Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Big Food Is Copying Big Tobacco's Disinformation Tactics

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Big Food Is Copying Big Tobacco's Disinformation Tactics
  • Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:09:30 -0600


How do we eat?


Big Food Is Copying Big Tobacco's Disinformation Tactics, How Many Will Die
This Time?
http://www.alternet.org/environment/135965/big_food_is_copying_big_tobacco%2
7s_disinformation_tactics%2C_how_many_will_die_this_time_/
By Fen Montaigne, Yale Environment 360. Posted April 11, 2009.

The playbook is the same, but this time the the lies and misinformation
could be disastrous for everyone -- children especially.

Increasingly, the question of what we eat and how it affects our health is
a subject that is important not just to those concerned about nutrition but
to environmentalists. Kelly D. Brownell, a psychologist who is director of
the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, has been a
leading researcher into America's obesity epidemic and its links to the
practices of the food industry. Author of the 2004 book, Food Fight,
Brownell has recently become interested in the connections between obesity,
the environment, and hunger, believing that sustainably growing and
producing more nutritious foods can help solve each of these challenges.

Recently, Brownell and Kenneth E. Warner -- a prominent tobacco researcher
who is Dean of the University of Michigan's School of Public Health -- met
at a conference and began discussing the similar legal, political, and
business strategies traditionally employed by "Big Tobacco" and the tactics
now being used by "Big Food." Struck by the common playbook that both
industries have used and concerned about the public health impacts of
industry actions, Brownell and Warner decided to explore the topic more
deeply. The result was a paper published earlier this year in the health
policy journal, the Milbank Quarterly: "The Perils of Ignoring History: Big
Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?"

As Brownell explained in an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior
editor Fen Montaigne, many of the tactics currently being used by Big Food
now mirror those used by U.S. tobacco giants as they successfully fought
off regulation for decades, thereby contributing to the deaths of millions
of Americans. According to Brownell and Warner, the common strategies
include dismissing as "junk science" peer-reviewed studies showing a link
between their products and disease; paying scientists to produce
pro-industry studies; sowing doubt in the public's mind about the harm
caused by their products; intensive marketing to children and adolescents;
frequently rolling out supposedly "safer" products and vowing to regulate
their own industries; denying the addictive nature of their products; and
lobbying with massive resources to thwart regulatory action.

Fen Montaigne: Can you tell me about the genesis of the paper?

Kelly Brownell: It came about as a result of a meeting I went to on cancer,
where I met Ken Warner, an economist who's done a lot of interesting work
on things like tobacco taxes. We talked about the similarities between food
industry behavior now and tobacco industry behavior over the last four
decades or so and it started to look as if there were a script or a
playbook that industry was following.

By any definition, the tobacco industry script had been deadly -- and
successful for them because they forestalled government action. They had
convinced the public that tobacco wasn't as bad as it really was. They
fought off lawsuits. They got government to delay many (actions).

We simply didn't want the food industry to be able to get away with some of
those same tactics. The public has become skeptical of food industry
behavior and a great deal of concern has been raised about things like
marketing to children, selling unhealthy foods in schools. That means the
industry is at a crossroads. They can behave as tobacco did, which is lie
about the science, distort the truth, and buy up the scientists. Or they
can come face-to-face with the reality that some of their products are
helping people and some are hurting, and we need to shift the balance.

There are some differences in the industries. Tobacco was one product --
cigarettes -- and about half a dozen big companies that sold it. With food,
there are hundreds of companies and many thousands of products. But the
behavior of the industry shows some pretty striking similarities.

FM: I'd like to have you take us through some of those.

KB: Well, one is distorting the science and denying the health effects of
their products. (Recently) a study was done showing that how close people
lived to fast food restaurants predicted their likelihood of obesity. The
study was really quite well done. So the National Restaurant Association
then came out with their own statement that basically trashed the study and
more or less called it junk science.

Now, this is a perfect repeat of what tobacco did for many years. They said
smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. There is not definitive evidence. There
aren't good-enough studies. It's junk science. It's just the advocates out
to get us. And then they denied that second-hand smoke was killing people.
They denied that nicotine was addictive. You can go on and on and on. Well,
so here comes a (food) study that's pretty persuasive. It certainly
supports other studies showing a link between fast food consumption and
obesity, and what did they do? They trashed the science. They deny it's the
case. In all likelihood, they will pay scientists who they know to produce
results favorable to them to disprove this finding. It's all part of the
same script.

FM: You gave another example in your paper of a study about obesity and
consumption of sodas. How did the industry react to that?

KB: The results couldn't have been more clear that the more sugared
beverages you're consuming, the more likely you are to have weight
problems, the higher your risk for diabetes, and the less likely you are to
be eating a healthier diet.

