Bringing Sanity to the Diet Craze

By JULIE JOHNSON

Despite its obsession with dieting, the U.S. population seems to grow fatter every year. And so does the industry tailored to respond to the needs and neuroses of those who are fighting, and largely failing, to keep their waistlines under control. Americans spent more than $30 billion last year on such offerings as diet books, videotapes, appetite suppressants, "lite" foods, low-calorie beverages and commercial weight-loss programs. Now the overweight and overwrought are rushing to try the latest raft of crash-diet plans, which promote ways to trim fat quickly by doing little more than taking pills or swilling specially formulated drinks.

But the behemoth diet industry may be throwing too much weight around. Critics say some companies use misleading promotional campaigns and promise more than the programs can deliver. Moreover, the safety of at least a few of the plans has been called into question. Congress is holding hearings to determine whether the diet industry should be more tightly regulated, and various Government agencies are studying ways to get tough on questionable practices in the business.

Leading the congressional probe is Representative Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, who last week called diet-industry executives before his House Small Business Subcommittee and asked them to explain their hard-sell tactics. Wyden's staff raised several concerns about specific companies. For example, the Diet Center programs, which offer special foods and pills, claim to provide guidance by "weight-loss professionals." Customers may presume that these professionals are nutritionists, says Wyden, but they are "basically salespersons." Ads for the Physicians Weight Loss Centers imply that a doctor will supervise each patient's diet, but frequently the lone staff physician spends just one night a week at the center.

Most companies make losing weight sound much simpler than it is. The Physicians Weight Loss Centers often tells newcomers they can drop up to 7 lbs. in the first week, but the firm's president, Charles Sekeres, admitted to Wyden's committee that this range was based only on individuals who are "morbidly obese" or on men (who can slim down more quickly than women). In addition, ads for most weight-loss programs fail to mention that many customers regain weight just as fast as they lose it if they return to their old eating habits. The industry, contends Wyden, focuses "more on quick profits than on responsible weight loss you can really keep off."

Those profits could be threatened by doubts about the safety of some of the new diets. Nineteen former clients of Nutri/System, a program that sells its own low-fat food, have filed suit against the company, charging that they suffered severe gallbladder problems. At last week's hearing, Nutri/System president Donald McCulloch denied the allegations. "No scientific study," he said, "demonstrates that the Nutri/System program increases the risk of gallstones."

Some diet-company executives conceded to the House subcommittee that parts of the industry have been too zealous. Chief executive Charles Berger of Weight Watchers, an H.J. Heinz subsidiary that takes a moderate approach to weight loss, likened the diet business to Wall Street in the 1980s. "Without touching on the issue of greed," he said, "some companies in our field have overpromised quick weight loss. And the promises have grown increasingly excessive." Others doubt that an industry with so many players can effectively police itself. Ronald Stern, president of the nutrition division at Slim-Fast, a firm that sells liquid-diet products over the counter, asserted that "companies are moving to do things properly, but the industry can only do so much. If there are regulations, we will welcome them."

The Government already has the power to crack down on the diet industry through the federal truth-in-advertising and mail-fraud laws. But these weapons have generally been used just against products that are truly outrageous. The Postal Service, for example, took action against diet sunglasses, which supposedly altered food color and made meals appear less appetizing, and a satin headband designed to emit electromagnetic waves that, according to the manufacturer's claims, help customers refuse to eat calorie- laden foods.

The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising, has started to pay a bit more attention to the diet business. After having filed a mere 13 lawsuits against the industry in the entire decade of the '80s, the FTC has brought three cases this year. One action involved a diet pill that when swallowed, according to the ads, would break "into thousands of particles, each acting like a tiny magnet." Fat cells would allegedly be attracted to the "magnets" and eliminated through the digestive system. In addition to - going after such obvious frauds, the FTC has initiated a broad investigation of diet-clinic advertising.

Since many of the diet products are foods or drugs, the Food and Drug Administration is a logical candidate to take the lead in overseeing the industry, but the agency has been dillydallying on this issue for years. As long ago as 1982, the FDA began drafting regulations to cover over-the-counter weight-loss products, and those proposals may at last be finalized before the end of the year. The new rules are expected to outlaw more than 100 diet- product ingredients on the market, including methyl cellulose and other bulking agents that supposedly "swell" in the consumer's stomach and curb appetite.

More important, the FDA is embarking on an overhaul of labeling requirements for processed foods. That effort should most definitely include the products of diet programs. Even industry executives agree there should be uniform rules governing what claims can be made and what caveats must be listed. If consumers have more information, they will be in a better position to decide which diet plans are worth the money.