Currently browsing posts about: Partnerships

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.

Since it’s Monday when I post industry-funded studies anyway, I will add one more of these to last week’s collection.

This one comes from an articles in The Conversation: Big companies, like Nestlé, are funding health research in South Africa – why this is wrong.

At the time a group of more than 200 senior academics wrote an open letter, about conflicts of interest. Nestlé’s portfolio of foods, by its own admission, includes more than 60% that don’t meet the definition of healthy products.

In December last year, the same centre announced it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé. It signalled their intent to “forge a transformative partnership” to shape “the future of food and nutrition research and education” and transform “Africa’s food systems”.

I saw this posted on X (the site formerl known as Twtter, which I still find to be a useful source of information I would not otherwise know about).

Terrible news. @PepsiIndia @CocaColaCo @Unilever @KelloggsUS
Sponsor the Annual Conference of Nutrition Society of India . What a shame and conflicts of interest! @ICMRNIN @ICMRDELHI @mygovindia @TimothyWSchwab please note Gates Foundation. @RemaNagarajan @chetanecostani pic.twitter.com/iSRhaUVNOb

— Dr Arun Gupta MD FIAP (@Moveribfan) November 25, 2023

I also saw a post from Joes Spicer, head of Nutrition International, announcing its withdrawal of funding for the conference  because of the food industry sponsors.

And then Tim Schwab, whose book, “The Bill Gates Problem,” I cannot wait to get to, sent this:

In India last week, a minor furor erupted over the Nutrition Society of India’s annual conference being so brazenly sponsored by companies like Coca-Cola.  But Coke is only a “gold” sponsor.  The “platinum” sponsor? The Gates Foundation.

For two decades, Gates has partnered closely with corporate interests—from Coca-Cola to Pfizer—and presented them to the world as humanitarian partners. Because the foundation is such an admired and celebrated charitable body, Gates has had a powerful effect on normalizing, institutionalizing and legitimizing corporate partnerships and conflicts of interest throughout science and policy making.

Food and drug companies love to sponsor nutrition conferences.  What better way to convince influential professional researchers and teachers that your products are good for health and nothing should be said about restricting or regulating them.

The role of the Gates Foundation is much less obvious and much more important because of its money and interntional power.  Schwab’s book promises to address such matters.  I will have more to say about it when I’ve had a chance to read it.

In the meantime, nutriton societies oin the U.S. and India too would be more credible if they avoided taking food industry sponsorship.  If they take Gates Foundation money, it had best come with no strings and no implied endorsements.

If F0undatios were really altruistic, they would provide donations anonymously and not expect a quid pro quo.  When they expect a quid pro quo, it’s best to find out exactly what it is.

IPES—the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems—states the problem:

Over recent decades, corporations have succeeded in convincing governments that they must be central in any discussion
on the future of food systems. [No, they should not.]

Publicprivate partnerships and ‘multi-stakeholder’ roundtables (e.g., on ‘responsible soy’, or ‘sustainable palm oil’) have normalized a prominent role for corporations and given them an inside track to decision-making. [This is wrong.]

Public governance initiatives have also become reliant on private funding. [Also wrong.]

Why wrong?  IPES says:

Behind the scenes, leading corporations have consolidated their grip by ensuring an industry friendly regulatory environment (via lobbying and ‘revolving door’ approaches), shaping trade and investment agreements, putting up barriers to competition, sponsoring research, and making political donations.

What is to be done?  For starters:

• Keep food corporations out of public health policy discussions.
• Hold corporations accountable.

Take a look and see if you agree.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

Rumors are flying that Let’s Move! will announce significant accomplishments this week.

From what I can piece together from ProPolitico and press conference announcements, they go on all week.

• Tuesday: School wellness policies
• Wednesday: Food assistance programs other than SNAP
• Thursday:  The Nutrition Facts label

These promise to be more useful than Mrs. Obama’s visit to the New Museum in New York to celebrate a pop-up exhibit organized by WAT-AAH!, a company that makes bottled water—marketed specifically to kids.

The company is a supporter of Let’s Move!’s Drink Up! campaign.

Its bottled waters are “functional,” meaning ostensibly nutritionally enhanced in some way.

For example, its “Power” product says it is:

Ultra pure water!

