How Fast Food Companies Trick You Into Thinking They Care About Your Health

Public health campaigners, scholars, dietitians, journalists, politicians, filmmakers, celebrity chefs and the public frequently lambaste fast food corporations for causing and exacerbating the global obesity "crisis". It is hardly surprising then that the global food and drink industry (also described by critics as "big food") is keen to promote itself as "part of the solution".

Burger picture from Shutterstock

In 2011, the International Food & Beverage Alliance (IFBA) -- a formalised coalition between multinational giants Nestlé, General Mills, Ferrero, Kellogg Company, Grupo Bimbo, Mondelēz International (formerly Kraft Foods), Mars, PepsiCo, The Coca-Cola Company, Unilever (and recent addition McDonald's) -- wrote to Dr Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO):

"We all recognise that non-communicable diseases and childhood obesity are major public health problems that require multi-stakeholder solutions. As a member of the private sector, we firmly believe that the food industry has a role to play as part of the solution, and have committed our time, expertise and resources to do our part."

In order for the IFBA and its member companies to be seen to be providing "solutions" to obesity, corporate philanthropy has been employed as a key strategy.

From 'big food' to 'big philanthropy'

I use the phrase corporate philanthropy as an umbrella term to describe a range of practices (including corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, stakeholder management) whereby corporations "give" money, personnel, equipment and support to other organisations.

This is a form of corporate giving that Samantha King and others describe as "strategic philanthropy"; a type of "philanthrocapitalism" that is intimately tied to the business interests of the corporation.

Nestlé, for instance, states that its global nutrition, health and wellness program -- Creating Shared Value -- "is not about philanthropy. It is about leveraging core activities and partnerships for the joint benefit of people in the countries where we operate and of our shareholders."

Corporate philanthropy is, therefore, not simply altruism by another name. It is part of a business strategy to look after the financial interests of shareholders, penetrate and retain markets, and improve the bottom line.

Fast food philanthropy in action

There are numerous examples of fast food philanthropy across the globe.

Educational programs and resources are a key target of corporate philanthropy, particularly those that claim to promote healthy lifestyles. For instance, the "Nestlé Healthy Kids Global Program" has been implemented in 73 countries, including the "Nestlé Healthy Active Kids Program" in Australia and "Be Healthy, Be Active" in New Zealand.

Kellogg's created the "Mission Nutrition®" program in Canada. The Coca-Cola Company provided EducAnimando con Salud Program ("Teaching and Encouraging with Health") in Peru, A Scuola inForma ("At School In Shape") nutrition education program in Italy and many more.

Big food also uses philanthropic gifting to help market "active, healthy living" campaigns, such as The Coca-Cola Company's "National Active Lifestyle Campaign" in Latvia and global advertisements that attempt to "teach" the public about the importance of energy balance.

In the US, the PepsiCo Foundation partnered with Save the Children to implement its "Healthy Lifestyles" program, while the General Mills Foundation helped advertise the "Presidential Youth Fitness Program", part of General Mills' "community engagement mission [to] nourish our communities globally with remarkable philanthropy".

Sponsorship of sporting and physical activity initiatives is another critical element. These include The Coca-Cola Company's "Get the Ball Rolling" initiative in the US, PepsiCo's support of Caravano do Esporte (Sports Caravan) in Brazil, Mars' partnership with the Al Haraka Baraka ("Movement is a Blessing") physical activity program, and the "Champions of Play for the Olympic Games" from McDonald's.

Scientific research is also influenced by corporate philanthropy. For example, a number of people have recently criticised the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) for receiving "an unrestricted gift from The Coca-Cola Company". There is a shared concern that this sort of funding "taints" research and evidence.

Health-washing big food

Philanthropy is more than just a strategy for big food to "solve" obesity. It is a business tactic to "health-wash" food and drink corporations and their products.

By philanthropically funding various educational resources, physical activity initiatives, scientific research and marketing campaigns, big food attempts to divert the public's attention from less agreeable, less healthy practices (e.g. junk food marketing, hidden sugar in processed food).

Simultaneously, this philanthropy is a strategy that attempts to gain a "halo effect" for the corporation; an endeavour to shape consumers' image of the corporation (and its products) as healthy, but also socially responsible, even caring.

This is a new brand of philanthropy, one intrinsically tied to developing big food's self-interest: brand image and loyalty, public relations, and avoidance of stricter regulations and legislation.

For big food, obesity is no longer a big problem. In fact, obesity-related philanthropy is helping it profit.

The Conversation

Darren Powell, Lecturer Health and Physical Education, University of Auckland

This article was originally published on The Conversation.


    And let's not forget the sporting organisations that agree to be sponsored by Fast Food. I'm looking at you Cricket Australia. Not a good look. Combine that with gambling and alcohol sponsorships as well... any other vices left?

      As someone who has a bit of an inside eye on non-profit organisations, especially sport and community, you wouldn't realise how hard it is to stay away from these sort of partnerships.

      McDonalds, KFC, Coca-Cola etc all invest big money in things like sport and community organisations because its great PR for them to counterbalance the idea that all they are around for is to sell unhealthy products.

      You can bring on board a dozen 'healthy' or 'responsible' partners who will not come close to the sort of monetary/in-kind that a single big name junk-food organisation will give.

      Fun fact, one of the biggest grants that a non-profit can access in Queensland is the Gambling Community Benefit Fund. This, as per its name, is funded from gambling revenues, but is central to a lot of organisations and sport clubs who are looking to buy or update their equipment.

      Like it or not, but sport and community organisations are heavily reliant on these 'vices' to do what they do.

        I 100% agree. But it's the bigger organisations like Cricket Australia and the AFL/NRL who do have the option to choose sponsors that act as better role models.

        As for gambling - that just taints everything.

          The thing is, the plethora of gambling sponserships we see now is a relatively recent it's really taken off over the past 10 years or so. It's always been there of course but it's only recently that it's totally gone bonkers and now every sporting broadcast is laced with advertising from Sportsbet, William Hill, Ladbrokes, Bet 365, Tom Waterhouse - the list is getting pretty ridiculous.

      This is no longer legal, of course, but at one point Benson & Hedges (a tobacco company) were the major sponsors of cricket in Australia, and Marlboro and the like featured prominently on the sidelines of the NRL.

    Did anyone honestly believe that companies that sell junk food really cared about peoples' health? You don't have to be particularly cynical to realise they are motivated solely by profit. They are a business, they are legally obliged to do everything they can to make money for their shareholders.

      Which is why people that care about health issues like this should avoid investing in these companies, and make sure their super fund doesn't either.

      Last edited 22/09/15 3:15 pm

        Which is fine, but who is seriously believing fast food companies care about your health? It would be like believing tobacco companies care about lung health and respiration.

        It seems like a serious level of naivety to swallow marketing drivel from these companies.

    Let's face it, corporations no longer serve the public, they exist as profit making machines for their shareholders. They pay reasonable tax when and where that they choose, for example when they can gain a PR benefit, and generally enslave their employees on a salary that is "just enough" to keep them there. The soon we all wake up to it and push back the better.

    Soooo... Who loses? Kids and communities benefit from the money spent, the healthy nutbags benefit from smug satisfaction, the normal people benefit from the influx of suger-free and low fat alternatives that food companies have introduced, the companies get good PR, and the conspiracy theorists get to exclaim BIG FOOOOOOD and write schlock stories.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now