Introduction.

My roles in and around food are many. I’m a former executive in Big Food and experienced in international agriculture and food policy. I am also a mother and a board member of the Caux Round Table. From the vantage point of all those roles, I am witnessing a rapidly growing, food-related health crisis in the U.S. and worldwide. I have dedicated my career to food and it’s time for essential changes to meet the nutritional needs of a growing global population.

Why the Consumer’s Personal Food Foundation Matters.

“No, Devry, you may not have that! You’re allergic to sugar,” said my mother time and time again during my childhood. I grew up believing I was allergic to sugar. She would inform my teachers at school that I was not to have sugar. If there was a birthday party for a classmate, she sent along peanuts and raisins for me. No cookies. No chocolate milk. If we did sweeten anything at home, we either used crystalline fructose or honey. No sugar jar in our kitchen! She would make home lunch for me every day, which could be something like a cheese and alfalfa sprout sandwich on super dry wheat bread and I would get made fun of at lunchtime for my food options, “Eew, look at Devry eating grass sandwiches.” I carry those memories in the card catalogue of my mind to this day. While friends scarfed ketchup and bologna sandwiches, I ate grass.

Often, my mother’s food regime embarrassed me. An apple, while friends ate Twinkies. Ants on a log (celery, peanut butter, raisins), as I stared longingly at their cookies. They were so lucky. I was so depraved. Or was I?

I recall driving down Erringer Road across the railroad tracks in Simi Valley to the one “health food” store in our town to get our vitamins. The memory is so vivid, I feel myself as I write this sitting in the backseat of our White Rambler with the back left door held together with a wire coat hanger, window down, taking in the Saturday afternoon breeze. Despite the rambling, patched up car borne of saving nickels, my mother made every effort to buy 13 expensive health food to nourish her two daughters. She was educated on the ingredients. We wandered the aisles as she carefully read the backs of the bottles and packages. She would ask questions about the products and take her time to select items. Now and then, she’d bend. Carob bars and my favorite, even today: black Panda licorice.

My mother was a consumer ahead of her time. When at the “regular” grocery store called Alpha Beta, we would walk the cereal aisle and like any young child who is drawn to treats, we would want the colorful loops and other sugary “smacks” and she would grab the box, turn it over and say, “You see this ingredient, Red Dye #5 or Yellow Dye #XYZ,” I can’t entirely remember the numbers, “It’s crap. It’s chemicals. Do you want to put chemicals in your body?” Then, she would allow me to choose either raisin bran or puffy rice cereal and we were off to the dairy aisle to buy our Keifer.

Not only was my mother focused on what we ate, she was also focused on how the food was produced. Were harmful pesticides used? What was the water source? This was the 1980s and she was a “food activist” before that term existed. A fastfood joint was a no-go because of Amazonian deforestation by some of its beef producers. Deforestation remains an issue today, one I was intimately involved in trying to address in my corporate role. Forty years on from mother’s activism and we are still battling with companies that destroy forests for food. This is a failure from the perspective of moral capitalism.

My mother was quite dogmatic about our nutritious and ethical diet. Yet my father was the opposite. Once my parents divorced, he would make giant steak dinners for us on Sundays and allow us to have sweets and treats during our weekly visits, as if it was an opportunity to bring us to “his side.” He’d buy us “Now&Laters” that would turn my lips blue and red with the chemical food colors and when I arrived home, my mother would see the collateral damage of the visit on our lips and tongues. We would get giant pieces of German chocolate cake that my stepmother would make and ice cream and lots of yummy treats. It’s like my sister and I lived two different food lives growing up. Maybe it’s why I can take a balanced perspective on food issues today. Treats, for instance, aren’t always demons, but they are not food and they should not have a central place in the diet. They should be treats.

