The Obesity Epidemic: The business opportunities in obesity

According to a survey by the Calorie Control Council, 48 million—or 25 percent—of the U.S. adult population are currently on a diet and, if other studies are correct, over 60 percent of U.S. men and 70 percent of women are trying to shed a few extra pounds. A recently published study found that 9 to 14-year-olds who diet may actually gain weight in the long run—possibly due to metabolic changes, but more likely because they resort to binge eating. 

Throughout the advanced capitalist world, and to a lesser extent in the periphery, people’s diets have changed drastically over the past 30 years. In the U.S., spending on fast food now totals $110 billion annually, having increased 18-fold since 1970. The number of fast food outlets, often started with government subsidies, has doubled from 1 per 2,000 residents to 1 in 1,000 since 1980. Poor areas often have an even higher exposure to fast food restaurants and fewer supermarkets, four times less in black neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, where healthier products can be found (even though there is evidence that supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods are more profitable per square foot). Outside the U.S., fast food restaurants are also rapidly expanding. For instance, in 1995 Dunkin Donuts opened 1,000 international stores, which by 2000 had increased to 5,000. 

It’s not only at fast food restaurants where unhealthy products are being consumed in greater quantities. U.S residents on average consume an astounding 848—2.3 per day—8-ounce servings of soft drinks annually. In poorer countries people are also increasingly consuming high calorie soda pop instead of more nutritious drinks. The Mexican soft drink market, 70 percent controlled by Coca- Cola, totals some 633 eight-ounce servings per person annually.  

Portion sizes have also expanded. Compared with 20 years ago U.S. hamburger servings have increased by 112 percent, bagels 195 percent, steaks 224 percent, muffins 333 percent, pasta 480 percent, and chocolate chip cookies 700 percent. It has been shown that people consume about 30 percent more when served larger portions. Fast food outlets and the rest of the food industry often promote their products based on their larger, somehow more empowering, size. As of 1996, a quarter of the $97 billion spent on fast food came from items promoted on the basis of either extra size or larger portions. 

The main reason that people are consuming more, especially unhealthy products, is the food industry’s relentless advertising, especially to children. U.S. food companies spend more than $30 billion to sell their products, not counting what they spend lobbying favorable policies and support. In 2001, Coca-Cola and Pepsi together spent $3 billion in advertising.

When targeting young kids, companies use cartoon characters, toys, and other items that have a powerful influence over children. In the early 1970s the U.S. food industry fought off regulation of their advertising practices and instead adopted industry-regulated standards—the Children’s Advertising Review Unit. Now 40 percent of McDonald’s advertising targets children and, according to a 1998 study, they’ve been highly successful. Of 10,000 children surveyed, 100 percent of U.S., 98 percent of Japanese, and 93 percent of UK children recognized Ronald McDonald, with many of these kids believing Ronald McDonald knows what’s best for their health.  

The fast food and soft drink companies have also been successful at getting their products into cash- strapped schools. They get ad spots on Channel One, which is shown in classes. In Texas, the food giants give $54 million a year to schools to sell their wares in vending machines. Maybe the most disturbing example of school infiltration was in 1998 when Colorado Springs school officials agreed to an exclusive agreement with Coke, based on a tripling of school soft drink sales. Recently Coca-Cola Enterprises became an official sponsor of the PTA and John H. Downs Jr., the company’s senior vice president for public affairs and chief lobbyist, got a seat on the PTA’s board. 

The food interests are also hard at work lobbying governments, both behind the scenes and with front groups such as the Center for Consumer Freedom. Three years ago sugar producers and the soft drink industry won a big victory in getting the USDA to soften its dietary guidelines on sugar. Likewise, they convinced a subservient American Dietetic Association to refrain from labeling any foods as unhealthy since according to them, “all foods can fit into a healthy eating style.” 

Last September, within a week of the European Commission strengthening regulations on companies promoting the health benefits of foods high in fat and sugars, the Food and Drug Administration weakened its guidelines to allow food packages to advertise possible benefits before they are fully approved. Currently, different sectors of the food industry are hard at work shaping changes to the New Food Pyramid. 

Internationally a similar process is at work. This past April the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN food and agricultural organization backed down (due to pressure from the sugar industry) on guidelines, stating that people should limit daily consumption of free sugars to a maximum of 10 percent of energy intakes to avoid chronic diseases. U.S. sugar producers had indicated that they may lobby the Bush administration and Congress to link U.S funding—about one-fifth of the WHO budget—to changes in research methods at the UN agency. 

