Has Big Food Hijacked the Nutrition Profession?

Nutrition Conference or Junk Food Expo?

Academy “part­ners,” which enjoy top spon­sor­ship sta­tus at the expo, included the National Dairy Council, Coca-Cola, and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition (yes, the choco­late com­pany). Event “pre­mier spon­sors” included General Mills, PepsiCo, and Mars. As a dietit­ian, I am embar­rassed that the nation’s largest nutri­tion trade orga­ni­za­tion main­tains part­ner­ships with com­pa­nies that con­tribute to our nation’s diet-related health problems.

The expo floor did have a few bright spots, such the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Meatless Mondays, and inde­pen­dent com­pa­nies pro­mot­ing rel­a­tively whole-food prod­ucts (and advo­cat­ing for California’s GMO-labeling ini­tia­tive), such as Lundberg Farms, Nature’s Path, Manitoba Harvest, and Mary’s Gone Crackers. However, these booths were small and more dif­fi­cult to locate, while the largest and flashiest booths belonged to the likes of PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Hershey’s, Monsanto, and the Corn Refiners Association. (Notably, many of these com­pa­nies are fund­ing the No cam­paign on GMO label­ing.) Even the candy lobby had a booth for the first time this year (not sur­pris­ingly, their mes­sage was one of “mod­er­a­tion,” that mean­ing­less term). Many of these booths shame­lessly pan­dered to me and my col­leagues. Coca-Cola for instance, claimed to “pro­mote the reg­is­tered dietit­ian.” How exactly they do this is unclear; “co-opt” would be a more accu­rate term.

Educational Sessions or Big Food Propaganda?

In addi­tion to dom­i­nat­ing the expo hall, Big Food also often asserted uni­lat­eral con­trol over the mes­sag­ing at many of the edu­ca­tional ses­sions. One ses­sion on food aller­gies (“Beyond Belly Aches: Identifying and Differentiating Food Allergies and Intolerances”) was mostly National Dairy Council pro­pa­ganda. Lactose-free dairy prod­ucts were pre­sented as the best (and some­times, only) choice for indi­vid­u­als with lac­tose intol­er­ance in order to “pre­vent nutri­ent defi­cien­cies” and con­fer alleged ben­e­fits of dairy, such as weight loss and reduced risk of heart dis­ease and dia­betes (these claims were not referenced).

These oft-repeated talk­ing points by the dairy indus­try are a slap in the face to nutri­tion sci­ence; all the nutri­ents in dairy are avail­able in plant-based foods, and the research link­ing dairy intakes to weight loss and decreased risks of dia­betes and heart dis­ease is ten­u­ous at best, and is often spon­sored by the dairy indus­try. (The weight loss claim has even been deemed by the fed­eral gov­ern­ment as decep­tive.) Many dieti­tians spe­cial­iz­ing in food aller­gies who attended the ses­sion expressed their dis­be­lief on Twitter. Others I spoke to walked out, insulted by what they con­sid­ered to be unhelp­ful and inac­cu­rate information.

A ses­sion on chil­dren and bev­er­ages titled “Kids Are Drinking What?”—also pre­sented by the National Dairy Council—was essen­tially an hour-long adver­tise­ment for milk. The dairy reps acknowl­edged how they tar­get African-American and Hispanic com­mu­ni­ties with a “drink more milk” mes­sage, which I found par­tic­u­larly dis­turb­ing as both eth­nic groups have high rates of lac­tose intol­er­ance. The dairy coun­cil also kept repeat­ing a new slogan—“one more cup”—which, again, is sup­posed to “reduce nutri­ent defi­cien­cies.” Notably one of the most glar­ing defi­cien­cies among U.S. children—low fiber intake—was not brought up at all; and no won­der, since dairy prod­ucts con­tain no fiber.

Even more dis­turb­ing was all the hand-wringing over children’s high intake of sugar-sweetened bev­er­ages, as if the dairy coun­cil really cares about kids’ health. This alleged con­cern dis­ap­peared when I asked about the added sugar in choco­late milk. The panelists’—all of whom were employed by the National Dairy Council — answer was that choco­late milk is a “nutrient-dense” bev­er­age. Never mind how, with three tea­spoons of sugar per cup, one serv­ing of choco­late milk sup­plies the max­i­mum daily amount of added sugar for chil­dren ages four to eight, as rec­om­mended by the American Heart Association.

Big Food’s pres­ence was some­times more covert. One ses­sion on food addi­tives was spon­sored by the International Food Information Council, the same food indus­try front group that last year assured us that pes­ti­cides are safe. Striking a sim­i­lar chord, this panel explained how addi­tives are safe because, after all, straw­ber­ries and cof­fee con­tain “chem­i­cals” respon­si­ble for their taste and aroma. So, the logic train went, if we eat straw­ber­ries and cof­fee with­out a care, why do we fear con­tro­ver­sial preser­v­a­tives such as BHT and BHA? (The Center for Science in the Public Interest rec­om­mends avoid­ing BHA.)