The day the study came out, the trade association for the beverage
companies, the American Beverage Association, trashed the study, said it
was biased, accused us of cherry-picking only the studies that were in
support of our position. And this study was published in the American
Journal of Public Health, a good peer-reviewed journal. So attacking it was
the first strategy that they used. Then the next strategy they used is they
went and they paid some scientists who have produced in the past studies
that are favorable to industry positions. They go and they review the
literature, and then they do a study that says, "Oh, what do you know?
There's no link between soft drink intakes and these bad outcomes."

Now, I think if I were them, I would say that's not how we're going to
behave. When we hear studies that are contrary to our interests, we're
going to say, "Well, we'll take this seriously and we'll do what we can to
change our products and change our marketing, and we'll work with the
scientists." But that's not what they're doing, for the most part.

FM: You also pointed out the link between what big tobacco did and what big
food is doing, trying to sow doubt and confusion in the public's mind.

KB: What the tobacco industry and other industries have done, they realized
that if you can instill just enough doubt or impugn the integrity of the
people who produce the science or get people second-guessing, then people
will say, "Well, we're not sure if this is the case, so we're not going to
go through with a public policy. We're not going to sue the industry or
come down hard on them for anything." And so it basically does enough to
stall action. And I imagine that's what the food industry is seeking here.
Again, the food industry has some players who are quite progressive and
others who are less so.

FM: Tell us about some of the other similar strategies between tobacco and
food in terms of trying to keep selling their product.

KB: One is the introduction of what the industry will call safer products.
And the classic example in tobacco was the introduction of filtered
cigarettes. Now, the food industry has done this a lot. They've introduced
and reformulated products. In some cases, it's exactly what public health
people have been calling for -- take out some of the fat, take out some of
the sugar, take out some of the salt. But sometimes, they take a little of
these things out, but they make it sound as if they've taken a lot out. And
so the health benefits that get promoted in the marketing aren't in concert
with the actual benefits that have been achieved from reformulating their
products.

FM: You mention in your paper the example of a Kentucky Fried Chicken
advertisement.

KB: Right. Well, KFC is owned by a large parent company called Yum! Brands.
And they own Taco Bell and Pizza Hut and some other restaurants. They were
very resistant early on to taking the trans fats out of their food and then
they got sued by an advocacy organization, and it got to the point where
competitors were starting to take out the trans fats and they looked pretty
bad for not doing it.

So then they did take out the trans fats reluctantly but started this
campaign that inferred that you can now eat this chicken with impunity
because the trans fats had been removed. There is one advertisement where
the husband came in and the mother and children were sitting there in the
counter. The husband looked at the chicken and the wife said, "Guess what?"
in words to this effect, "KFC is now free of trans fats." And so, he lets
out a yelp of glee and starts gorging on the chicken. And so, somebody
could look at that advertisement and say, "Okay. Well now it doesn't have
trans fats, it means it's okay to eat it."

Well in fact, if you swap out trans fat for another kind of fat, there's no
calorie advantage at all. It's better for your heart because it's a
healthier fat, but there's no calorie advantage. I like the fact that they
took out the trans fat and we need more of that kind of thing happening.
But if they oversold the benefits, this could be an example of introducing
what the industry could call a safer product but consumption patterns
wouldn't lead it to actually be safer.

FM: What about the similarities of Big Food hitting this theme of personal
responsibility?

KB: People believe that personal responsibility should be the way we
address problems. I don't have any quarrel with that. It's probably not a
bad place to start, but when this industry behaves in a way that undermines
personal responsibility, then we've got problems and that's usually a place
where people feel government intervention is warranted.

So with tobacco, you had a clearly addictive substance. So, people would
start when they were teenagers. Their ability to behave in a responsible
way was being undermined by the marketing and of course the addictive
nature of the product. So, that means government could step in and so what
do we do? We pass clean air laws, we tax the heck out of cigarettes, we sue
the tobacco industry. And society now accepts that as responsible behavior
on the part of government because personal responsibility was being eroded.

So the question is, in food, does that same set of conditions exist and
does that warrant government response? Well, everybody comes down in a
different place, but there certainly are similarities, including very heavy
duty marketing of these products, especially to children.

I don't want to say that personal responsibility is not important, because
it certainly is. But in some cases we've decided that's not enough and then
government gets involved. With tobacco, with drugs, with alcohol, with
immunizations for children, with fluoride in the water, with mandatory
airbags in cars, we've decided that if we're serious about these public
health things, the government should be involved.

In the food arena, a great example of this would be in New York City, where
the health department has banned trans fats in restaurants. So if you go to
New York now, you can't get trans fats in the restaurants. Now you could
try to solve that problem of people eating trans fats, and having heart
disease as a consequence of it, by personal responsibility. You could say,
"Okay, well, let's educate people about trans fats." But it's a pretty hard
concept to understand. Restaurants would have to label them. People would
have to have options within restaurants, trans fat versus no trans fat. And
you see you'd have this complex, burdensome system that would never work.
And so, that would be an example where personal responsibility wouldn't get
the job done but government intervention would. And so, in New York City,
they've decided that we can't default to personal responsibility there, we
need to take action. And that would be an example of a real success story
from a public health point of view.

