Big Food and obesity: Calls for a global treaty on food systems to limit industry’s political influence
28 Jan 2019 --- Global leaders must take a hard line against powerful commercial interests and rethink global economic incentives within the food system in order to tackle the joint pandemics of obesity, undernutrition and climate change. This is according to a new report from the Lancet Commission on Obesity, which features a key recommendation to establish a new global treaty on food systems to limit the political influence of Big Food.
The report follows the recent publication of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which provided the first scientific targets for a healthy diet within planetary boundaries. The new report analyses the wider systems underpinning the global obesity pandemic and identifies solutions to address “decades of policy failure.”
Malnutrition in all its forms, including undernutrition and obesity, is “by far the biggest cause of ill-health and premature death globally.” Yet, undernutrition and obesity are expected to be made significantly worse by climate change, and the global interplay of these three societal issues represents ‘The Global Syndemic,’” notes the report.
For example, food systems not only drive the obesity and undernutrition pandemics but also generate 25-30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and cattle production accounts for over half of those. Car-dominated transportation systems support sedentary lifestyles and generate between 14-25 percent of GHGs.
Underpinning all of these are “weak political governance systems, the unchallenged economic pursuit of GDP growth, and the powerful commercial engineering of overconsumption.”
Food systems not only drive the obesity and undernutrition pandemics but also generate 25-30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, notes the report.
Presented in Davos last week at the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Ellen MacArthur Foundation highlighted how the global food system is in need of an overhaul, taking it from a linear system to a circular one. This report similarly noted the devastating climatic, as well as health, effects of the current food system.
“Until now, undernutrition and obesity have been seen as polar opposites. In reality, they are both driven by the same unhealthy, inequitable food systems, underpinned by the same political economy that is single-focused on economic growth and ignores the negative health and equity outcomes,” says Commission co-chair, Professor Boyd Swinburn of the University of Auckland.
“Climate change has the same story of profits and power ignoring the environmental damage caused by current food systems, transportation, urban design and land use. Joining the three pandemics together as The Global Syndemic allows us to consider common drivers and shared solutions, with the aim of breaking decades of policy inertia,” he adds.
Led by the University of Auckland (New Zealand), the George Washington University (US), and World Obesity Federation (UK), the new Lancet Commission is the result of a three-year project led by 43 experts from a broad range of expertise from 14 countries.
No longer business as usual
The report recommends overcoming the Global Syndemic, attributed to decades of “business as usual” thinking, with a radical rethink of policies and economic incentives, which all reportedly promote overconsumption and inequalities. Included within this are agriculture policies, transportation, urban design and land use systems.
Among the actions recommended, the commission calls for the establishment of a Framework Convention on Food Systems (FCFS) – similar to global conventions for tobacco control and climate change – to restrict the influence of the food industry in policy making and to mobilize national action for healthy, equitable and sustainable food systems.
The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) provide valuable models for a global approach to tackle the adverse health and environmental effects of the food system.
“Food is different to tobacco, but like tobacco, a small number of well-designed, strict regulations could help level the playing field for industry. So, when one business tries to do something good, like completely ban targeting children for junk food, then they are not at a disadvantage. We want to see a set of regulations that will see industry compete on a level playing field, so that they don't have to resort to the lowest common denominator of trying to get kids to eat junk food, for example,” Corinna Hawkes, Professor of Food Policy and one of the authors of the study, tells NutritionInsight.
The commission calls for a new Framework Convention on Food Systems (FCFS) to link the powerful players around food systems into a common agreement, enabling governments to add elements of public health, social equity and environmental protection.
The report also notes that economic incentives must also be redesigned and that the estimated US$5 trillion in government subsidies to fossil fuel and large agricultural businesses globally be redirected towards sustainable, healthy, environmentally friendly activities. Additionally, a global philanthropic fund of US$1 billion must be set up to support civil society in advocating for change.
“The prevailing business model of large international food and beverage companies that focus on maximizing short-term profits leads to overconsumption of nutrient-poor food and beverages in both high-income countries and increasingly in low and middle-income countries,” says Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet.
The commission calls for a new Framework Convention on Food Systems (FCFS) to link the powerful players around food systems into a common agreement.
“The single most powerful thing that the food industry can do to improve population nutrition is to stop using its very substantial and effective lobbying capacity to block food policies recommended by WHO and other expert groups,” Boyd Swinburn, author of the paper, tells NutritionInsight.
In response to the suggestions made in the new report, Tim Rycroft, Chief Operating Officer at the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), tells NutritionInsight, “Drawing a comparison between tobacco and food is deeply irresponsible. Food and drink are essential to sustain life while even the smallest dose of tobacco is harmful to health. The food and drink industry has a proud record, working alongside Government, making positive changes to the nation’s diet, for over ten years. It is widely acknowledged that obesity rates in the UK are too high, but that can’t change without the active partnership of industry. ”
Social mobilization is needed
The report emphasizes the need for social mobility to make these calls a reality.
For example, the recent withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Change Agreement demonstrates the fragility of agreements that might change based on the politics of the countries involved. Yet, despite the administration’s decision, 2,700 leaders from US cities, states, and businesses representing 159 million people and US$ 6.2 trillion in GDP have continued efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, the mobilization of civil society was crucial in driving commitment for a sugary drinks tax in Mexico, it notes. Despite strong resistance from the beverage industry aimed at watering down the proposed measures, a 10 percent tax was added to sugary drinks. Within two years, consumption of sugary drinks was reduced by 7.6 percent.
“We call for a fund for civil society, which can create the type of awareness and knowledge and information which can get on to peoples plates, as it were. We need more civil society action in order to engage people in this,” says Hawkes.
“This year we really saw conversations around sustainability escalate in Davos, at the World Economic Forum. The sustainability issue has really taken off from an environmental perspective, and the next big question that the industry needs to discuss is how can we get by with selling less. We are essentially saying to companies, we want you to sell less. We want you to sell more of the nutritious foods, but that's not just enough, they also need to sell less unhealthy foods. Selling less and consuming less may not become permanent this year, but we are on a road towards that conversation,” concludes Hawkes.
By Laxmi Haigh
