Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 September 2013

Coca-Cola investment in India on track

The original source of this article can be found here.  LIVEMINT(India) Wall Street Journal


Coca-Cola investment in India on track

World’s largest beverage maker to spend $5 billion in India over eight years, setting aside concerns that a slowing economy will affect its investments
Comment E-mail Print  Share 
First Published: Fri, Aug 23 2013. 12 18 AM IST
The company could, after evaluating demand and volume growth, even increase investments if required, Ahmet C. Bozer, executive vice-president of Coca-Cola, said. Photo: Bloomberg
The company could, after evaluating demand and volume growth, even increase investments if required, Ahmet C. Bozer, executive vice-president of Coca-Cola, said. Photo: Bloomberg
New Delhi: Coca-Cola Co., the world’s largest beverage maker, is on track to spend $5 billion in India over eight years, setting aside concerns that a slowing Indian economy would affect the company’s investments.
“Our investments in India are on track as we build scale, manufacturing capacity, distribution capability and a robust product portfolio to realize our business goals in India,” said Ahmet C. Bozer, executive vice-president of Coca-Cola. The company is anticipating that India will be among the top five markets globally in the near future, up two positions from its current rank, said Bozer. who was in Delhi on Thursday to celebrate 20 years of Coca-Cola’s operations in India and to inaugurate a bottling plant in Greater Noida.
The company could, after evaluating demand and volume growth, even increase investments if required, he said.
In June 2012, company chief executive Muhtar Kent had announced the $5 billion investment in its India business to expand capacity and improve its distribution network in Asia’s third largest economy. The company has 57 bottling plants in India, including the new one that’s owned and operated by franchise Moon Beverages, which has invested more than Rs.140 crore to build the plant.
The new plant will allow the company to make beverages including value-added water and sports drinks, expanding the beverage maker’s existing product portfolio in India.
Bozer said the company’s vision was to double system’s (franchise bottling plants) revenue in India in this decade. “Our ongoing investment in the country is focused on delivering innovation, partnerships and a beverage portfolio that enhances the consumer experience...” he said.
To be sure, India volume growth for the owner of beverage brands including Coca-Cola, FantaSpriteand Minute Maid was a feeble 1% in the second quarter of fiscal year 2013 on account of a heavier-than-normal monsoon.
Although foreign investors are holding back on their investments amid concerns over India’s slowing economic growth, Bozer clarified that there would be no slowdown in the execution of the company’s investments in India. “There will be economic ups and downs and that will not affect our investments,” he said.
To be sure, the per-capita consumption of Coca-Cola in India is relatively low at 14 compared with a world average of 94. Per capita consumption is defined by the company as the number of servings of 8 fluid ounces consumed by a person in a year.
Globally, the company sells 3,000 products. “Our portfolio will expand over time,” said Atul Singh, deputy president, Pacific Group, Coca-Cola.
Pinakiranjan Mishra, a partner and national leader, business and risk advisory services, at consulting firm EY, said carbonated beverages are still not the regular thirst-quenchers used by consumers in India unlike in the West. As a category, packaged beverages are under-consumed and under-penetrated.
“There is enough room for existing companies to grow. However, lower price points will spur demand,” he said.
Comment E-mail Print  Share 
First Published: Fri, Aug 23 2013. 12 18 AM IST

