Part 2 of the men who made us fat.
We are being trapped into eating more
They realised that if they could increase the portions people would want to eat more.
64 oz of sugar - 50 teaspoons of sugar
Clever marketing persuaded us that more is good.
It is truly quantifiable to see the increase in portion sizes
This is a world of over abndance - big is best and value means more.
Britains biggest breakfast - Big Boy of Fat Boy or a kids breakfast that weights the same amount as a small boy - total weight about 15lbs - if eaten in an hour the money is given back.
2 epic failures per day
They kept getting told the fat boy wasn't big enough!!!!
This breakfast would have been unthinkable a few years ago until we got the American super sizing.
Ours is a world of food 24/7 - wherever and whenever
60 % of men and women in Britain are obese. Fat is more than the external fat - it's fat around the organs too - visceral or internal fat.
Troublesome for health.
Normal would be 2 litres of internal fat.
Who wanted us to eat bigger portions?
Downtown Chicago is where super sizing started. A man called David Wallacy in a cinema had the idea that changed the way we eat forever.
1967 Ballaban cinema chain - Wallastein super sized the popcorn. Not buying multi packets he decided to make packets bigger, charginf more of cost.
Most of the cost is in the packet so this is not much to make larger and make more profit
Sales and profits soared the super size portion was born
Head unted by MacDonalds Wallastein applied super sizes to the burger chain.
He faced opposition fro witin MacDonalds - opposing super size portion by Ray Krak.
It was a board room squabble. Wallasteins persistacne paid off and he tried out his theory in Chicago - observing behaviour int he restaurant - people tipped the packets back to get every little bit out of the packets. He decided customers wanted more but weren't oign to go bac for a second portion.
So increase the portions rather than make people go back looing gluttonous.
The new portion size was ntroduced. The customer thought it was a great deal. And they saw that more food but not as expensive as buying two - this seemed like vaalue for money.
Adding a few fries didn;t cost much but could be charged at a higher price - increase in profits.
Other fast food chanins followed suit - high in sugar and fat.
Tis new world of pletny held hidden risks. The impact on health was unknown.
Wallastein called it the salt slide - the need to get every little bit out of the packet.
One man made a discovery 1974 - Stafani was studying appetite and behaviour NYC University.
Looking for rapid weight gain in rats - told graduate to get foods they like to eat - chocolate, fat.
All of the animals started to voer eat. They started gaining weight immedidatley reaching a new level of body weight.
Sugar anf fats - rats share same biological make up as humans
They seek out high energy foods in time of plenty. If only occasionally eating no problem
But abunmdance of it makes it difficult to resist.
Toxic food probalem
Behaviour in rats would be same in humans
The food indudstry now knew what Sclefani knew.
Foods being offered in ever increasing portions sizes.
Britain this revoluiotn was still to tak off
Less than 2 % of people were obese.
A whole new way of ewating was introduced by wimpy.
People didn't need much educating -
Arrival of MCdonalds transfored the way Britain ate
Peopel could afford to eat out more -
Profit boosting - counter service - faster at serving customers and serving many more people
5-6 tmes more money taken as a result of counter service
Pressure to super size came from an unexpected quarter
The sweetheart cup company said offering larger cup sizes was a way to increase profits.
The packaging giant wanted sellers to promote super sizes as being better calue for money.
Up selling - bigger portions - everyone profitting apart from the punter.
It gave the customer a semblance of choice.
Britains weren't comfortable with up selling to being with but just a choice of 3 made it easier.
There was no sense of it being bad - no debate about it
In 7-'s there was no concern about obesity the concern was about getting enough nutrition - no a single commnt about super siing being bad - still not long after the war really
rready access to cheap food on the go. IN the 7-'s eating on the streets was considred a bad thing.
Social normas have changed as it's very usual to see people eating ont he streets
Taco Bell had the answer to the stagnating in America - the value meal
It increased the amount of calories being consumed - bundling
Bringing in a starter, a main meak, a dessert and a drink.
