Last week at a childhood obesity conference, I participated in an important panel to discuss what has become a controversial strategy among some advocates for children’s health: calling on industry to market “healthy” food to children.

As Susan Linn and I explained in our recent article, any marketing to children is deceptive and harmful; it doesn’t matter what the product is.

Some advocates argue that as long as we are up against such powerful countervailing forces, why not use cartoon characters to get kids to eat their veggies? But that isn’t really the heart of the debate: if the only issue was marketing fruit and vegetables to kids and if the only people engaging in such tactics were parents, I would be far less concerned. But let’s not confuse well-meaning adults trying to get kids to eat right with profit-driven multi-national corporations targeting children to hook them on a lifetime of consumerism.

The real problem for me lies with the advocacy strategy of begging industry to set better nutrition standards on how they market to children. The food industry already claims to follow its own voluntary nutrition standards for how it markets to children. As many others have concluded, this system is a failure because it’s self-serving, full of loopholes, and to put it bluntly, the nutrition standards suck. But instead of calling for an end to marketing food to children altogether, some advocates want to simply make this system better, despite a recent failed effort by the federal government to accomplish this same task.

This approach is doomed because it keeps industry in charge, where they excel. It also accepts the current processed food paradigm, resulting in the absurd situation of advocates applauding Kellogg for “lower sugar” Scooby-Doo! cereal. (That’s the actual name of the product.)

As Marion Nestle points out, six grams of sugar per serving makes the product eligible for the federal Women’s, Infants, and Children nutrition program. In other words, it’s aimed at young children who are the most vulnerable to marketing: up to age five. Nestle further explains how Kellogg’s “Scooby-Doo! brand is directly competing with General Mills’ Dora Explorer cereal for the lucrative WIC market, one that should amount to nearly $7 billion in 2013,” so “cereal companies want to be sure they are in that market.”

Then are advocates essentially encouraging companies to engage in a Scooby-Doo versus Dora battle to exploit children’s emotional ties to their favorite cartoon characters? But since it’s only six grams of sugar per serving, we should consider this a step in the right direction? Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not a product with less sugar is healthier but such a comparison is a yet another example of narrowly-framed “nutritionism” that neglects a more holistic view of food and health. As registered dietitian Andy Bellatti told me last December when I interviewed him about the federal government’s report on alleged industry progress on food marketing to children:

Especially troubling is how this report fosters the illusion that most children’s cereals are a healthful choice, with the only problem being high sugar content. In reality, most children’s cereals are nutritionally empty. Their vitamins and minerals are added during processing, after the grains (ironically) have been stripped of their natural nutrients. Intrinsically, these cereals offer very little nutrition because they are mainly composed of processed grain starch.

As long as we allow the processed food industry to determine what products are even available to discuss, the universe of options remains extremely limited. That’s because food manufacturers by definition make money selling processed food. They don’t sell real food, that’s just not their business model. So within this limited processed food universe, some advocates have determined the best we can do is beg industry to market slightly less junky junk food to children.

But is that really the best we can do? Don’t children deserve better?

Another argument raised during the panel last week was that it’s impossible politically to get a law passed that would ban all food marketing to children, so let’s work on what’s feasible. I agree, this is an impossible task. Right now. But we really have no idea what the future holds. If you asked most gay rights advocates even a few years ago if they thought the U.S. Supreme Court would rule in favor of gay marriage, they would say no. But times change. We have a responsibility to fight for what’s right, not just for the present, but for the future.

Moreover, enacting new laws is not the only option for forcing corporations to stop exploiting children. We can engage in more meaningful corporate campaigns—ones that don’t just settle for crumbs. Better campaigns like Retire Ronald from Corporate Accountability International, which calls on McDonald’s to stop exploiting children altogether.

We can celebrate and encourage more retailers to take the bold stand that MOM’s Organic Market did earlier this year when it just said no to all licensed character marketing aimed at children (with no exceptions for “healthy” food) because as the chain’s CEO Scott Nash put it: “The ends don’t justify the means. Marketing to children is wrong, no matter what is being marketed.”

