Where do you get good advice and information about healthy eating, about nutritious food?
 |
| Good advice on healthy eating and nutrition?? |
Very few of us are still cooking and eating like our grandparents. Very few of us learn about nutrition within the food culture of our family, the way it used to be. We seem hungry for credible information about nutrition: there is no lack of advice about what to eat from media articles, advertising, government guidelines, online health gurus and more. Makes me think there must be a fair profit in it...
Large, well-resourced corporations represent primary production and food manufacturing industries including fruit, sugar, dairy, meat, wheat, alcohol, etc. Others are not so large. It seems a good idea… producers need a voice on matters that affect them. I'd like one to promote me too!
Their purpose is to represent their own industry's needs and ensure profitability. And therein lies the problem: the food that science tells us is healthy is not necessarily that which generates those industries the most profit.
Each food industry body works to ensure we keep consuming their products. So, much like a crafty octopus, they slip their many arms and their considerable influence into every nook and cranny to shape research and policy, and release numerous media articles providing nutritional information in favour of their product. Or more accurately, nutrition misinformation.
The problem is that nutrition advice should not be their role.
In fact, misinformation about nutrition is better for profit.
The food industry octopuses have spread confusing and clouding ink all over what we know about nutrition. As a result, confusion about healthy eating abounds. And it's having a bad effect on our health.
On the topic of nutrition, we are not helped much by a dictionary definition. The problem is not so much the way that nutrition is defined; it is more our limited knowledge or even misunderstanding of the way that nutrition functions - the process is unbelievably complex.
Research into nutrition requires an holistic understanding of how very complex food compounds work within a mindbogglingly complex human physiological system. Nutrition research is very, very challenging to do well.
Primary research on nutrition is usually loaded with caveats and cautions, statements of assumptions required, tentative findings and discussion of possible implications. Each study contributes a tiny bit of information only, which needs re-testing, then re-testing, before being accepted. No single study can tell people what or how to eat. Such knowledge involves a gradual amassing of information; it takes extended time and considerable funding.
Amongst all this complexity, food industry bodies find every crevice and tiny gap to get into the public's ear about the benefits of their industry's product.
Just like an octopus, food industry bodies are good at camouflaging their real intentions, tracking down those tasty factoids that suit them, slipping though gaps in public understanding about nutrition, and getting what they need to thrive by manipulating research and policy. Sometimes you do see them in plain sight, when negative research about their particular food product surfaces. They cast doubt and confusion by spraying some clouding ink of supposedly 'controversial findings' into the sea of nutritional misinformation.
We can hardly see what's what anymore.
Profits are maximised by keeping the public buying the foods the industry body represents. Profit is the driver, regardless of actual benefits or negative impacts on the human health.
(Reminding anyone of the tobacco industry?)
However, the epidemic of diseases linked to the Western diet is forcing the activities of the octopuses into the spotlight.
Science clearly shows that many of leading killers in Western countries, like heart disease, strokes, and diabetes, are strongly linked to the diets high in animal products. The evidence is very strong that cow's milk has a link with Type 1 Diabetes. Sugar is clearly identified as dietary risk factor for heart disease. Diet, rather than environment or genetics, appears to be the major factor in the progression of some cancers. These findings are based on years and years of research.
But they are not necessarily cutting through the misinformation about nutrition all around us.
Here are just a few examples of how the food industry octopuses have used those agile arms to capture and distort the public's understanding of nutrition.
Those industry body octopus arms really are everywhere.
Even if you go to research and official guidelines, the industry body octopus will have influenced what you are told. The distortion of nutrition science is a big and complex topic. If you want to read more, you will find a few references at the end of Part 2.
In a promising sign, academics have specifically researched the influence of food industries bodies and exactly how their various arms infiltrate and distort public nutrition information and policy. A study in 2016 confirmed the food industry had considerably greater direct access to government policy officers than nutrition professionals did.
