In a recent article in the New Yorker magazine titled, “Snacks for a Fat Planet“, John Seabrook interviews PepsiCo‘s CEO Indra Nooyi and discovers that the second biggest food company in the world (after Nestle) wants to be a “good company”. Why would a company that sells products (Lays Crisps, Pepsi Cola, Gatorade, Doritos, 7up, Quaker Oats, etc) to three billion of the earth’s inhabitants push the idea that it wants to be “good”? Because, the results of increasing consumption of food from snack and beverage companies like PepsiCo is that the western world is suffering from an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. In 2008, one health study estimated that obesity cost the US $147B in health care charges and resulted in 300,000 deaths. Regulators around the world are all considering ways to reduce their health budgets and patterns of food consumption are in their sights. As a good CEO, Nooyi is looking into the future and trying to position her company to thrive in any newly regulated food market. She also sees an opportunity to meet the desires of an aging population who are becoming more conscious of the nutritional value of their food.
The resources available to PepsiCo to develop new products are astonishing. The robotic tongue described by Seabrook was a revelation to me: made by culturing cells and injecting the genetic sequences of the four known taste receptors (leaving out salt) and hard wiring these cells to a computer. This robotic tongue is used to screen for new compounds and food sources that humans might find tasty. They have vast armies of technicians and scientists looking for ways to improve the experience of consumption, at less cost to produce, and now, with less ‘harmfuls’ such as sodium and sugar. The idea that people might just eat less is obviously not considered. “Its not a question of selling less. Its a question of selling the right stuff”, says Nooyi.
A couple of things struck me about this article. The first was, if PepsiCo didn’t exist, would be have to invent it? Homo sapiens evolved to desire energy dense foods (fats and sugars) and crave salt. Over the last 100,000 years of modern humanity, it has only been recently that fulfilling a hunger pang has been as easy as opening a bag of crisps. Eating such energy dense foods hits all the right pleasure receptors. Some of us have more of these receptors and require more “hits” to get the pleasure. These people are most at risk of obesity, because they need to eat more to feel good.
So have our primitive desires created a huge market for sugary, fatty, salty products, that mean that the companies who supply them become huge themselves? Or have Big Food companies manipulated us with their clever marketing to create an aspiration for their products? PepsiCo and CocaCola both started out life as fake medicinal products, in a time when quackery was common and scientific studies on the claims of foods scarce. Have they continued to sell us false dreams, like tobacco companies selling the cool, and hiding the cancer? Or have they just been chasing profits and found that the “fun”, energy dense foods happen to sell best and not given much thought to what the implications would be?
The second thing that struck me about this article is that mass over-consumption may be a fleeting phenomenon. The last 50 years has been relatively unprecedented in terms of improvements in agricultural productivity and access to energy supplies. At the beginning of the 21st Century, agricultural productivity growth is declining, we have likely seen peak oil production at the same time as the world population continues its exponential growth. Some of the technologies being developed by Big Food to improve the efficiency of food manufacturing may turn out to be quite useful in a world where food is much more expensive and scarce than it is now.
So, my question is, are Big Food companies like PepsiCo and Nestle part of an axis of evil that only supply sub-standard food that makes us sick and so should be driven from existence? Or could they be enticed to be a part of a food revolution that brings together the desire for tasty food, with the need for nutritious food? Given their market dominance, do we have a choice?
Written by Paul Dalby
@PresidentDalby