Commercial responsibility: “that’s what they go to work for”

So far, evidence in this chapter has corroborated the discourse from the

previous two that corporations do have some responsibility for the health of the people who buy and consume their products i.e. there is a social and health imperative incumbent upon them. However, inconsistencies in the discourse have demonstrated that industry responsibility for individuals’ health is difficult to establish; this appears to be because of its conflicting roles. Although these included meeting consumer demand, delivering choice and providing

information, the overriding role that emerged from the data concerned finance.

At every stage of the discourse on corporate responsibility, commercial entities were seen as duty-bound to try to make profit, above all other considerations.

The food system is a part of a market system and a key role – imperative even – for all members of the food industry, is to succeed financially. One interviewee gave a candid summary of the unassailable subject position of members of the food industry,

That's what they go to work for in the morning. It doesn't mean they don't care about anything else but if you go into a hierarchy of priorities that's where they go first.

food industry consultant

This categorically underlines the discourse of the prevailing commercial imperative: any concern for public health will only ever come behind that for financial gain. As long as food is ‘safe’ i.e. not contaminated, and they operate within the law, businesses have license to provide whatever food they can sell.

Aspects of this may not, however, correspond with the objectives of public health: “there is an apparent conflict between the broader goals of the current free market and the health goals of individuals and society” (Hill et al. 2004).

6.3.1 Conflicts of interest: “they produce food to feed the economy”

Similarly to the discourses and counter-discourses of corporate responsibility seen throughout this chapter, “conflict” was common refrain throughout focus groups and interviews, but many contributors recognised the rights of and imperative on companies to make a profit. Here, a public health practitioner observes this:

their job is to create a product to maximise the income….. you can’t rely on industry to have some sort of moral objective in what they are doing

public health regional director & doctor

This was not to say that the food industry operates outside moral values, rather those are not what drives it. Others expressed a similar view, but more

cynically:

they produce food to feed the economy not to feed people Richard, FG1

As such, and as was discussed in section 4.4.1, there are doubts that the food industry could or would ever prioritise public, diet-related health and therefore cannot be held truly responsible for it. After all, they are not accountable to the public interest, “Corporations do not have the ability to take over the role of governments in contributing to social welfare simply because their basic function (the rhetoric of triple bottom line aside) is inherently driven by economic needs.” (Banerjee 2008, p.74).

If discourses construct subject positions (Hall 2001a), then that of the food industry at the diet-food system-health nexus was splintered: it was

represented in one discourse as a responsible actor and in a counter-discourse, as unable to take responsibility for its consumers’ health because of conflicting obligations. Yet interviewees in the corporate sector were relatively reticent

about such potential tensions and one did not accept that there was any clash between health and profit:

I would say, “Why would that be difficult to reconcile?” What if the foods that we develop are right in line with guidance on products that should be consumed by everybody?

international food & beverage manufacturing company executive 2 The fact remains, however, that many companies (including the one this interviewee was working for) make many foods that are not “in line with guidance” on healthy diets, even if they do make others that are. Another also denied there was a conflict, but with a contrasting, outspoken rationale, that there was only really one concern – to sell:

That’s all marketers really care about because if nobody wants to buy it, it’s irrelevant whether it’s healthy or not.

food industry consultant

This stark admission fits with the context of economic growth as a corporate, national and global priority: it is highly valued by government as well as the private sector.

In the UK, the food industry is particularly important, as the largest single manufacturing sector⁵². It is highly lucrative and efficient but participants described how the finely-tuned logistics of the system benefitted most from particular types of products to maintain it: those with longer shelf-lives that do not need careful handling. Such foods are often manufactured, high in sugar, salt, fat and/or refined carbohydrates, and highly appealing, so “when looking at short-term social utility, it is not surprising that these individual behaviours are supported by well-developed value chains that produce and distribute these foods widely, at very low cost.” (Hill et al. 2004). Ultimately, any business wants individuals to buy its products rather than its competitors’, and to buy as much as possible; a key way food companies do this is through another part of the

“value chain” – promotional techniques.

52http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/prodcom/prodcom-provisional-results/2012/sty-prod-2012.html Data from 2012, accessed 31/08/15

6.3.2 Maximising sales: “you can’t win an iPod with an apple”

The discourse of corporate responsibility was challenged by criticisms of sales strategies. In order to maximise capital return, many companies use

sophisticated marketing and promotional methods, discussed in sections 4.4.1 and 5.7.6. Although even selling healthy foods is “part of our marketing” as a food manufacturing executive admitted, many others saw a problem because marketing (and other alluring factors about food products) mostly steer choices towards less healthy options:

…if you then look at where the marketing dollars are? Where's the pricing? Where's the affordability and the access placed? It tends to be on the high calorie options and the bigger portion sizes, where there is value for actually choosing more volume and more calories over more nutrition with less calories.

international food & beverage manufacturing company executive 1

Such strategies, to incite individuals to buy foods that are detrimental to health, are understandable from a profit-making perspective. But they also subtly fit with the discourse of individual responsibility by putting the onus on individuals to override them in order to be healthy. In one focus group, the discussion was about how advertising heightened the appeal of manufactured, often less nutritious products. One contributor said:

A can of Pepsi looks more glamorous and fun than just eating an apple – you know what I mean?

Peter, FG9

To which another added:

You can't win an iPod with an apple.

Tom, FG9

This exchange, particularly the final, pithy observation, exemplified the value of manufactured products – particularly those high in sugar, salt and fats – and the importance of marketing to the companies that make them. Even if, as one interviewee pointed out, it may be that the marketeers have had “good luck” in promoting such foods because of probably human preferences for them (see section 5.7.4), the exchange also characterized the value of certain products beyond even their taste or health. Food is a consumer good, like others (such as

iPods), and certain manufactured products can be used to transmit a sense of identity through their “symbolic” value (Jackson 2010; Stead et al. 2011;

Shankar et al. 2009). As such, the food industry uses strategies incorporating such value through associations with, for example, “an iPod” or similarly

appealing prize, or cartoon characters in foods directed at children. Such tactics ignore health implications – they are calculated to optimise sales and built in to pricing: one interviewee suggested that only ten per cent of the cost of a

popular chocolate bar was on manufacture expenditure, the rest went on other aspects of selling it, particularly advertising. Even if apocryphal, this idea is significant.

Although there is conflicting research on whether unhealthy foods are price-promoted more than healthy ones (Nakamura et al. 2015; French et al. 2001), there was a perception that mainly “bad” (FG4) foods are advertised. One focus group participant described what she considered to be the overwhelming nature of advertisements:

the weight of billions of pounds worth of advertising which is all “have a burger”, “have some chocolate”. So the influence is very much, the advertising is Jupiter, and what you should do is Mercury in terms of its influence on the general public.

Louise, FG7

The planetary simile, although a little inconsistent, is an evocative suggestion that the power of individuals to eat responsibly is dwarfed by the magnitude of sales practices.

Companies’ use of sophisticated methods to design and sell foods with

characteristics that optimise their appeal is, in effect, a commercial (as opposed to state) version of Foucault’s notion of ‘biopower’, whereby corporations exercise power over the lives of individuals. It is a plausible extrapolation to consider as biopower, the influence that companies have by manufacture and marketing of certain exceptionally appealing foods. By emphasizing “choice”

and attributing the production of “indulgent” foods to “consumer demand”, companies put the imperative for making healthy food choices on individuals.

Many participants displayed considerable understanding of the promotional environment, such as of “loss leader” strategies, but even with this awareness, some contributors conveyed a sense of being so immersed in the promotional environment that they are not even aware it is there,

We’re probably thinking we've got freedom of choice and blah blah blah and all of this. But in fact we are being manipulated.

Rob, FG8

The word “manipulated” appears again, suggesting a misleading influence of corporations over consumers. Other individuals used similarly strong language to share feelings of being duped and overwhelmed by advertising and

promotions – being “conned” (FG10), “trick[ed]” (FG9) and “misled” by

“misrepresentation” (FG5), the “power of suggestion” (FG10) because advertising goes “for the easy kill” (FG10). This discourse presents another aspect of the food environment – marketing and promotions – that competes with individuals’ capacities to choose healthy foods easily. Substantially misleading advertising is, of course, prohibited, but as will be shown in the following section, the food industry is seen to exert considerable influence on guidelines and policies that are designed to circumscribe many aspects of its practices.

6.3.3 Influencing policy and resisting regulation: “a corporate dictatorship”

The food industry controls several elements of the food environment that test individuals’ ability to choose healthy foods, as demonstrated in section 5.7.

Although legislation is in place that governs many features of food production, marketing and sales, many other aspects are grey areas, covered by voluntary programmes or under discussion. A theme that emerged in the data was the strong influence that the food industry is said to have over these latter features and how it works to protect its interests.

Sections 4.4.4 and 4.5.4 have already illustrated the way that the food industry appeared to influence the development of policies that could affect the way it operates; they also exposed the neoliberal framework of government that