Bone-building magnesium!

Absolutely NO SUGAR!

Taste like pure clean water!

Sounds like plain, ordinary water to me (unless the amount of magnesium is substantial, which seems unlikely—I can’t find a Nutrition Facts label for it).

The idea here is to get kids who won’t drink water to drink bottled water aimed specifically at them—at $1.50 a pop.

This was great publicity for the company, but I sure wish Drink Up! would emphasize how terrific tap water is, especially in New York City, where it really is terrific.

Added comments:  A reader points out that WAT-AAH!’s health claims are difficult to substantiate (e.g., boosted oxygen level, brain function), and are just the kinds of claims that concern the FTC.  

And, despite Drink Up!’s public stance on how tap water is just fine, WAT-AAH! puts down tap water.  To check both the claims and the put down, go to the website, click on WAT-AAH! Drinks!, then on Just the Facts, and scroll on down.  

You will find plenty of highly iffy health claims, along with this:

OK, so this is about marketing so what’s the big deal?  I can think of several reasons for concern:

• It’s marketing bottled water.
• It’s marketing directly to kids.
• It’s marketed with absurd health claims.
• It claims to be substantially better for kids than tap water.
• It’s endorsed by the First Lady.

The FTC has gone after health claims just like these.  Can it go after WAT-AAH!’s claims and, thereby, take on the First Lady?

This is what happens—all too often—when health programs try to partner with private industry.  The private industry invariably wins, and the health partner loses credibility.

My post yesterday about Michele Simon’s report on food company sponsorship of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) elicited a wealth of thoughtful comments.  These are well worth careful consideration.

Many express disappointment that I would suggest that corporate sponsorship might influence their thinking or practice, that other nutrition professionals have equal or better education, that I singled out AND when other nutrition and health organizations also accept food industry funds, or that I am unsympathetic to their plight (they are required to be AND members whether or not they agree with its policies).

Let me clarify:

On the effects of corporate sponsorship: I don’t know a single individual who thinks that taking money from food companies influences personal opinion or practice, but research on the effects of drug—and food—company sponsorship demonstrates otherwise.    At the very least, sponsorship gives the appearance of conflict of interest.  Individuals and organizations who accept sponsorship from soda companies, for example, can hardly be expected to advise the public to drink less soda.

On education: my point here is not that dietetic education is inadequate but that other nutritionists without such training may be equally qualified to advise the public about diet and health.

On other organizations:  That other nutrition and health organizations accept funds from food companies has long been a point of discussion on this blog (click on Partnerships).  I am especially concerned  about the practices of the American Society of Nutrition, to which I belong.  Its embarrassing role in the Smart Choices fiasco was an example of why nutrition professional organizations should avoid getting involved in such alliances.

On sympathy: I have plenty.  Food company sponsorships create painful dilemmas for nutrition professionals and each of us must figure out our own way to deal with them.  I have written about my own struggles with this issue in Food Politics and elsewhere.

I especially appreciate the comments from those of you engaged in your own struggles with this issue within AND.  You have your work cut out for you.  Here, for example, is the response of your president, Dr. Ethan Bergman, to Simon’s report. He writes [and see addition below]:

There is one indisputable fact in the report about the Academy’s sponsorship program: We have one. And for the record, I support the Academy’s sponsorship program, as does the Board of Directors and our members.

Let me make it clear that the Academy does not tailor our messages or programs in any way due to influence by corporate sponsors and this report does not provide evidence to the contrary.

…As members of a science-based organization, I encourage you to not take all information you see at face value, always consider the source (in this case, an advocate who has previously shown her predisposition to find fault with the Academy) and seek out the facts.

My interpretation: ignore the message because the messenger is not one of us.

As nutrition professionals, we ignore such messages at our peril.  If we want the public to trust what we say, our views cannot be perceived as compromised by financial ties to food companies.

What you can do.  If, as some of you noted, you oppose corporate sponsorship and would like to do something about it, here are a few suggestions:

• Let your voice be heard: write letters, post blogs, send tweets.
• Make it clear to colleagues and clients that you oppose current policies on corporate sponsorship.
• Provide evidence that your organization can do just fine without the money.
• Join committees and groups within your organization; say what you think.
• Organize petition campaigns.
• Run for office; run a slate for office.

