Would you take nutrition advice from an octopus? Part 2

By Mae Wright

Part 1 of this article explored how food industry bodies influence the advice and information we get about nutrition and healthy eating.

I used the metaphor of a wily octopus bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) with the many arms of the food industry bodies infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure their own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.

In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.

But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid behind a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.

In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No actual evidence supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health and vast destruction of the ocean life systems from which it is extracted.

The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck the ocean which sustains it. We need some way to understand this behaviour.

In this second part, I look at the broader context and what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.

The first broad contextual factor is our neo-liberal economic system, where profit and consumer 'choice' come first. (We always put 'choice' in inverted commas here at AdjAngst!) People working to maximise profit are doing what our society celebrates. This economic ideology surrounds all of us, not just the food industry boards.

Nutrition scientists sometimes have little option but to accept funding from food industries because government has reduced public funding for research, particularly where there is no apparent commercial application. Funding sources can influence research findings. And if someone wants to advance their career, they won't be highlighting these problems in nutrition science; they have to make a living, right? Of course, plenty of research exists that debunks the false or misleading food industry claims, but this work doesn't get the food industry grants or their promotional muscle and advertising budget.

Media needs a ready supply of stories to makes a profit; they jump on the catchy and sometimes supposedly 'controversial' findings pumped out from the well-resourced PR arms of the food industry bodies. Industry knows PR is the dominant arm in maintaining profit, the main source of health information for many people. The debunking of spurious health claims tends to be in long form writing, mainly books, because it is complex and the research takes a long time. But those ubiquitous food and health articles in media: a catchy title (usually saying we can eat those 'naughty' foods after all, phew!) plus 400 words of misleading or simplistic diet advice.

The long and agile lobbying arm also enables the octopus to get involved in any government panel, policy or guideline that might impact their business. Government has deadlines and statements which frequently require compromise to achieve agreement; refusal to approve publication is a powerful tool by industry bodies to reduce limits and soften cautions about consumption. Perhaps there are donations involved as some suggest; I couldn't say. The dominance of pro-business government policy is also a factor, particularly when health costs and diet-related diseases contribute to GDP as well!

Industry is keen to point to the serious economic implications of making changes to our food consumption, given the large scale of some industries. The reality is these industries have been propped up by misinformation for decades, and the real costs are only now become clear. Not only costs to our health, but major damage to the natural systems of soil, air and water which support all life.

Why would the food industry corporations be different from any other business - making a profit is its 'bottom line'. If manipulation, covert influence and 'health-wash' work, then they are used. This is the neo-liberal economic fish tank in which we swim. The food industry octopuses are part of a system, and they are working the way they are supposed to.

The tank itself needs some attention, perhaps emptying and cleaning out fully.

Maybe the cleaning can also look at the second broad contextual factor: our values about food. Seeing food as just about health and nutrition misses the fact that social connection and positive attitudes to food play a role in health and well-being. We've lost those traditions of growing, cooking and eating which were passed down for generations, part of personal and cultural identity. Unless your family still cooks its Italian, Japanese, Eritrea, etc., traditional foods (no, not take-away), most of us in the West have no concept of food as part of our culture.

While we focus on getting the right number of nutrients, food industry bodies have been able to promote food and food consumption values that serve their profit-making aims through their advertising: values about convenience (our 'too busy to cook' lifestyles), about food and masculinity (specifically meat consumption) or motherhood (feeding is caring), about food and fun (often outdoors in the warmth), about chocolate or alcohol being a 'reward' after hard work (you deserve it), about the 'boring' foods of traditional diets (not beans again!), about the refined diet of 'civilised' person compared with the 'coarse' peasant or indigenous cultures. We have adopted profit-driving way of looking at illness too; our society prioritises treating diseases and obesity rather than preventing them through healthy diet. It goes on...

Many of us are confused or sceptical about food and health claims. We don't know what to eat! Into this space comes the online health gurus spruiking various 'super' foods, fad diets, health fraud, and misdirected health claims. The highly-rating competitive cooking shows apparently highlight the aesthetics and joy of food, but very few people actually 'plate up' more than occasionally.

These health gurus and cooking shows both fail to provide what's actually lacking.

We are lacking a shared food culture. A culture that extends beyond the food products and nutritional value to shared routines of food preparation, social rituals of eating, fun and conversation, time to make meals that are genuinely healthful, respect for the natural systems which sustain us, and valuing whole foods growing in their natural cycles. A society that values whole food and values human connection.

