Emma Tsui

Over the last three decades, obesity rates in the United States have doubled in adults and tripled in children and adolescents, and reports now indicate that approximately one-third of children and adolescents and two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese (1). Obesity has increased among all racial, ethnic, and income groups, but the highest rates occur among minorities and the poor (2, 3). This is particularly concerning given obesity’s link with numerous chronic health conditions, including diabetes, stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, and some cancers (4).

While advocates correctly emphasize the importance of making healthy food more available to reduce obesity and other health problems, some researchers believe that such measures can only be effective if they are coupled with efforts to limit unhealthy foods as well (5). After all, eating a few more fruits and vegetables daily is unlikely to improve health if one is also consuming a Big Mac, fries and 32 ounces of soda a day. These researchers note that the policy rationale for reducing access to unhealthy foods is to make healthy choices the easier path.

In particular, fast food companies may play a key role in the obesity epidemic because of their large and inexpensive portion sizes, the high levels of calories, fat, and sodium contained in fast food, and the frequency with which those most affected by obesity (especially poor populations and children) consume fast food (6). Americans rely on fast food outlets for a substantial amount of their food, with almost half of food spending going to meals consumed outside the home (7). And not surprisingly, studies have found an association between eating fast food and higher fat consumption and weight (8, 9).

In considering how access to unhealthy foods might be reduced, municipal zoning codes may hold unique potential. Zoning laws determine how city land may be used and where these different uses may occur. As a police power, through which states are obligated to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety, zoning laws may be a powerful tool for improving food environments (10). To help advocates better understand how zoning might be used to reduce access to unhealthy foods, this article provides information about how zoning has been used to influence fast food outlets, describes how various jurisdictions have approached the regulation of fast food, discusses potential arguments for and against the zoning of fast food, and describes some of the ways that the food industry has opposed efforts to zone fast food.

How has zoning been used to regulate fast food outlets?

City governments have developed a variety of ways of reducing fast food outlets through zoning. These typically fall into two categories: bans or restrictions (10). The most common types of zoning bans and restrictions to reduce fast food outlets are described briefly below (11). (For more detailed descriptions of these approaches, see Mair et al., 2005)

1. Banning fast food outlets and/or drive-through service. Banning fast food outlets has been done via complete bans on new fast food outlets throughout a city or town, or less restrictively, as bans in which new fast food and/or drive-through service can only be allowed via conditional or special use permits.
2. Banning “formula” restaurants. Formula businesses have been defined as those “that have standardized services, décor, methods of operation, and other features that make them virtually identical to businesses elsewhere.” Formula restaurants typically refer to large national chains, but in some cases have been interpreted to mean very small, local chains.
3. Banning fast food in certain parts of a city. Often when fast food has been banned only from certain areas within a city, it is banned from areas that have a “unique character” that the city wants to preserve and fast food restaurants are banned for aesthetic reasons.
4. Restricting the number of fast food outlets. This involves a cap on the number of fast food outlets that can exist in a given area or an entire city.
5. Restricting the density of fast food outlets. Density of fast food outlets has been regulated per unit space (eg. one fast food outlet for every 400 feet of lot frontage along the street, as in the Westwood Village area of Los Angeles, California) and via space between fast food outlets.
6. Regulating the distance between fast food outlets and other sites. These other sites have included schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, public recreation areas, and residentially zoned property.

Where has zoning been used to reduce fast food outlets?

South Los Angeles, California

In July 2008, the Los Angeles City Council approved a measure to place a one-year moratorium on the opening of new fast food establishments in several south Los Angeles neighborhoods with high fast food density and high obesity. The measure defined fast food as, “[a]ny establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers” (12). The new law only applied to stand-alone restaurants, not to those located inside malls or shopping centers (13). The rationale for implementing the measure as a moratorium was to give city planners time to assess the best use of minimal remaining land in these neighborhoods for the creation of a healthier food environment, and to attempt to draw grocery stores and sit-down restaurants to the area (13). The moratorium has now been extended to two years, and no evaluation data has yet been published regarding the measure’s effectiveness, though one analysis has suggested that the ban is not the best approach for addressing obesity in these areas (14).