The wily octopus bent on its own survival provides a great metaphor for the way the food industry bodies infiltrates research and policy. No offence to octopus lovers; I think they are really amazing and wonderful creatures. In their place.
But the metaphor needs to place the food industry octopus in its broader context. We need to consider a whole fish tank of factors influencing how we think about food and nutrition.
In Part 2, I look at what else is swimming in the fish tank with the food industry octopuses. And I sharpen my 2B pencil for a fish tank drawing.
What if I tell you that you are probably getting your information about healthy eating and nutrition from the food industry bodies… yes, from corporations set up specifically to maximise profit.
Large, well-resourced corporations represent primary production and food manufacturing industries including fruit, sugar, dairy, meat, wheat, alcohol, etc. Others are not so large. It seems a good idea… producers need a voice on matters that affect them. I'd like one to promote me too!
Their purpose is to represent their own industry's needs and ensure profitability. And therein lies the problem: the food that science tells us is healthy is not necessarily that which generates those industries the most profit.
Each food industry body works to ensure we keep consuming their products. So, much like a crafty octopus, they slip their many arms and their considerable influence into every nook and cranny to shape research and policy, and release numerous media articles providing nutritional information in favour of their product. Or more accurately, nutrition misinformation.
The problem is that nutrition advice should not be their role.
In fact, misinformation about nutrition is better for profit.
The food industry octopuses have spread confusing and clouding ink all over what we know about nutrition. As a result, confusion about healthy eating abounds. And it's having a bad effect on our health.
On the topic of nutrition, we are not helped much by a dictionary definition. The problem is not so much the way that nutrition is defined; it is more our limited knowledge or even misunderstanding of the way that nutrition functions - the process is unbelievably complex.
Research into nutrition requires an holistic understanding of how very complex food compounds work within a mindbogglingly complex human physiological system. Nutrition research is very, very challenging to do well.
Primary research on nutrition is usually loaded with caveats and cautions, statements of assumptions required, tentative findings and discussion of possible implications. Each study contributes a tiny bit of information only, which needs re-testing, then re-testing, before being accepted. No single study can tell people what or how to eat. Such knowledge involves a gradual amassing of information; it takes extended time and considerable funding.
 |
| Artwork from veeptopus |
Just like an octopus, food industry bodies are good at camouflaging their real intentions, tracking down those tasty factoids that suit them, slipping though gaps in public understanding about nutrition, and getting what they need to thrive by manipulating research and policy. Sometimes you do see them in plain sight, when negative research about their particular food product surfaces. They cast doubt and confusion by spraying some clouding ink of supposedly 'controversial findings' into the sea of nutritional misinformation.
We can hardly see what's what anymore.
Profits are maximised by keeping the public buying the foods the industry body represents. Profit is the driver, regardless of actual benefits or negative impacts on the human health.
(Reminding anyone of the tobacco industry?)
However, the epidemic of diseases linked to the Western diet is forcing the activities of the octopuses into the spotlight.
Science clearly shows that many of leading killers in Western countries, like heart disease, strokes, and diabetes, are strongly linked to the diets high in animal products. The evidence is very strong that cow's milk has a link with Type 1 Diabetes. Sugar is clearly identified as dietary risk factor for heart disease. Diet, rather than environment or genetics, appears to be the major factor in the progression of some cancers. These findings are based on years and years of research.
But they are not necessarily cutting through the misinformation about nutrition all around us.
Here are just a few examples of how the food industry octopuses have used those agile arms to capture and distort the public's understanding of nutrition.
- The healthy food pyramid first developed in the 1970s wasn't based so much on what human require for nutrition, but what the food industry bodies lobbied for inclusion. While the 'eat more/eat less' pyramid shape was based on nutrition science, the powerful diary, meat and grain industry bodies lobbied successfully to get their products named on the pyramid and nutritionally empty sugar was included as a category. Check out this page for the decreasing power of these bodies on the Australian version of the food pyramid over time.
