“In more than 30 years of working in the food industry, Hank Cardello didn’t think much about the health consequences of the products he promoted, whether Betty Crocker cake mixes, a proposed new malt liquor, or Diet Coke. He thinks about them plenty now, though. After a cancer scare in 1995, Cardello switched gears and started to look more critically at how his industry might help combat obesity. He’s now CEO of 27 Degrees North, a consulting firm that helps companies marry profit and social responsibility. In Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat (Ecco), just released in paperback, Cardello lays out his views on why consumers are not entirely to blame for their own girth, why well-meaning government regulations often fail, and how the food industry might put its marketing oomph behind better alternatives to some of the high-calorie packaged foods that Americans snarf down. Here are edited excerpts from our conversation…”

Labels alone cannot change the fact that for Americans there are 29 percent more calories available to eat than 50 years ago. Obesity is a supply problem and must be dealt with at the source.

A better way to start reducing America’s collective girth is to give food corporations incentives to sell less calories in a way that does not damage their bottom lines. One novel approach would be to adjust the deductions food corporations receive for their advertising expenditures based on their willingness to cut back on calories.

While efforts to increase the number of “healthy schools,” encourage more exercise, and improve the availability of more nutritious food in low-income neighborhoods are noble, they do not attack the real enemy in the battle of the bulge: the number of excess calories available to eat. This is the missing link.

Rather than looking at the food industry as a pariah, it’s time to reach out to them.

Putting into effect tax incentives that entice food companies to sell fewer calories will yield more tangible results than pushing for more consumer behavioral change. These incentives can be structured to reward companies that cut their calories. Conversely, if marketers continue to spew excess calories on the public, they would risk losing favorable tax treatments.

An Obama program fueled by an energized food industry would be a strong one-two punch to knockout obesity. Our children’s health depends on it.

This Stealth Health approach offers a more enlightened way to ensure that consumers really do stick with changes intended to improve the nutrition of packaged foods and beverages. This is in contrast to the “stick” approach of taxing consumers or banning favorite ingredients to force changes in eating habits which rarely are adhered.

Why do I like Stealth Health? For one, food corporations have been deploying “stealth” tactics for many years to reduce costs.  Little by little, tweak by tweak, the iconic brands that we enjoy have all been tinkered with over the decades – all without us knowing so that we don’t abandon ship.

Stealth Health also avoids overtly depriving the public of the foods and beverages they enjoy. This is why diets fail. Instead of expecting consumers to abandon their favorite foods, improving the nutrition and/or reducing calories below the radar does not upset this delicate balance.

And, it sidesteps consumer suspicions that if a food is “healthy” it can’t taste good (witness cereals that have tasted like cardboard or the first soy hot dogs). Virtually every piece of research I have encountered confirms that, for foods that are typically more indulgent, the consumer believes that making these foods more healthy results in poorer taste.

For a half century, the food industry has quietly produced 29% more calories per person to eat every day.  It’s time to reverse that trend in the same way – quietly. Obesity will not be solved overnight, but by taking cues from the Salt Wars, food companies now have the blueprint on how to secretly perform nutritional surgery on their brands and go about taking the calories out without compromising their profits.

The program began by highlighting the total number of calories per serving AND the number of servings per package right on the front of the label.   This allowed consumers to immediately determine the caloric merits for each product. Unfortunately, the Smart Choices effort quickly derailed by trying to accomplish too much.  In addition to communicating calorie and serving information, it complicated the matter by grading each item on its relative “healthfulness” according to interpretive nutritional criteria. Against all sensibility, items such as Fruit Loops and mayonnaise were bestowed the “Smart Choices” label, sending mothers and nutrition activists into a frenzy, resulting in an early death for the program and damage to the industry’s credibility.

I am all for food corporations leading the charge to solve obesity, but if we really want to help reduce the excess pounds carried by Americans, we must focus on doing one thing well: lowering the number of calories. If the Smart Choices initiative had stuck to simply posting calorie counts on packaging, it would have gone a long way to educating consumers about how much a single product can affect their weight. 