I share this personal history to illustrate the “food foundation” that has shaped my “food philosophy” to this day. I believe a person’s “food philosophy” begins at the very early stages 14 of life. If a child is not taught nor given the opportunity to learn that what she puts in her body has both immediate and lasting consequences, then she can go into her adulthood turning over one of the most important decisions in life to others, to those that process, package, market, distribute and sell food.

Sadly, socioeconomics is a big factor in consumers’ “decision-making,” which I place in quotes because often in food deserts and lower income households, decisions are made for people based on what they can afford or what is available at local food banks. A cheaper grocery basket of ultra-processed foods wins over higher-priced fresh produce out of necessity. My mother’s quest required hard work and a bit of gumption. Our car barely held together – we couldn’t afford to fix it. She made certain sacrifices to ensure a proper food education.

Let me be clear. The consumer is the one placing the food in his or her mouth. Yet the consumer isn’t entirely responsible for that “choice,” especially when that consumer is a child. Sadly, children are the most vulnerable consumers and the hardest hit if they are not protected from the dangers of unhealthy foods that are pumped with added sugars and chemicals.

In his book, Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices, Jack Bobo addresses consumer’s “decision fatigue.” Why are consumers making bad choices in their food purchases? These are reflex choices made in the moment. “The human brain gets tired after an intense round of decision-making or after a long day of making choices. When this happens, our brain leans toward whichever option feels easiest – and this is seldom the best choice for our health.” Taking this further, food marketers know and study the psychology behind what prompts a person to throw extra “junk” stuff in their grocery baskets. Product positioning and the closer we get to checkout, the more impulse buying happens. The industry exploits human behavior for sure and that is the ethical conundrum companies and executives leading them face. They know what to do to increase sales of candy bars and sodas: place them closer to the checkout stand after a shopper has already made too many decisions. Who is responsible for bad food choices?

Judgment of the Consumer Has No Place.

While the consumer is the actor making the choice, they are not singularly responsible for his or her diet choices. The consumer is overwhelmed by the food system. The consumer cannot keep up with all the science behind the ingredients. Many consumers are placing blind 15 faith in a bag of chips, a soda, a bagged salad, a hamburger, a candy bar, an apple and so forth, to deliver daily energy and nutritional requirements. Consumers are also overwhelmed daily by a barrage of information: this study says coffee is good for you and that study says it’s bad. Butter? Is butter good or bad? What about blueberries? What about GMO vs nonGMO? Or seed oils vs tallow? Milk? Is oat milk, almond milk, rice milk, really milk? Consumers are on information overload and the industry is speaking multiple food languages to break through to the consumer. Throw in the social media “influencers” and it’s a wild mess of information and misinformation about what is good and what is bad for your body.

My “forced” food education in childhood is not commonplace. My mother was driven to make our own personal food system work for us. She had it in her to fight the system that was delivering products to the grocery shelves. We cannot expect every person to be equipped with the wherewithal to fight the food system like my mother has done her entire adult life. It was a personal crusade of hers. It’s exhausting to account for every ingredient, every recommended daily allowance, every calorie, all day, every day. It’s exhausting to fight the temptations put in front of us all day, every day.

Food marketing is all around us, enticing us to buy that 500-calorie latte or the baskets of tasty chicken and fries. Willpower only takes us so far. It’s a daily battle for our health. Also, as a society, we don’t all share the same views and values around food and we don’t all have the same parental, educational and financial resources to manage our personal food system.

Further, addressing food choices is a sensitive personal matter that, if not done well, can drive wedges between people. Over my career, I have learned that consumers do not want to be educated on food choices. Rather, they want to be engaged and empowered. Telling someone how bad something is for them could lead them to eat or drink more as an act of rebellion.

Acknowledging someone is obese and on track for diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, inflammation, hypertension, the list goes on, is not a judgment. It is a fact that the wrong kind of food and too much of it or not enough of the right kind of food, has dire consequences. So, let’s throw judgment out the door and talk about responsibility.

