My blog post:

Huffington Post: McDonald’s ‘Educating’ Nutrition Professionals

Media and Blog Coverage:

New York Times: Report Faults Food Group’s Sponsor Ties

International Business Times: Nutrition Industry Sold Out to Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Hershey and Other Junk Food Giants, Registered Dieticians Say

Food Navigator USA: Should AND sever its ties with ‘junk food’ corporate sponsors?

The Progressive: Nutrition, Inc. (PDF)

Cross-posted on AlterNet: How Big Food Has Co-opted America’s Top Nutrition Group

Food Politics: New study: Big Food’s ties to Registered Dietitians

Cross-posted on Organic Connections: New Report Examines Big Food’s Ties to Registered Dietitians

Huffington Post: New Report: Big Food Co-Opts Nutrition Group’s Message

Food Business News: Report questions credibility of nutrition association

Prevention: Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?

Grist: Force-fed: How corporate sponsorship poisons nation’s top group of nutritionists

Forbes: What Should You Eat? Report Says ‘Big Food’ Influencing Dieticians

Weighty Matters: Author Michele Simon’s Devastating Report on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Corporate Ties

Today’s Dietitian: Corporate Sponsorship Report Draws Heated Response

Diets in Review: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Relationships with Big Food Soil the Good Name of Registered Dietitians

Grace Communications Foundation: Report: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Too Cozy with Industry

Food Democracy Now: And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: Are Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Shilling For Big Food?

Saludify: Are Big Food companies taking over nutritionist organizations?

Idea Health & Fitness Association: Professional Nutrition Groups and Ties to Corporate Sponsors

Association of Corporate Counsel: Dietician organization riddled with “big food” support, new report alleges

LewRockwell.com: The Connection Between the Diet Aristocracy and Big Food/Big Pharma

Baltimore Brew: Fast talk about fast food

The Conscientious Omnivore: This nutrition education session brought to you by … Coca-Cola

Zoe Harcombe: American dietitians, big ‘food’ companies & conflict of interest

Nutrition Intervention: Food Companies Pledge to Shed Calories, But Will the AND Shed Their Sponsors?

Fierce & Fit: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics aka the Academy of Pepsi, Coca-Cola & Nestle

Café Moms: Is your nutritionist sponsored by Coca Cola? Very probably…

Daily Health Guide: Nutrition Industry Sold Out to Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Kellogg, Hershey and other…

Paty M’s Nutrition World: Money TALKS – When Food Companies Dictate What Healthy Is!!

Kyhealthykids: Tobacco flashbacks: Coke and Pepsi Sponsor Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Video interview with Dr. Mercola: “Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?”

Mercola.com and YouTube

Cross-posted:

Organic Consumers

Nutrition Videos 4 Me

Intellectual Revolution

Frequency

Set You Free News

Honeymash

Coverage of Dietitians for Professional Integrity and Change.org petition

Change.org petition: Stop junk food giants from taking over nutrition programs

Civil Eats: Dietitians Call For Integrity

Huffington Post: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Big Food Controversy

Eating Rules: It’s Time for an R.D. Revolution  

Living Healthy: Andy Bellatti, MS, RD – Changemaker, Creator, Creator Small Bites Blog & Co-Founder Dietitians for Professional Integrity

US Food Policy: Recent Activities of Dietitians for Professional Integrity

Health Impact News Daily: Dietitians for Professional Integrity Expose Corporate Sponsorship of Nutrition Group by Processed Food Industry

Chicago Tribune: McDonald’s and Coke should not sponsor dietitian association, petition says

San Antonio Express-News: Chew on This: Is Big Biz influencing dietitians?

Food Identity Theft: Registered dietitians register dissent over ‘Big Food’ presence at their event

Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death, with more than 440,000 Americans dying prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses each year. And millions more are dying globally, as tobacco corporations shift to overseas markets.

You might also think that debates over having tobacco industry representatives involved in public health decision-making would be a thing of the past, but not so. In 2009, after decades of failed attempts, Congress finally passed legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco products. Of course, that didn’t completely solve the problem. Next came the fight over the make-up of a key FDA body: the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee.

Back in 2009 when Congress was finalizing its legislation giving FDA new authority, Corporate Accountability International (and others) strongly recommended that no industry representatives be allowed to serve on the science committee, explaining that doing so “would be worse than inviting the fox to guard the hen house.” But Congress didn’t listen. Instead, three tobacco industry representatives were appointed, just without voting power. But even that wasn’t good enough for an industry that gives the word “chutzpah” whole new meaning.