Increase revenue by creating these bundles as value for money
McDonalds were resistant but soon took on the idea under pressure.
It reduced customers waiting time trying to decide what they wanted.
It meant people chose quickly
every 15 seocns saved in delivering the meal to the consumer adds 1% growth to the co - £290 million profits
Customers had an incentive to buy more food - combo's -
it costs an extra quarter but charged for an extra 50c
People would eat it all because they paid for it even if they didn;t ned to eat it.
So extra french fries even when not ordered - it was all eaten
Value meals rolled out globally within 3 years accoutngin for all meals sold
Still the meals got bigger.
Wall street pressured the need for more profits
1983 - McDonalds co-marketed with Jurassic Park.
Dino sizer meals
Succesful promotion and rapidly adopted by otehr restauarant chains
Over consuming - alcohol, food, jewerly, clothes etc
It's a real problem in America
Value is good. Most people look and repect value.
It seemed like a great service for the consumer. Customer were now asked if they wanted to super size their meal.
Larger portions were later dropped blaming poor sales.
Big changes in the environment - people becing conscious of super sizing - offered at proprotionally lower cost when going large.
It seemed like value as paying relatively less and probably needing less food later.
Big gulp to double gupl + 2 litres of coca cola.
More calories than in a meal
Drink sizes got bigger - more and more sugar was being poured into the American diet.
Typical soda was 7oz -
1950's only size avail was small - double gulp is 64oz of soda now available = 80 calories and nearly 50 teaspoons of sugar
if we compensated by eating less later it wouldn't matter so much
Tis exonerated supplier about portion sizes
But this was shown not to be true.
Late 1990's Rolls a nutriotionalist showed that the increas of portions over 11 days resulted in people continuing to over eat - increasing calories and gaining weight
Most people didn;t notive the bigger portions
More eaten the more eaten
If rich in caloires energy dense foods increased the desire to eat more
ie chocolate
Huge risk of overeating when eating calorie rich oods.
More calories included in weight andn volume indpendently combine - over eating
Better value and more food - food co.s ignored these warnigns
Restauarnats and supermarkets promoting the super sizing.
Started in Britain - eating outside the home was growign
A new marketing initiation increased the calorie intake
Advertising Cadbury - created the finger of fudge being just enought to give your kids a treat
Fattening snakcs was advertised as a good thing to do
Advert - doing what super size id for America it did for chocolate bars
Yorkie bar -
A bigger bar - looking more like the bar eaten all to self.
Cadbury chunkie
Market for chunkier
Now they've gone bigger na dbiogger
Mars 100g bar. Snickers and Twix too - targetting adults
Increasing the amounts for childre was the new aim ...
Sucessful box of Cadburys fingers. how to sell more - how to gets to eat more?
Give kids the excuse to eat them - advertising creating these reasons to celebrate and eat.
This created the kids reasons to have a treat every day and at any time
The school lunch box was targetted too. Implant the thought into mums head to put the treats in the lunch box
Snakcks became a normal part of kids diet. More than 1 in 10 children were obese by the early 1980's
A growing health risk
1996 the Govt could not longer ignore the problem
Study of child obesity - startling results
Children were in a new world of eating - they spent 136 million £'s buying confectionary and soft drinkgs to and from their way to school.
Prof James urged Govt to look at the foods being eaten. Deputey chief medical of ealth - Tessa Jowel
Prof thought this was hopeful - she thanked him for the report and said it was extreme.
The food and drink federation were anxious to talk to him - cofronted with 14 chief execs and harangued for hours asking why he would think of limiting advertising when it was the patents duty to monitor children and advertisign was their right.
Minister for public health later restricted advertising - many years later
2003 - warned of an obesiry time bomb - warnings and health enquiry
People did not appreciate the power the food industry has and the challenge to get them to be responsible for what they sell to people.
Cadburys Pepsi etc defensive. They wanted to keep the responsibility with parents.