Who is responsible for consumer food choices? Some build a food foundation on sand or sugar, fats and salts. And what if the individual has no line of sight to the harmful effects of food dyes, petro-based ingredients and other production and processing inputs? Are consumers responsible for knowing all the food science, nutrition science and industry actions and behaviors when they fill their baskets? Partially, but not entirely.

Who is Responsible?

Who is responsible for an increasingly unhealthy, undernourished, overweight and physically and mentally sick society? Certainly, there are many players. Individuals choose too much candy or soda. Food producers, in some (or many) instances, market items that sell well rather than feed us well. Retailers have a role. The store at the gas station? Slushies, chips and candy bars. Fast food? Cheaper, excessively unhealthy calories. Bars turn a blind eye to overserving, which is akin to driving people to buy chemical-laced, sugar-laden cereal. And what role does the government have? And if that’s not too many players, what about the farmers that grow crops? Let’s keep going. Is it the companies that make the “chemicals” or ingredients we find on the backs of packages? Is it the mom-and-pop restaurant? The local candy shop?

It seems there’s an army of players and potential players who have some role – some bigger than others – who are responsible for causing the obesity and diabetes epidemic sweeping the U.S. and the globe.

The data tells the truth about the state of American health. In November 2024, Lancet published this headline: “Without immediate action, nearly 260 million people in the USA predicted to be overweight or have obesity by 2050.” The study estimates that “Obesity rates among American adults (aged 25 or older) and older adolescents (aged 15-24 years) have at least doubled over the past three decades (1990-2021). Southern States are particularly impacted, with Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky having the highest levels of overweight and obesity among older adolescents (aged 15-24 years). In 2021, over half of older adolescent males in Texas and nearly two-thirds of older adolescent females in Mississippi living with overweight or obesity.

Globally, the statistics paint the same picture, with the World Health Organization estimating over 1 billion (approximately one in eight people) are classified as obese, with rates doubling among adults and quadrupling among youth.

Again, who is responsible for ensuring the health of the citizens? Broadly, the “food industry” or what is known as “Big Food” (this descriptor encompasses a large group, which is not a homogenous industry), has argued for “consumer choice.” So, is it the consumer’s fault? What happens to the consumer choice argument when it comes to a child? Oh, then is it the parent’s fault? It could be the school’s fault, where kids are getting their school lunch. But wait, isn’t that the government’s fault?

The blame game leads to a vicious cycle of lack of accountability among all actors in society: the individual, business and government. The blame game is precisely why the situation continues to worsen.

Tragedy of the Commons.

When it comes to an individual’s health and therefore a society’s health, we face a sort of “tragedy of the commons.” An individual’s health is a finite, valuable resource that can be “overused” and “exploited,” wrecking the resource altogether. When scaled across society, the most valuable resource for that society’s progression and overall security, a healthy and productive citizenry, is compromised.

Therefore, it’s important to consider the moral obligation of actors along the food chain in correcting the tragic obesity and food-related health epidemic we are facing. I do need to say that I am sadly not optimistic that the situation can be reversed easily. Many have tried in the past 30 years to “take on Big Food” without much success. The moment an influential political figure steps in and cries foul on the food system, he or she is demonized or relegated to a “nut.” Whether it is well-known scientists, politicians or courageous business leaders within the system, changing the food system toward more healthy outcomes has been without great success.

With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there is a conversation on the left and right about Making America Healthy Again. (Photo: Gage Skidmore).

We live in a moment where there is a strange convergence of polarized politicians and political parties in America taking on Big Food. Yet, it seems very shaky at this moment. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there is a conversation on the left and right about Making America Healthy Again (MAHA). Sadly, it is a shared crisis across every community in the U.S. and one that needs a systemic response. At the time of drafting this article, the governor of West Virginia is poised to approve a bill that imposes a sweeping ban on food dyes and preservatives: Red Dye 3 and 40, Yellow Dye 5 and 6, Blue Dye 1 and 2 and Green 3 and butylated hydroxyanisole and propylparaben. These are dyes and preservatives that the “crunchy” foodies have been working to ban for years and it is “liberal” legislation that was passed long ago in California.