The food giants are well represented in other ways. In 1978 Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Kraft, and other food companies founded the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) to lobby WHO. It won a position as an NGO “in official relations” with WHO and a specialized consultative status with the Food and Agricultural Organization in 1991. In 1992 the ILSI congratulated themselves after steering the WHO and FAO away from any curbs on sugar consumption. 

The 10 percent or 200-calorie increase in energy consumption by the average U.S resident over the past 25 years is tied to incessant food advertising, political lobbying, and larger portions. Underlying this rise, however, is an agricultural sector that has increased output by some 500 calories per person during this period—after the Nixon administration altered government subsidies effectively increasing farmers incentives to expand their yields.  

Obesity is related to a variety of other social factors some of which have received minimal scrutiny. A yet to be properly studied link is between obesity and nuclear materials, which emit radioactive iodine, tied to thyroid damage. Thyroid disorders, recently found to occur twice as often as previously believed, are linked to weight gain. 

Another contributing factor is the large numbers of teenagers and children not involved in physical activity. Cutbacks to physical education budgets have not helped. The often-elitist nature of school and community sports dissuades many kids from participating. For this reason and others ranging from prescribed gender roles to society’s indifference to their specific sporting inclinations (such as skateboarding), many teenagers, especially girls, have negative attitudes towards exercise. 

Workplaces and their power struggles also affect obesity. The automation of work reduces the amount of energy workers expend. In and of itself this needn’t be problematic since automation should also reduce the number of hours worked and increase time for active leisure; not in the U.S, where people are working 200 hours a year more than they did in the early 1970s.  

According to Linda Rosenstock the former Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, “It turns out that a quarter to a third of workers have high job stress and are drained and used up at the end of the day.” Thus, many working people have less time to take part in activities. In addition, after a long days work, people often turn to TV watching, which is inversely linked to time spent exercising. Busy parents, especially poor working class people, use TV as a babysitter. In this setting children who are naturally active are hindered from activity.

Often the same automation technology, which is supposed to reduce the workload, results in an increased workload (stress level) for those who retain their jobs. A growing body of evidence shows that workers who don’t feel in control of their work environment have higher job stress levels. Scientists believe there is a link between stress and the impulse to eat. Food with lots of sugar, fat, and calories appear literally to calm down the body’s response to chronic stress. In addition, research indicates that stress hormones encourage the formation of fat cells, particularly the kind that are the most dangerous to health. 

Oddly enough a historical determinant in work related stress —repetitive assembly line work —has also contributed to obesity in another way. Urban planning, which is intimately linked to the expansion of capital, plays a central role in obesity. How the suburban landscape became the norm is told, in part, by Colleen Fuller in Caring for Profit. “Beginning in the 1920s, General Motors president Alfred Sloan and top company executives masterminded a scheme to create a consumer market for automobiles in the United States. At the time, 9 out of 10 people relied on the trolley networks that crisscrossed cities across the country. GM first purchased and then dismantled the nation’s trolley companies, ripping up tracks and setting bonfires composed of railcars. In 30 short years GM succeeded in destroying a mass-transit infrastructure that would cost many billions of dollars to resurrect—more money than municipal governments could raise. ” 

 It’s not just the auto industry (broadly defined) that has reorganized cities in a way that encourages obesity. Land developers are notorious for buying up cheap agricultural land on the outskirts of cities and pushing for land rezoning and the extension of public amenities to these plots. There is substantially more money to be made from selling houses or commercial space than there is in harvesting vegetables. Similarly, today in many towns Wal-Mart has played no small role in undermining the downtown core, one of the only places where people regularly walked. 

The suburban landscape is almost entirely subservient to the car. Sidewalks are non-existent or disconnected, crosswalks are absent or poorly marked, and the speed and volume of vehicular traffic is overwhelming, which makes walking or biking either impractical or dangerous. So people who might otherwise walk are forced to drive even short distances and kids who could easily walk to school must be chauffeured. 

A study released in September showed that in the 25 most sprawling U.S. counties people were on average 6 pounds heavier than in the 25 most compact counties. In the past 20 years the number of trips taken on foot in the U.S. has dropped by 42 percent. Now, fewer than 10 percent of children walk or bike to school regularly, down from 66 percent 30 years ago. 

To combat the obesity epidemic we need tighter limits on fast food marketing. Junk food companies should be kicked out of schools. Perhaps governments should subsidize fruits and vegetables as well as other healthy products. Increased funding for physical education classes, park spaces, and children’s sports would help. Increasing exercise opportunities at work, which a group of large employers, ironically headed by Ford Motors and Pepsi Co., is already working on, could help. Also there could be some form of tax break for exercise as is the case in Finland where some 70 percent of the population exercises for 30 minutes 5 times a week. 

Most important we need a movement that effectively challenges the capitalist entities that push their interests no matter the weight or health effects.