Changes were demanded - to protect public health.
Left to police itself thefood industry would not monitor it's advertising message
The food indutry argued that it was personal inactiveity that was responsible of the increasing problem of obesity
JP Morgan were concnerned about the investigation of obesity on profitability
The idea that children getting fat simply co lazy was challenged
Terry Wilkins - demonstrated that inactivety was not the main cause of obesity in children.
Assumpton is inactivity but study showed that this is not true
Fatness due to eating inappropriately reduces activity.
Some children developing type 2 diabetes - not seen before in children
Usually something people got in middle age.
1990's America reported children with this problem
Measuring their activity levels throughout the day -
Over a number of years the infomation was collected
It showed that inactivity had not changed - so why then were children becomeing so obese.
They eat a lot more and more calories
Increase in portion sizes ---
Laziness was rherefore not the problem but his findings were ignored. He lost his Govt funding.
It seems easier to deal with inactivity being the problem rather than blame the food markets making profits
8 billion 3 per year being spent on unhealthy snacks.
US and UK research showed that large portions encourgaed over eating
Intensity of research started to challenge the silence.
Pledges to reduce portion sizes started - phased out king size bars of chocolate.
Promises to take action on portion size -
but there was a catch ----
Whisper duo bar - so combinations or twn bars replaced the king size.
Yhis seemed to promote sharing - but there was no evidence to show that opening the packet meant that the other bar would be shared or saved
Sharing was the new buzz word.
Re-selable bas were insited upon
Research shows the bars just lead to eating more
Typical bag sizes were available in 5 sizes - incremental increase - family size.
As the bags got bigger the more people ate - ie crisps but people did not comensate by eating less for dinner.
Snakc times will add calories to the day.
The bag is a certain cue to eat more.
These snacks are very "moreish"
Up sizing is not just in snacks. 3/4 of food comes from big food spermarkets.
Loyalty is fiercely fouhgt
Multi buy promotions
Deals - the amount of food that can be bought cheaply is everywhere because it appears t be great value.
We are being tricked.
Go in for 1 can of coke but buy 16
1 bag of crisps but buy 16 because it's value
All the supermarkets are doing it
Super sizing is weapon in the price war.
Oringinally about shfting volume super sizing is now used as a tactical weapon for brand supremacy.
Supermarkets wold rapidly when on promotion - known as expandables.
Some are more expandable than others - the capaity to consume them is greater.
If buying more poultyr then probably buy less lamb or beef.
But snakcs that can be consumed any time anywhere - they are more conumable fewer rules or rituals
So more at home eat fthem faster.
A promotion can add 2 -6 fold increase in number of sales during a promotion lasting a couple of weeks
Supermarkets promise to healp tackle obsity problem but still offering the crips sweets choclates promotions - rose 130%
Value for moeny - buy a nuber of products at reduced amounts
They say offering healthy diets with clear labelling - ie it's a personal choice. But there is a trap that people are not aware of.
1 in 3 people are obese in America
Annual medical bill 150 billion dollars related to obseity
Sign of the severity of the problem. Free market policy now considering taxation as a remedy.
No responsibility with food market.
Yale Uni - Prof Brownell
ecery business tries to maimise the deasriablity of their products to increase sales.
Many eyars now that foods high in sugar fat and salt creating increasing health problems.
Indusrty needs to be held responsible
Demanding a tax on sales of soft drinks etc.
This would decrease consumption - and the generation of money could be used towards health costs of obesity.
A soda taz was abhorred byt the indusrty similar to tobaccos repelling the idea.
Denmark and France now impose taxes on unhealthy foods and drinkgs
IN Britain sales are still on the rise though.
A bucket full of popcorn was the start ending in a obesity epidemic.
Bigger, sweeter ever available - the problem will continue to rise unless the world learns to curb it's conusmption of unhealthy food.
Bliss
ps excuse the typose - it's typed from dictation or from the programme actually
xx