Concord, Massachusetts

Concord, Massachusetts, a town of approximately 17,000 that is located within commuting distance of Boston, implemented a complete ban on drive-in and fast food restaurants in 1981 (11, 15). The rationale for the ordinance was two-fold: “to lessen congestion in the streets” and “to preserve and enhance the development of the natural, scenic and aesthetic qualities of the community” (11). City officials indicate that no one seems to miss the fast food outlets banned via the ordinance (15), however, to our knowledge, no health-related assessments of the ban’s effects have been conducted to date.

Detroit, Michigan

In Detroit, for close to two decades, the zoning code has prohibited most fast food restaurants from being built within 500 feet of all elementary, junior, and senior high schools (11, 15). The code’s language includes both “standard” restaurants and “carry-out or fast food” restaurants. As in Concord, no health-related evaluation data of this fast food restriction exists.

What kinds of arguments have been made for the zoning of fast food outlets?

Historically, the arguments used most commonly to reduce fast food outlets through zoning have been related to the increases fast food outlets can cause in traffic, pollution, and trash around the site (11), as well as the threat they may pose to pedestrian safety (16). Many have also successfully argued that fast food outlets be banned in specific areas in order to preserve a certain aesthetic to which fast food outlets do not conform (11).

A measure passed to ban new fast food outlets in South Los Angeles in 2008 (described above) marks the first time that health has been used as the explicit rationale for a change in the zoning of restaurants. The language of this ordinance reads that it was intended to “provide a strong and competitive commercial sector which best serves the needs of the community, attract uses which strengthen the economic base and expand market opportunities for existing and new businesses, enhance the appearance of commercial districts, and identify and address the over-concentration of uses which are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people of the community” (12).

What are the arguments against zoning fast food and potential responses to these arguments?

Argument 1: Reducing access to fast food in places considered “food deserts” could make residents vulnerable to not getting enough to eat.

Response: Fast food bans via zoning do not typically remove all fast food restaurants in a given area; they merely restrict the opening of new fast food outlets. The effect of such bans is to arrest the growth in fast food outlets and to make room for healthier food options. Stopping the growth of fast food outlets in areas considered “food deserts” may thus be an important first step in changing the overall food landscape in these neighborhoods, especially when banning fast food is implemented in conjunction with proactive efforts to increase healthy food options. Additionally, research indicates that hunger and obesity may be paradoxically intertwined. Insufficient income and food stamp benefits often force food choices based on economics rather than nutrition and health, and may encourage some people to overeat when they have money and go hungry when it runs out (5). If what people are overeating is fast food because that is what is most accessible, then the risks of obesity—even among populations that suffer from hunger—can be high.

Argument 2: Since zoning typically only affects new fast food outlets, it is not useful in reducing access to existing fast food restaurants.

Response: It’s true that eliminating or limiting the operation of existing fast food outlets through zoning is difficult and costly to implement. To address existing outlets, municipalities usually do one of three things: allow the business to continue, without changes or expansion; allow the business to continue operation for a specified period of time (amortization); or use eminent domain to provide the business owner with “just compensation” for the value of the business (17). This last route is the rarest of the three. Thus, in areas with a very high density of existing fast food outlets, the reduction that zoning could provide might be a legitimate concern. However, in most places, a prohibition or restriction of new fast food restaurants would likely substantially alter the food environment over time.

Argument 3: It’s wrong for government to tell people what kinds of food they can have access to.

Response: This “nanny state” argument falls short when we recognize the extraordinary influence the fast food industry has on what we eat, as compared with government. Through the location of their outlets, as well as their prices, portion sizes, and advertising, fast food restaurants have made themselves an integral part of American life, just as they play an integral role in the obesity epidemic. Advocates suggest that we ask ourselves, “Who do we trust more to tell us what kinds of foods to eat: corporate executives with a financial bottom line or public health officials?”

