The health debate: how can ‘Big Food’ rebuild trust?

The health debate:  how can ‘Big Food’ rebuild trust?

While we’ve probably never been better informed about nutrition, what actually constitutes a healthy diet has never been more confusing. We’re bombarded with headlines about the volume of sugar or salt in our favourite foods, and stories that challenge the healthy perceptions of certain foods and drinks are commonplace.

Revelations of how food and drink companies are misleading their customers provides a good explanation as to why faith in ‘Big Food’ has been eroded internationally.

Conflicting messages destroy trust

For food and drink companies, how to approach the health debate presents a dilemma. While they have a duty to their shareholders to make money, solved by selling more products at greater margins, there is an acceptance that having a negative impact on health also affects reputation. This has seen many companies advocating initiatives to improve consumers’ health (largely through providing nutritional education and/or increased activity incentives). However many critics have argued that this approach is rather an example of “sugar-coating” the issue, than a wholehearted effort to make a change.

One recent example of this is Coca-Cola – while the company actively communicates about tackling obesity, The New York Times revealed that it had played a major part in funding a research group criticised for downplaying the role of sugary drinks in obesity. Following the revelation, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent said he was disappointed the company’s actions created “more confusion and mistrust” – and vowed to be more transparent.

I agree with Mr. Kent.

Examples of companies communicating about health-boosting initiatives while simultaneously lobbying against GMO labelling or using positioning sugar-laden food, such as sugary cereals, as part of a balanced diet, damages trust and reputation in a way that can be extremely difficult to rebuild. Such conflicting behaviour only creates more confusion and distrust, and proves consumers suspicions of ‘Big Food’s’ misaligned values correct.

Food and drink companies must be more transparent in the way they are presenting, and communicating about, their products. While people should of course be allowed to make their own choices, healthy or not, food and drink companies should take responsibility for making it easier to make informed choices.

Realise the scale of the opportunity

For many food and drink companies, this demands a rethink of their marketing positions; to build trust effectively, they must look at the formulation, marketing and packaging of their products. Should the product be marketed as a healthy choice for breakfast every day, or does it rather belong in the now-and-then treat category? Is it an energy bar or a chocolate bar, and should it perhaps be sold in a smaller portion size? Engaging customers in product development, stripping down the ingredient lists, and disclosing the ingredients origins on the packaging are examples of how a company can be more transparent, and help build trust by giving consumers a helping hand when it comes to making informed choices.

As I’ve previously written about in this blog, consumers today view a business’ social purpose as a major source of differentiation. They expect companies to be transparent in their actions and responsible to society in which they operate, and are looking beyond the brand to see whether the company behind it is one they want to align with. This spans more than adding a couple of CSR initiatives to further build communication around, but rather about brands and companies realising the scale of the opportunity that lies in truly taking responsibility for the issue at hand.

The brands that do this properly, and manage to engage with consumers around the issues at hand will slowly rebuild trust, build brand loyalty and safeguard their reputation in a world where the health debate will not become less urgent anytime soon.