Monday, 5 August 2013

Latin American countries crack down on junk food

The Lancet, Volume 382, Issue 9890, Pages 385 - 386, 3 August 2013
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61657-8  (click here for original posting)
While several Latin American nations have introduced healthy food laws to try to combat childhood obesity, implementation has proved trickier. Barbara Fraser reports from Lima, Peru.
Sergio Escalante got a shock at lunchtime on the first day of school this year. His school's food kiosk no longer offered the usual fare—potato crisps, cookies, sweets, soft drinks, and sandwiches dripping with creamy sauces.
“He came home and said there was nothing to eat”, his mother, Miriam González, a nurse, recalled with a chuckle. “They were selling fruit and chicken sandwiches without mayonnaise—to him, that meant ‘nothing to eat’.”
The food concession was lining up with Peru's new healthy food law, which aims to tackle the country's rising obesity rate by getting children onto a healthier diet.
Peru's law is the latest in a series of efforts by Latin American countries to tackle a public health problem that has accompanied the economic boom of the past two decades—more overweight kids and an increase in non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular problems.
But although several countries have passed laws, implementing regulations have lagged, and some public health experts are calling for international measures—such as the ones used to tackle cigarette sales—to counter what they say is powerful lobbying by the food and advertising industries.
Peru's law immediately drew criticism from legislators, advertisers, and even the Catholic archbishop of Lima, who said that shaping children's dietary habits was a job for parents, not the government.
But the entire country will benefit if the government can head off future health problems by reducing children's consumption of salty, sugary, and high-fat processed foods, according to Luis Fernando Leanes, who heads the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) office in Peru.
“Being able to decrease children's exposure to these foods will mean more hospital beds free in the future to care for people with other illnesses”, he said on July 9 at a conference in Lima on public policy for promoting healthy foods.
Peru, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Brazil are among the Latin American countries with healthy food legislation. Uruguay's Senate recently approved a law and Ecuador is considering one. The Latin American Parliament, an inter-governmental group, is drafting non-binding recommendations for countries that are considering legislation.
In Latin America, efforts to redirect children's food choices have taken several approaches. Most have focused on controlling the food offered and advertised in schools. Some countries have added labelling regulations, while others have tried limiting advertising, especially on television.
In 2011, PAHO issued a series of recommendations on the regulation of marketing of food to children, in the wake of a series of studies showing that television channels in some countries bombarded children with more than a dozen ads per hour for foods high in salt, fat, and sugar.
The Peruvian law, signed by the president in May, calls for nutrition education in schools; information campaigns by the education and health ministries; a system for monitoring nutrition, overweight, and obesity among children and adolescents; healthy food in school kiosks or cafeterias; more physical activity; and controls on advertising aimed at children and adolescents younger than 16 years.
The law prohibits advertising that encourages “immoderate consumption” of food and non-alcoholic beverages that contain trans fats or high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat; shows “inappropriate portions”; appeals to children's naiveté or emotions; claims products are natural when they really are not; or uses testimony from real people or fictitious characters whom the children might admire. It also forbids adverts that suggest that a parent is “more intelligent or more generous” if he or she purchases a particular product.
Studies have shown the power of advertising. In São Paulo, Brazil, 85% of parents said advertising influenced their children's demands, and three-quarters said prizes or free food were strong incentives, according to a 2010 study commissioned by the Alana Institute, a Brazilian non-profit organisation that advocates for children's rights.
Click to toggle image size
Full-size image (49K) Jenny Matthews/Panos Pictures
The Peruvian law will not take effect until implementing regulations, being drafted by a multi-agency commission, are approved. Those regulations will flesh out the details and ultimately determine how strong the law will be.
Chile passed a healthy foods law after a 5-year effort by consumer organisations, academics, and some sympathetic legislators, but the deadline for publishing the implementation regulations passed on July 6, said Cecilia Castillo, a paediatrician who works with a consumer group. “We're afraid the law may just die”, she says. “The regulations have been difficult because of pressure from large companies.”
Industry lobbying led Congress to remove some provisions before the law was approved in 2012, including a “traffic light” symbol on packages, indicating how healthy a food item is; banning the sale of junk food within a certain radius of schools, like a rule that applies to cigarettes; and a prohibition on the distribution of infant formula.
The law does require nutrition labelling and ingredient lists on packages of prepared food and calls for the Health Ministry to identify foods that are high in calories or salt and set per-portion limits on fats, sugars, and salt. Those foods cannot be advertised to children younger than 14 years, and advertisers cannot use toys, stickers, or other enticements.
Castillo called the law “the best legislation possible” but said there was little public participation in the drafting of the regulations, and the law's supporters do not know how strong they will be.
In Chile, as in Peru, food and advertising industry representatives argued that the industry could regulate itself with codes of conduct. The problem with such codes, which exist worldwide, is that “none of them is particularly strong”, says Corinna Hawkes, head of policy and public affairs for the London-based World Cancer Research Fund International. “What works are clear objectives and clear criteria” for substantially reducing children's exposure to advertising.
Countries should begin by gathering their own data about advertising that targets children and set clear standards for types of food, age groups, communication channels, marketing techniques, and labelling requirements, she says. They must also devise ways to monitor the rules they put in place.
Industry representatives must also play a part, not in drafting the rules, but in negotiations about how they will be implemented, said Ekaterine Karageorgiadis, a lawyer with the Alana Institute in Brazil. The institute, which also raises awareness about nutrition, has taken some food companies to court under consumer defence laws.
In Costa Rica, industry lawyers appealed to the country's Constitutional Court to overturn a law promoted by the Education Ministry, which limited the kinds of food available in schools. “People told us not to take on the big food industry” because of its political and economic clout, says Education Minister Leonardo Garnier. “And the pressure was strong, but both the public and the media played a role in support of the regulations.”
That backing, he said, stemmed from a growing realisation of the seriousness of obesity-related public health problems. When colleagues in Mexico warned Garnier that industry representatives would lobby for setting maximum levels of sugar and fats in a way that would allow them to sell the same product in a smaller package, Costa Rican officials based their calculations on energy density instead. “We were insistent that it wasn't a matter of package size”, Garnier said.
The court upheld the law and manufacturers began to adapt. A few months after the law took effect, one company invited Garnier to a press conference, which he attended with some trepidation. To his surprise, the company—which had had only five acceptable products when the law took effect—was launching 20 more products that complied with the new standards.
To ensure that the law is implemented properly, Education Ministry staff members are training school principals and food vendors, he said. Controlling advertising to children, which is not addressed in Costa Rica's law, may be a task for the future.
Brazil took a different approach to promoting healthy food in schools, not only setting nutrition standards, but also requiring that schools purchase locally grown or manufactured products, supporting small farmers and stimulating the local economy, according to Fabio Gomes, a nutritionist at the Health Ministry's National Cancer Institute.
Unlike Europe or the USA, where processed foods make up more than half the diet, about two-thirds of the average Brazilian diet still consists of traditional, unprocessed foods, he said. The Brazilian law reinforces that, requiring that 70% of the food served to children in school meal programmes be unprocessed—rice, beans, meat, fish, fruits, or vegetables—and 30% be locally sourced.
Health experts and children's rights advocates in Brazil have tried to win controls on advertising, but so far the efforts have been unsuccessful. “As neighbouring countries approve [regulation of advertising], it gives us hope that one day one of those measures will be approved here”, says Gomes.
For the complete Lancet Series on Maternal and Child Nutrition see http://www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-and-child-nutrition