Why focus only on calories? Because calories are the #1 culprit leading to our nation’s overweight and obesity epidemic. Over the past 50 years, the number of calories available for consumption has increased by 29 percent per person. In today’s confusing world with so many messages being thrown at us, simplicity is the key to addressing our obesity epidemic.  Fortunately, a simple approach – reducing our caloric intake – can, in fact, solve obesity in America.  If we apply a “put a man on the moon” kind of zeal to lowering our calorie intake, it will go a long way toward taking off the pounds and reducing the risks for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

And, by the way, as the calories go down, a funny thing happens on the way to the fat forum: sugars, fats, etc. will concurrently come down automatically. By avoiding the constant press by nutrition activists to deliver the Perfect Food, we will reduce the rampant confusion prevalent among consumers regarding the nutritional merits of various fats, sugars, salt, etc.

If we are really serious about lowering our overweight and obese condition, it’s time to change our mindsets about over-communicating and over-confusing the issue.  My advice is – let’s KISS our excess pounds goodbye.  How? Keep it Simple, Stupid. Just post the calories and focus on reducing the total number of calories we eat as a nation.  The pounds will come off and we can become a healthier America.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2009
 
Author Stirs “Fat” Tax Debate with Controversial Proposal
Anti-Obesity Advocate and Former Food Executive Says Tax Incentives for Food Corporations a Better Way to Trim the Fat
 
Chapel Hill, N.C. – (September 22, 2009) Hank Cardello, a well-known author, advocate for addressing America’s obesity epidemic and former food industry executive has spent more than thirty years as a senior executive for some of America’s largest food and beverage manufacturers. While Cardello is the first to admit that the food industry has played some role in the proliferation of obesity in America, Cardello’s position highlights the importance of engaging the food industry to solve the problem – through incentives rather than ineffective taxes on select products deemed “unhealthy” by government and health advocates. Cardello also wants to tap into the marketing power of the food industry to help educate consumers about portion control.

What’s wrong with soft drink taxes? Only 7 percent of the calories we consume are from soft drinks, and numerous studies (1) have demonstrated that these taxes will not curb consumer’s decisions to drink sodas. Additionally, consumers have failed time and again to control their weight with traditional solutions such as diet and exercise.  Therefore, the food industry must play a role by working to reduce the number of calories available to American consumers.  Simply taxing select items is not a powerful enough approach for a problem of this magnitude.

“There is no single food or beverage that can be selected as “the enemy” when considering our nation’s obesity crisis,” explains Cardello.  “The real enemy is the number of excess calories available for consumption in America today, regardless of the source. The only way to slim down this beast is to engage the food industry by trying to reduce the number of calories put into the American food supply.”
 
Cardello’s recently published book entitled “Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat” (HarperCollins), provides an insider’s look at the business of food and how the food industry can profitably solve the obesity epidemic. 
 
“Rather than alienate or overregulate the food industry, we need to put into effect tax incentives that would entice food companies to sell fewer calories. Companies that cut their calories should be rewarded. Those that continue to spew excess calories on the public should risk losing favorable tax treatments.”
 
According to The Obesity Society, approximately 127 million adults are overweight, 60 million are obese and 9 million are severely obese. Currently, 64.5 percent of U.S. adults, age 20 years and older, are overweight and 30.5 percent are obese. Experts estimate that obesity represents ten percent of all medical costs in the U.S. or $147 billion annually.  Cardello realizes the significance of this issue and is working to make a difference.
 
Interesting Facts Taken from Hank Cardello’s Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat:
•         The number of calories available for consumption in America has gone up 29 percent per person since the 1950s.
•         The original Swanson’s TV dinner, created in 1953, was under 300 calories.
•         Research shows some portions at fast food restaurants are now two to five times larger than those of the 1950s.
•         The 100-calorie pack is a perfect example of how food companies can profit while helping address obesity.

About Hank Cardello

Hank Cardello is a successful executive, author and business expert focused on developing practical and innovative solutions to address social problems such as obesity.  His business philosophy – one of socially responsible capitalism – promotes organizations’ ability to make a profit while addressing important social issues. A former food and beverage executive with companies including Coca-Cola and General Mills, he is the author of Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat (www.StuffedNation.com). Cardello chairs the Global Obesity Business Forum sponsored by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and also serves as chief executive officer of 27ºNorth (www.27degNorth.com), an advisory firm focusing on these issues.

Follow Hank on Twitter @StuffedNation.