A lawsuit filed by industry giants Lorillard and R.J. Reynolds is currently pending that according to CBS news: “alleges financial conflicts of interest and bias by several members of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee and asks the court to stop the federal agency from relying on the panel’s recommendations.”

Yes, you read that right: industry is alleging conflict of interest. This is the industry that created an entire front group called the Tobacco Institute whose mission was to obstruct, misdirect, and delay scientific research related to the deadly impacts of smoking. The Tobacco Institute was disbanded only because of public outcry  and litigation brought by several state attorneys general in the late 1990s.

This same tobacco industry is now whining to a federal court that its interests are not being served by a scientific advisory board whose mission is to save a few of those 400,000 deaths occurring each year from the industry’s own products.

A lot is at stake. One of the most contentious issues on FDA’s plate is menthol-flavored cigarettes. For decades, health experts, tobacco control advocates and others have argued that the tobacco industry deliberately adds menthol to mask the harsh taste of cigarettes. Especially of concern are youth and African-American smokers, two groups that industry targets aggressively with menthol products. Overall, menthol cigarettes make up 30 percent of the market.

At least one research study concluded that “menthol is a prominent design feature used by cigarette manufacturers to attract and retain new, younger smokers.” And African-American smokers are four times more likely to choose menthol cigarettes then white smokers. The most popular menthol-flavored brand is Newport, which is owned by Lorillard, the company that also happens to have one of the three coveted industry seats on the FDA scientific advisory committee.

Still, in 2011, that committee’s report on menthol recommended “removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace” to “benefit public health in the United States.” Meanwhile a report industry submitted to the committee claimed “there is no scientific basis to support the regulation of menthol cigarettes any differently than non-menthol cigarettes.”

Nice try.

Recently, Corporate Accountability International joined a coalition of groups calling on the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes, citing a number of familiar corporate stall tactics and dirty tricks, including filing intimidation lawsuits, buying off critics and promoting junk science. This desperate Lorillard-sponsored website, www.understandingmenthol.com makes familiar scaremongering arguments against a ban, such as the alleged creation of a black market.

Lorillard has even stooped so low as to buy up various website domain names to keep them out of the hands of critics, including: MentholKillsMinorities.com, MentholAddictsYouth.com, and FDAMustBanMenthol.com. (Those are pretty good ones.) No wonder Lorillard is freaking out. One survey showed 40 percent of Newport smokers would likely try to quit upon a menthol ban.

While FDA has yet to act on the committee’s recommendations, there is some hope it will do so soon. Last month, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products got a new leader in Mitch Zeller, who public health advocates praise as a promising choice. In the 1990s, Zeller worked at FDA laying the groundwork for his current stint by pressing Congress to give the agency more legal authority.

Long-time tobacco industry critic and University of California at San Francisco professor Stan Glantz recently called Zeller the “perfect person for the job.” But he also wondered if President Obama would let the new appointee do his job.

The number one measure Glantz will use to answer to that question? FDA’s policy on menthol:

The FDA’s inaction on menthol has become the defining issue among many public health professionals and the media for whether or not the Agency will be seriously engaging the tobacco industry.

Many lives can be saved if FDA ignores decades-old tobacco industry scare tactics and does the right thing by protecting public health. The Obama Administration does not have a great track record in supporting its regulatory agencies, at least when it comes to food marketing. High time to change that.

Originally posted at Corporate Accountability International.

I received the following email from registered dietitian Tara Marino who says she was recently “deleted” from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics LinkedIn group after expressing support for my report on the organization’s questionable corporate sponsors. (See previous post on a similar silencing attempt.)

Another member of the AND LinkedIn group had posted the Forbes article discussing your report and I commented saying things such as, I was happy others were speaking out and how upset I was about the choice of corporate sponsors. I also commented about my 2012 correspondence with the California Dietetic Association’s President, Nicole Ring and how she sounded like a McDonald’s spokesperson rather than a dietitian. I also said, I don’t know what I could do at this point aside from withdrawing my membership from the AND, which might have been what prompted them to delete me. Regardless, I am still a member of AND and to be deleted from the LinkedIn group for voicing my opinion was quite disturbing. I have tried to message the AND LinkedIn group manager, Lauren Fox, but I’m not able to email others unless I upgrade to a paid account.  

