When you walk into a supermarket, what do you see? Walls of highly calorific, intensely processed food, tweaked by chemicals for maximum “mouth feel” and “repeat appeal” (addictiveness). This is what most people in Britain actually eat. Pure science on a plate. The food, in short, that is making the planet fat.
And next to this? Row upon row of low-fat, light, lean, diet, zero, low-carb, low-cal, sugar-free, “healthy” options, marketed to the very people made fat by the previous aisle and now desperate to lose weight. We think of obesity and dieting as polar opposites, but in fact, there is a deep, symbiotic relationship between the two.
In the UK, 60% of us are overweight, yet the “fat” (and I include myself in this category, with a BMI of 27, slap-bang average for the overweight British male) are not lazy and complacent about our condition, but ashamed and desperate to do something about it. Many of those classed as “overweight” are on a near-perpetual diet, and the same even goes for half of the British population, many of whom don’t even need to lose an ounce.
When obesity as a global health issue first came on the radar, the food industry sat up and took notice. But not exactly in the way you might imagine. Some of the world’s food giants opted to do something both extraordinary and stunningly obvious: they decided to make money from obesity, by buying into the diet industry.
Weight Watchers, created by New York housewife Jean Nidetch in the early 1960s, was bought by Heinz in 1978, who in turn sold the company in 1999 to investment firm Artal for $735m. The next in line was Slimfast, a liquid meal replacement invented by chemist and entrepreneur Danny Abraham, which was bought in 2000 by Unilever, which also owns the Ben Jerry brand and Wall’s sausages. The US diet phenomenon Jenny Craig was bought by Swiss multinational Nestlé, which also sells chocolate and ice-cream. In 2011, Nestlé was listed in Fortune’s Global 500 as the world’s most profitable company.
These multinationals were easing carefully into a multibillion pound weight-loss market encompassing gyms, home fitness, fad diets and crash diets, and the kind of magazines that feature celebs on yo-yo diets or pushing fitness DVDs promising an “all new you” in just three weeks.
You would think there might be a problem here: the food industry has one ostensible objective – and that’s to sell food. But by creating the ultimate oxymoron of diet food – something you eat to lose weight – it squared a seemingly impossible circle. And we bought it. Highly processed diet meals emerged, often with more sugar in them than the originals, but marketed for weight loss, and here is the key get-out clause, “as part of a calorie-controlled diet”. You can even buy a diet Black Forest gateau if want.
We think of obesity and dieting as polar opposities, but there is a deep relationship between the two
So what you see when you walk into a supermarket in 2013 is the entire 360 degrees of obesity in a single glance. The whole panorama of fattening you up and slimming you down, owned by conglomerates which have analysed every angle and money-making opportunity. The very food companies charged with making us fat in the first place are now also making money from the obesity epidemic.
How did this happen? Let me sketch two alternative scenarios. This is the first: in the late 1970s, food companies made tasty new food. People started to get fat. By the 1990s, NHS costs related to obesity were ballooning. Government, health experts and, surprisingly, the food industry were brought in to consult on what was to be done. They agreed that the blame lay with the consumer – fat people needed to go on diets and exercise. The plan didn’t work. In the 21st century, people are getting fatter than ever.
OK, here’s scenario two. Food companies made tasty new food. People started to get fat. By the 1990s, food companies and, more to the point, the pharmaceutical industry, looked at the escalating obesity crisis, and realised there was a huge amount of money to be made.
But, seen purely in terms of profit, the biggest market wasn’t just the clinically obese (those people with a BMI of 30-plus), whose condition creates genuine health concerns, but the billions of ordinary people worldwide who are just a little overweight, and do not consider their weight to be a significant health problem.
That was all about to change. A key turning point was 3 June 1997. On this date the World Health Organisation (WHO) convened an expert consultation in Geneva that formed the basis for a report that defined obesity not merely as a coming social catastrophe, but as an “epidemic”.
The word “epidemic” is crucial when it comes to making money out of obesity, because once it is an epidemic, it is a medical catastrophe. And if it is medical, someone can supply a “cure”.