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

politics and rhetoric of the food industry vs health debate in the US


Original post on NPR blog here

Can Big Food Kick Its Obesity Habit? Does It Really Want To?

A sign protesting a beverage tax in Richmond, Calif. The U.S. soft drink industry has fought proposals that would put a tax on sugar sweetened beverages like sodas and energy drinks.
Braden Reddall/Reuters /Landov
A few days ago, two big names in food policy squared off for a formal debate on the following proposition: There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the food and beverage industry's interests and public health policy interests on obesity.
Kelly Brownell,who leads the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, led the anti-industry charge. He was opposed by Derek Yach, a soft-spoken South African who provoked much head-scratching in 2007 when he left the World Health Organization to take a senior executive job at PepsiCo. (Yach recently left PepsiCo to join The Vitality Group, an arm of a South African insurance company that promotes wellness.)
The proposition they debated contained some hidden historical spice. At the close of the debate, moderator Thomas Bollyky revealed that it was lifted from a landmark international treaty called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), adopted in 2003. The words "tobacco industry" were simply replaced by "food and beverage industry," and "on obesity" added. (Interestingly, Yach was one of the architects of this treaty while at the WHO.)
So is PepsiCo really today's Phillip Morris?
Brownell certainly thinks so. At the debate, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and held in its posh midtown Manhattan building, Brownell argued that food companies are fundamentally untrustworthy. He pointed to cases in which the industry set up front groups to fight a soda tax in California and fought national guidelines that would restrict the marketing of unhealthy food to children.
Perhaps because Yach stood beside him, or perhaps because of the pompous surroundings — David Rockefeller gazed down on the speakers from an enormous portrait on the wall — Brownell kept his rhetoric rather muted. In an article that he authored earlier this year, however, he hinted at parallels with Munich, 1938: "When the history of the world's attempt to address obesity is written, the greatest failure may be collaboration with and appeasement of the food industry."
The food industry can do some good things, Brownell admitted, when it comes to fighting hunger or promoting sustainable agricultural practices. But "obesity is a different kettle of fish" because solving it conflicts directly with the industry's most basic imperative: To sell more food. All of the industry's much-celebrated "healthy eating" campaigns and partnerships with public health initiatives, Brownell says, amount to "baby steps" that simply obscure this basic fact. Brownell dismissed the idea that companies could also prosper by selling better, healthier, more expensive food. There's no evidence, globally, that this market will be more than a niche, he said.
Yach, for his part, didn't bother trying to defend the entire industry or its current practices and products. He pointed, instead, to signs of a future still unfolding.
The real parallel to obesity isn't tobacco, Yach said, but climate change - a problem that will demand the expertise of industry. Just as energy companies once just tried to sell more oil, "the multinational food and beverage business model has favored quantity over quality," he admitted. And just as energy companies are now investing in green energy, the food industry is starting to realize "that this must change if if is to survive and prosper. I witnessed the intensity of change while at PepsiCo for the last five years."
The market share of mid- and low-calorie beverages in PepsiCo's lineup, he said, was only 25 percent five years ago. Today, it is 50 percent, and "is likely to reach 75 per cent within the next five to eight years. And this is happening even in a recession, in a climate where short-term pressures are intense."
Yach's most powerful words came near the end of the debate, in impromptu remarks that he added to his prepared script. The debate, by this time, had turned to the question of whether food industry representatives should be barred from policy-making discussions related to food, similar to a ban that governments have placed on scientists sponsored by the tobacco industry.
Yach argued that the food industry is already changing, and there's more change in store, if the conversation continues.
"We have to recognize that drawing opponents into debate changes them forever," he said. "I saw that happen in South Africa [with apartheid]. And I don't think that obesity is a bigger problem than what could have happened in South Africa, if you hadn't gone down the road of constructive engagement. ... We need more engagement, not less."