And here is the email exchange that she references:

(Sent by Tara 3/23/2012 to ca_dietetic@dietitian.org)
To Whom it May Concern,

I was all set to attend this conference when I realized lunch is served by McDonald’s. Seriously? What is this about? As a registered dietitian that encourages people every day to make healthy food choices, avoid fast food and improve their eating habits, how big of a hypocrite does that make us to be served McDonald’s at our conference? 

I’m also disturbed by certain talks being sponsored by the beef council and dairy council. What does that mean? How is a talk on Meatless Monday sponsored by the beef council? My work was willing to pay for my flight, hotel and registration but I cannot bring myself to attend a meeting that can’t even offer a more nutritious lunch to a bunch of health professionals. 

I am saddened and disheartened by the influence of these powerful organizations permeating the CDA and I wish that I was able to attend a conference I could feel good about being apart of. We live in California, surely there are better options for lunch sponsors and means to put on a conference without financial support from organizations that support exactly what we are trying to guide people away from.

Sincerely,

Tara Marino, RD

(Response received 4/19/2012)
Hello Ms. Marino,

I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to reach out to us and I would like to address your concerns. When it comes to sponsorships we look to organizations and associations who support the mission and vision of the California Dietetic Association, which includes a variety of non-profits and corporations. The purpose for Annual Meeting is to provide educational opportunities for our members to be able to stay abreast with all that is going on related to our field of expertise.

With regards to your questions regarding McDonald’s – as dietitians, we are trained to educate our patients/clients on moderation, balance and variety as a means to develop healthy eating habits. With that said, we typically don’t label foods as bad or good – but rather better-for-you choices, or those you should limit. Many people consider fast food “bad” because in the past, these types of restaurants had limited selections of better-for-you choices. Times have changed and many of these restaurants (especially McDonald’s) now offer a plethora of salads, fruits and even whole grains on the menu. How can we say that fast food is bad when these options are certainly available? If you have a client who is determined to go to McDonald’s everyday for lunch wouldn’t you prefer that they are informed of these better choices?

Additionally, McDonald’s is leading their industry when it comes to offering better-for-you options as other chains are starting to follow in providing more salads, fruits and whole grains. They also have an entire team of dietitians on staff who are helping the company lead the charge in offering these better items. I think that is something we as dietitians should be applauding. Further, why should fast food be considered bad? I have worked with all types of restaurants for over 8 years conducting nutrition analysis for menu items and I can attest that there are many other types of establishments (from family restaurants all the way to high-end) who are inferior to McDonald’s and “fast food” when it comes to offering better-for-you options.

In terms of our lunch offering, yes, we allow McDonald’s to sponsor the lunch because we want to be able to inform attendees of the healthier choices that are available and allow dietitians the opportunity to taste first-hand what these better-for-you choices are. And, having a sponsor allows us to keep the attendance fees lower. During these tough economic times, it is difficult for us to generate interest in sponsors for our lunch, but McDonald’s was able to do so.

I am sorry that you have made the decision not to attend based on the proposed agenda. I think if you are able to come, you may be surprised with all that we have to offer.

Again, I do appreciate your feedback and I would encourage you volunteer with us next year as we plan for the 2013 Annual Meeting.

Thank you,

Nicole Quartuccio Ring, RD
President, 2011 – 2012
California Dietetic Association
president@dietitian.org

(Sent from Tara 4/23/2012)
Dear Ms. Ring,

Thank you for your reply and the time you’ve taken to address my concerns. I truly wish your words justified the CDA choosing McDonald’s as a sponsor for the 2012 conference. I expected this would be the response I would get—that McDonald’s now offers healthy options; that we should educate people on low-cost, healthy choices, etc. However, the reality is that McDonald’s is the only one benefiting from this opportunity (aside from the monetary support the CDA is receiving). The impact of their sponsorship is that registered dietitians, such as myself, who are attending the conference are put in the position of endorsing McDonald’s. This not only flies in the face of the education we offer our clients, but also severely damages the integrity of the California Dietetics Association and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