The author of the report was one of the world’s leading obesity experts, Professor Philip James, who, having started out as a doctor, had been one of the first to spot obesity rising in his patients in the mid-1970s. In 1995 he set up a body called the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF), which reported on rising obesity levels across the globe and on health policy proposals for how the problem could be addressed.
It is widely accepted that James put fat on the map, and thus it was appropriate that the IOTF should draft the WHO report of the late 90s that would define global obesity. The report painted an apocalyptic picture of obesity going off the scale across the globe.
The devil was in the detail – and the detail lay in where you drew the line between “normal” and “overweight”. Several colleagues questioned the group’s decision to lower the cut-off point for being “overweight” – from a BMI of 27 to 25. Overnight, millions of people around the globe would shift from the “normal” to the “overweight” category.
Professor Judith Stern, vice president of the American Obesity Association, was critical, and suspicious. “There are certain risks associated with being obese … but in the 25-to-27 area it’s low-risk. When you get over 27 the risk becomes higher. So why would you take a whole category and make this category related to risk when it isn’t?”
Why indeed. Why were millions of people previously considered “normal” now overweight? Why were they being tarred with the same brush of mortality, as James’s critics would argue, as those who are genuinely obese?
I asked James where the science for moving the cut-off to BMI 25 had come from. He said: “The death rates went up in America at 25 and they went up in Britain at 25 and it all fits the idea that BMI 25 is the reasonable pragmatic cut-off point across the world. So we changed global policy on obesity.”
James says he based this hugely significant decision, one that would define our global understanding of obesity, partly on prewar data provided by US insurance company Met Life. But this data remains questionable, according to Joel Guerin, a US author who has examined the work produced by Met Life’s chief statistician Louis Dublin.
“It wasn’t based on any kind of scientific evidence at all,” according to Guerin. “Dublin essentially looked at his data and just arbitrarily decided that he would take the desirable weight for people who were aged 25 and apply it to everyone.”
I was interested in who stood to gain from his report and asked James where the funding for the IOTF report came from. “Oh, that’s very important. The people who funded the IOTF were drugs companies.” And how much was he paid? “They used to give me cheques for about 200,000 a time. And I think I had a million or more.” And did they ever ask him to push any specific agenda? “Not at all.”
James says he was not influenced by the drug companies that funded his work but there’s no doubt that, overnight, his report reclassified millions of people as overweight and massively expanded the customer base for the weight-loss industry.
James rightly points out that he needed the muscle of drugs companies to press home the urgency of the unfolding obesity problem as a global public health issue, but didn’t he see the money-making potential for the drug companies in defining obesity as an “epidemic”?
“Oh, let us be very clear,” he says. “If you have a drug that drops your weight and doesn’t do you any other harm in terms of side-effects, that is a multibillion megabuck drug.”
Former GSK sales rep Blair Hamrick with Jacques Peretti. Photograph: Brendan Easton/BBC/Fresh One Productions/Brendan Easton
I asked Gustav Ando, a director at IHS Healthcare Group, how important this decision to define obesity as a medical epidemic was for the industry. “It really turned a lot of heads,” he said. “Defining it as an epidemic has been hugely important in changing the market perception.” The drugs companies could now provide, Ando explained, “the magic bullet”.
Paul Campos, a legal expert with a special interest in the politics of obesity, saw the decision to shift the BMI downwards as crucial not just in making a giant new customer base for diet drugs but in stigmatising the overweight. “What had been a relatively minor concern from a public health perspective suddenly was turned into this kind of global panic,” he told me. “I think when you look at this issue what you see is a combination of economic interests with cultural prejudice which led to a toxic brew of social panic over weight in our culture.”
But guess what? The drugs wheeled out to clean up the “epidemic” didn’t turn into the blockbusters the industry had hoped for.
