Vertical Integration and the Fraud of the Nation’s Nutrition Guidelines

0
Vertical Integration and the Fraud of the Nation’s Nutrition Guidelines

No Transparency but Many Conflicts

That’s unfortunate because the dietary guidelines committee has been riddled with conflicts of interest among its members. One study, led by a researcher from Trinity College in Dublin, “Conflicts of interest for members of the US 2020 dietary guidelines advisory committee,” found that 95 percent of the committee members had associations with big food or pharmaceutical companies, including Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, and the International Life Sciences.

Those conflicts of interest have apparently continued on the 2025-2030 committee, so much so that U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter last year to the secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services demanding transparency. Grassley was especially concerned after Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford was appointed to the committee.

“Recently appointed DGAC member Dr. Fatima Cody Stanford has been paid tens of thousands of dollars by drug makers that manufacture weight loss and obesity drugs, including the producers of Semaglutide and Ozempic,” Grassley wrote. “She has also promoted these products in media appearances. These facts raise concerns about financial ties and potential conflicts of interest that bear on her judgment as a member of the DGAC.”

In response, the government released a four-page aggregate compilation of apparent conflicts of interest but did not release individual names tied to those conflicts. The same large number of conflicts appeared as in the committee’s previous iteration—members had a host of connections to corporate entities, from receiving grants, contracts, royalties, and honoraria to travel expenses, board memberships, and other perks. What’s more, the organization U.S. Right to Know asserts, besides lacking individual identification, the disclosures were voluntary and only covered the last year.

U.S. Right to Know thus conducted a deeper assessment of those conflicts, an assessment that told a disturbing story. Among nine of 20 members, it found, there were eight conflicts of interest with food giants, three conflicts with pharmaceutical companies, and two with weight loss companies.

“Four of the 20 members had possible conflicts of interest with food and pharmaceutical companies or organizations that had a history of corporate sponsorship and lobbying in the development of the guidelines,” the report stated.

Multiple committee members had ties to Abbott (which manufactures infant formula), Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Weight Watchers International. Multiple members also had associations with the American Society for Nutrition and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the latter a powerful professional nutrition association that has lobbied on the guidelines on behalf of its many corporate sponsors.

A quick look at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) begins to show how the bureaucratic stranglehold takes effect on the state level. The name of the group sounds noble enough, and every year it sponsors National Nutrition Week. It lauds the eating of fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, “healthy” fats, and natural sweeteners. The group is as wholesome as a garden green salad, right?

Unfortunately, National Nutrition Week pushes the same diet as the government does, and many say the reason is that AND is a shill for Big Food and Big Pharma.

A 2022 study in Public Health Nutrition, “The corporate capture of the nutrition profession in the USA: the case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,” broke it all down. Analyzing documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests from 2014 to 2020, the study found that AND leaders held “key positions in multinational food, pharmaceutical or agribusiness corporations,” and AND also accepted corporate financial contributions.

More shockingly, AND wasn’t just a recipient, it was an investor in corporations such as Nestlé, PepsiCo and multiple pharmaceutical companies. As the study stated, AND is one of the more influential professional health associations in the U.S.

“It is the largest US-based organization comprised of food and nutritional professionals, with approximately 100 000 dietitians and nutrition practitioners and students,” the study stated. “… It is established as a 501(c)(6) trade association and certifies dietitians and nutrition practitioners in the USA and abroad.”

Its influence is felt not least in the formulation of U.S. dietary guidelines, and the study demonstrated just how symbiotic the relationship between the development of the guidelines and Big Food and Big Pharma are.

It should be noted that AND rejected the report’s conclusions, calling it “a calculated attack against the more than 112,000 credentialed nutrition and dietetics practitioners whom the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics proudly represents. The report contains numerous factual and methodology errors, omissions and information taken out of context.”

The group also contended that its corporate sponsorships were minimal compared to its overall funding.

Perhaps its investments don’t color its work, but I was always told that the perception of a conflict is as bad as a real conflict, and the facts of its partnerships are irrefutable. For example, in 2013, the AND Foundation announced a partnership with Kraft to promote some of Kraft’s products, including Krafts Singles. Here’s how the New York Times put it in 2015:

“Kraft Singles, those individually wrapped slices of processed cheese that have long been a staple of school lunches, are the first product to earn a nutrition seal from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the trade group representing 75,000 registered dietitians and other nutrition professionals.”

The stamp of approval was later withdrawn after an outcry. And there is much more, including a 2015 email obtained by U.S. Right to Know, in which AND leaders discussed a collaboration with Abbott to promote the use of Pediasure, an Abbott nutritional supplement for children, in pediatricians’ offices, along with a retailer campaign.

Abbott at the time had a two-year, $150,000-a-year sponsorship deal with AND.


link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *