Wanting to eat healthier, but little healthy foods sold at McDonalds

Most fast food restaurants do not share their sales data of healthy foods, but that did not stop Lyndall Wellard and colleagues to find out how many healthy items are actually sold at the biggest fast food chain in the world. They observed what people bought at 20 McDonalds restaurants in Australia. Of the 1449 meal purchases observed, only 1% could be considered healthy, 65% were unhealthy and 34% were take-away (so impossible to determine whether food is healthy or not).

Only 1% of all meals eaten in the restaurant! That is not much... Why would you sell healthy foods in a restaurant when hardly anyone is buying it? As a service to the 1% die-hard dieters who really do not want burgers and fries? Or to create a healthier image which may lead to higher overall sales?

According to a survey among Americans, 47% said they wanted restaurants to offer healthier items like salads. Even 23% said they tend to order those foods. Apparently many consumers like to have these items on the menu. Maybe as a license to indulge? Research of Wilcox and colleagues already showed that adding a salad or fruit to the menu makes you more likely to order fries. And to make it worse: consumers also tend to believe that adding a healthy item to a meal magically decreases the number of calories of the total meal.

In my previous blog post, I discussed the essay of Marion Nestle and David Stuckler on the influence of large food companies on public health. They are right, healthier foods are inherently less profitable. At least when eating out, most consumers seem to just want to indulge (without feeling too guilty).

Dealing with Big Food: Slow public health response to large food companies' influence

Recently, the world population exceeded 7 billion people. One billion of them is hungry, while at the same time two billion are overweight. This shows we have a huge problem in meeting people's dietary needs. As what people eat is increasingly determined by a few multinational food and beverage companies, this month a new series of articles on the influence of these companies ('Big Food') will appear in PLOS Medicine Magazine. Highly recommendable!

David Stuckler and Marion Nestle start off with their essay on Big Food's problematic influence on the global food system. The authors cite research that shows that the ten largest food companies control over half of all food sales in the United States. Unfortunately, what they successfully sell consists primarily of processed foods enriched in sugar, salt and fat. Frequent consumption of these foods is associated with excess weight and chronic diseases.

The decades-long fight against tobacco has provided us with insights on typical tactics used by industry to undermine public health measures such as taxation and regulation, they state. Basically, that is because food companies aim to maximize profits and not health. They do not like interventions that threaten their profits.

Public health professionals are slow in responding to the threat of Big Food and the authors therefore urge for more strong and conscious choices about how to deal with Big Food's influence. Dealing with the food industry involves more than partnering or waiting for self-regulatory initiatives. It requires a critical approach, recognizing the conflicts of interests that play a key role.

Stuckler and Nestle conclude by stating 'without taking direct and concerted action to expose and regulate the vested interests of Big Food, epidemics of poverty, hunger, and obesity are likely to become more acute'.  A strong plea for action...

Satiety enhancing food development: State of the art in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and technology

Developing foods that keep you feel full for longer is not a matter of simply adding extra fibers, water or air to a food. For many people, the signs of fullness that their body is giving them after eating are easily overridden by the temptations in our environment that trigger to continue eating. Think of the high visibility of delicious foods and large, convenient portion sizes. They all have substantial influence on the amount of food we eat and the resulting satisfaction.

Satiety is a complex interaction of physiological, social and psychological mechanisms.

Food providing enhanced satiety will have to function in the life of people surrounded by cues that stimulate excessive eating. This requires an integrated approach between various food-related disciplines.

This month, our new paper has been published: 'Successful development of satiety enhancing food products: Towards a multidisciplinary agenda of research challenges'. The paper presents the state of the art and key research challenges around satiety enhancings foods in the field of nutrition, food technology, consumer, marketing and communication.

My co-authors are Hans van Trijp, Joost van den borne and Charon Zondervan. Just click on the Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition-paper below to read it full-text.

 

Is there hope for a thinner future?

There is not much progress made in combatting the overweight and obesity epidemic. That is a conclusion drawn in a recent paper of the prominent researchers Peter Herman and Janet Polivy: 'Self-regulation and the obesity epidemic' (Social Issues and Policy Review).  I found it an inspiring paper. Both authors are highly influential and experienced in the field of experimental psychology of eating behaviour and obesity. Because of their outstanding track record, I recommend reading their paper and think about it. Their take home message is not a positive one, however.   

Picture: Rudd Center Image Gallery



The basic premise of the article of Herman and Polivy is that researchers should be sceptical about interventions, both at the individual and societal level. They state that many researchers suggest that progress is being made or just around the corner. But actually, this is not true. Their review of the literature coupled with the decades of  professional experience made them conclude the following: ‘Scrutiny of the statistics, however, suggest that not much progress has been made so far in combatting the problem; in fact, it is probably easier to make the case that things are continuing to get worse’.

The best interventions at an individual level (e.g. clinical interventions) are expensive or impossible to implement on a community-wide basis. Although the authors agree with many scientists that interventions at a societal level (e.g. reshaping of the environment) are needed, they are not optimistic. Basically, many ideas for interventions will not work or even backfire, they argue.



Obesity is a very serious problem. Herman and Polivy stress that it not ok to implement unproven interventions. They warn that scientists should be cautious about applying solutions that turn out to be ineffective as the little trust that the public has in social scientists should not be destroyed.

What do you think? Is there really not much progress made? Is there hope for a thinner future?