Pushing industry to do a better job at marketing food to children isn’t the answer. This is a game we cannot win. Let’s stop playing games with the food industry and start protecting children.

With the federal government all but ignoring the numerous ways food companies deceive shoppers with dubious health claims, the courts are becoming a more popular alternative for action.

As you may recall from civics class, we have three branches of government, and when two of them – the executive and the legislative – have essentially checked out, that leaves only one place to turn for a legal remedy: the judiciary. Despite years of brainwashing by the right wing about the evils of trial lawyers, litigation is a critical and yet underutilized tool for obtaining justice under a broken and compromised political system.

Under both federal and state law, it’s illegal to engage in deceptive marketing. This is a broad concept that applies to any entity that advertises. The idea is that consumers should not be swindled into buying a product; they deserve the straight facts to make informed purchasing decisions. And while such laws do help deter shady activities, deceptive marketing statutes get violated all the time, mostly due to lack of enforcement.

It may be unsettling to realize that on grocery store shelves right now are likely hundreds of food products that contain illegal deceptive claims. While the federal government does have specific definitions for some phrases such as “low fat” or “low salt,” otherwise almost anything goes on the front of a food package because the feds have turned a blind eye. Without proper government oversight, the only recourse is for private law firms to set these companies straight.

Here are some examples of deceptive food marketing cases currently gaining traction. (Full disclosure, I am a consultant for Reese Richman, one of the law firms bringing such cases.)

Natural Claims

The Food and Drug Administration is unwilling to provide useful guidance on the definition of “natural,” resulting in ubiquitous use of the word by marketers, no matter how nutritionally deficient the product. Factor in the growing interest in organic along with consumer confusion over that label’s meaning and you have a marketing bonanza in “natural” food.

Some lawsuits are being filed over products sporting the natural label that contain genetically-engineered ingredients. Two such examples are ConAgra’s line of Wesson cooking oils and Frito-Lay’s snack products. To back up their claims, lawyers are even relying on Monsanto’s own definition of genetically-modified organisms: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”

In a positive development in the ConAgra case last November, the judge found that that the plaintiffs adequately described “why genetically-modified products cannot be considered natural” and “they understood that the phrase ‘100% Natural’ meant that Wesson Oil was not made from genetically modified organisms, and that they purchased the product based on this false understanding.” This is a huge step forward for these types of cases.

In a similar action against Frito-Lay, the court recently made a preliminary ruling in favor of the plaintiff allowing the case to move forward. In its defense, Frito-Lay argued that no reasonable consumer would expect the phrase “all natural” to actually refer to all of the ingredients in the product. The court disagreed, since a reasonable consumer could interpret “all natural” to mean, um, all natural.

Such cases have tremendous potential to rock the processed food world, given how many products containing GMO ingredients are currently touting the meaningless natural label. Moreover, with increasing calls for mandatory GMO labeling at both the federal and state levels, along with voluntary retailer actions from the likes of Whole Foods, this issue is not going away anytime soon.

Other cases challenging the natural label are over products containing ingredients that are obviously not natural. One such lawsuit is against the Kellogg-owned Kashi GoLean brand of products. From the complaint:

For example, Kashi’s ‘All Natural’ GoLean Shakes are composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, including sodium molybdate, phytonadione, sodium selenite, magnesium phosphate, niacinamide, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, calcium pantothenate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, thiamin hydrochloride, potassium iodide, and other substances that have been declared to be synthetic substances by federal regulations.

Not sounding very natural. The judge has allowed this case to move forward.

Products Aimed at Children

Marketing to children qualifies as illegal deception because a child cannot understand how marketing works. What could be more deceptive than taking advantage of a child’s emotional vulnerability? Unfortunately, we have zero enforcement of this obvious legal violation due to weak-kneed government officials, once again leaving it up to the court system.

To date only one lawsuit has been filed directly challenging marketing to children— against McDonald’s over Happy Meals—an obvious target. The case was brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the only nutrition advocacy group with a litigation department. (This helps explain why this tool is so underutilized.) Unfortunately, the judge dismissed the case last year. While suing over marketing to children does face certain procedural challenges, with the right venue and strategy, I am hopeful we can gain traction in time.

