You would be forgiven for scoffing at the two American teenagers who unsuccessfully sued McDonald's for making them obese. But maybe the fast food giants, confectionery multinationals, and fizzy pop manufacturers are far from blameless. Vittal Katikireddi finds out
Obesity is a growing problem worldwide, particularly in developed countries. While the litigation continues in America, it is no surprise that it's been America that is leading the way in the incidence of obesity. It has been estimated that as many as a quarter of American children are obese.1 For those of us elsewhere, however, things look set to go a similar way. In the United Kingdom, the incidence of obesity has trebled in the past 20 years.2 This dramatic rise is accompanied by an increase in illnesses associated with obesity, such as diabetes and heart disease.
Link between advertising and consumption in children
It is therefore a matter of great concern for health professionals to observe food companies' blatant targeting of children. Research has long established a link between advertising and consumption in children.3 Unfortunately, given that the food advertised to children--largely high in sugar, high in fat, or both--will increase consumption, it seems that the battle against the bulge cannot but fail.
Thankfully, most countries have not yet reached the state of America, where 5.7 million children regularly watch a 12 minute educational programme on the now infamous Channel 1.2 The programme contains two minutes of advertising for a variety of unhealthy foods. The 30 second adverts are so valuable to the food industry that a couple of years ago they were reportedly being sold for £122 000 ($199 000; a184 000).2
Some US schools have gone even further, with sponsorship deals by Coke, Pepsi, and others allowing unparalleled access to this lucrative market.4 Perhaps the most bizarre example is the story of Mike Cameroon, the 19 year old who wore a Pepsi T shirt on the school's official "Coca-Cola day." The result: he was suspended.4
The Harry Potter example
Many campaigners are far from happy with this aggressive youth oriented marketing by multinationals. The recent Harry Potter films provide a useful example, featuring one of the most lucrative sponsorship deals in history.5 Coca-Cola sponsored the first film to the tune of £103m. In opposition to this, an American health organisation, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), set up a website (www.saveharry.com) According to the CSPI, consumption of fizzy drinks has doubled in the United States over the past 30 years, with an average consumption of almost 600 cans per year for every man, woman, and child. In the United Kingdom, the deal was condemned by the British Dental Association and the Dairy Council.5 The campaign has resulted in
J K Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, receiving over 20 000 letters of protest.
The food and drink giants are under threat from other opposition as well. The World Health Organization (WHO), in its bid to combat the surge in obesity, recommended in a draft report last year that governments should place heavier taxes on "sugar rich items," including fizzy drinks.6 WHO has also suggested that more stringent regulation of advertising be placed on unhealthy foods, a sentiment echoed in a report by the United Kingdom's Fabian Society, a centre left think tank.6 7
However, the path to losing weight never does run smooth--as true for societies as it is for individuals. The US government registered a formal objection to the WHO report and argued that there was insufficient evidence to conclude a causal link between soft drinks consumption and weight gain.2 This was a rather bizarre state of affairs since the review that resulted in the WHO's decree was co-authored by William Dietz, the US government's leading expert on obesity and director of the division of nutrition and physical activity of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Incidentally, US President Bush, during his 2000 election campaign, received nearly $1m from Coca-Cola.8
Is WHO under pressure from manufacturers?
There are very real fears that WHO itself may be subject to pressure from food manufacturers as well. In a confidential report obtained by London's Guardian, an independent consultant to WHO has alleged that food companies have used their financial muscle to distort health policy and research, as tobacco companies have done previously.9 Dr Norbert Hirschhorn, a Connecticut based public health academic, accused food companies of financing sympathetic researchers, handpicking scientists for WHO and Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) panels, giving money to research and policy groups dealing with UN agencies, and backing propaganda.9
An organisation that was singled out for criticism was the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), which, according to the report, has positioned its experts and expertise across the whole spectrum of food and tobacco policies: at conferences, on FAO/WHO food policy committees and within WHO, and with monographs, journals, and technical briefs.9 The ILSI has criticised WHO's draft report on nutrition. In its official response, the institute says that no scientific justification for the limitation of sugar intake (<10% of calories) is provided.10 It is also critical of WHO's focus on diet and has tried to shift the blame for obesity to physical inactivity. "Weight gain and obesity are the result of energy imbalance. Thus, energy expenditure, though not the focus of this report, is a major contributor to prevention of weight gain and lack of activity is a major factor in promoting weight gain." The ILSI is funded by the food industry; its sponsors including Mars, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo. Despite this, Eileen Kennedy, the ILSI's global executive director, claims that the institute regarded itself as an independent body.9
The food manufacturers may now be trying to influence our perception of healthy eating directly. The US confectionery giant Mars has funded research at leading universities over the past decade to try to establish a link between chocolate and prevention of heart disease.11 The research tries to show that cocoa beans, used to make pure chocolate, contain enough flavonoids to have a cardioprotective effect. However, Mars bars contain very little chocolate, and even Mars's Galaxy bar--which at first glance seems to be solid chocolate--contains 45% sugar and 31% fat.11
The McDonald's court case
Possibly the most hopeful counterattack on food companies has come from an unlikely source but one that has cost McDonald's dearly and has served as a warning to others. In 1987, London Greenpeace--an organisation independent from and pre-dating the more well known Greenpeace International--handed out six-sided factsheets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's?--Everything they don't want you to know.12 The leaflet criticised McDonald's for promoting an unhealthy diet, exploiting children through their advertising, and various other things. By 1990, McDonald's served libel writs on five volunteers distributing the leaflets. The company had previously regularly threatened to sue its critics, including well known media groups such as the BBC and the Guardian but also small student movements.
At this point, events didn't go according to McDonald's plan. Three of the protesters retracted their allegations and apologised, but two didn't. The trial, dubbed "McLibel," became known worldwide (helped by setting up what may well be the most popular website ever) and ended up being the longest running trial in English history, lasting two and a half years. Worse still for McDonald's, the judge declared that the company did exploit children with its advertising and also falsely advertised its food as nutritious, risking the health of its most regular long term customers.13 It was a costly public relations decision for the fast food chain.
So it may seem ludicrous that two obese teenagers tried to sue McDonald's, but maybe another McLibel is what's needed for the food industry to finally take nutrition seriously.