Since the 1950s, the great dirty secret of weight loss was amphetamines, prescribed to millions of British housewives who wanted to lose pounds. In the 1970s, they were banned for being highly addictive and for contributing to heart attacks and strokes. Now drugs were once more on the agenda – in particular, appetite-suppressants called fenfluramines. After trials in Europe, the US drugs giant Wyeth developed Redux, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in spite of evidence of women developing pulmonary hypertension while taking fenfluramines. Dr Frank Rich, a cardiologist in Chicago, began seeing patients who had taken Redux with the same symptoms. And when one, a woman in Oklahoma City, died, Rich decided to go public, contacting the US news show Today.
“That was filmed in the morning and when I went to my office, within an hour later I got a phone call from a senior executive at Wyeth who saw the Today piece and was very upset. He warned me against ever speaking to the media again about his drug, and said if I did some very bad things would start happening, and hung up the phone.”
The Wyeth executive concerned has denied Rich’s version of events. But once legal liability cases began, evidence emerged from internal documents that Wyeth knew of far more cases of pulmonary hypertension than had been declared either to the FDA or to patients. Redux was taken off the market and Wyeth set aside $21.1bn for compensation. The company has always denied responsibility.
But with Wyeth out of the game, obesity was now an open door for other drugs companies.
British giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) found its antidepressant Wellbutrin had a handy side effect – it made people lose weight. Blair Hamrick was a sales rep for the company in the US tasked with getting doctors to prescribe the drug for weight loss as well as depression, a move that would considerably widen its market and profitability. In the trade, this is called “off-labelling”.
“If a doctor writes a prescription, that’s his prerogative, but for me to go in and sell it off label, for weight loss, is inappropriate,” says Hamrick. “It’s more than inappropriate – it’s illegal; people’s lives are at stake.”
GSK spent millions bribing doctors to prescribe Wellbutrin as a diet drug, but when Hamrick and others blew the whistle on conduct relating to Wellbutrin and two other drugs, the company was prosecuted in the US and agreed to a fine of $3bn, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history.
Drug companies had attempted to capitalise on obesity, but their fingers got burnt.
Still, there was a winner: the food industry. By creating diet lines for the larger market of the slightly overweight, not just the clinically obese, it had hit on an apparently limitless pot of gold.
In the late 1990s the cut-off point for being “overweight” went from a BMI of 27 to 25
There now exist two clear and separate markets. One is the overweight, many of whom go on endless diets, losing and then regaining the weight, and providing a constant revenue stream for the both the food industry and the diet industry throughout their adult lives. (As former finance director of Weight Watchers, Richard Samber, put it to me – “It’s successful because the 84% [who can’t keep the weight off] keep coming back. That’s where your business comes from.”) The other market is the genuinely obese, who are being cut adrift from society, having been failed by health initiative after health initiative from government.
As Dr Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Centre for food policy and obesity at Yale University, explained, the analogy must now be with smoking and lung cancer: “There’s a very clear tobacco industry playbook, and if you put it next to what the food companies are doing now, it looks pretty similar. Distort the science, say that your products aren’t causing harm when you know they are.”
But the solution to obesity could also follow the cigarette trajectory too, according to Brownell. It was only after a combination of heavy taxation (price), heavy legislation (banning smoking in public places), and heavy propaganda (warnings on packets; an effective, sustained anti-smoking advertising campaign; and most crucially, education in schools) was brought to bear on a resistant tobacco industry that smoking became a pariah activity for a new generation of potential consumers, and real, lasting change took place. Similar measures, Brownell says, could provide an answer to obesity.
And it’s funny, that analogy with smoking. Because deep in the archive at San Francisco University is a confidential memo written by an executive at the tobacco giant Philip Morris in the late 1990s, just as the WHO was defining obesity as a coming epidemic, advising the food giant Kraft on strategies to employ when it started being criticised for creating obesity.
Titled “Lessons Learnt From the Tobacco Wars”, it makes fascinating reading. The memo explains that just as consumers now blame cigarette companies for lung cancer, so they will end up blaming food companies for obesity, unless a panoply of defensive strategies are put into action. You might conclude that there was a good reason why the food industry bought into dieting – it was nothing personal, it was just business.
