The Times: What 'supersized' food portions are doing to us
When size does matter: Food portions are bigger and cheaper than a decade ago but what's the real cost? By David Rowan
Blame the XL Double Whopper burger, the "big eat" giant crisp pack and the king-size chunky chocolate bar. As British food manufacturers have increased portion sizes to match the "supersized" American norms in recent years, our obesity levels have also ballooned to create a US-style epidemic. Could the two be related?
Increasingly, nutritionists are pointing to the decline of "standard" portion sizes as a key factor behind the rise in "lifestyle" obesity - and with it higher rates of cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The National Obesity Forum has identified a 30 per cent increase in portion sizes of fast foods and takeaways over the past decade - during which time obesity levels have doubled among adolescents in Britain. Policy makers are now warning that, by 2010, obesity will affect one in four adults and cost the NHS almost £4 billion. And much of the damage, they say, comes down to the ever larger portions on our plates.
According to the British Dietetic Association (BDA), our growing reliance on energy-packed "meal deals", "triple-pack" sandwiches and "bargain-sized" giant chocolate bars is promoting habit-forming patterns of dangerous over consumption.
Although these larger portions are marketed as offering improved value for money, the true price, the BDA gives warning, will be "larger people with larger health problems".
Last September, the World Cancer Research Fund presented findings from the US comparing today's servings with those of 20 years ago. Since 1982, a standard-sized hamburger has grown by 112 per cent, steaks by 224 per cent and chocolate-chip cookies by 700 per cent. And, however strong our willpower, once we are served bigger portions, we learn to consume more. A team at Pennsylvania State University found that volunteers consumed 30 per cent more calories on days when they were served larger portions than normal, even though most failed to notice the differences in size. And when people unthinkingly consumed bigger portions, they were unlikely to compensate for the extra calories later in the day.
Although most of the detailed studies have taken place in America, where 61 per cent of adults are now classed as overweight or obese, Britain is fast catching up, according to Andrew Prentice, a professor of international nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Go to McDonald's website and compare the portions available in different countries," he says. "The differences between US and European portions now are small - which tells us we're up there with the worst."
Indeed, a large McDonald's meal comprising 20 Chicken McNuggets, supersized fries and Coke, and a McFlurry Crunchie for dessert will provide 1,972 calories - not far off the total daily adult recommended allowance, and particularly high in fat and sugar.
The problem, says Prentice, is that food ingredients have become an ever cheaper element of a packaged meal. A fast-food company will have spent a relatively high sum on marketing to entice you into the restaurant - so if a supersized burger differentiates it from a rival, management will consider the costs of the extra ingredients worthwhile. Forty years ago in Britain, we spent about 30 per cent of disposable income on food, Prentice notes. Today, the proportion is less than 10 per cent - suggesting that the "value" marketing strategy is not necessarily working to the food companies' benefit.
"It makes my blood boil when people are sold troughs of soft drinks and buckets of popcorn at the cinema," Prentice says. "It's so irresponsible. If anything, sizes should have been adjusted downwards to take account of our more sedentary lifestyles. Our energy requirements are falling thanks to technological change and our declining exercise, and we actually need to eat less than previous generations."Now that we all have mobile phones, for instance, we might save ourselves having to walk ten miles over a year to the nearest phone box.
Dympna Pearson, who chairs an obesity working group for the BDA, believes that legislation may be needed if manufacturers do not voluntarily agree to reduce portion sizes. "We have a major epidemic in the UK and we need to be much stronger in taking action, especially to protect children," she says. "Food is more widely available now than it was even ten years ago, when we were more likely to sit down at the table for a meal and it was considered rude to eat on the street. And although a well-informed, disciplined person might choose not to finish a larger portion, it takes an uncommonly strong degree of self-awareness."
The manufacturers, for their part, believe that consumers are getting ever more value for money and variety. "Competition over the past decade has led to a range of pack sizes, giving consumers more choice," says Kate Snowden, spokeswoman for the Food and Drink Federation. "Not only have you seen some products getting bigger but some getting smaller -so parents can give children a mini-bar as a treat. That's got to be good."
Andrew Prentice is familiar with the argument: "The food industry is right in that it's promising greater choice - but mini-bars are available only in large multi-packs." He believes that the trend disproportionately penalises the socially deprived, at whom most value-for-money marketing is targeted.
"We've reached a tipping point now," he says. "Why can't the industry, before legislation is needed, come to some voluntary agreement whereby they compete on anything but portion size?" Kate Snowden's response is that, in a hugely competitive market, manufacturers will wish to protect their "trade secrets". She adds: "There's only a certain amount of openness you can have between businesses, but as manufacturers we do take our responsibility seriously."
Still, some manufacturers are starting to acknowledge that the trend towards ever larger sizes may not be in their own best long-term interests. Last year, Kraft, one of the world's biggest food producers, announced that it would voluntarily cut the size of its portions because of concerns over obesity and potential lawsuits. The move attracted favourable publicity but only limited action has so far been taken.
For others within this highly competitive industry, however, the trend is still in the other direction. Last year, the Pizza Express chain announced that it was increasing the size of its pizzas by nearly 50 per cent after a wave of publicity suggesting that its meals offered worse value than its rivals. To the British consumer, it seems, bigger still appears to be better.
