David Ocamb

The final episode of Jamie Oliver’s television program, Food Revolution, is airing tonight.  The show has garnered surprisingly good ratings for a Friday night slot . Jamie Oliver’s show follows in the relatively new movement of muckraking movies, television shows and books focused on America’s eating habits like the book Fast Food Nation and the movie Supersize Me.  Fast Food Nation and Supersize Me successfully reached influentials, but did not penetrate the public at large.  It remains to be seen if the ratings Jamie Oliver has achieved created a buzz big enough to reach the public at large in a meaningful way and push society over the tipping point.  If it did, the question is … what happens from here?

Will issue advocacy groups emerge to lead the charge against obesity?  If so, will they succeed in creating strategic partnerships with corporate donors?  Will they push through legislation? We’ve already seen some movement on banning trans fatty acids and displaying nutritional information on menus, but clearly this is the tip of the iceberg of what could be done.  Will candidates for public office start campaigning on this issue?  Will ambitious trial lawyers see the public turn against corporate food interests and file class action lawsuits?  Will legislation pass that allows these lawsuits to proceed?  Will Attorneys General from states file lawsuits over Medicaid costs? More importantly, will the combined industries that are at risk—fast food, snack foods, processed foods, agricultural business, soft drinks, casual dining restaurants, etc—finally wake up and realize the threat this debate poses to their very existence? 

It’s hard to remember, but at one point tobacco was not just unrestricted, it was actually subsidized by the government.  Then, the tobacco wars started and, much like what we’re seeing here, a prolonged public affairs war commenced that ultimately led to the end of tobacco as we knew it.

If this is going to parallel the tobacco wars, have the combined industries learned the lesson that fighting back at every step might not be the best approach?  Certainly if litigation emerges (and with recent news articles pointing to foods creating a chemical dependence/addiction litigation over marketing to children most certainly will emerge), the companies do have to be careful not to publicly admit culpability. 

However, the soft drink industry is currently running an effective ad campaign concerning removing sugar-based (and, one must assume, high fructose corn syrup based) drinks from schools. 

This campaign does not accept blame for putting the drinks into schools in the first place, yet at least it shows them caring enough to “do the right thing” now.  Additionally, they are marketing full cane sugar drinks that eliminate high fructose corn syrup altogether.  How long before they replace high fructose corn syrup with either sugar or Splenda and throw the big four agriculture business companies (Archers Daniels Midland, Midland, Cargill and Stanley Manufacturing which account for 85% of the $2.6 billion dollar a year high fructose corn syrup industry) under the bus?

Ultimately, time will tell if the issue has reached a tipping point and, if so, how this plays out.  Will the corporate food interests all stick together or will infighting create battles amongst the food corporations?  Will issue advocacy groups emerge to take advantage of the charged political climate?  However, this much is clear… it’s time for both sides to build up their public affairs armies and prepare to launch their missiles.