Might citizen health and wellness be the issue that bridges the divide among our politicians? It’s a wait-and-see situation. These are tiny gestures in a food system that needs more than gestures. Government has a distinct moral obligation to protect its constituents from known harms. The challenge going forward is what is known and what is yet unknown and whose science reigns with political leaders in the end? Will the industry stop hiding behind “sound science” when the science does not go their way? Might the industry go the road of deploying the “precautionary principle” used in Europe in instances where the science community needs more time to ensure there is no harm to humans from a chemical or ingredient?

The Truth, Time, Cumulative Impacts and Tradeoffs.

Denying the truth and lack of morality leads to mortality.

I submit that selfish, non-moral capitalism (i.e., inadequate public policy and regulatory oversight) got us into this problem. Namely, a lack of leadership among business and government got us into this public health crisis. The individual “consumer” certainly has accountability. Still, when up against a system that is so vast and moving so quickly to get a share of the consumer paycheck and one not grounded on the premise of consumer health and wellness, it’s a daily battle for any citizen to keep up on what he or she should be putting into their body.

It all boils down to lack of moral leadership. I observe a global deficit of courageous, consistently ethical, truthful leaders across the international food industry and in government who are unwilling to steer the food ship in a different direction when faced with the moral and ethical choice to change. There are courageous leaders out there doing really good things, but just not enough of them.

Truth.

At the company I founded nearly six years ago, we work with courageous leaders in the industry and deploy the guiding principle of truth. We support our clients in seeking, facing, following, and sharing the truth. We challenge business leaders to ask the following questions of the current products they sell in the marketplace and before they launch a new product, service, technology or capital investment:

What are the benefits of this product, service, technology and capital to society?
Is there any potential harm to society from this product, service, technology or capital?
- If so, can it be addressed/corrected?
- If not, what are other options?

Asking this line of questions often results in new innovations within the company. If the harm cannot be corrected, it should not go into the marketplace, which is considered a utopian view in business. So be it. It is also the moral and ethical view. Of importance is that the evaluation of harm cannot focus only on the current day. Evaluation of harm must consider whether harm could exist well in the future.

Time and Cumulative Impacts.

The notion of time and the future relieves current food executives of their moral burden. For example, when food dyes were launched, there was not enough science to explain the effects on the human body. It’s just tiny doses of color, right? There is no impact, really. Really? Couldn’t a food industry executive have asked that question? And what about the cumulative impact? What about the emerging science and the approach in Europe to ban these substances? Companies choose not to address critical questions or factors that impact the future and cumulative impacts on the human body when considering the safety of their products. That’s also a burden for the regulators. The regulators should have held the industry more accountable and compelled them to stare into the mirror of truth.

“Tradeoffs.”

The term “tradeoff” is often used as an excuse in business. “Yes, but we must launch this product because jobs depend on it. It’s a tradeoff.” Tradeoffs are a slippery slope in the food industry, often leading to outcomes that work against public health. Tradeoffs allow negative externalities to permeate the public space, shrouded in public benefits.

It’s difficult when a company has deployed a great deal of capital and time into building something that is found to harm people. Once the capital has been spent, the investment needs to become profitable. The assets lock in the industry leaders to lobby for the business’s continued existence. Let’s take high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), for example. The industry is locked into an infrastructure that would be costly and economically harmful to unravel. Jobs depend on the production of HFCS. The same for sugar production. If these industries are tied to requirements for continued growth, yet reducing caloric sweeteners is what consumers need, how do industry leaders account for the tradeoffs of jobs vs. public health? It’s a moral dilemma that perpetuates the crisis.

The truth is that society needs a winding down of the amount of sugar and certain types of sugar and sweeteners in our food. New generations of non-caloric, naturebased sweeteners need swift investment and adoption. What’s holding the food industry back? It’s the profit gravy train of cheaper sugars that continues to pad the profit and loss of the companies.

