Tackling obesity, with help from the 1950s

If we want to turn around the obesity epidemic, we need to go back to the 1950s in our eating habits, according to researchers from the University of Cambridge.

Portion size has ballooned in the past six decades, and so have the utensils we use to eat. Now the Cambridge academics say they have found the “most conclusive evidence to date” that people consume more food or drinks from larger size portions or packages, and when using larger items of tableware.

In a paper published in the British Medical Journal, they showed that eliminating larger portions completely could reduce daily energy intake consumed by 12% to 16% among UK adults, and by 22% to 29% among US adults.

They also discussed the policy changes that would be required to achieve the change, including:

• reducing serving sizes in food and drinks that are high in kilojoules, such as confectionery, chips and cakes;
• reducing availability of larger portion and package sizes, for example, by removing the largest serving size of drinks;
• placing larger portion sizes less accessibly, by limiting portion size at checkouts, aisle ends and special displays;
• restricting pricing practices that enable larger portion and package sizes to cost less in relative terms than smaller sizes, and restricting price promotions on larger portion and package sizes;
• highlighting single portion sizes in packaging;
• restricting portion and package sizes in advertisements;
• making smaller tableware, including plates, cups, glasses and cutlery, the default for self-service and served foods and drinks;
• designing tableware to encourage smaller mouthfuls, such as shallow plates, straight-sided glasses, smaller cutlery;
• pricing tableware in relation to size.

They say the implementation of portion size interventions will be easier in public sector organisations, such as schools, hospitals, military bases and prisons, than in industry.

The authors say that reducing portion sizes to the sizes seen in the 1950s would involve reductions of over 50% for some energy-dense products. They advocate a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory measures as the food industry may find it difficult to act without regulation due to “first mover disadvantage”.