I have worked in community nutrition, among low-income people of all ages, for over 10 years. I have seen first-hand the impact that fast food restaurants have on these populations. More often than not, low-income neighborhoods are full of fast food restaurants, with no grocery store in sight. Yes, we’d like to think that now that McDonald’s has healthy options that people will choose the healthy salads, but oftentimes those salads are more expensive, and it’s not realistic to assume that people will choose the healthier option just because it’s provided. Do you believe a person with limited income and health education (especially children and young adults) is going to walk into a McDonald’s and choose a salad and apple slices while being embraced with the scent of french fries and burgers? McDonald’s is not a health leader of any sort, and they have only begun to offer “healthy options” as an effort to deflect the negative press they continually receive as a result of the role they’ve played in contributing to our population’s obesity epidemic. McDonald’s has been a leader in getting Americans to eat as much high-fructose corn syrup, fat, and salt as they possibly can. I could quote one article after another citing the impact fast food restaurants have on obesity rates, but I’m sure you, as well as our fellow dietitians, are aware of these facts. 

From your response, it sounds like you’re advocating more for McDonald’s rather than the CDA. Good for McDonald’s that they are striving to offer more “better for you” options, but it is not our place, as advocates for our clients and patients, to promote them as a healthy choice.

I agree with you about moderation, but serving McDonald’s at a conference for registered dietitians is making a mockery of our profession. We are continually striving to be taken more seriously by the medical community and this is exactly the kind of decision-making that causes us to take steps backward. Each and every person I’ve mentioned this to, whether in the nutrition profession or not, has seen the absurdity of this choice of sponsorship. As one person said, it’s like having Marlboro sponsor an American Heart Association conference. I think that’s a pretty fair comparison. 

I would love to attend next year’s conference should there be a more responsible choice of sponsors. I’d be happy to offer my time to help acquire more suitable sponsors as well. 

Sincerely,

Tara Marino, RD

(Response received 4/23/2012)
Hi Tara,

I hope it’s ok that I use your first name. We are having an Executive Board meeting this Wednesday (before the Annual Meeting) and I will be sharing your points of view with the board as we will be evaluating our sponsorship policies during the meeting. So, thank you for sending this second email.

We would love for you to participate in the planning process next year, and I will pass along your contact info to the committee so they can contact you.

Respectfully, 

Nicole Quartuccio Ring, RD
President, 2011 – 2012
California Dietetic Association
www.dietitian.org 
President@dietitian.org

(Sent by Tara 4/24/2012)
Thank you, Nicole. I appreciate you passing my feedback on to the board.

McDonald's booth at Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics expo promoting smoothies

In the report I recently released, (covered by the New York Times) “And Now a Word from Our Sponsors,” I described the various ways the food industry influences the largest trade group of nutrition professionals: the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. While other corporations such as Coca-Cola play a more prominent role by being an “Academy Partner,” McDonald’s engaged in its trademark health-washing at the Academy’s annual meeting last fall.

Read rest at Corporate Accountability International…

Public health attorney and author Michele Simon asks: Are America’s nutrition professionals in the pocket of Big Food? While the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ 74,000-member trade group partners with the likes of Coke and Hershey’s, the nation’s health continues to suffer from poor diet.

The largest trade group of nutrition professionals—the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics—has a serious credibility problem. In a damning report released today, industry watchdog Eat Drink Politics examines the various forms of corporate sponsorship by Big Food that are undermining the integrity of those professionals most responsible for educating Americans about healthy eating.

The report details, for example, how registered dietitians can earn continuing education units from Coca-Cola, in which they learn that sugar is not a problem for children and how Nestlé, the world’s largest food company can pay $50,000 to host a two-hour “nutrition symposium” at the Academy’s annual meeting. Additional disturbing findings from the report include:

• Beginning in 2001, the Academy listed 10 food industry sponsors; the 2011 annual report lists 38, a more than three-fold increase;
• Companies on the Academy’s list of approved continuing education providers include Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, and PepsiCo;
• At the 2012 annual meeting, 18 organizations – less than five percent of all exhibitors – captured 25 percent of the total exhibitor space. Only two out of the 18 represented whole, non-processed foods;
• The Corn Refiners Association (lobbyists for high fructose corn syrup) sponsored three “expo impact” sessions at the 2012 annual meeting;
• A majority of registered dietitians surveyed found three current Academy sponsors “unacceptable” (Coca-Cola, Mars, and PepsiCo);
• 80 percent of registered dietitians said sponsorship implies Academy endorsement of that company and their products;
• The Academy has not supported controversial nutrition policies that might upset corporate sponsors, such as limits on soft drink sizes, soda taxes, or GMO labels;
• Sponsors and their activities appear to violate the Academy’s own sponsorship guidelines.