Argument 4: There are other, better targets than fast food if we want to reduce obesity.

Response: The reduction of fast food outlets is rarely if ever intended as the sole approach to improving food environments. Rather, policies to reduce fast food are intended play a single but nonetheless critical role in a larger array of efforts to improve food environments.

How do food and restaurant industries oppose zoning changes?

The food and restaurant industries have opposed the zoning of fast food primarily through strong media responses to efforts to zone fast food and through lobbying. Media responses typically use the “nanny state” claim (Argument 3 above), and come from organizations like the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which is a food and restaurant industry front group. For instance, in response to a report released by Institute of Medicine in 2009 that recommended zoning of fast food in areas near schools to reduce childhood obesity, CCF’s director of research said, “The big picture is [activists] want to control what everybody is eating. The theory is that we’re too stupid to make our own eating choices, so let’s make sure the restaurants are far away from you.” The president and executive director of CCF is Rick Berman, a food and tobacco industry lobbyist who also runs Berman & Co., a restaurant and tobacco industry public affairs group that is estimated to earn $10 million annually.

The National Restaurant Association also opposes zoning changes that would limit fast food outlets, and has developed a well-oiled machine for lobbying state and local legislators. In a 2005 CorpWatch article, Michele Simon wrote, “The National Restaurant Association has 60,000 member companies representing more than 300,000 outlets. NRA works quite effectively in tandem with each state’s restaurant association, providing model legislation, talking points, and additional technical assistance.”

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

References

1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Curtin LR, McDowell MA, Tabak CJ, and Flegal KM. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999-2004. JAMA. 2006;295:1549-1555.
2. Black J and Macinko J. Neighborhoods and obesity. Nutr Rev. 2008;66:2-20.
3. Drewnowski A. Obesity, diets, and social inequalities. Nutr Rev. 2009;67(Suppl 1):S36-S39.
4. Visscher TL, Seidell JC. The public health impact of obesity. Annual Review of Public Health 2001;22:355-75
5. Dinour, L, Fuentes L, Freudenberg N. Reversing Obesity in New York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility of Unhealthy Food, CUNY Campaign Against Diabetes and Public Health Association of New York City, October 2008.
6. Brownell KD. Fast food and obesity in children. Pediatrics 2004;113(1 Pt 1):132.
7. Clauson A. Share of food spending for eating out reaches 47 percent. Food Rev. 1999;22:20–22.
8. Bowman SA and Vinyard BT. Fast food consumption of U.S. adults: impact on energy and nutrient intakes and overweight status. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Apr;23(2):163-8.
9. Bowman SA, Gortmaker SL, Ebbeling CB, Pereira MA, and Ludwig DS. Effects of fast-food consumption on energy intake and diet quality among children in a national household survey. Pediatrics. 2004 Jan;113(1 Pt 1):112-8.
10. Hodge J. The Use of Zoning to Restrict Access to Fast Food Outlets: A Potential Strategy to Reduce Obesity. Presentation to the CDC Diabetes and Obesity Conference, May 2006.
11. Mair JS, Pierce MW, and Teret SP. The use of zoning to restrict fast food outlets: A potential strategy to combat obesity. The Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Johns Hopkins & Georgetown Universities, October 2005.
12. Los Angeles City Council. Los Angeles, California Ordinance 180103 (July 29, 2008).
13. Hoag, C. “Los Angeles to vote on fast food ban.” The Huffington Post. July 29, 2008.
14. Sturm R and Cohen DA. Zoning for health? The year-old ban on new fast-food restaurants in South LA. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009 Nov-Dec;28(6):w1088-97. Epub 2009 Oct 6.
15. Fernandez, M. Pros and Cons of a Zoning Diet: Fighting Obesity by Limiting Fast-Food Restaurants. The New York Times, September 24, 2006.
16. Spacht AC. The zoning diet: Using restrictive zoning to shrink American waistlines. Notre Dame Law Review. 2009 85(1): 391-418.
17. National Policy and Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN). Model Healthy Food Zone Ordinance. October 2009.

