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?

Have a look at the new virtual supermarket of Wageningen University

In the video below, Erica van Herpen (my colleague at the Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group) explains the advantages of doing research with the virtual supermarket. This simulated supermarket looks like a real supermarket with various shelves which display three-dimensional images of a wide range of products. As a consumer, you can walk through the aisles of the store and put products in your virtual shopping cart. The virtual supermarket allows us to easily manipulate various types of choice environments and promotion techniques. Interesting shopping patterns can be tracked, such as the time spent shopping or looking at a particular shelf, the number of products bought and the amount of money spent.

As reported in a previous blog post, we are currently working on a nudging project. Nudges are simple, low-cost interventions to move consumers towards healthier choices without banning food products or telling them how to live. According to what many consumer say themselves, health and sustainability are key reasons to select a certain product. In practice, however, this does not always appear to be the case. How can we best help these consumers in making the right choice by changing the shelf lay-out of healthy and sustainable products in supermarkets? Our new virtual supermarket is now used to study choice environments to stimulate healthier and more sustainable food choices.

Keep an eye on this blog, I will update you about new study results obtained with this exciting and innovative research tool.