In lieu of directly challenging food makers for targeting children, another strategy emerging is suing over child-oriented products that make deceptive health claims. One such example is the General Mills’ product, Fruit Roll-Ups.

Also filed by Center for Science in the Public Interest, this case took the company to task for its claims their products were “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” a “good source of vitamin C,” and low in calories, fat, and gluten. (Seriously, low in gluten?) In December, this case was settled when General Mills agreed to stop using the most egregious practices; for example, no longer putting images of strawberries on a product that contained none. Duh.

Chutzpah Claims

Taking the prize in the chutzpah line of cases is Coca-Cola’s vitaminwater brand. This lawsuit alleges deceptive marketing for positioning the product as a health tonic, when some varieties contain a whopping 33 grams of sugar (in 20 ounces), among other unhealthful ingredients such as dyes. That case has also been allowed to move forward, despite Coca-Cola’s desperate argument that “no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage,’ a claim that was skillfully ripped apart by John Robbins and as well as hilariously pilloried by Stephen Colbert.

Another product deserving a chutzpah award is Chobani yogurt, a brand that has taken on near-iconic status in the most health-washed category of all. Chobani is being sued over its “all-natural” claim (among other statutory violations) because the label lists “evaporated cane juice,” which is just a fancy way of saying sugar. This, despite the FDA’s explicit warning to food makers not to use the phrase because the accurate description of the ingredient is actually “dried cane syrup.” But juice sounds so much more “natural” than syrup.

In a recent Twitter exchange, I had some fun with the poor social media person at Chobani. Despite the lawsuit, the company continues to use the phrase “evaporate cane juice.” When I asked why not just call it sugar, the reply was: “It’s specifically the form we use. Not all sugars are created equal.” But I got no response when I next tried to ask exactly how their sweetener was any different from sugar. (Maybe the lawyers got hold of the Twitter account.)

Rounding out the chutzpah category is Nutella, which got in legal trouble for advertising its dessert-like product as healthy breakfast. Although the case was settled for $3 million, it was also the subject of some ridicule by those who thought it was obvious that Nutella is a treat. But that critique misses the point: Under the law, companies are not allowed to market its junk food products as healthful. In a seminal case against Gerber for deceptively marketing children’s “fruit snacks,” the company tried to use the Nutrition Facts label as a defense, since the ingredients and amount of sugar are clearly listed there. But the judge explained that information being available elsewhere (like on the back of the package) does not make it OK for a company to deceive consumers in other ways, such as on the front of the package or in ads.

Litigation Challenges

While litigation represents an important tool for holding food companies responsible, there are also numerous challenges. For example, the strategy requires targeting one product or line of products at a time, which is not the most efficient approach for sweeping change. However, strategic selection of the worst (and largest) offenders can send a strong message to an entire industry.

Another limitation is how long the court process can take: often several years just to get through the preliminary phase. And, corporate defense lawyers are skillful at dragging out the process in hopes the plaintiffs will give up. Finally, the results are sometimes less than ideal. Most cases end in settlement because they are too costly to bring to trial, and negotiation necessitates compromise.

But given the widespread health-washing by a desperate food industry at a time when the American public is starting to realize that actual fruit may be a healthier option than Fruit Loops, litigation is a critical, if imperfect, tool.

Why Get Involved in Litigation?

Advocacy groups engaged in the good food movement should take notice. While major foundations may be too skittish to fund litigation, organizations can still team up with private lawyers to bring more of these sorts of cases. Nonprofits can play different roles such as: 1) offering specific expertise as consultants; 2) asking their members to serve as plaintiffs; 3) being a named plaintiff themselves in certain types of actions; or 4) serving as co-counsel.

Perhaps the best motivator for a nonprofit group to get involved in litigation is the potential for being awarded part of a “cy pres” fund: money set aside in a settlement for nonprofits doing good work that is sufficiently related to the case. Several good projects got their start with cy pres money, including a California-based group called CANFIT, which works with adolescents around health and nutrition. That settlement fund was from a deceptive marketing case against Kraft Foods, and some 20 years later the group is still going strong.

