08.04.2010

“HartBeat” is The Hartman Group's FREE online newsletter, providing insight, analysis, information and strategy to give business leaders the knowledge and vision to build sustainable brands.

Preparing to launch...

HOW America EATS 2010

The Crucial Role of Food Culture Inside Weight Management

Despite legislation, food bans, product reformulations, new product introductions, menu adjustments, endless hours of debate and millions of advertising dollars to promote healthier eating, nothing has worked: the majority of America’s consumers continue to be overweight.

WHY?

Companies and policy makers fail to understand the dynamic of FOOD CULTURE and EATING OCCASIONS that absolutely affects change in eating behavior.

HOW America EATS 2010 syndicated study builds on The Hartman Group’s groundbreaking 2004 Obesity in America report providing unique new revelations into the role consumers expect food companies, policy makers and health care providers to play that will help them meet their healthy weight aspirations and goals.

To learn more, contact:

Blaine Becker
425.452.0818, ext 124
blaine@hartman-group.com

The most comprehensive consumer and shopper exploration of health and wellness motivations, behaviors and trends in the marketplace today.

Two reports tell the story of where wellness consumers and shoppers are at today, how they are evolving and what the future of wellness may look like.

Archives »
Click here for an archive of past HartBeat articles

FOLLOW US

Comment »

Print »

E-mail »

Subscribe »

Share »

• digg
• del.icio.us
• facebook
• Linked in
• newsvine
• reddit
• twitter
• friendfeed
• StumbleUpon

E-mail:

Message:

Please write the image text in the given input box:

[ Different Image ]

There's No Magic Bean for Obesity

The Wall Street Journal recently featured an op-ed piece by Thomas Philipson and Richard Posner on the public policy debates surrounding obesity.

Through the din of thousands of voices clamoring to be heard in the obesity discourse, Philipson and Posner’s screed achieved a cacophony akin to Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound.” The title alone is enough to signal the ensuing ruckus that echoed across the blogosphere: “Fat New World: Technology spawned the obesity plague. It can also provide a cure.”

In an argument surprisingly devoid of any evidence or references, the authors dismiss nearly all public policy perspectives on the obesity problem in a single 31-word sentence.

Explanations based on biology, addiction or culture are unconvincing because they leave unexplained why, for example, Africans are less obese than Americans or why widespread obesity is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Their overall hypothesis is that technology has lowered the cost of food while simultaneously making our lives more sedentary, a point echoed by the following passages:

The rise in obesity is attributable primarily to changes in the price of consuming, and the cost of expending, calories—changes that are byproducts of otherwise beneficial technological advances. The price of food and thus of calories has long been trending downward because of agricultural innovations that have greatly reduced the time and resources required to go from hungry to full.

The effect on weight has been reinforced by a simultaneous trend, also technology driven, toward reducing the physical exertion involved in work.

Older technologies could not produce enough food, even in rich countries, to make the populations obese, however addictive food was. This is still true for the world's poorer populations.

To be certain, most agree that widespread obesity is indeed a relatively recent phenomenon. And many would likely concede that a combination of lower cost and increasing access to food plays some role in the contemporary obesity crises.

But it is at this point where the majority opinion based on actual, you know, data begins to diverge wildly from the authors’ arguments. To wit: While a report issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) concludes that some African nations do indeed have low obesity rates, the overall data are hardly consistent with the poverty explanation:

Current obesity levels range from below 5% in China, Japan and certain African nations, to over 75% in urban Samoa.

In the case of Samoa and other Western Pacific nations, a strong consensus finds these to have the most obese populations on earth. Nauru tops the charts, where 79% of adults are defined as obese by US CDC standards! And it’s difficult to cite the alleged connection between wealth and obesity when we find that for Nauru the per capita GDP is $2,396 with a per capita income of $3,432. Meanwhile the US figures are $45,230 and $45,835 accordingly.

Put most simply, there are many modern industrialized economies with markedly lower than average obesity rates (Japan) and many non-industrialized, poorer countries whose citizens have somehow figured out how to fill their bellies beyond belief (Samoa, Nauru).

But (significant) empirical problems aside, the more interesting conclusion here is their proposed solution.

In the classic tradition perpetuated by many macro-economists, Philipson and Posner argue that because this is largely an issue of economics, the only true solution will be a demand-centric process driven by technology. Part of the allure of market-driven technological solutions is that in many, if not most cases, they appear to work. For example, there is a long and well-documented history of technological solutions to resource scarcities and environmental challenges. The problem with relying on the market-demand/technology-solution approach is that should technology ever fail in such scenarios—as in, say, the case with global warming—the resulting outcome could prove catastrophic. In other words, they will appear to (mostly) work until the single case that they do not. As in “Hey, I thought technology was supposed to…” BANG! Game Over! You Have Died of Dysentery. In this case, they place their hope in advances in medicine and medical intervention, including gastric bypass surgery, gastric banding and Vivus’s new weight loss drug Onexa. This perspective can’t help but to sound a little Willy Wonka like in its assumptions: “It’s our wealth and technology that got us here, so we’ll invent some magic beans to get us out of this mess…”

The potential for parsimony in explanations of human behavior has forever enchanted economists. But it’s a safe bet to suggest that the rest of us living in the so-called “real world” recognize that most social problems are far more complex than Philipson and Posner would lead us to believe.

Turning attention back to alternate explanations

Simplistic economic explanations aside, we would like to reignite public policy debates on potential solutions to the obesity “epidemic.” As many loyal readers are aware, we have long been one of the few champions for the voice of culture in such debates regarding obesity. This is not because we foolishly think that culture alone will solve this incredibly complex problem. Rather, we have found that few in American public policy circles have the ability to truly grasp the power of cultural forces in addressing social issues. Our aim is to bring legitimacy to cultural perspectives—to cast a vote for the perennial underdog.

To this end, the culturally derived policy recommendations to emerge from our groundbreaking study on Obesity nearly five years ago seem ever more relevant in today’s public policy debate.

Consider the following public policy recommendations that emerged from our 2006 study on obesity:

1. Remove all vending machines in schools and restrict eating to the cafeteria.
2. Encourage businesses and public institutions to remove vending machines, commissaries and, stocked refrigerators from the workplace.
3. Create a culture in the workplace that actively discourages employees from routinely bringing treats, leftovers, etc. and leaving them in public spaces for general consumption.
4. Businesses and public institutions should rethink the need for any and all food served at meetings and conferences.
5. As much as is realistically possible, establish set schedules for meals within businesses or public institutions.
6. Work toward policies and values that encourage eating together—both within the household as well as in public.

Several of these recommendations (i.e., removing vending machines in schools, encourage family meals) are now commonly accepted strategies when addressing obesity from a public policy perspective.

And given the evolutionary trajectory of the obesity crisis circa 2010, we would be inclined to push these recommendations further—to a place some may find uncomfortable, if not misguided. This is often case for cultural solutions, and is precisely why we feel the need to champion their voice. Some of our more provocative extensions to the above might include the following:

1. Institute a workplace culture that expresses disdain for employees who choose to eat at their desks or meetings. If one really feels the need to stuff their face during work hours, why not head outside and join the recently shunned population of smokers?
2. Work toward a cultural dialogue that questions the need to eat in a variety of public settings such as driving in automobiles or lounging in public. If you speak with any recent visitor from another culture, they will agree that the propensity to constantly consume in public, while not strictly unique, reaches its fullest expression in America. As one colleague recently remarked after returning from a trip to a developing nation, “It is so strange that in one of the wealthiest countries on earth, where food is abundant and affordable to (nearly) all, we feel the need to constantly carry food around and eat it on any and all occasions…”
3. Begin to question our ubiquitous desire to constantly arm ourselves with beverages of all shapes and sizes. As many analysts have noted, Americans are now better canteened than most of our soldiers pre-Vietnam. This point is particularly important because many evolutionary biologists have documented the dramatic rise in the percentage of calorie consumption represented by beverages in our overall diet. As Barry Popkin observes, “…in the last 60 years, we've gone from consuming almost no calories from beverages to a fifth of our caloric intake in the U.S.” While it is true that many Americans are canteening with water, the behavior sets a precedent that it is somehow acceptable, if not necessary, to constantly be hydrating ourselves at any and all times and places with beverages of our choice.

Obviously these culturally informed suggestions are meant to provoke discussion rather than forward a Draconian agenda—though the analogies to the public health war on smoking should not be overlooked. We believe such provocative discussion is the point of any healthy public policy debate.

Parting Thoughts

Our work studying food culture offers yet another view on eating in America with regard to the cultural drivers of obesity in the U.S. We’ve learned through many years of ethnographic observation that we eat on three basic types of eating occasions within broader food culture: Instrumental occasions, when we are often distressed or bored and given to mindless munching (59% of adult eatings), Savoring occasions, when we intentionally set out to enjoy the flavors of food or beverage (41% of adult eatings), and Inspirational occasions (typically less than 1% of adult eatings). Inspirational occasions refer to those rare moments when we intentionally dine out to test our culinary boundaries or rely on a chef to reconfigure our very understanding of food. Recent proprietary Hartman research revealed curious linkages between eating occasions and obesity in America.

1. It’s HOW we eat: Obese consumers (BMI of 30+) are more likely to eat on Instrumental eating occasions than the general population (65% vs. 59%)
2. It’s not necessarily WHAT we eat: Surprisingly, obese consumers (BMI of 30+) eat “hand-to-mouth” foods popularly known as “junk food” (popcorn, crackers, nachos, nuts, salty snacks, snack cakes, candy, cookies, donuts) as frequently as non-obese consumers. These are foods iconically associated with weight gain in our population and seen to be the enemy by most public policy experts. To be certain, what we do not know are the relevant amounts of these foods consumed on such occasions by obese or non-obese consumers. One might reasonably expect obese consumers to consume more of such foods. But from our perspective, there are no reliable data to resolves this issue, as virtually all studies are based on self-report data.

We believe that the cultural mechanics of Instrumental eating are where we can locate key drivers of unintentional weight gain in modern America.

Comment »

Understanding Obesity

Beyond Teaching, Tinkering & Blaming

As analysts and consultants in the health, wellness and food arenas, we are continually puzzled—and more than a bit frustrated—by our collective response to the obesity issue. While we stand united in our belief that obesity is a serious problem in American society, especially among our youth, our common responses often leave much to be desired.

Understanding Obesity provides a provocative, yet simple, explanation as to the root problem of this country's greatest public health issue and offers equally thought-provoking solutions.

Download the whitepaper now >>