Panelist Dr. Roger Clemens enthu­si­as­ti­cally defended chem­i­cal addi­tives while mock­ing sur­vey results that showed how a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the pub­lic mis­trusts the Food and Drug Administration. When I asked him why other coun­tries have banned addi­tives that the FDA has not, I was told it is sim­ply a result of “a dif­fer­ent group of sci­en­tists” arriv­ing at “a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion.” How con­ve­nient. What con­cerned me even more was how most of the audi­ence appeared to find Dr. Clemens’ defense of addi­tives humor­ous. Sadly, it appeared that Dr. Clemens did not have to work very hard to con­vince many dieti­tians that chem­i­cal addi­tives were safe.

Does Sound Nutrition and Common Sense Require a Debate?

Some sem­blance of bal­ance was attempted at two ses­sions. At one, titled “Why Can’t We All Just Work Together? Public Health vs. Industry,” pan­elist Margo Wootan, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, explained how indus­try and pub­lic health have two very dif­fer­ent goals. Food indus­try con­sul­tant Beth Johnson, mean­while, claimed the food indus­try is com­mit­ted to improv­ing Americans’ health by con­tin­u­ally refor­mu­lat­ing prod­ucts to include more whole grains and lower sugar and sodium. But this approach is really not going to cut it given the seri­ous­ness of diet-related health prob­lems this nation faces. To my sur­prise and dis­ap­point­ment, dur­ing the Q&A, one RD sided with the food indus­try say­ing that con­sumers should be blamed for not mak­ing healthy choices.

At another point-counterpoint ses­sion, this one on processed foods, Susan Crockett from kids’ cereal giant General Mills pas­sion­ately defended processed foods. Her oppo­nent, Jessica Kolko, an RD from Whole Foods, explained how Americans’ reliance on highly processed foods is respon­si­ble for a litany of pub­lic health ills. Ms. Kolko argued that the solu­tion is for peo­ple to increase their intake of “real food.” While this ses­sion finally deliv­ered the “eat real food” mes­sage that I espouse (shouldn’t all RDs?), why was a cri­tique of the food indus­try framed as a “con­tro­ver­sial” topic that can only be dis­cussed in a debate format?

Taking Back the RD Credential

On the bright side, there is an emerg­ing sub­group of RDs who are increas­ingly unhappy with Big Food’s ubiq­uity in the Academy, and who voice their dis­ap­point­ment. The Hunger and Environmental Nutrition dietetic prac­tice group, of which I am a mem­ber, con­cerns itself with issues of cor­po­rate con­trol, food jus­tice, envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions, and other “big pic­ture” ideas. This sum­mer, they released their guide­lines for respon­si­ble cor­po­rate spon­sor­ship. They encom­pass envi­ron­men­tal sus­tain­abil­ity, humane labor prac­tices, and sup­port of sound pub­lic health pol­icy. The Academy lead­er­ship would greatly ben­e­fit from read­ing and apply­ing these cri­te­ria more broadly.

At its annual “Film Feastival,” HEN hosted a screen­ing of Split Estate, a cap­ti­vat­ing and sober­ing doc­u­men­tary about the tragic con­se­quences of frack­ing in New Mexico and Colorado. In between har­row­ing sto­ries of chil­dren, adults, and ecosys­tems sick­ened by pol­lu­tants, oil and gas indus­try rep­re­sen­ta­tives reas­sured view­ers that frack­ing was a com­pletely safe prac­tice. As the doc­u­men­tary went on, their lies were exposed, and I thought of the strik­ing sim­i­lar­ity to Big Food’s spin and untruths; the very com­pa­nies that my pro­fes­sional orga­ni­za­tion part­ners with. Bleak sub­ject mat­ter aside, I was happy to spend a few hours uti­liz­ing my brain, think­ing crit­i­cally, and lis­ten­ing to a panel of con­cerned individuals—a doc­tor, an RD, an activist, and a farmer—all advo­cat­ing against pow­er­ful lob­bies that pri­or­i­tize prof­its over health. Sound familiar?

Now more than ever, mem­bers of the Academy who rec­og­nize the insid­i­ous nature of part­ner­ing with Big Food must speak up and let the lead­er­ship know how and why these part­ner­ships are detri­men­tal to the pro­fes­sion. We can­not allow our­selves to be steam­rolled by the inane notion put forth by many in power that part­ner­ing with the likes of PepsiCo and McDonald’s ben­e­fits our pro­fes­sion and the health of Americans. It is sim­ply untrue. I am grow­ing increas­ingly tired of hav­ing to defend the cre­den­tial I worked so hard for, which in many cir­cles is seen as pro­mot­ing Diet Coke and Baked Cheetos. We will never be taken seri­ously as nutri­tion experts when our mes­sag­ing and cre­den­tial is co-opted by junk food com­pa­nies who think we are just an easy sell.

I urge my col­leagues to think crit­i­cally, ask tough ques­tions, and relent­lessly defend the ideas of health­ful, real food. Yes, you will have detrac­tors. Yes, at times you may feel you face a well-oiled—and well-budgeted—PR machine that is ready to dis­credit and stomp you. However, this is not the time to claim defeat. Many peo­ple are now rec­og­niz­ing the power of food to promote—or destroy—health. It is up to us, as reg­is­tered dieti­tians, to take back our credential.

Andy Bellatti

Andy Bellatti is a reg­is­tered dietit­ian who believes nutri­tion is much more than just the sci­ence of nutri­ents and the human body.