Photo credits:

1. StudioGabe
2. Mirsasha
3. DonnaGrayson
4. DR000
5. swilkes

In the June 10 edition of the New York Review of Books, Michael Pollan writes that while the diverse interest groups of the American food movement are starting to pull together, “It’s a big, lumpy tent, and sometimes the various factions beneath it work at cross-purposes.”

Under this tent, Pollan includes those people interested in:

school lunch reform; the campaign for animal rights and welfare; the campaign against genetically modified crops; the rise of organic and locally produced food; efforts to combat obesity and type 2 diabetes; “food sovereignty” (the principle that nations should be allowed to decide their agricultural policies rather than submit to free trade regimes); farm bill reform; food safety regulation; farmland preservation; student organizing around food issues on campus; efforts to promote urban agriculture and ensure that communities have access to healthy food; initiatives to create gardens and cooking classes in schools; farm worker rights; nutrition labeling; feedlot pollution; and the various efforts to regulate food ingredients and marketing, especially to kids.

This article explores what a new and much-discussed sandwich from KFC, the Double Down, can tell us about ways that corporations might try to use the lumpiness of the food movement tent to their advantage. KFC introduced the Double Down on April 12th, describing it as a “one-of-a-kind sandwich” that “features two thick and juicy boneless white meat chicken filets, two pieces of bacon, two melted slices of Monterey Jack and pepper jack cheese and Colonel’s Sauce.” KFC gushed, “This product is so meaty, there’s no room for a bun!” Advertisements for the sandwich sparked a lively debate on the Internet and beyond. This response has translated into sales, and while initially the sandwich was to be offered for just a few weeks, KFC recently announced that its availability would be extended through the summer and perhaps for as long as demand remains high.

At first, commentators repeatedly noted the blow to health that the Double Down appeared to pose for anyone who consumed it. As a reporter for the Baltimore Sun quipped, “I’d call it murder on a bun, except there is no bun.” But others argued that KFC was not alone in promoting unhealthy fare. Pop culture analyst Greg Beato wrote, “Positioning KFC as a culinary terrorist that coerces chicken-hearted consumers into eating against their best interests makes for a savory sound bite, but it’s based on faulty intelligence.”

As it turns out, the Double Down’s 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1,380 milligrams of salt make for a pretty average nutritional profile as compared with that of other fast food items. The Double Down is considerably less unhealthy, for instance, than Wendy’s Triple Baconator (1,350 calories, 90 grams of fat, and 2780 mg of salt) or Burger King’s Triple Whopper (1160 calories, 76 grams of fat, and 1170 mg of salt). According to one of the more sophisticated analyses, even Burger King’s regular Whopper with cheese is slightly nutritionally worse than a Double Down. And the Double Down appears almost light next to items from restaurants like The Cheesecake Factory and California Pizza Kitchen, whose products were recently featured in the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Xtreme Eating 2010 report.

So, miraculously, the notion of the Double Down as a nutrition disaster is morphing into an understanding of it as fast food business as usual. In their efforts to target young men, KFC has joined Hardee’s, Burger King, and Jack in the Box in launching marketing campaigns designed to increase product recognition, brand loyalty, and sales to a population characterized by rapid increases in obesity and escalating cardiovascular risk.

In conjunction with these nutritional concerns, it is interesting to note that KFC has engaged a somewhat surprising branch of the food movement—hunger activists and food banks—in its promotion of the sandwich. In their online newsroom, the corporation has written,

When introducing a bunless sandwich, the obvious question is: what happens to all the buns? To celebrate the launch of the Double Down, KFC will do some good by donating the “unneeded” sandwich buns to feed the hungry. The brand will donate both buns and funds to food banks across the country, starting with the Dare to Care Food Bank in KFC’s hometown of Louisville, Ky.

Some, like NYU Professor Marion Nestle, have wondered what purpose this aspect of the Double Down marketing serves. Nestle speculates that perhaps it is merely desperation on the part of KFC, which saw its market share fall precipitously in the latter half of the 2000s. However, even desperate acts are driven by strategy. Might bun donation have functioned as a preemptive offering to one branch of the food movement—in this case, hunger activists—to quell the anticipated outrage of other branches, like those concerned with obesity and nutrition?

Though the complex tensions between hunger and obesity are at the heart of the food movement, the mobilization around food is not just political. As Pollan puts it,

What is attracting so many people to the movement today (and young people in particular) is a much less conventional kind of politics, one that is about something more than food. The food movement is also about community, identity, pleasure, and, most notably, about carving out a new social and economic space removed from the influence of big corporations on the one side and government on the other.

Except for this last clause about corporations and government, Pollan might well be describing the soaring interest in popular food culture, through which many people now identify as “foodies” or “chowhounds.” Foodies are people who take a collector-like interest in food and restaurants. Not all foodies care about where food comes from and how it’s produced, but many do, especially those who have followed renowned and socially-minded chefs like Alice Waters and Bill Telepan into the food movement.

Chowhounds represent what some regard as the more adventurous, less high-brow end of the foodie spectrum. The name stems from an online message board started by Jim Leff and Bob Okumura in 1996. As Leff described in an interview in 2005, a chowhound is:

Someone who seeks out deliciousness in any situation and loves to discover new culinary treasures. The one who, on the way to work each morning, walks blocks out of the way to try a different muffin and isn’t satisfied until the most delectable one is found. They are people who hate to settle. In a world where titanic engines of marketing influence people’s opinions and taste, there are the guys who opt out and make their own decisions. You know how there’s adventure travel? Well, we’re adventure eaters. Which doesn’t mean that we won’t go to the obvious places if they’re great. If McDonald’s made great hamburgers, I would be there every day.

Leff’s last sentence highlights the idea that when a movement is, as Pollan writes, about “community, identity, and pleasure,” there are many possible forms that communities can take, and many (possibly conflicting) values that these communities can hold. Like the food movement, the foodie movement has gained its steam online as much as anywhere else, and many of the related communities are online ones. This is relevant to the Double Down’s success, which has been fueled by online interest. At the end of April, KFC’s spokesperson Richard Maynard was quoted as saying, “For the demographic it is intended for, primarily young males, [the Double Down] has received an unprecedented response following launch. […] We’ve never seen so many people post YouTube videos and social-media reviews of one of our products.”

However, the response to the Double Down is not limited to young men posting YouTube videos. According to KFC’s post-test marketing research, the Double Down has received high scores for “uniqueness,” precisely one of the food characteristics that chowhounds and many other foodies seek. And sure enough, many chowhounds couldn’t resist a jaunt to KFC to try the Double Down. Posts about the Double Down on chow.com (the current incarnation of the chowhound message board) have received more than 100 replies (an examplehere), often weighing in with first-hand knowledge of the sandwich.

Further evidence of the curiosity that the Double Down has produced among studied eaters and those outside of the usual fast food target audience is apparent in the unprecedented reviews (examples here, here, and here) of the fast food item, not only by numerous food and other blogs, but also by the dining sections of several major newspapers. Mina Kimes of CNNmoney.com writes that the Double Down is a “turning point for the fast food industry as a whole–proof that customers will now flock to product innovation, not just pricing promotions.”

While Pollan notes that the food movement’s diverse subgroups are beginning to converge, KFC seems to see another path. Using its awareness of tensions in the movement, KFC hopes to fuel sales of what appears to be a very successful product. The marketing of the Double Down should provoke us to ask two basic questions. First, how can a food movement resist corporate efforts to undermine people’s capacity to make healthier food choices? And second, what roles can foodies play in the food movement and what interests do they share with other reformers?

