Portion Control Becomes The Latest Obesity Target
Download a PDF version of this blog post
By Emma Hitt Nichols, PhD
A new group called the Portion Balance Coalition (PBC) has been formed to promote the idea that the amount rather than the type of food a person eats is most critical for good health. Swiss food-industry giant Nestle launched the group earlier this year, with the intention of emphasizing the importance of portion control. Among its long list of food-industry members is also the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is highly questionable given that the department has a responsibility not to get too cozy with industry and not to take sides in scientific debates.
The PBC website states that “Millennials with children are our initial primary target.” The group “homed in on this young adult segment given that there is no other time associated with as many life transitions – living independently, entering a first full-time job, marriage, pregnancy and childbirth, divorce – as those that happen in young adulthood.”
According to the website, the group aims to educate consumers on volume (size), proportionality (variety), and quality (nutrient density) of food and meals. However, it’s clear from the name of the group that portion control, or volume, is the main emphasis. The one case study provided on the website describes how Taco Bell eliminated its extra-large (40-ounce) beverage cups in favor of smaller cup sizes.
While there’s general consensus about the importance of eating natural foods that are dense in the various nutrients needed for good health, there’s far less scientific agreement about whether the total volume of food is meaningful for weight control. A growing number of scientists believe that when it comes to obesity and other metabolic diseases, the type of food is more important than food volume alone. These scientists contend that your body does not metabolize a slice of steak the way it does a cup of sugar.
In any case, it’s important to recognize that substantial scientific dispute exists on this issue and that taking sides at this point in the debate is unwise for public institutions--until the science is more conclusive.
Still, participants of the PBC are taking sides. Specifically, they endorse the idea that food quantity is the main concern. Industry members include food-industry behemoths such as Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, Kraft-Heinz, and General Mills. Non-profit groups include the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. (See Figure)
For members who produce highly processed foods, there’s clearly a benefit to endorsing the idea that a portion of artificially enriched, sugary cereal can be equated with a portion of broccoli.
That a “calorie is a calorie” regardless of nutrient content is the status-quo position in the field and no doubt is a reason why a number of groups holding this viewpoint have signed on to the PBC.
It is worrisome, however, that the USDA has joined this advocacy group. The USDA is the primary government agency that issues the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. “To maintain objectivity on scientific issues, an agency ought to stay neutral in scientific debates and not take sides,” said The Nutrition Coalition’s Executive Director, Nina Teicholz. “It’s also a concern that the USDA would participate in such an industry-rich collaboration,” she added.
Underlying Motives
Any effort to address the obesity crisis is to be applauded, but much like the phrases “gluten-free” and “low-fat” that are affixed to packages to sell more foods, the words “portion balanced” or “portion controlled” could well become new marketing terms for the food industry of questionable scientific evidence. Consumers could also be encouraged to buy smaller portion sizes for the same price, which may very well do more to shrink their wallets than their waistlines.
The person leading the PBC effort, Diane Ty, with Georgetown University’s Business for Impact program, does not have a background in nutrition but is instead a long-time marketing consultant, with previous senior positions at American Express and the American Association of Retired Persons.
Remembering the Global Energy Balance Network
The emphasis that PBC places on portion size also appears to continue to blame obesity squarely on the consumer, by implying that individual overeating and lack of will power is to blame. While some people clearly overeat, at least one study has shown that excessive eating is triggered by highly processed foods. Will it make a difference if these foods are packaged in smaller sizes or will a hungry person simply buy two packages rather than one? If the fault lies in the type of food, not in the packaging of it, then this initiative will have little effect.
A similar, industry-driven attempt that went defunct in 2015 was called the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), seeded with money from Coca-Cola. GEBN aimed to promote the idea that Americans do not exercise enough. The presumption, again, was that ‘a calorie is a calorie,’ with the failure to balance calories a problem of the individual.
According to a New York Times article on GEBN, “health experts say this message is part of an effort by Coca-Cola to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and type 2 diabetes. They contend that the company is using the new group to convince the public that physical activity can offset a bad diet despite evidence that exercise has only minimal impact on weight compared with what people consume.”
Emails obtained by the non-profit U.S. Right to Know suggest that GEBN was designed to recruit hundreds of scientists into a group that could act as "a reliable and trusted source for a balanced, science-based view" while "promoting collaboration between industry and government.”
The “calories in calories out” idea is alive and well. Currently, all food chains with 20 or more locations are required to list calorie information on their menus, even though at least one large study found that this measure had no effect on the number of calories consumed.
In short, the PBC seems to be a revival of GEBN with a different name. Similarly, their tenets are based on an interpretation of the science that favors industry and blames the public for its suffering with obesity and other diet-related diseases.
The most fundamental question is why some of our trusted public health institutions and government agencies, such as the USDA, are aligning themselves with industry on questions of unsettled science.