We have our work cut out for us with so much deception in the marketplace, but with better coordination and teamwork, we can make real progress through the legal system. It’s a shame that we have to turn to the courts at all, but that’s the political reality right now. Someone has to hold the food industry accountable.

I recently gave several talks at the American Public Health Association conference, an annual gathering of some 12,000 enthusiastic public health professionals. In years past, not many presentations (other than my own) focused on the role of corporations to harm the public’s health. I am happy to report this is changing, as numerous panels struck such a theme. The following is a summary of my talk on the recent failed attempt by the federal government to rein in junk food marketing to children, and why it’s time to set a new and much bolder course to fix this problem.

That the food industry has zero interest children’s health was made painfully clear last year. Four federal agencies—led by the Federal Trade Commission—came together to make recommendations on food marketing to children. The idea was to improve the food industry’s current self-serving, hodge-podge system of nutrition standards and recommend science-based, uniform, industry-wide guidelines instead. Numerous studies have demonstrated industry’s approach to be a dismal failure. But still, there was never to be regulations, simply a report to Congress recommending better voluntary standards, as this blog post from FTC explained. But two years later, Congress brought the effort to a screeching halt, thanks to huge outcry from the food, advertising, and media industries.

In an all-out assault, industry argued that the proposed standards were so strict hardly anything could be marketed to kids. (Wasn’t that the idea?) They also claimed that the standards would result in a loss of 74,000 jobs, which was later soundly debunked. (These same companies argue that regulating junk food marketing to children is ineffective; but never mind). But the true chutzpah award goes to General Mills, which said that the federal proposal would result in an increased demand for fruits and vegetables that would require massive imports. If you don’t believe me, see page 73 of the 109 pages of comments submitted to the FTC, where they conclude: “The cost of feeding the American population would skyrocket, and American agricultural producers would suffer devastating losses at the hands of foreign imports.” OK.

Finally, industry argued that the federal recommendations would violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Did I mention there was never to be any actual regulation, law, or policy required? How could a report violate free speech rights? It can’t of course, as this letter signed by numerous First Amendment scholars so eloquently argued. But logic has never been a prerequisite to industry spin.

Then last December, while we were waiting for the final report from the Federal Trade Commission, Congress snuck language into the massive budget bill requiring a cost-benefit analysis prior to finalizing the recommendations. (The White House often misuses this concept to delay all sorts of regulations for political reasons.) Of course cost-benefit makes no sense here, since the report was voluntary. How could the FTC possibly conduct such a study? Moreover, legally, FTC is an “independent agency” that cannot even be subject so such a requirement by the White House. But no matter, industry doesn’t need the law or logic on their side, just good friends in Congress.

And where was the first lady and her Let’s Move program during the melee? Or for that matter, her husband? Neither wing of the White House lifted a finger to support the effort at any time. (This in-depth Reuters report from April explains the ugly politics there.) No wonder Congress could easily get away with scuttling the entire effort.

So what are the lessons to be learned from this failure? That’s it’s time we stopped fretting over nutrition standards for marketing to kids and start working on a new strategy to eliminate all food marketing to young children, period. It’s time to tell the truth and stop dancing around the issue: that it’s immoral and unethical to exploit young children’s emotional vulnerabilities. This is what McDonald’s is doing when it targets children as young as age two, and it doesn’t matter if it’s Happy Meals or spinach.

Young children – under the age of 12 – do not have the cognitive capacity to even understand how marketing works, so such “free speech” should not enjoy First Amendment protection. Under consumer protection law, deceptive marketing is not based on the health the product in question. It’s simply illegal. So why would it matter how many grams of sugar Lucky Charms contains?

The effort to set nutrition guidelines on marketing to children is doomed to failure because it keeps the food industry in charge. Food corporations are happy to have voluntary nutrition guidelines for marketing to children because it provides a handy public relations tool to keep policy-makers mollified and distract away from the fundamental moral issue. And even government-enforced nutrition standards for kids’ marketing would not work. From a practical standpoint, it’s impossible to oversee and enforce. But more importantly, it’s wrong legally and morally and sets a terrible precedent. We simply have to stand up for what’s right.

