[Food] Industry uses non-profit organisation to campaign against public health policies

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
I wonder if the same can be done in regard to the SMC.
A new study shows how a non-profit research organisation has been deployed by its backers from major food and beverage corporations to push industry-favourable positions to policy makers and international bodies under the guise of neutral scientific endeavour.

The study, published today in the journal Globalization and Health, analysed over 17,000 pages of emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests made between 2015 and 2018. The documents captured exchanges between academics at US universities and senior figures at a non-profit organisation called the International Life Science Institute, or ILSI.

Comprising of 18 bodies, each of which cover a specific topic or part of the globe, ILSI has always maintained its independence and scientific rigour, despite being funded by multinational corporations such as Nestle, General Mills, Mars Inc, Monsanto, and Coca-Cola.

Founded by former Coca-Cola senior vice president Alex Malaspina in 1978, ILSI states on its website that none of its bodies "conduct lobbying activities or make policy recommendations". As a non-profit organisation ILSI is currently exempt from taxation under US Internal Revenue codes.

However, researchers from the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Bocconi, and US Right to Know, found emails explicitly discussing tactics for countering public health policies around sugar reduction, as "[T]his threat to our business is serious".
Click to expand...
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/uoc-iun053119.php
 
I’m not sure what the problem is here? other than them not being upfront in its intentions, having an industry backed lobbying group is perfectly normal. In the uk we have the food and drink federation, the British retail consortium etc. These bodies are funded by industry to represent their interests? You will find this for all types of industries that drive the economy (and provide jobs/commerce).

In the case of sugar, there is no scientific rigour as to why this ingredient is being singled out over other calorific ingredients, like butter, flour, or oil?

There is no direct link to sugar being any worse in its contribution to obesity than anything else in terms of public health other than a correlation study with soft drinks and obese children. It’s far more complex than that. I’m sure you could have found a link with bread, chocolate or anything else you cared to choose....because they are eating too many calories. You only have to look at the declining sugar consumption in Western Europe whilst obesity rates are rising to see that something is amis?

It’s bad science driving the policy so why shouldn’t industry lobby to point this out to the politicians making populist short term policies that have the potential to destroy thousands of jobs and crops?

The small opaque clique of people driving action on sugar promoted by celebrity (with no qualifications) are lobbying? Somewhere between lobbying both sides of the argument we get near to the truth which is that people need to eat only the calories they need.

The latest thing is to make cake and biscuits packaged in plain packaging as if they are like the cancer risk of cigarettes? At some point education needs to come out as a solution ...but it’s difficult to educate when non scientific policies are being put in place and you are confusing the public by demonising an ingredient.

Latest surveys are saying that due to the public health policy on sugar, the general public now thinks that sugar gives you type 2 diabetes and is addictive like a drug :banghead:
 
It would be fine if it was upfront about being industry promoted but these sorts of group claim to be independent so their views are given more weight.

The tobacco industry did this to great effect. I have heard that scientific papers have been written by industry and then a scientist has their name attached to it.
 
Mithriel said:
It would be fine if it was upfront about being industry promoted but these sorts of group claim to be independent so their views are given more weight.

The tobacco industry did this to great effect. I have heard that scientific papers have been written by industry and then a scientist has their name attached to it.
Click to expand...
It's called astroturfing, a reference to synthetic "grass" fields used in some sports, in opposition to the idea of grassroots support for political causes. It presents itself as genuine popular will despite being entirely about private financial interests.

With full disclosure this is fine. But that would entirely defeat the purpose, which is to sway public opinion by the creation of a fake consensus. It often takes a small % of support for controversial ideas to affect public opinion and it's often very cheap to achieve. The oil industry has used this extensively to promote climate change denial despite their own research showing it would be catastrophic.

It's unfortunately legal and should have been made double illegal decades ago, it completely perverts public opinion and subverts democracy.

But instead of being regulated, it's massively expanding. The entire model of information warfare, troll farms and bot ecosystems that amplify fake news on social media are built on this loophole. It will likely grow until it becomes unsustainable, which is soon reaching its breaking point. A great example of an actual slippery slope.

It will be a huge challenge in the coming years, as the very idea of a common truth is challenged because of private interests that require ambiguity to maintain their profits.

It's also very relevant to us as this is how the psychosocial model of ME was successfully promoted, with objective truth having less impact than a false narrative driven for personal interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom