Every year, countless Americans kick off the New Year with a resolution to battle a burdensome bulge. By the end of January, many start to come up short. Now there's encouraging news that you don't have to fight alone — nor does Big Brother need to step in to regulate food manufacturers to combat calories. More than a dozen of the country's top food companies are voluntarily enlisting in the war to help Americans lose weight.
Every year, countless Americans kick off the New Year with a resolution to battle a burdensome bulge. By the end of January, many start to come up short. Now there's encouraging news that you don't have to fight alone — nor does Big Brother need to step in to regulate food manufacturers to combat calories. More than a dozen of the country's top food companies are voluntarily enlisting in the war to help Americans lose weight.
A new report reveals the driver of this shift toward healthier eating is Michelle Obama's campaign to raise awareness about the nation's obesity problem — particularly childhood obesity.
Selling fewer calories
Through the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, Obama partnered with food companies to sell fewer calories by reducing package sizes or producing lower calorie foods. According to a study done by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it's working. Those companies sold 6.4 trillion fewer calories last year.
Given the current population, and assuming that the Natural Resources Defense Council is correct that up to 40% of food produced is actually wasted, that means each American should weigh almost 3.5 pounds less each year if food companies continue to sell fewer calories at the same pace.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average American is about 23 pounds overweight, so if more companies join and continue to cut calories, in theory, we could tackle the overweight problem in less than seven years.
Things won't work out so neatly, but it is a great start. And this is all voluntary.
Higher profits
Presented with the opportunity, Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation participants such as Nestlé and The Hershey Co. will ultimately align their interests with increasingly health-conscious consumers. Nestlé recently made news when itannounced a deal with a biotechnology company to research nutritionally enhanced products they deem more profitable.
Now compare these voluntary efforts with the Obama administration's plans. It proposed a ban on trans fatty acids (trans fats) despite evidence that labels alerting consumers to their presence has been successful. In the wake of consumer reaction to the labels, manufacturers that could find or easily create substitutes have already — voluntarily — done so. Indeed, since labeling began, consumption of trans fat is down considerably. From 2007 through 2011, the CDC tracked 270 grocery items and found a 49% drop in trans fats.
Cooperation before bans
For products that still need the binding properties of trans fats, to hold muffins together for example, removing them will be harder. Yet consumers have spoken, and trans fats will continue to disappear from foods as other options become available. And there is little urgency to remove the last bit of trans fats quickly. The Food and Drug Administration has no way of knowing whether eliminating the last trans fats will have the same benefits as trimming them from higher levels.
That is important because the FDA and other regulators do not always know the long-term results of their actions. Trans fat was widely put into the food supply in response to consumer groups' concerns about the health effects of animal fats. After it turned out the trans fat is worse for your heart than the animal fat it replaced, theconsumer groups petitioned the FDA for a ban.
Moreover, a ban creates a dangerous precedent. Consumer groups make no secret of their wish to decrease sugar and salt in the food supply, despite the fact that both are fine for people to eat in moderation and salt particularly is a necessary part of a healthy diet. This misinformed advocacy will be wasteful and likely to elicit exactly the sorts of unintended consequences created when food manufacturers were forced to create trans fats as a replacement for animal fats.
Instead of relying on the heavy hand of government, let us follow the first lady's softer and successful approach.
It's more effective, less expensive and less likely to produce unintended consequences.