What we need now is a political movement in this country to forge this new direction. We can build a strong coalition of groups, including the American Public Health Association and many others to demand accountability from the President and newly elected Congress, which now includes a few more progressive members. It’s time to tell the junk food industry: enough is enough, stop exploiting our kids.

This post originally appeared at Corporate Accountability International.

Booth displays at Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Expo. (photos by Andy Bellatti)

I recently attended the annual gathering of the largest trade group of nutrition professionals, which I also covered last year. Look out for complete report from me in the coming months. Meantime, I am pleased to share the experience of one registered dietitian, Andy Bellatti.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) hosted its 2012 Food & Nutrition Conference and Expo (FNCE) earlier this month. Sadly, the event once again (see last year’s report) demonstrated how this registered dietitians’ accrediting organization drags its own credential through the mud by prioritizing Big Food’s corporate interests over sound nutrition and public health.

Nutrition Conference or Junk Food Expo?

Academy “partners,” which enjoy top sponsorship status at the expo, included the National Dairy Council, Coca-Cola, and the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition (yes, the chocolate company). Event “premier sponsors” included General Mills, PepsiCo, and Mars. As a dietitian, I am embarrassed that the nation’s largest nutrition trade organization maintains partnerships with companies that contribute to our nation’s diet-related health problems.

The expo floor did have a few bright spots, such the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Meatless Mondays, and independent companies promoting relatively whole-food products (and advocating for California’s GMO-labeling initiative), such as Lundberg Farms, Nature’s Path, Manitoba Harvest, and Mary’s Gone Crackers. However, these booths were small and more difficult to locate, while the largest and flashiest booths belonged to the likes of PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Hershey’s, Monsanto, and the Corn Refiners Association. (Notably, many of these companies are funding the No campaign on GMO labeling.) Even the candy lobby had a booth for the first time this year (not surprisingly, their message was one of “moderation,” that meaningless term). Many of these booths shamelessly pandered to me and my colleagues. Coca-Cola for instance, claimed to “promote the registered dietitian.” How exactly they do this is unclear; “co-opt” would be a more accurate term.

Educational Sessions or Big Food Propaganda?

In addition to dominating the expo hall, Big Food also often asserted unilateral control over the messaging at many of the educational sessions. One session on food allergies (“Beyond Belly Aches: Identifying and Differentiating Food Allergies and Intolerances”) was mostly National Dairy Council propaganda. Lactose-free dairy products were presented as the best (and sometimes, only) choice for individuals with lactose intolerance in order to “prevent nutrient deficiencies” and confer alleged benefits of dairy, such as weight loss and reduced risk of heart disease and diabetes (these claims were not referenced).

These oft-repeated talking points by the dairy industry are a slap in the face to nutrition science; all the nutrients in dairy are available in plant-based foods, and the research linking dairy intakes to weight loss and decreased risks of diabetes and heart disease is tenuous at best, and is often sponsored by the dairy industry. (The weight loss claim has even been deemed by the federal government as deceptive.) Many dietitians specializing in food allergies who attended the session expressed their disbelief on Twitter. Others I spoke to walked out, insulted by what they considered to be unhelpful and inaccurate information.

A session on children and beverages titled “Kids Are Drinking What?” – also presented by the National Dairy Council – was essentially an hour-long advertisement for milk. The dairy reps acknowledged how they target African-American and Hispanic communities with a “drink more milk” message, which I found particularly disturbing as both ethnic groups have high rates of lactose intolerance. The dairy council also kept repeating a new slogan – “one more cup” – which, again, is supposed to “reduce nutrient deficiencies.” Notably one of the most glaring deficiencies among U.S. children – low fiber intake – was not brought up at all; and no wonder, since dairy products contain no fiber.

Even more disturbing was all the hand-wringing over children’s high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages, as if the dairy council really cares about kids’ health. This alleged concern disappeared when I asked about the added sugar in chocolate milk. The panelists’ – all of whom were employed by the National Dairy Council — answer was that chocolate milk is a “nutrient-dense” beverage. Never mind how, with three teaspoons of sugar per cup, one serving of chocolate milk supplies the maximum daily amount of added sugar for children ages four to eight, as recommended by the American Heart Association.

