Over the past half-century, millions of people worldwide have chomped through trillions of McDonaldâs burgers and fries. But by the turn of the millennium, critics had made the corporation shorthand for everything thatâs bad in food in rich countries: over-processed, fatty, unhealthy. Faced with this image problem, and stalling and falling profits, McDonaldâs began fighting back. In 2003 â in what will sound to some a deeply ironic gesture â it set up the Global Advisory Council on Healthy Lifestyles. Its role was to reform McDonaldâs from within and make the company look like it was taking the global obesity epidemic seriously.
The council recruited some of the worldâs most respected scientists: biochemists, nutritionists, policy advisers and epidemiologists, keen to help the food giant transform itself. Given the councilâs academic credibility and good intentions, is it wrong to be cynical about McDonaldâsâ motivation? And given the hold the company has on the hearts and minds of its many customers, is it better to try to applaud the company for its efforts?
Canadian obesity and nutrition researcher Harvey Anderson thinks so. He is one of the elite scientists working with McDonaldâs, so Diane Martindale asked him if we should start trusting the food giant.
Advertisement
Morgan Spurlockâs film Super Size Me showed what happened when he ate McDonaldâs meals for 30 days. What did you think of it?
Garbage. The movie was too extreme to be educational. What pleased me was that most people I know thought it was a bit of a joke. They enjoyed it, but it was more of a question: how could he do that to himself? McDonaldâs didnât force-feed him. Spurlock is an anti-obesity advocate picking on the biggest target. He didnât show the evils of eating at McDonaldâs, he showed the evils of over-consumption. Spurlock could have gone to any greasy spoon and done the same thing with the same result. But doing it at a small, unknown restaurant wouldnât have had much impact, would it?
So why did McDonaldâs do away with the âSupersizeâ option? It was working for them, wasnât it?
One of the first things the council told McDonaldâs was to back off from supersizing: it just happened to coincide with the silly movie. People donât need Supersize: if the Supersize option is there, people will go for it. Sometimes you have to help them trip over the right choice. We do have a big obesity epidemic and itâs wrong to have large serving sizes.
You are a top nutritionist and obesity researcher. Why did you join a council sponsored by the worldâs biggest fast-food chain?
Hereâs an organisation serving millions of meals a day and you have a chance to have an impact on the composition of the food, the nutrition and the publicâs health. Why not? If I or anyone in public health services was in a position to influence the way the 35 million people in Canada eat, weâd love that opportunity. The trouble is, thereâs no organised way of getting at it â McDonaldâs is that way. So Iâd rather work from within the system to change things rather than simply complaining.
How did you set about changing the companyâs billion-dollar-grossing menu?
First, we checked what was in the meal, and figured out what was missing. Was there enough fibre in the buns? Were there things to add to make it more nutritious â say, an apple to the âHappy Mealâ and milk instead of a soft drink? We worked with Cathy Kapica, global director of nutrition at the Chicago head office. The most difficult aspect was and is not altering the taste too much, because people complain. McDonaldâs criteria covering how its food looks, tastes and its composition is rigorous. If you could take a frozen McDonaldâs hamburger, grill and eat it at home, youâd say: âThis is the freshest tasting piece of meat Iâve ever had.â Itâs just absolutely wonderful.
How do you know?
Iâve tasted it, on my first visit to McDonaldâs main testing kitchen in Chicago â what they call Hamburger University â when I joined the council. They grilled me a burger patty and said: âWhy donât you just taste our hamburger meat, without any dressings or bun?â And it was delicious.
What do you think youâve achieved health-wise?
The Happy Meal used to be a small burger, fries, fizzy drink and toy. Now you can choose: thereâs apple, yoghurt, milk or juice as substitutes for the fries, and pop at no extra charge. They say an apple a day keeps the doctor away. We told McDonaldâs to add fibre to their buns; now we are encouraging whole grains. Compared with 10 years ago, there is much more fruit and vegetables on the menu.
Are the sales improving?
Yes. People see they can choose to eat a salad at McDonaldâs and still have fun. The fact that the choice is there broadens a childâs vision of what fun foods are. If they see other kids eating a salad or an apple, thatâs more powerful than mom and dad saying: âEat your salad!â If people would only select the choice thatâs suitable for them â thatâs the tricky part.
Is the company image changing?
Yes, I think we are changing peopleâs perception. People tended to close their minds and say: âIâm just not going there.â But now they say: âWow, that was a good salad.â
âPeople who had closed their minds say, âWow, that was a good saladââ
Will there be any scientific papers available showing some independent evidence of this shift?
McDonaldâs is evaluating its meals. Cathy Kapica is starting to publish â and presenting data at scientific meetings is a real first for McDonaldâs. She presented at the Experimental Biology meeting in San Diego in April and she will present at the International Congress of Nutrition in Durban, South Africa, in September.
Quite a change. But while McDonaldâs is now the number one seller of salads in North America, those salads are full of sugar.
Thereâs nothing wrong with a little sugar. Itâs 4 calories per gram of sugar versus 9 calories per gram of fat. People donât think about that. I eat McDonaldâs salads all the time. I just had one of its newer ones, the fruit and walnut â itâs a wonderful little salad. But you do have to choose your salad dressing carefully. McDonaldâs is trying to drop the calorie content of some of the dressings because not everyone knows the difference between one made with oil versus one lower in calories.
Is working for McDonaldâs like going to the dark side, a sort of career suicide?
Just the opposite. Most people see it as a wonderful opportunity. Others say itâs nice that you are brave enough to take it on. Itâs not so much my colleagues that are negative or closed-minded about it. They say to me: âWhy donât you suggest to McDonaldâs that they do this or this?â They see it as an avenue to change. Thatâs comforting. In truth, I did expect that there would be more negative opinions, but most people think we have to work with fast-food companies, we canât be in an ivory tower throwing darts. Itâs friends, acquaintances, or a vegetarian, or someone who never takes their kids to McDonaldâs, who say to me: âHow could you work for them?â When they say that I give them an educational talk!
Do you eat at McDonaldâs?
I probably go there once a week. I like the Happy Meal because itâs a small burger, and I have the yoghurt and juice instead of pop and fries. I like my high-fibre breakfast cereals, but sometimes Iâll just grab a breakfast bagel on the way to work. Itâs wonderful, fresh, but I donât put the mayo on it. Itâs a good start to the day. I hope that weâll eventually get to whole-wheat bagels.
Profile
Harvey Anderson is a professor at the University of Toronto in the department of nutritional sciences and physiology, and the director of the universityâs food safety programme. His academic work concentrates on childhood obesity, diet and behaviour. He has contributed to more than 250 publications on food sciences and nutrition.