woodman, malehealth staff writer.