If you want the policy to change, work for it.

But don’t be discouraged if nothing much happens right away.  Change takes time.  Keep at it.

Thanks to all of you for taking this issue so seriously.  Let’s keep working together to find ways to keep food company money out of our professional lives.

Addition, January 25: a reader, Craig, points out that Coca-Cola gave Dr. Bergman the opportunity to carry the torch at last summer’s Olympic games.  A news story about this event quotes Dr. Bergman on the Academy’s partnership:

I think the philosophy that Coca Cola has through its Live Positively campaign, and our philosophy at the academy, is about trying to improve the nation’s health through better nutrition and fitness so this fits in well with our cause.

 

Michele Simon, president of Eat, Drink, Politics, an industry watchdog consulting group, has just published an exposé of the close financial relationships between food and beverage companies and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND, formerly the American Dietetic Association).

Her hard-hitting report, And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food? provides ample evidence that partnerships and alliances with Big Food make it impossible for AND members to convey clear and accurate messages about nutrition and health.

When she talks about nutrition professionals, she doesn’t mean me.  I have a PhD (in molecular biology, although long lapsed) and a master’s in Public Health Nutrition.  She means AND members.  AND represents more than 70,000 individuals who mostly hold credentials as Registered Dietitians (RDs).

To qualify, they had to complete a bachelor’s degree that included a specified set of courses and a 6-month clinical internship.  I once tried to get credentialed as an RD after I completed a qualifying internship but I had never had a practical course in food service management.  That lack was a deal breaker.

Never mind.  Here’s what Simon’s report is about:

And here are a small selection of her observations and conclusions:

• AND collected $1.85 million in sponsorship funds in 2011, a relatively small percentage of its $34 million income.
• Companies such as Coca-Cola, Kraft, Nestlé, and PepsiCo offer approved continuing education courses to AND members.
• Two of the messages conveyed by one of Coca-Cola’s courses: sugar is not harmful to children, and federal nutrition standards for school meals are too restrictive.
• More than 20% of speakers at AND’s annual meeting have financial ties to Big Food companies, although most were not disclosed.
• A survey found 80% of members to believe that sponsorship implies an AND endorsement of the sponsor’s products.
• A majority of AND members believe that three current sponsors are unacceptable: Coca-Cola, Mars, and PepsiCo.

If you want to see how sponsorship plays out in practice, take a look at her photographs of the exhibit hall at the 2012 AND annual meeting.  She also provides photos taken elsewhere at the meeting.  And here’s the New York Times’ take on it.

As a trade association for Registered Dietitians, AND—as I discussed in Food Politics—has as its primary goal to position RDs as the leading source of nutrition information for patients, clients, and the public.

As you might imagine, I’ve always had a bit of trouble with that goal.

For one thing, nutritionists with master’s and doctoral degrees are likely to know more than RDs about nutrition science and to think more critically about it.

For another, that self-interested goal creates an image problem.  RDs might be accepted as more credible sources if their primary goal was to improve the nutritional health of the American people.

Their advice also would be more credible if AND were not so heavily linked to food and beverage corporations, especially those whose products contribute to poor health.

Let’s hope this new report gets AND members talking about how to change some current AND policies.

On vacation in Panamá, I found few visible signs of food politics.

I had asked to visit the mountain site where genetically modified salmon are being raised in the mountains (see previous post).  Not a chance.

This made me even more curious.  I conducted an informal survey of every educated Panamanian I met:

• Are you aware that genetically modified salmon are being raised in your country?
• Do you care?

The answers: No and No.

I found only two exceptions: (1) a government official impressed by what he told me were five levels of security to make sure the fish don’t escape, and (2) an associate of the soon-to-open biodiversity museum (designed by Frank Gehry) who hoped that the museum could be a forum for such issues.

Both confirmed that the newspapers said nothing about GM salmon and that few people knew about them.

A chef’s reaction: Panamanian salmon!  He couldn’t wait to get some.

But I did see this Christmas display along the Avenida Balboa.

The Coca-Cola banner also says Alcaldía de Panamá: trabajando para ti (Mayor of Panamá City: working for you).

Happy new year!  Happy to be back.