 
(1)“Can Soft Drink Taxes Reduce Population Weight?” (Fletcher, Frisvold & Tefft). Their results show that the magnitude of taxing is small because soft drinks represent only 7 percent of a person’s total calorie intake. The authors calculate that if a 75-cent soda was taxed to a higher price of 90 cents, the Body Mass Index (BMI) of a severely obese person would fall from 40 to just 39.98. They also conclude that even by raising the tax rate to be comparable with cigarettes (58%), the impact on population weight would be negligible.
 
“Cheap Donuts and Expensive Broccoli.” (Gelbach, Klick & Stratmann). The authors considered the effect of a 100 percent tax on all unhealthful foods in their (higher) price index. They concluded that Body Mass Index (BMI) is reduced by less than 0.2 points. These results suggest that “fat taxes” are not a viable tool to lower obesity.
 
 ”Determining the Impact of Food Price and Income Changes on Body Weight.” (Schroeter, Lusk & Tyner). They calculated that a 10% tax on soft drinks would lead to a weight loss of only .189 pounds for an average man and .201 pounds for an average woman.
 

Taxing specific products such as soft drinks or creating yet another educational program will not get the job done. Multiple studies have demonstrated that “fat” taxes will not appreciably lower obesity rates, while attempts to change consumer eating behavior have historically come up short.
 
The real enemy is the number of excess calories available for consumption, regardless of the source. The only way to slim down this beast is to engage the food industry.
 
Rather than alienate or overregulate the industry, my recommendation is to put into effect tax incentives that would entice food companies to sell fewer calories. If they cut their calories, they would be rewarded. If they continued to spew excess calories on the public, they would risk losing favorable tax treatments.

This approach is well worth discussing. Our nation’s health depends on it.
 
Henry J. Cardello
Chapel Hill, N.C., Sept. 10, 2009
 
The writer is a former food industry executive and author of “Stuffed: An Insider’s Look at Who’s (Really) Making America Fat.”

Today the Associated Press reported that, once again, Mississippi claimed the top spot as the #1 obese state. This news is not a surprise. What’s surprising is that we don’t “get it” that the same type of proposed solutions  – educating consumers, blaming the food industry and calling for even more government initiatives – have done nothing to derail the rise in obesity. 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. It’s time to engage the 800-pound gorilla – the food industry – to get us out of this mess. Yes, the food industry has increased the number of calories available to eat by 29% over the last 50 years. And yes, those oversized portions are not a mirage. But relying on the government to show up with effective programs and expecting consumers to overnight change their dietary habits is a pipe dream.

It’s time to trash our preconceived notions about how to solve this epidemic and give the food industry an incentive to come to the rescue. It’s time to (gasp!) consider tax credits for food and restaurant corporations that lower the number of calories they drop into America’s food trough.

Only then will we finally see some progress.

This “good food/bad food” characterization only perpetuates America’s # 1 health crisis: obesity. It presupposes that if we all converted to more natural, organic and plant foods, all health issues will dissipate. Does anyone know that the high antioxidant pomegranate juice delivers 50% more calories than a Coke?

Excess calories from any source are the problem as recently reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. Rather than vilifying trivial behaviors, we should focus on engaging the food industry to step up and reduce the calories it sells by offering tax incentives. Maybe then the problem will finally get solved. 

Please pass the ketchup.

            …The Beatles

The debate on taxing soft drinks continues in Washington. USA Today reported yesterday that the soda tax was still under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. Health experts are arguing that taxes will lower sugared soft drink consumption and, ultimately, result in consumers’ losing weight. Of course this is also good for the Federal Treasury since new revenues will be collected.

At issue is the fact that excess calories from ANY source are the problem as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine this spring.  Also missing from the debate is a study by academic researchers Fletcher, Frisvold and Tefft that concluded the impact of taxes on obesity would be marginal even if soft drinks were taxed at the rate of cigarettes. 

On the flip side, industry mouthpieces are also missing the mark. Their position that focusing on “calorie balance” does not offer an actionable solution. Lost in the shuffle is that, compared to 50 years ago, 800 extra calories per person per day are being supplied by the food industry. 

A better way to tackle the obesity epidemic is to unleash the food companies to lower the calories they sell and to use their advertising budgets to educate the consumer about portion control. This could be effected by a tax credit for reducing calories and earmarking a certain portion of food advertisements for public service messages about eating healthier.

Getting the calories off the street is the solution. Taxes won’t get the job done. It’s time to put a plan in place that works for all parties.