The slow food movement and others represent a return to prioritising shared food culture, but it is no competition for the PR arms of the food industry octopuses.

These contextual factors explain the behaviour of the food industry octopuses; we are not talking about an 'evil' empire, just a successful corporation in a large fish tank neoliberal economics.

It's time to return to the tank where the octopus dwells to bring the two contextual factors of neoliberalism and food values into the metaphor.

Here's my drawing: Nutrition in the tank of neoliberalism.

Click to enlarge

Along with the food industry octopus, we are all swimming in a large tank of neoliberal economics. Profit is king. Sprouts of the sea grass of not really different 'choice' of 'value-added' (i.e. over-processed and nutritionally vacant) products are everywhere.

Floating all around are critters that represent our values about food; those values forged through food industry advertising over decades. These are the plankton of profit. Our failure to value the broad social and natural systems that sustain us allows profit to be the final arbiter.

Nutrition science exists in this neoliberal fish tank as well. One arm of the octopus curls into academia, while another sets up its own research and occasionally causes an algal bloom of reductionism and scientism. The slow snails of robust research cling valiantly to the seaweed and risk a squirt of clouding ink any time they get publicity for their contrary findings.

Meanwhile, the frightened fish of food culture are there, but daunted by the massive influence of the food industry octopus. They know there is more to food than nutrients and health, but they risk being eaten themselves when they venture out.

And there hiding at the back is the pharmacy industry octopus, Big Pharma, with its long slippery arms infiltrating everywhere, keeping the focus on treatment and pills, not diet. The tank is brimming with the krill of easy access to pills.

In the midst of all this sits a confused general public: a treasure chest of profit.

There are hopeful signs the tank may actually be getting a good clean out soon.

Canada just released a new food guide which excluded the food industry entirely. It provides advice about how much and what broad types of food to eat, and it also includes suggestions such as 'be aware of food marketing', cook more often, read labels, be mindful of your eating habits.

It's a good start. We need to remove the food industry octopuses from nutrition advice entirely. It's a big challenge. The industry bodies will fight back and they have resources and more than enough arms! And there are major economic implications for us all due to the scale of change required to these industries.

We need to take a very good look at everything in the fish tank so we can do more than divert precious research funding to debunking spurious nutrition claims one-by-one.

We could also clean the tank up even more; the broader context of economic and food values is not going to shift unless we change it.

We would do well to return to thinking about food as part of our personal identity and our culture, and not just an assembly of nutrients. We can still benefit from nutrition science, but let's return to seeing food primarily as part of the richness of our connections with other people and the natural world.

Books and articles, and more accessible summary magazine articles

1. Cullerton K, Donnet T, Lee A, Gallegos D (2016) Exploring power and influence in nutrition policy in Australia. Obesity Reviews, 17 (12), 1218-1225 
2. Campbell TC, Campbell TM. (Revised edition, 2016). The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health. BenBella Books (Contains extensive nutrition research information plus a chapter on the way that food science has been manipulated; it was the main prompt for this article and drawing)
   Huffington Post article by Campbell summarising his book
   Well+Good blog article by Lisa Elaine Held outlines The China Study content quite differently 
3. Hennessy M, Cullerton K, Baker P et al. (2019) Time for complete transparency about conflicts of interest in public health nutrition research. HRB Open Research, 2:1
4. Kealey, T (2018). Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal For Health and Wellbeing. Harper Collins Publishers (AU) (Like The China Study, it contains research information, and heaps of examples of manipulation of the food science.)
   BBC article by Jess Brown on the topic of questionable research about breakfast, Nov 2018 
5. Malhotra, Aseem (2018) Presentation and panel discussion at the European Parliament, Brussels. Killing for Profit – Dr Aseem Malhotra discusses the dark world of Big Food and Big Pharma 
6. The Saturday Paper article on the development of Canada's new food guidelines by Linda Moon: Bias-free dietary guidance. May 2019 
7. Nestle, Marion. (2007) Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. University of California Press. Marion's blog explores the book's themes
   Vox article on Marion Nestle's book by Julia Belluz: Nutrition research is deeply biased by food companies. Nov 2018

Sources for images, all used under Creative Commons licence

1. Octopus in barrel: Suma Aqualife Park
2. Degraded soil: Oxfam International
3. Clean empty fish tank: Coral Clipart Fish Tank #714
4. Cooking and eating together: US Navy photo by Jake Berenguer [Public domain]
5. Canadian Food Guide photos