- Food industry bodies can fund research that diverts attention away from more important work for public health. For example, Coca Cola and the sugar industry directly funded research into cholesterol and fat, which worked to distract from the role of sugar as a dietary risk factor for heart disease.
- A discreet way to infiltrate public information is to set up or attempt to influence the 'independent' charities related to food consumption. For example, in Nov 2018 Diabetes UK entered into three year partnership with the British manufacturer of a sugar-sweetened beverage. Okay, they might have been desperate for funding, but can they really control what they do with this funding and what messages they can spread? History tells us not very likely…
- Whether or not the outcome of research may be commercially exploitable and commercially favourable may significantly influence the decision of companies to provide funding. A 2017 Cochrane review concluded that industry-sponsored studies more often report findings that favours the industry body sponsor.
- Media statements from food industry bodies about the benefits of their product can cherry pick findings or report on results that are quite dubious. For example, the studies that spawned the famous 'French paradox': a diet high in diary but lower rates of heart disease, were found to be flawed or inaccurate. Not only were there serious cardiovascular profiles for the French, they also had Europe's highest rates of liver disease. The mythical health 'benefits' of red wine nevertheless resulted in an increase of sale, after the alcohol industry boards promoted the 'protective effect' of red wine and worked to undermine guidelines about restricting alcohol consumption.
- The master stroke remains insisting on changes to government guidelines that water-down limits or minimise issues. For example, a draft of Australia's national alcohol strategy referred to an "alcohol culture" contributing to "increased risk of serious harm and the development of harmful drinking patterns", whereas after the alcohol industry's feedback the subsequent draft stated: "Alcohol is an intrinsic part of Australian culture and it plays a central role in most people's social lives."
- If all else fails, create doubt: if the results are negative, describe them as 'controversial' rather than concerning. Use of the word 'controversy' implies the science is not clear in areas where it is actually very strong, for example cow's milk having a strong link with Type 1 Diabetes. The Canadian Dairy Farmers industry body is absolutely sure that 'milk products can be part of healthy diet'. It's controversial only because we have been told that milk is nutritious, but then, who told us that in the first place?
Those industry body octopus arms really are everywhere.
Even if you go to research and official guidelines, the industry body octopus will have influenced what you are told. The distortion of nutrition science is a big and complex topic. If you want to read more, you will find a few references at the end of Part 2.
In a promising sign, academics have specifically researched the influence of food industries bodies and exactly how their various arms infiltrate and distort public nutrition information and policy. A study in 2016 confirmed the food industry had considerably greater direct access to government policy officers than nutrition professionals did.
The wily octopus bent on its own survival provides a great metaphor for the way the food industry bodies infiltrates research and policy. No offence to octopus lovers; I think they are really amazing and wonderful creatures. In their place.But the metaphor needs to place the food industry octopus in its broader context. We need to consider a whole fish tank of factors influencing how we think about food and nutrition.
In Part 2, I look at what else is swimming in the fish tank with the food industry octopuses. And I sharpen my 2B pencil for a fish tank drawing.
Image credits, all used under Creative Commons
- Octopus on head of William King: Jonathan Crow at https://www.jonathan-crow.com/veeptopus
- Sugar: Ayelie (Editor at Large) from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sugar-01.jpg
- Pouring wine: Binge Drinking-CDC Vital Signs-January 2012 (Public Domain) at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20806698
- Milk: Stefan Kühn at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Milk_glass.jpg
- Octopus in tank: Marty Gabel at https://www.flickr.com/photos/fiskadoro/3598665543
No comments:
Post a Comment
We would love to hear your comments. All comments are moderated - so after you have your say, click Publish (bottom left), then you should get a pop up about approval. If it is your first time commenting, you may get a Blogger site request to confirm your name which will be displayed with your comment. Fred or the other writers will do their best to get back to you in a day or two!