Food and automobile ads can be linked to widespread obesity, says one Massachusetts researcher. Such ads endorse conveniences that in the long run, may be major culprits behind the country's obesity epidemic.

Dr. Garry Welch of the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston is encouraging food and car companies to rethink their heavy promotion of cars and convenient food products. Car and food companies pour billions of dollars into such advertising—a potentially harmful business practice.

In 2001, companies spent nearly $25 billion on advertisements for automobiles and affordable, convenient and caloric fast foods and other foods, sweets and beverages, which both help to lower many people's long-term activity levels.

"We are experiencing epidemic rates of obesity and related diseases such as type 2 diabetes in the U.S. and we need to look at this emerging problem with a new set of eyes," says Dr. Welch.

The obesity problem among U.S. adults has worsened in the last decade, increasing by 74% since 1991, says a recent report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). People who are very obese are seven times more likely to suffer from diabetes than those with regular body weights, the CDC report revealed. Also, extremely obese people have a greater risk of high blood pressure and arthritis.

In a letter to the editor that ran in the February issue of Diabetes Care, Welch asserted that the quantity of advertising to push "products that could be argued to directly and indirectly promote obesity is alarming."

"If we look at the drivers of this obesity/diabetes epidemic they come from our rapidly changing U.S. culture where our food and exercise habits are deteriorating as our lives get more complicated and busy," he adds. "At the heart of these cultural changes are business and political forces that are actively shaping our habits and way of life."

Welch analyzed 2001 U.S. spending on brand advertising in print, television, radio and other media, and discovered that fast food advertising cost $3.5 billion, and that was just for 9 different brands. Meanwhile, a separate examination of advertising for foods, confections and beverages indicated another hefty expenditure of $5.8 billion, of which almost $786 million was spent promoting the top 5 soda brands.

Automobile ads were even bigger budget items, costing a total of $15.5 billion, he says.

In comparison, the CDC's total administrative budget was a scrawny $5 billion that year, the researcher reports, while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's budget totaled a mere $1.3 billion.

Due to his findings, Welch thinks "there is a parallel with our historical smoking problem." He asserts that the same way that nicotine addiction and lung cancer could be blamed on "aggressive business practices" in the tobacco industry, "obesity and type 2 diabetes are toxic side effects in the case of promotion of fast foods, cars, etc. to everyone."

"Only when we have a clear understanding of the cultural problem we face regarding obesity and type 2 diabetes and have educated the U.S. public about this, much in the way we went from ignorance to awareness regarding the cigarette industry, will we have the platform to make meaningful changes in business practices promoting obesity," he adds.

Welch does not support legal action against the fast food or automobile industry, however. He notes that there are major differences between these conveniences and cigarettes. For instance, "the tobacco industry was cynically and knowingly hiding the dangers of its products for decades to keep the cash cow alive," he says.

Instead, he recommends that obesity-promoting industries help fund obesity research "to help us understand the cultural problems we face and the development of responsible and healthy food and exercise practices."

"We live in a society that strongly shapes our daily eating and exercise habits and makes it very difficult to keep lean and fit," says Welch. "It is time to start looking at the business and political forces that create this increasingly unhealthy society and to push back."

Responding to Welch's letter and remarks, Gene Grabowski, a spokesman for the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition (ACFN), agreed that obesity research requires more funding. The ACFN is a group of food, beverage and consumer products companies, not-for-profit organizations and trade associations, which aims to encourage Americans to find a good balance between fitness and nutrition.

"We accept our responsibility, but we need help," he says, pointing out that the food industry has been donating millions of dollars for over 10 years to obesity research and is also disseminating nutrition information through nutritionists and Web sites.

Grabowski claims that marketing and advertising for fattening foods is just as vigorous as that for more nutritious fare, particularly in recent years. He says that prime time advertising has been geared toward weight conscious baby boomers since "no fat, low fat foods have been the rage for the past five years." Grabowski admits, however, that he has no data to back up his assertion that healthy foods are just as forcefully promoted as less nutritious products.

He points out that there is also no data to confirm Welch's idea that aggressive advertising may in any way be connected—directly or indirectly—to increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Sources: Researcher Links Food, Car Ads to Obesity Epidemic
Charnicia E. Huggins
Reuters, Feb. 18, 2003
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&ncid=751&e=6&u=/nm/20030218/hl_nm/obesity_ads_dc