How The Food Industry Influences Health

Way back in 1900, the leading cause of death was infectious disease, made worse by nutritional deficiency -- not enough food, or dependence on just a few foods. Government nutritionists began encouraging people to eat more of a greater variety of foods. Throughout the twentieth century, sanitation and nutrition improvements led to a decrease in deficiency-related diseases. In fact, by 2000, the leading cause of death was chronic disease -- heart disease, certain cancers, diabetes, and stroke, for example -- related to excessive consumption of food and nutrients. Now instead of eating more, people need to eat less, an idea counter to the interests of food producers.

The food industry -- from growers to processors to distributors -- now provides more than enough to feed everyone in the country. The overabundance leads to fierce competition in the industry. Even though the prevailing recommendation for better health is to eat less, food companies must continually encourage people to eat more in order to make profits to satisfy their stockholders. They do this through visible means, such as advertising and marketing, but also through less visible methods of political influence.

Given that food and health are so interconnected, one would expect that nutrition advice would come from the Department of Health and Human Services or the Food and Drug Administration or the Center for Disease Control, or maybe the National Institute of Health. But, no. In the late 1980s, Congress granted that responsibility to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This resulted in dual duties for the organization: protecting agricultural producers and advising the public about their diet -- clearly a conflict of interest.

Since the first set of dietary recommendations in 1917, the government has published myriad, ever-changing guidelines. With the emergence of the food pyramid -- a graphic illustrating the relative amounts to eat of different foods -- came an uproar from the food industry. Those in the "eat less" categories feared a decrease in sales if their products were perceived as "bad foods," and pressured for changes. One eventual change was from "eat less red meat" to "eat more lean meat." Throughout history, the USDA has bent to political pressure to the point where published guidelines are ambiguous at best.

Food companies apply pressure by lobbying for favorable laws and trade agreements. They hire professional lobbyists to influence members of Congress and federal agencies. The influence may be in the form of technical advice, or it may involve social contact, media events, harassment of critics, or campaign contributions. Although officials are limited in how much they can legally accept, these practices can still have great influence.

So if we can't rely on government agencies for unbiased nutrition advice, we can still count on independent researchers and professional associations, right? Not necessarily so. Food companies spend huge amounts of money to sponsor research and education. They give grants and buy advertising in nutrition society journals. They sponsor conferences and annual meetings, from which the societies gain revenue. Non-commercial academic departments, research institutes, and professional societies always operate on a shoestring, and they count on funding from the food companies. Would they jeopardize their funding by publishing a recommendation counter to the sponsor's interests?

American Dietetic Association. It seems that the American Dietetic Association might be a good place to get unbiased nutrition guidelines. It publishes informational Nutrition Fact Sheets about various foods. But, wait -- each Fact Sheet has a corporate sponsor. In fact, the first draft of each sheet is written by the food company's public relations department. Here are some examples from the 1999-2000 Fact Sheets:

Most educated people have heard enough conflicting advice about diet to question these statements.

American Heart Association. Well, then, the American Heart Association. They're looking after our heart health, right? In 1988, the AHA implemented a program to identify foods meeting certain standards for fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and to label those foods "heart-healthy." The logo included the words "American Heart Association Tested and Approved." But not all products are included in the testing; food companies pay $7,500 per product plus an annual $4,500 renewal fee to be included. They can even pay an additional fee for exclusivity rights. Program rules don't allow products owned by tobacco companies, which means that "Kellogg's Cocoa Frosted Flakes is 'heart smart,' but the Post equivalent is not" because the company is owned by Philip Morris. Nutritionists criticize the program as misleading, giving the impression that labeled food is good and unlabeled food is bad; fresh produce is not labeled at all. Even though the AHA testing standards follow published federal guidelines, the program is obviously a biased fund-raiser which lends little credibility to the Association's stamp of approval.

So where do we turn? How can we know that we're eating foods that are supportive of our health? The first step is to take responsibility for ourselves and pay attention to what we are eating; so much of our eating is mindless and habitual. Next, vote with your fork; assume that if a food product is heavily advertised, it probably contains substances that aren't good for us in large quantities -- don't eat it. Which brings us to eat less. Americans don't work that hard anymore; we don't need all those calories. Eat smaller amounts, but choose lots of different types of food. Green is good. So is orange and red. Eat your foods as close to their natural state as possible. And take the time to cook from scratch. This is our health we're talking about -- it's worth spending a little time in the kitchen so we don't have to spend time in the doctor's office.

Make some noise. Let your government representatives know that you're watching them. Let them know you want truly healthful foods. If enough people speak up, it can amount to enough pressure to start countering the food industry. As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

And finally, when you read a health claim, look for the money -- find out where the funding to back the claim came from and who stands to profit from it. Check out the Center for Science in the Public Interest. An advocate for health and nutrition, food safety, and sound science, it accepts no corporate funding or government grants.

If you're concerned about your health, visit The People's Chemist to learn about common health myths and how you can take control of your health.