Among the report’s recommendations are for the Academy to: 1) provide greater transparency on corporate funding sources; 2) gather input from all members on corporate sponsorship; 3) reject all corporate-sponsored education; and 4) provide better leadership on controversial nutrition policy issues. Registered dietitian and Academy member Andy Bellatti, who has long criticized his professional group’s conflicted corporate sponsorships said:

Michele Simon’s report on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is thoroughly researched and expertly points out the different ways in which the nation’s leading nutrition organization harms its reputation, efficacy, and members by forming partnerships with food companies that care more about selling products than they do about improving the health of Americans. Anyone concerned about public health will realize that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is in dire need of systemic change if it hopes to take a leadership role and be taken seriously as the home base of the nation’s nutrition experts.

Report links:

• Full Report
• Executive Summary
• Former Academy Members Speak Out
• Image Gallery (Big Food booths at annual meeting)
• New York Times Story

Contact: Michele Simon at (510) 465-0322 or Michele@EatDrinkPolitics.com

With about a week to go before California voters head to the polls to decide the fate of Proposition 37, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, I expected an already ugly campaign to get even uglier.

But the latest gift to the No on 37 campaign smells especially bad. Last week, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS – goes by “Triple A-S”) released this “statement” on GMO labeling that sounds like it was drafted by Monsanto. The statement ends with the non-scientific but very quote-worthy conclusion that “mandating such a label can only serve to mis­lead and falsely alarm consumers.” While Prop 37 is never mentioned, what purpose could the timing serve other than persuading Californians to vote no on the measure?

This paragraph of the AAAS press release sounds especially familiar:

Several current efforts to require labeling of GM foods are not being driven by any credible scientific evidence that these foods are dangerous… Rather, GM labeling initiatives are being advanced by “the persistent perception that such foods are somehow ‘unnatural,’” as well as efforts to gain competitive advantages within the marketplace, and the false belief that GM crops are untested.

These talking points come straight from the No on 37 campaign. For example, “gain competitive advantages”? What does that have to do with science? Nothing, but it’s a favorite refrain from the No side, which I know because it showed up on the mailer sent to my home.

Also, it’s not a “false belief” that GM crops are untested, it’s scientific fact. According to David Schubert, professor and Laboratory Head Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute: “Any statement suggesting extensive safety testing of all genetically modified crops is absolutely false. A majority of the new GM crops coming through the agriculture biotech pipeline have had zero testing done on them.”

Also, Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, notes that unlike in other countries, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require safety testing for genetically-engineered plants or foods. He also says the AAAS statement “is filled with distortion and misleading statements. If mandatory labeling of GM foods would ‘mislead and alarm consumers,’ does the AAAS really believe that 60 other countries are misleading and alarming their consumers?”

Just as suspicious for its pro-biotech spin is how the AAAS statement lists other organizations as claiming that GMO foods are safe to consume, using rhetoric that strongly echoes the No campaign:

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion…

Where did this handy list come from? The No campaign listed three of these four groups – the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences – in the official California voter guide as concluding GMO foods are safe. But in fact, the World Health Organization says that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.” Meanwhile, the American Medical Association favors pre-market safety testing, which the FDA does not require. How did a science organization miss all of that?

But back to the suspicious timing of the statement’s release: who exactly instigated it? The statement says it’s from the AAAS board of directors. Who are they? The board chair, Nina Federoff has an impressive pedigree, including a stint as science advisor to Condoleezza Rice. Curiously, Federoff has been listed as a leading scientist on the No on 37 website since June, where she is quoted as being “passionately opposed to labeling.” Maybe her previous board membership with Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company helped drive that passion.

And perhaps the anti-GMO labeling statement from AAAS has been in motion at least since June, timed to be released as Election Day neared. Looking over this page of AAAS “policy statements,” others also seem well-timed, but they are on bland issues that warrant little scientific debate. For example, in March AAAS urged the Tennessee legislature to reject a silly bill aimed at undermining science education on evolution and climate change. Other letters appear to take similarly uncontroversial scientific positions or are simply asking Congress not to cut federal funding for science programs.

So the question remains: Why this position right now? Why would such a mainstream scientific organization stick its neck out on a highly controversial issue just days before the election? And how we can trust any future AAAS statements to be based on science, instead of what this looks like: A carefully-orchestrated political and public relations maneuver that puts the AAAS motto to shame: “Advancing science, serving society.” The only interests this charade serves are those of the biotech, chemical, and junk food industries.