Our households do not need any more added sugars to our diets. What is an executive to do? Let’s unpack the executive mentality.

Do Executives Eat What They Make?

Here’s a question to ask a global food executive: Do you feed your kids what your company makes daily for every meal? If I asked that of some of the executives I have encountered in my career, some would probably look me square in the eye and say, “Of course I don’t feed my kids high-calorie, sugary food every day. Only as a treat, but most days they have something from us because we nourish the world and give consumers choices.”

Hmmm. I’ve been in discussions with executives where I’ve pushed issues such as added sugar labeling, adding calorie counts to restaurant menus, leading on sugar and salt reduction or pending reformulation regulations on hydrogenated oils, for example. Executives fought every single one of those issues and lost. Millions of lobbying dollars were spent to combat these issues. Why fight it? Why not lead the change? We assume executives want the same things as consumers for their own children, yet collectively, they are willing to fight as an industry against ethical and moral choices for the whole marketplace. By definition, this is not moral capitalism. It’s greed.

If you pierce the corporate veil and ask food executives what they eat daily, I’m here to say it’s not multiple bottles of soda, several candy bars and ultra-processed foods. In my experience, high-performing executives are attempting to eat well-rounded diets filled with fruits and vegetables, lean proteins and lower-calorie drinks.

Because there is no collective leadership accountability, the overall industry is engaged in what I call “nutrition washing,” focusing on the ability of the industry to provide nutrition at scale across the globe when it’s simply not the case. The farmers can produce nutrition at scale, but the processors are the players that can turn crops into nutritious offerings or harmful packaged goods.

Moral Capitalism is the Solution.

Counterintuitively, capitalism is the only system that can help society reverse course. Still, moral capitalism must be at play, coupled with the steady hand of moral legislation and regulation (i.e., smart subsidization, taxation, ethical science and regulatory oversight that balances the need for businesses to innovate and grow, along with consumer well-being).

The market for healthy foods is growing and consumer demand is driving businesses to change, innovate and respond to consumer and public health needs. Some food companies are being founded to provide healthier options in the marketplace. It is an exciting time to be part of the healthy food revolution. For example, more sustainable meats and plant-based alternatives are flooding the marketplace and new biobased ingredients are being developed from renewable plant resources.

I should note that the traditional food industry has made progress in delivering healthier solutions to the marketplace, but change is not happening across all companies and Big Food, 21 especially, is not investing in the solutions fast enough and is also counter-investing heavily to expand the unhealthy products category at the same time. An example of a large multinational that has worked to expand its healthy product offering is Pepsi under former CEO Indra Nooyi’s leadership. She recognized that they could use their scale for good and manufacture and distribute healthier food items. Yet the company continues to manufacture items that are a significant source of our public health problem: sugary sodas. They are but one example.

What if the entire food industry did a rethink on how it could use its capital and manufacturing footprint to rethink food at scale? Starting with thinking about what is possible could lead these companies down a very different road for the future of food.

Moral capitalism requires companies to prioritize the health and well-being of their customers over pursuit of short-term profits.

Food Industry Responsibility.

Food industry leaders are morally obligated to rethink their priorities, given their influence. Instead of spending excessive amounts of lobbying dollars to put consumers in the back seat, food manufacturers, distributors and retailers must consider the long-term health impact of their products and place consumer health needs in the driver’s seat. If the industry acknowledges the direct link between ultra-processed foods and the ongoing health crisis, it must also recognize its role in reversing this trajectory by:

Reformulating products to reduce excessive sugar, sodium and unhealthy fats while maintaining affordability.
Pulling unnecessary and harmful ingredients from their products now, not waiting for the regulators to do it.
Investing in genuinely nutritious food options that are accessible to all consumers, which requires shifting capital spent from the innovation of unhealthy products to investment in healthy solutions.
Enhancing transparency around ingredients and production methods, making food labels easier to understand.
Ceasing aggressive marketing of unhealthy products, especially to vulnerable populations, such as children.
Lobbying for nutrition and hunger legislation that may work against their short-term interest, but is in the long-term interest of citizens.

