Managing the Obesity Issue

The 'perfect storm' around the obesity issue which has raged in the United Kingdom and in the United States seems to have caught many food companies, and retailers, unawares. They seem unsure about the best way to respond. But the real surprise is that they seem surprised. The drivers which have forced the issue to centre stage have been visible for some years. The only question mark was about timing. The trend towards obesity has been clear for a decade or more. But the counter trends have also been clear: a potential public spending crisis which has led to a public policy emphasis, at least in Europe, on overall outcomes, and an increasing interest in the external costs of private sector activity; at a consumer level, a powerful trend around well being, with its sense of the 'whole self’, together with increasing demands for organisational transparency. The cultural straws have also been blowing in the wind, These include, for example, in the United States, the initial lawsuits against McDonald's; the critical success of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation; the support within France for José Bové, scourge of McDonald's and GM foods alike; the emerging research linking diet and aggressive behaviour; the Italian Slow Food movement and the rapid growth in the UK of farmers’ markets. Taken together, these all suggest strongly that the obesity issue will not go away. The direct public health costs alone ensure this, but underlying consumer attitudes mean that this public agenda is reinforced by opinion formers and changes in social behaviour. This is not a blip. However, there is a question as to whether the food industry is the new tobacco and will get deluged by lawsuits and regulation or whether it is the new alcohol, and will instead be allowed largely to regulate itself with only modest public sanctions. A set of scenarios developed by The Henley Centre, which will be published shortly, suggests that the outcome is partly in the hands of the food companies themselves. It is one of the underlying principles of good futures work that although much of the future is beyond our control, some parts can be influenced. The trick is to be able to tell the difference. The extent to which this is true of the food industry depends on a number of things. These are explored in more detail in the Henley Centre scenarios, but in outline, they are, first, the extent to which food products have adverse health outcomes, and, second, the extent to which consumption is seen as the responsibility of the individual rather than the state. This in turn will be influenced by whether the consumers most affected are disproportionately among the more vulnerable members of society. Yes to both questions, and the prospects for your products are at the tobacco end of the spectrum: if not, they may be closer to the alcohol end. There are therefore different strategies open to companies, depending on product range, target market, and its supply side capabilities. Responses can range from an incremental improvement in the product (such as reduction of salt, as recently announced by manufacturers of sliced bread, or in transfats, as Kraft did) or an extensive reappraisal of the product range. The response may well prove a challenge to existing business models, although there will be new market opportunities for the bold. The risks of being wrong footed are high: companies which are too timid, or whose actions don't match their rhetoric face reputational damage. Andrew Curry is a director at The Henley Centre, the international strategic futures and marketing consultancy.