Read rest at Center for Food Safety…

Third-party experts, aka corporate shills

When corporations such as Philip Morris or Monsanto don’t have actual facts on their side, they have to resort to “third-party experts” to speak on their behalf. While the name implies no obvious ties to either side, it doesn’t take much digging to uncover the bias of the scientific experts for No on 37.

Enter Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist who recently penned an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming (among other misleading statements) that, “Americans have consumed more than 3 trillion servings of food with genetically engineered ingredients – with not a single documented ill effect.”

This statement is about as relevant as saying that genetically engineered food does not cause herpes. No one has been looking for either effect.

Miller also misrepresented the positions of the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences by claiming these groups “and other respected medical and health organizations all conclude that genetically engineered foods are safe.”

Actually, the American Medical Association called on the Food and Drug Administration to require “pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public.” Currently, there is no pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food.

This week, Miller co-authored an op-ed on Forbes.com opposing Proposition 37, which contains numerous additional deceptions. For example, that the FDA “followed the science and declined to require special labeling for genetically engineered foods.” But as I have explained, FDA’s action was the result of heavy-duty lobbying by Monsanto.

So who is this Henry Miller and what makes him such an expert? Currently a “senior research fellow” at the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank), he spent 15 years at the FDA as an outspoken advocate of GMOs. So much so that he became the agency’s founding director of the Office of Biotechnology. His past includes ties to the notorious industry front group the American Council on Science and Health, which was featured in the 2000 book, Trust Us, We’re Experts, an exposé on how corporations distort science.

In a 2004 article critical of the precautionary principle (a concept in place in many other parts of the world that promotes chemical testing before market approval), Miller explained: “A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies. Biotechnology can remove the allergens … so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods.” Heartwarming. Never mind the scientific evidence that some GMO foods can actually promote allergic reactions.

Miller also has ties to the tobacco industry. According to this 1994 industry newsletter Miller helped write the founding principles for “The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition” – a now-defunct front group created by Phillip Morris that tried to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease, especially among office workers and children living with smoking parents.

Pediatrician promoting Coke and Burger King?

Monsanto and friends didn’t stop there in promoting scientific experts with dubious credentials. On the No on 37 website are several video interviews with physicians, each one proclaiming the safety of GMO foods, including one Ronald Kleinman, dressed in his authoritative white coat. But how much authority should we give a doctor who also presents webinars for Coca-Cola on children’s health?

At first blush, his credentials certainly sound impressive:
-       Physician in Chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital for Children
-       Chair of the Department of Pediatrics and Chief of the Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition Unit
-       Charles Wilder Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School

Mass General and Harvard? No wonder Coca-Cola hired him. Among the “most common misperceptions among parents” Dr. Kleinman promises to clear up on behalf of the soda giant are “the safety … of sugar, artificial colors and nonnutritive sweeteners in children’s diets.” Translation: Coke is good for kids.

Dr. Kleinman is no stranger to shilling for Big Food, nor is he even ashamed of it. According to his bio with Massachusetts General Hospital, he also consults for the Grain Food Foundation, Beech Nut, Burger King, and General Mills. Also, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Kleinman served as a paid expert witness for Gerber when the company was sued for deceptive advertising, as well as contributed to a children’s brochure entitled “Variety’s Mountain” produced by the Sugar Association.

If you were looking for a pediatrician, would you take your child to an MD that is working for Coke, Burger King, and the sugar lobby? Then why would you believe what that same doctor has to say about the safety and labeling of genetically engineered food?

Finally, all of the videos posted to the No on 37 website are “adapted” from the International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC), yet another industry front group, which I wrote about last year when they hosted a panel designed to dispel our silly fears about pesticides at the American Dietetic Association’s annual meeting.

IFIC’s job is to counter any scientific research or other information that might tarnish Big Food’s reputation. For example, worried about chemicals in your food? IFIC will assuage those fears with this handy document that asks: “Do long, scary-sounding ingredient names on food labels make you wonder what’s in your food and why? This resource provides the answers!”

The food industry is very good at providing answers, just not accurate ones. It’s no wonder the No on 37 campaign has to resort to relying on experts with such shady reputations, when polling shows the measure enjoys an overwhelming lead. It must be hard to find credible experts who want consumers to remain in the dark about what they’re eating.