Moral capitalism within the food industry means not only responding to consumer demand, but also actively shaping a healthier demand. It requires industry leaders to prioritize stewardship of human bodies and to view consumers as people rather than mere market segments.

Government Responsibility.

The government is crucial in establishing guardrails that promote public health while enabling businesses to succeed. However, the failure of existing policies to curb obesity and diet-related diseases suggests a pressing need for systemic change.

To act responsibly, policymakers must:

Enforce more substantial nutritional standards for food processing, labeling and marketing.
Incentivize healthier food options through community programming, engagement and consumer subsidies that favor nutrient-dense, whole foods rather than processed commodities.
Better regulate deceptive advertising practices that mislead consumers about the health benefits of products. Just because it is labeled with words like “natural,” “part of a healthy diet,” “whole grain” and the like, doesn’t mean the product is healthy. It could be packed with sugar.
Improve access to healthy food in underserved communities through expanded food assistance programs and investment in local food systems.
Implement educational, community-based financial services modules that support lowincome households on healthy meal planning and purchases.
Prioritize food education and fitness programming in schools (remember the Presidential Fitness Test!?) to ensure the next generation understands the relationship between diet, exercise and health.
Reconfigure the school lunch program to cull unhealthy processed food items from the menu. This should not be political.
Implement taxes or other financial disincentives on highly processed and sugar-laden products while making healthier alternatives more affordable.

Governments must recognize that public health interventions are not an infringement on personal freedom, but a necessary safeguard against corporate practices that contribute to widespread illness. Moral governance requires leaders to resist industry lobbying efforts that prioritize profit over people’s well-being and instead, implement policies that create a healthier, more resilient society.

Stewardverse Leadership: A New Approach Under the New Administration.

Reversing the health crisis requires a fundamental shift toward stewardverse leadership. The etymology of steward is “safekeeper” of the “whole house” and verse is to “turn toward.” Under this model, business and government operate with a sense of duty to society and support actions and policies that promote both economic growth and human well-being. Stewardverse leadership embraces a framework emphasizing responsible stewardship of natural and human resources, promoting long-term health and sustainability.

Under the new administration, this approach can lead to meaningful changes by:

Holding corporations accountable for their impact on public health and rewarding those prioritizing nutrition and sustainability.
Creating public-private partnerships that drive innovation in food production, making healthy options widely available and affordable.
Fostering a cultural shift where businesses and policymakers are encouraged – and expected – to take responsibility for the well-being of citizens.
Deploying “sound science” that accounts for emerging concerns in health and wellness and that is not based on whims of belief (yes, this means holding RFK Jr. accountable to sound scientific approaches) in what is healthy vs. not. Not all ingredients are unhealthy simply because they have long, scientific names (e.g., Riboflavin, carrageenan and seed oils).
Prioritizing food system resilience to ensure future generations are not burdened with the same preventable health crises.

The stakes are too high to ignore. The current trajectory of food-related diseases is unsustainable, not just for individuals, but for society at large. Through moral capitalism and stewardverse leadership, the food industry, government, communities and citizens can collaboratively forge a future where health, sustainability and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive, but intrinsically linked. The time for incremental change has passed – bold action is necessary and it must begin now.

Devry Boughner Vorwerk is Founder and CEO of DevryBV Sustainable Strategies. She previously served as Chief Communications Officer at Cargill and Chief Corporate Affairs Officer at Grubhub. She is on the board of the Caux Round Table. This article originally appeared in the March, 2025 edition of Pegasus, the Caux Round Table’s newsletter for members of the moral capitalsim network.

Does Big Food Have a Moral Obligation to Fix Consumers’ Unhealthy Diets?