Big Food’s presence was sometimes more covert. One session on food additives was sponsored by the International Food Information Council, the same food industry front group that last year assured us that pesticides are safe. Striking a similar chord, this panel explained how additives are safe because, after all, strawberries and coffee contain “chemicals” responsible for their taste and aroma. So, the logic train went, if we eat strawberries and coffee without a care, why do we fear controversial preservatives such as BHT and BHA? (The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends avoiding BHA.)

Panelist Dr. Roger Clemens enthusiastically defended chemical additives while mocking survey results that showed how a significant portion of the public mistrusts the Food and Drug Administration. When I asked him why other countries have banned additives that the FDA has not, I was told it is simply a result of “a different group of scientists” arriving at “a different conclusion.” How convenient. What concerned me even more was how most of the audience appeared to find Dr. Clemens’ defense of additives humorous. Sadly, it appeared that Dr. Clemens did not have to work very hard to convince many dietitians that chemical additives were safe.

Does Sound Nutrition and Common Sense Require a Debate?

Some semblance of balance was attempted at two sessions. At one, titled “Why Can’t We All Just Work Together? Public Health vs. Industry,” panelist Margo Wootan, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, explained how industry and public health have two very different goals. Food industry consultant Beth Johnson, meanwhile, claimed the food industry is committed to improving Americans’ health by continually reformulating products to include more whole grains and lower sugar and sodium. But this approach is really not going to cut it given the seriousness of diet-related health problems this nation faces. To my surprise and disappointment, during the Q&A, one RD sided with the food industry saying that consumers should be blamed for not making healthy choices.

At another point-counterpoint session, this one on processed foods, Susan Crockett from kids’ cereal giant General Mills passionately defended processed foods. Her opponent, Jessica Kolko, an RD from Whole Foods, explained how Americans’ reliance on highly processed foods is responsible for a litany of public health ills. Ms. Kolko argued that the solution is for people to increase their intake of “real food.” While this session finally delivered the “eat real food” message that I espouse (shouldn’t all RDs?), why was a critique of the food industry framed as a “controversial” topic that can only be discussed in a debate format?

Taking Back the RD Credential

On the bright side, there is an emerging subgroup of RDs who are increasingly unhappy with Big Food’s ubiquity in the Academy, and who voice their disappointment. The Hunger and Environmental Nutrition dietetic practice group, of which I am a member, concerns itself with issues of corporate control, food justice, environmental regulations, and other “big picture” ideas. This summer, they released their guidelines for responsible corporate sponsorship. They encompass environmental sustainability, humane labor practices, and support of sound public health policy. The Academy leadership would greatly benefit from reading and applying these criteria more broadly.

At its annual “Film Feastival,” HEN hosted a screening of Split Estate, a captivating and sobering documentary about the tragic consequences of fracking in New Mexico and Colorado. In between harrowing stories of children, adults, and ecosystems sickened by pollutants, oil and gas industry representatives reassured viewers that fracking was a completely safe practice. As the documentary went on, their lies were exposed, and I thought of the striking similarity to Big Food’s spin and untruths; the very companies that my professional organization partners with. Bleak subject matter aside, I was happy to spend a few hours utilizing my brain, thinking critically, and listening to a panel of concerned individuals – a doctor, an RD, an activist, and a farmer – all advocating against powerful lobbies that prioritize profits over health. Sound familiar?

Now more than ever, members of the Academy who recognize the insidious nature of partnering with Big Food must speak up and let the leadership know how and why these partnerships are detrimental to the profession. We cannot allow ourselves to be steamrolled by the inane notion put forth by many in power that partnering with the likes of PepsiCo and McDonald’s benefits our profession and the health of Americans. It is simply untrue. I am growing increasingly tired of having to defend the credential I worked so hard for, which in many circles is seen as promoting Diet Coke and Baked Cheetos. We will never be taken seriously as nutrition experts when our messaging and credential is co-opted by junk food companies who think we are just an easy sell.