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

 

Photo Credit:

carnesaurus

In March, PepsiCo Inc. announced that it was setting goals to substantially reduce the amount of sodium, sugar, and fat in its products over the next decade. Other Big Food companies like Kraft Foods Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc., and the Campbell Soup Co. have also recently vowed to make healthier products. CHW editor Emma Tsui briefly explores where this wave of industry health consciousness is coming from and how people are reacting to it.

On March 22, 2010, PepsiCo Inc. announced that it was setting goals to substantially reduce the amount of sodium, sugar, and fat in its products over the next decade. Specifically, the corporation hopes to cut the average sodium per serving in some of their brands by 25% by 2015, and to reduce average saturated fat and added sugar by 15% and 25% by 2020. Called “Performance with Purpose,” the initiative also seeks to increase the whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds available among PepsiCo’s products, as well as to improve the corporation’s commitments to environmental sustainability and the health of its workforce.

PepsiCo’s global food and beverage business includes not only Pepsi-Cola, but numerous other familiar brands like Frito-Lay, Tropicana, Dole, Gatorade, Tazo teas, and Quaker, the maker of oatmeal, which is considered to be the company’s leading healthy food brand. Other Big Food companies like Kraft Foods Inc., ConAgra Foods Inc. (maker of Chef Boyardee, Healthy Choice, and Slim Jim products, among others), and Campbell Soup Co. have also recent publicly vowed to improve the healthfulness of their products by reducing their sodium content.

So where has this wave of industry health consciousness come from? PepsiCo emphasizes the dual objectives of responding to consumer preferences and improving the health of consumers in their decision to improve the healthfulness of their products. “Consumers are heading toward ‘good-for-you,’” MSNBC quoted PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi as saying during the recent investor meeting. Not only that, but as a limited liability corporation, Nooyi has said that it is important for companies like hers to recognize, “…if we are operating with a license from society, we owe that society a duty of care.” More cynical observers speculate that PepsiCo, like other food companies, is trying to avoid government regulation, which might set tougher standards and impose sanctions for violations. As one commentator noted, “Considering the vast resources large companies like PepsiCo, Kraft, and Campbell Soup Co. have at their disposal, these firms are wise to invest [in] research and development now, rather than scrambling later to avoid congressional hearings and even government regulations.”

Though reducing sodium, fat and sugar in processed foods may seem like an encouraging sign for the public’s health, there’s no doubt that PepsiCo’s interest in health is closely tied to its enduring interest in profit. “We believe that a healthier future for all people and our planet means a more successful future for PepsiCo,” Nooyi noted in the company’s press release. MSNBC added that PepsiCo’s portfolio of healthier or “good for you” products currently earns them approximately $10 billion (approximately one-fifth of their total revenue), and indicated that Nooyi estimates that this amount will grow to $30 billion within the decade.

But what impact can we expect these kinds of changes to have on health? Reaction to news of the “Performance with Purpose” initiative casts doubt on its health benefits, and responses to the company’s work to create what reporters have dubbed “designer salt” have been particularly skeptical. In these studies, by altering the shape of the salt, PepsiCo researchers have been able to increase the percentage of salt that dissolves on the tongue and is tasted, so that less salt can be used. In response to this news, the New York Times pointed toward the need to reduce consumption of snack foods, writing, “It’s not enough for snacks to have artificial sugar and new-fangled salt. High-tech or not, we also have to eat less of them.” Hemi Weingarten of the Huffington Post was in agreement, but blamed the marketing practices of PepsiCo and other major corporations in addition to consumer behavior. “So long as mega-corporations continue to manufacture and sell snacks as their main line of business, people will be encouraged by their aggressive marketing to consume more and more snacks and less real foods,” he wrote.

By Emma Tsui, Postdoctoral Fellow at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College and editor at Corporations and Health Watch.

Photo credits:

1. wallyg
2. roadsidepictures