The battle in California over Proposition 37, which would require labeling of foods containing GMOs, is really heating up. Millions of dollars are already being poured into the opposition campaign, with much of it going to former Big Tobacco shills. Over at GMO HQ, Monsanto recently posted this missive called “Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” in which the biotech giant explains why it is opposing the measure (to the tune of $4.2 million so far).

Even for a corporation not exactly known for its honesty and transparency, this brief webpage is riddled with deception and outright falsehoods about the initiative and its proponents. Here are the ten most blatant examples:

1)  The law “would require a warning label on food products.”

No warning label would be required. Rather, the words “partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering” would be required on the back of the package – similar to what is now required for ingredient or allergen labeling. For whole foods, like the sweet corn coming soon to a Walmart near you, a sign would be posted on the store shelf with the words “genetically engineered.” The aim is simply to offer consumers additional information about the contents of the foods they purchase.

2) “The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”

Unfortunately, no long-term studies exist on either the safety or benefits of GMO ingredients, so Monsanto has no basis for making such a claim. Indeed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not even require safety studies of genetically engineered foods. Meanwhile, some independent studies raise questions about links to allergies and other potential health risks.

3) “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”

This statement, while true, is taken out of context and is misleading because the AMA also (for the first time) called for mandatory premarket safety studies of GMOs. As Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA’s announcement, labeling and testing logically go together:

The AMA’s stance on mandatory labeling isn’t consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.

4) Food companies “have had the choice” to use GM ingredients.

Choice is a good thing; however, consumers have never had the choice. Prop 37 will give consumers a long-overdue choice about eating genetically engineered food.

5) “FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.”

Of course FDA refuses to require GMO labeling, thanks to Monsanto’s arm-twisting that began more than 20 years ago. Food Democracy Now’s Dave Murphy explained the FDA decision in May upon its 20-year anniversary, which came as a result of a broader deregulatory push by the first Bush Administration:

Twenty years ago this week, then-Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA’s policy on genetically engineered food as part of his “regulatory relief initiative.” As Quayle explained in the 1992 press conference, the American biotechnology industry would reap huge profits “as long as we resist the spread of unnecessary regulations.”

Dan Quayle’s 1992 policy announcement is premised on the notion that genetically engineered crops are “substantially equivalent” to regular crops and thus do not need to be labeled or safety tested. The policy was crafted by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who was hired by the Bush FDA to fill the newly created position of deputy commissioner of policy.

Five years earlier, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush visited a Monsanto lab for a photo op with the developers of Roundup Ready crops. According to a video report of the meeting, when Monsanto executives worried about the approval process for their new crops, Bush laughed and told them, “Call me. We’re in the dereg businesses. Maybe we can help.”

Call they did. It’s typical for corporations to get their policy agenda approved through back-channel lobbying and revolving door appointments and then point to the magical policy outcome as evidence of scientific decision making.

6) “Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”

There is no basis in logic that consumers could be denied food choices. Indeed, Proposition 37 actually broadens the meaningful food choices available through greater transparency. Right now, people are eating in the dark.

7) “Interestingly, the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”

In fact, quite a large number of food producers, farmers, and others very much “engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply” support the campaign. (See the growing list of endorsements.) Speaking of “special interest groups” wouldn’t that label apply to the likes of Monsanto and all the industrial food producers who oppose Proposition 37?

8) “Beneath their right to know slogan is a deceptive marketing campaign aimed at stigmatizing modern food production.”

“Modern food production,” is that Monsanto’s latest euphemism for scientifically altering the genetic code of the food supply? In truth, nothing is hidden “beneath” the Right to Know campaign, that’s all it’s about. But because Monsanto has no good argument for why consumers don’t have the right to know how their food is produced, it has to resort to distracting deceptions.

9) “[Proponents] opinions are in stark contrast with leading health associations.”

Another look at the long list of Prop 37 endorsements reveal that Monsanto and friends are actually out of step with leading health associations, such as:

• American Public Health Association
• American Medical Students Association
• American Academy of Environmental Medicine
• Physicians for Social Responsibility, California chapters
• California Nurses Association

10) “The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”

Again, logic defies this talking point, especially since all polling indicates a “majority of consumers” want GMO food to be labeled. Indeed, the most recent California poll shows the proposition winning by a 3-to-1 margin. No wonder Monsanto has to resort to such nonsensical talking points.