• Jacques Peretti presents The Men Who Made Us Thin, 9pm, BBC2, Thursday 8 August.
October 11th, 2013 at 5:11 am
I am slightly confused on the denial part where you say “that this may be a real problem or may have serious consequences down the road.” Do you consider it denial if someone is overweight or obese (by the BMI chart), is weight-stable, has good health measures, exercises and eats a mostly healthful diet? Or are you specifically referring to someone a little higher on the Edmonton Obesity Scale by this? That would be more in line with my understanding of your general message, but it’s not clear to me here.
I guess I feel a little touchy on this one, because this smacks of the “Vague Future Health Threat” a lot of people get hit with by their doctors and pretty much all of society the instant they get above BMI 25.0. Any argument that says “really, I’m healthy,” is countered with the idea that we’re in denial.
October 11th, 2013 at 7:29 am
You hit the nail on the head every single time. This blog is full of win. Thank you!
October 11th, 2013 at 7:33 am
EC – if your weight is not really a problem then this is not a question of denial – after all there is nothing to deny. But, let us be honest, the vast majority of people with excess weight do have a problem – people who don’t, make up a rather small healthy minority of fat people. If this is where you belong, good for you.
October 11th, 2013 at 7:57 am
I’ve gotten a lot of response to a section in my book where I write about how going on a diet takes a person through stages of struggling with a sense of control.
You pick a day to start a new diet and make a plan. The planning gets you all motivated and excited.
At first, you stick to the plan very specifically and it makes you feel proud of yourself. You have a sense you’re “doing something” to solve a problem and you’re being good at it.
The diet plan imposes changes on your regular routine and lifestyle that are difficult to maintain so little by little, it starts to break down. The breakdown usually begins with a temptation to eat something off the diet plan so you bargain with yourself that you’ve “been good” up to this point so you deserve a treat and it’s OK.
The diet plan becomes more difficult to maintain over time so the bargaining gets bigger. You fall off the diet one day so you consider that day a total loss, you might as well eat whatever you want. You do it because you bargain with yourself to be back “on” the diet tomorrow.
Eventually you consider the diet a complete failure. You bargain with yourself to be “off” the diet and decide it’s over. You eat whatever you want in an “off” a diet manner until the day that you decide you will start your new diet. You feel OK about what you’re eating as long as you stick to the terms of the bargain you make with yourself.
You start the cycle over again.
People have written to me that they do this all the time and they realize they’ve used up months and years of their lives living like this. I know I did.
October 11th, 2013 at 7:58 am
I would like to share a little correction to your premise, based on my limited time as a lay chaplain. These are the Kubler-Ross stages of death. They are what people go through from diagnosis to final chapter of life as they confront their own mortality (and, as you rightly point out, the order is not set — though bargaining is usually listed before depression). The stages of death are frequently confused with stages of grief, and often misapplied, especially in early grief. The first stage of grief — when one learns that someone dear has died — is chaos. The grieving person may bounce back and forth from feeling numb to feeling profound sadness to feeling uncharacteristic emotions. Often friends see the numb stage or an uncharacteristic emotion and inform the poor griever that he or she is in denial and must move on. This is unhelpful. It makes the grieving person feel guilty for something that is natural.
October 11th, 2013 at 8:35 am
This is awesome Dr Sharma. Thank you for putting this together. As a Dietitian I see people battling with their weights all the time and some days I struggle to help them. I use the stages of change, but this is excellent. Thank you.
October 11th, 2013 at 8:39 am
I wrote this a couple of years ago and your article reminded me of it:
The Many Layered Cake of Obesity
1. The bottom layer is the pain that started it all. Whatever drove us to seek comfort, solace, numbness in food, over and over again. Most of this probably started very early in our lives and was not our fault.
2. The next layer contains the real physical effects of being obese: diabetes, cholesterol, heart disease, fatigue, joint deterioration, etc.