FM: Of course, with tobacco very clearly there was an issue of addiction.
But one interesting point you raised is the addiction triggers in
substances like caffeine and sugar?

KB: We don't know the answer yet to the question about whether food can
trigger an addictive process in the brain. But it's a darn important
question that we need to know. Some addiction researchers have started
studying this, including a few animal researchers in the obesity field. And
the studies are pretty amazing so far. There are animal studies in the labs
and there are brain imaging studies in humans. And what's been studied the
most is sugar, which looks like it has effects on the brain like classic
substances of abuse. Now, the magnitude of the effect, the addictive effect
isn't that strong, but it does seem to exist.

Why do we need to know this? Well, people are eating in ways that would
suggest that addiction might be a possibility. I mean, people know it's bad
for them to overeat these kinds of foods. But people do this anyway at
great peril to their health. And if these foods are behaving on the brain
in an addictive way, if that happens, even to a small extent, it could have
pretty important public health consequences.

Caffeine becomes a real issue because caffeine is addictive. And some
people drink a little of it through beverages, some people drink a lot of
it, but so much of it is added to foods now, in things like energy drinks.
And now people are putting it in candy bars and in potato chips and jelly
beans and selling it as energy versions of things. There's a version of
Butterfinger candy bar out now that's called Butterfinger Buzz. And it says
on the back, "Not recommended for children." But I mean, who's buying these
things? Caffeine, because it's so often coupled with calories, could become
a real player here that if you're consuming calories in something that has
caffeine in it and the caffeine keeps you coming back for more because of
its mildly addictive nature then, again, you've got enough to create real
issues of health.

FM: You mentioned with big tobacco that there was a massive lobbying effort
spending countless millions of dollars to stifle government action. Could
you describe the parallels, the efforts to undermine state and local
efforts to crack down on fast food and trans fats?

KB: There's a remarkable history there. As you might imagine, the food
industry is enormously powerful. And the industry speaks as individual
players but also through their trade associations. They have their
lobbyists in Washington. They have a lot of money to use for this purpose,
and they're effective. But does this help public health?

New York City was the first city to pass a regulation that restaurants had
to post calories on their restaurant menus, or on menu boards in the case
of fast food restaurants. How did the restaurant industry respond to this?
Well, they responded by lobbying heavily against it, but that didn't work.
Then sued New York City, and finally lost. And so, the regulation is now in
effect. When it looked like legal action wasn't going to help them so much,
then they tried to weaken the legislation.

A lot of other places around the country are now passing menu labeling, so
the industry has managed to get several legislators in Washington to
introduce a national bill that would override anything that can be done at
local levels by having a weak national standard. So, there's a script that
tobacco followed that food is following. If there's no threat, you ignore
it. But then when it becomes a reality, you sue. When that doesn't work,
you preempt it nationally.

FM: In order for the food industry not to go down the same deadly path that
tobacco went down, could you go into what you might call a good playbook
for the food industry?

KB: One is to stop playing the personal responsibility card as much as they
have. That doesn't mean that they have to ignore personal responsibility,
but they can't act as if that's the only reason that people are eating and
developing nutrition and weight problems.

Lying about the science, distorting scientific findings, and trashing the
messenger, which they very often do -- I think that should stop. I believe
they should also stop paying scientists to do studies that almost 100
percent of the time favor industry. Marketing unhealthy products to
children should stop instantly. And we know what some of these products are
that are hurting the health of children.

FM: Can you list a few?

KB: Well, sugared beverages would be at the top of the list. Fast foods
would be second on that list. Sugared cereals, candy. There's just no
reason at all to market those things to kids. It's not helping them, it's
hurting them and it shouldn't be done. There are a number of other issues
about responsible marketing practices: not overstating the health benefits,
not implying that something is healthier than it really is, not marketing
in ways that undermine the parental ability to moderate the health of their
children.

Most of all, they should reformulate their products and market the
healthier versions as aggressively as possible, I think.

FM: You say that it would be a trap to give the food industry the benefit
of the doubt given their past behavior. Why?

KB: Well, the tobacco history was so riddled with disaster and we gave them
the benefit of the doubt and look at the millions of people that died as a
consequence. Why are the motives of the food industry going to be any
different? They want to sell as much as they can of their products. But on
the other hand, the public is watching them now and government is watching
them, plus some of them really may see that selling healthier products is
in their best long-term interest.

But it seems to me that defaulting to trusting the industry without any
oversight is really a bad idea. And so, at the very least, we should have a
set of conditions that we agree on that says, "If industry is to be proven
trustworthy, if we're to grant them self-regulatory authority instead of
government coming down on them, then they have to do these things." Like,
for example, they have to work with the public health community to make
business priorities. If they make self-regulatory promises like, "We're
going to market less to kids," there has to be objective evaluation of that
and there has to be some effect if they don't comply.





  • [Livingontheland] Big Food Is Copying Big Tobacco's Disinformation Tactics, Tradingpost, 04/13/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page