Good Counsel

By Patricia Dailey, Editor-in-Chief -- Restaurants & Institutions, 3/15/2004

The restaurant industry’s early reactions to obesity largely were defined by obstinate certainty that the problem resided somewhere other than menu boards filled with choices. Half-pound hamburgers, five-piece chicken dinners and triple-thick milkshakes were deemed appropriate responses to consumer demands for bounty and value. Endowed with free will and the personal responsibility that accompanies it, weight-challenged diners were expected to be fully informed, able to use steely determination to bypass all tasty temptations not appropriate to their dietary needs.

Somewhere along the way, though, the landscape has begun to shift. Amid a growing sense that solutions to America’s weight problem will not be found without the concerted efforts of all involved parties, foodservice is re-evaluating its stance. Perhaps it no longer is reasonable to expect such a passive role from an industry that is so fully invested in feeding millions.

At the International Foodservice Manufacturers Association’s annual Chain Operators Exchange, held last month in Miami Beach, Fla., the topic was intelligently tackled in a presentation by Robert E. Fields III, a products liability defense attorney with Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice LLC.

With obesity first described as an epidemic and then a public-policy issue, restaurants have been targeted and made vulnerable to lawsuits through the efforts of public-interest advocates and research communities, according to Fields’ thesis. They have diced and dissected decades of common restaurant-industry business practices and posited a scenario that says “eat more” messages, implied health benefits, inaccurate or misleading nutritional claims, overly large portions, the use of unnecessarily high amounts of sugar and fat, “addictive” ingredients, product mixes that are heavily weighted toward less-healthful foods and the targeting of vulnerable demographics such as children and lower-income groups all contribute to some level of deception.

Increasingly drummed into the national dialogue, these messages change perceptions and allow adversarial questions to raise doubts: Is it true that foodservice marketing strategies make people eat too much? Are foods addictive? Can food companies be trusted or do they put profits ahead of public health?

Within that environment, Fields says, the response pattern looks something like this: Understand the problem, eliminate the threat, fund the fight, prepare for war and defend the lawsuits. Except that with proper strategy, it never needs to—in fact, never should—go beyond eliminating the threat.

Old paradigms must shift, according to Fields. Oft-heard notions—that more food is good value, that overeating is offset by exercise and that food choices are personal preferences—should be replaced by 21st century thinking that says good food makes you healthy, food values are a complex mix of moral, social and cultural inputs, and that food is plentiful so eating should be done in moderation.

Healthy customers are not at all a bad thing for the restaurant industry. To that end, promoting balance and moderation, emphasizing quality over quantity, and introducing an evolved product mix with marketing messages skewed to an “eat less” mentality are among Fields’ recommendations. None of them are painful or require compromise in what restaurants do so well: provide the food and service that customers request.