(The Times, November 29 2003)
Blame the XL Double Whopper burger, the "big eat" giant crisp pack and the king-size chunky chocolate bar. As British food manufacturers have increased portion sizes to match the "supersized" American norms in recent years, our obesity levels have also ballooned to create a US-style epidemic. Could the two be related?
Increasingly, nutritionists are pointing to the decline of "standard" portion sizes as a key factor behind the rise in "lifestyle" obesity - and with it higher rates of cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The National Obesity Forum has identified a 30 per cent increase in portion sizes of fast foods and takeaways over the past decade - during which time obesity levels have doubled among adolescents in Britain. Policy makers are now warning that, by 2010, obesity will affect one in four adults and cost the NHS almost £4 billion. And much of the damage, they say, comes down to the ever larger portions on our plates.
According to the British Dietetic Association (BDA), our growing reliance on energy-packed "meal deals", "triple-pack" sandwiches and "bargain-sized" giant chocolate bars is promoting habit-forming patterns of dangerous over consumption.
Although these larger portions are marketed as offering improved value for money, the true price, the BDA gives warning, will be "larger people with larger health problems".
Last September, the World Cancer Research Fund presented findings from the US comparing today's servings with those of 20 years ago. Since 1982, a standard-sized hamburger has grown by 112 per cent, steaks by 224 per cent and chocolate-chip cookies by 700 per cent. And, however strong our willpower, once we are served bigger portions, we learn to consume more. A team at Pennsylvania State University found that volunteers consumed 30 per cent more calories on days when they were served larger portions than normal, even though most failed to notice the differences in size. And when people unthinkingly consumed bigger portions, they were unlikely to compensate for the extra calories later in the day.
Although most of the detailed studies have taken place in America, where 61 per cent of adults are now classed as overweight or obese, Britain is fast catching up, according to Andrew Prentice, a professor of international nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Go to McDonald's website and compare the portions available in different countries," he says. "The differences between US and European portions now are small - which tells us we're up there with the worst."
Indeed, a large McDonald's meal comprising 20 Chicken McNuggets, supersized fries and Coke, and a McFlurry Crunchie for dessert will provide 1,972 calories - not far off the total daily adult recommended allowance, and particularly high in fat and sugar.
The problem, says Prentice, is that food ingredients have become an ever cheaper element of a packaged meal. A fast-food company will have spent a relatively high sum on marketing to entice you into the restaurant - so if a supersized burger differentiates it from a rival, management will consider the costs of the extra ingredients worthwhile. Forty years ago in Britain, we spent about 30 per cent of disposable income on food, Prentice notes. Today, the proportion is less than 10 per cent - suggesting that the "value" marketing strategy is not necessarily working to the food companies' benefit.
"It makes my blood boil when people are sold troughs of soft drinks and buckets of popcorn at the cinema," Prentice says. "It's so irresponsible. If anything, sizes should have been adjusted downwards to take account of our more sedentary lifestyles. Our energy requirements are falling thanks to technological change and our declining exercise, and we actually need to eat less than previous generations."Now that we all have mobile phones, for instance, we might save ourselves having to walk ten miles over a year to the nearest phone box.
Dympna Pearson, who chairs an obesity working group for the BDA, believes that legislation may be needed if manufacturers do not voluntarily agree to reduce portion sizes. "We have a major epidemic in the UK and we need to be much stronger in taking action, especially to protect children," she says. "Food is more widely available now than it was even ten years ago, when we were more likely to sit down at the table for a meal and it was considered rude to eat on the street. And although a well-informed, disciplined person might choose not to finish a larger portion, it takes an uncommonly strong degree of self-awareness."
The manufacturers, for their part, believe that consumers are getting ever more value for money and variety. "Competition over the past decade has led to a range of pack sizes, giving consumers more choice," says Kate Snowden, spokeswoman for the Food and Drink Federation. "Not only have you seen some products getting bigger but some getting smaller -so parents can give children a mini-bar as a treat. That's got to be good."
Andrew Prentice is familiar with the argument: "The food industry is right in that it's promising greater choice - but mini-bars are available only in large multi-packs." He believes that the trend disproportionately penalises the socially deprived, at whom most value-for-money marketing is targeted.
"We've reached a tipping point now," he says. "Why can't the industry, before legislation is needed, come to some voluntary agreement whereby they compete on anything but portion size?" Kate Snowden's response is that, in a hugely competitive market, manufacturers will wish to protect their "trade secrets". She adds: "There's only a certain amount of openness you can have between businesses, but as manufacturers we do take our responsibility seriously."
Still, some manufacturers are starting to acknowledge that the trend towards ever larger sizes may not be in their own best long-term interests. Last year, Kraft, one of the world's biggest food producers, announced that it would voluntarily cut the size of its portions because of concerns over obesity and potential lawsuits. The move attracted favourable publicity but only limited action has so far been taken.
For others within this highly competitive industry, however, the trend is still in the other direction. Last year, the Pizza Express chain announced that it was increasing the size of its pizzas by nearly 50 per cent after a wave of publicity suggesting that its meals offered worse value than its rivals. To the British consumer, it seems, bigger still appears to be better.
(The Times, November 29 2003)
posted by David Rowan at Saturday, November 29, 2003
<< Home