3. The next layer contains the self-loathing that we cannot control this thing that eats at us.
4. Another layer is all the unkind judgmental things that others have said to us, well intentioned or not.
5. …all the times and ways that others have tried to “help” or “fix” us by controlling us.
6. …all the misinformation and unhelpful advice that we have received directly or indirectly.
7. …the isolation we seek in order to avoid being hurt again.
8. …all our other needs, wishes and desires that cannot be fulfilled because of our obesity and/or others’ attitudes.
October 11th, 2013 at 8:42 am
I’m with EC. I am super healthy and fit but with a BMI over 30. So am I in denial? No, actually bargaining, most of the time and sometimes acceptance. But EC is right, there is a constant pushback to doctors that the BMI does not mean I have any illness which I am denying.
But I am curious about your comment about numbers, Dr. Sharma. What is the percentage of EOSS 0 or 1 in the population of people who have BMI’s over 30? Are we a tiny minority or are we sizable enough to warrant attention to what genetic factors drive our ability to be fit, strong and fat?
October 11th, 2013 at 8:55 am
Pierrette I live with these steps everyday.We have “been there,done that”.When we talk to others that are still in denial we no longer try to convince them.
Until they reach the other factors, we are talking for nothing.
I know of “no” people that are obese and exercise regularly and eat properly.
Those that say they do are full of it and are in real strong denial.
People that are obese simply eat all the time because they are always hungry.I know.I did also.
When I changed my lifestyle and realised that I can eat healthy foods and be totally satisfied, then and only then did I really join “my fight” to become healthy.
My wife is 62 and I am 61 and we are both in the best health of our lives…..Wow
Pierre Pierrette Trudel
October 11th, 2013 at 9:14 am
Melinda: The exact numbers based on NHANES III for population with BMI 30 to 35 is Stage 0 = 8%, Stage 1 = 19%. For BMI greater than 40, the numbers are Stage 0 = 5% Stage 1 = 14%
October 11th, 2013 at 9:15 am
Linda: The Layered-Cake of Obesity – interesting idea!
October 11th, 2013 at 9:20 am
DebraSY: You make an important point – all of these stages are “natural” and even “healthy” as part of the process. Thus, for e.g., although it sounds negative, “denial” is a very healthy initial response, so is “depression”. The problem is when people get stuck in one of the other stage or fail to eventually progress to acceptance. The notion of thinking of this as a staged process (not always linear) is for the professional to recognise where your patient is at and counsel appropriately. As I said, trying to talk someone, who is in the denial stage into addressing the problem will only create defensiveness.
October 11th, 2013 at 9:23 am
Dagny – you perfectly describe someone stuck in the bargaining stage. This person has not yet fully accepted that changes have to lifelong and that the expectations have to be realistic. I know hundreds of people (probably most people trying to lose weight), who are stuck in the bargaining stage and never make it to full acceptance.
October 11th, 2013 at 9:46 am
This is so much like a blog post I made on 11/13/12…great minds, you know
http://thesurvivalofthefattest.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-five-stages-of-accepting-myself-as_13.html
October 11th, 2013 at 9:49 am
As usual, I find myself offering a contrary voice. I believe from experience, that these stages are better understood as interwoven threads. Rather than experiencing them one at a time, a person who is gaining weight cycles through them often on a moment by moment basis. All the threads exist in the same time and space but the person is more focused on one or the other. This is not nearly as true for grief, but it is true for weight management. What this means for a qualified and caring CBT is that you are not required to wait for the client to transition into acceptance, you can help the client shift focus and change perspective. You can help the client find motivation, strength and purpose. We are complicated and powerful. Within each one of us, at every single moment,lives the potential to simply make another choice.
October 11th, 2013 at 10:22 am
Elina – you are bang on that these stages are interwoven (which is why I chose the image of the ribbon for the illustration). I also agree all all these stages can co-exist from minute to minute, from day to day. A skilled CBT counsellor will recognise this and provide the necessary support.
October 11th, 2013 at 10:25 am
Pierre: you no of NO ONE who is obese and exercising regularly and eating properly? All obese people are “full of it” and “in real strong denial”? Wow, that’s harsh. Is Diana Nyad in denial? What about 75% of the Kansas City Chiefs (my team) or, for that matter, 75% of other people’s football teams. What about Oprah (also proof positive that no amount of accountability and resources can assure permanent weight-loss maintenance). What about Janet Cook, the first person to swim the Berring Straight? There are also many non-famous obese people who quietly exercise and eat well with no fanfare. I knew quite a few when I belonged to the YMCA.
Please reconsider your judgments. Weight bias hurts people.
October 11th, 2013 at 10:47 am
I don’t deal with weight because of “pain that started it all.” I don’t allow people to treat me like I am some weak, broken emotional wreck or to label me in that way. Some of us can have bodies that manage energy very efficiently and brains that want to think about food and connect it to everything in our lives. Fighting that to manage your weight in an intensely obesogenic environment is VERY DIFFICULT. Even if you think certain situations triggered certain habits, the struggle with weight itself becomes the difficulty.
We have to get rid of this paradigm that says every fat person is a screwed up mess of emotional issues and “pain that started it all.”
Food is its own driver.
Weight is its own stressor.
Fighting to control your body and mind is immensely difficult and can feel endless
October 11th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Dagny, well said. Thank you!
October 11th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Very wise words. So how can one move on to that stage of acceptance, or help a client or loved one to do so? I find myself cycling between denial, depression and bargaining–and would love to be able to move to acceptance, so I can fix my weight and my life.
October 11th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Sharon – that’s a great question. I am not a counsellor but there are many who read this – they may wish to chip in with some advice.
October 11th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
This is at Sharon- You might just not be done cycling yet. Acceptance often comes when all the other possible versions of reality have been exhausted. When you get tired of running in circles and the reward of one more bite does not seem worth it. When the payoff from the denial and the depression and the bargaining no longer works for you. When that times comes, find a great CBT counselor, come in with a willing heart and and an open mind. Walk in to work, do not expect to be fixed, but rather to be empowered to fix yourself. When that day comes, your counselor will help you open the door and you will have found acceptance.
October 12th, 2013 at 7:49 am
Pierre’s comment is exactly why I brought up the “denial” issue, because this is the kind of thing I hear over and over. Thank you, Debra and Dagny, for pointing out the flaws in assuming that every fat person is an emotional wreck, or a lazy glutton, or “in denial” — an attitude I find frustrating and insulting.
While the numbers of obese in EOS 0 or 1 are small, it is still enough that it’s not a total anomaly. I would guess that for people in overweight BMI (where I am — high side of it), those numbers are a bit higher. It needs to be addressed instead of doctors having the knee-jerk reaction of prescribing intentional weight loss to everyone above BMI 25, even if those folks are healthy and weight-stable with good enough habits.
October 12th, 2013 at 8:38 am
You go Dagny!
If we aren’t being judged as being lazy and deceitful (Pierre), we are judged as being broken emotional wrecks with childhoods laden with abuse.
The reality is our bodies are hyper efficient and in some of our cases, due to external drivers to be thin, we engaged in behaviours, like yo-yo dieting, that made our bodies even more efficient.
However, thin friends of mine face some of the same labels – if you are skinny, you must be anorexic with an unaccepted history of abuse.
How about we agree that we can be healthy people whose genetics and body morphs are different from someone else’s.
If we are struggling with mental illness that impacts our physical health, then focus on that and not make stereotypical judgements.
October 12th, 2013 at 8:39 am
Dr. Sharma, I have bounced back and forth through all of these stages, spending lots of time in denial. It took a lot of work with an addictions counsellor to get me to the stage in which I was willing to go to any lengths to get healthy again. I am on the waitlist for surgery in BC and have been for 4 1/2 years. I don’t have a date yet but I have reason to believe I will have one soon. I appreciate that you recognize that it is sometime a battle to get what we need to get healthy. Thank you for all the work you do on our behalf.