I urge my colleagues to think critically, ask tough questions, and relentlessly defend the ideas of healthful, real food. Yes, you will have detractors. Yes, at times you may feel you face a well-oiled – and well-budgeted – PR machine that is ready to discredit and stomp you. However, this is not the time to claim defeat. Many people are now recognizing the power of food to promote – or destroy — health. It is up to us, as registered dietitians, to take back our credential.

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.

Thank you for your email regarding the Interagency Working Group proposal.  Your email appears to have been electronically generated by or from the Center for Science in the Public Interest – and it was misaddressed.  We received a number of emails identical to yours – and all were misaddressed.  If you did not send an email yourself, we apologize for responding to you directly, but please allow me to respond nonetheless.

Your email states that we have been lobbying against the Interagency Working Group (IWG) proposal.  That is correct. We have serious concerns about the IWG proposal.

Our most advertised product is cereal – and we stand behind it. Cereal is one of the healthiest breakfast choices you can make. Ready-to-eat cereal has fewer calories than almost any other common breakfast option.  Cereal eaters consume less fat, less cholesterol and more fiber than non-cereal eaters.  If it is a General Mills cereal, it will also be a good or excellent source of whole grains.

Childhood obesity is a serious issue – and General Mills wants to be part of the solution.  But if the issue is obesity, cereal should perhaps be advertised more, not less.  Because frequent cereal eaters tend to have healthier body weights – including people who choose sweetened cereals.  It’s true of men.  It’s true of women.  It’s true of kids.

Data published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, based on the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), found that frequent cereal eaters tend to have healthier body weights overall, including kids who eat sweetened cereals.  To be precise, kids who eat four to seven servings of cereal over a 14-day period are less likely to be overweight than kids who eat fewer than four servings of cereal. Kids who eat cereal more frequently, or more than seven times in 14 days, are even less likely to be overweight than kids who eat cereal less frequently.

Another study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association followed 2,000 American girls over a 10-year period.  It found that girls who demonstrated a consistent cereal-eating pattern had healthier body weights and lower body mass index (BMI) than those who did not.

General Mills’ ready-to-eat cereals are America’s number one source of whole grain at breakfast, and fortified cereals provide more iron, folic acid, zinc, B vitamins and fiber than any other conventional breakfast choice.  Eating cereal also has the added benefit of promoting milk consumption.  Forty-one percent of the milk children consume is with cereal – and the figure is even higher for African American and Hispanic children.

Many things have been written about the proposed IWG guidelines in the media and by those who seek to ban marketing to children – with many misstatements made. You can be assured than food and beverage companies have carefully studied every letter, comma and period in the proposal.  We know what it says, and what it does not.

For example, we know that 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages could not be marketed under the IWG guidelines.  The list of “banned” items under the guidelines would include essentially all cereals (including Cheerios), salads, whole wheat bread, yogurt, canned vegetables, and a host of other items universally recognized as healthy.

Despite the characterizations used to advance them, the IWG guidelines would not be voluntary, in our view.  The IWG guidelines are advanced by two of the agencies most responsible for regulating the food industry, as well as the agency most responsible for regulating advertising.  Ignoring their “voluntary guidance” would not be an option for most companies.  Regulation has already been threatened (even demanded) should companies choose not to comply – and litigation would inevitably follow.

The IWG guidelines also conflict with most existing government programs and definitions relative to food.  For example, many products that meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s current definition of “healthy” could not be advertised under the IWG guidelines.  Many products included in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fail the IWG standards, as do most products encouraged and subsidized under the USDA’s Women, Infants and Children Feeding Program (WIC).  Even low-calorie, nutrient dense foods of the type specifically encouraged by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines broadly fail to meet the unique stringency of the proposed WIG restrictions.  In fact, it is readily apparent that the new IWG guidelines have no parallel whatsoever – from a nutrition or science standpoint – with any other U.S. government food or nutrition program.

Curiously for guidelines purportedly developed to address obesity, the IWG guidelines also fail to include any reference to calories.  Beside the inexplicable omission of a measure as important as calories, this also works to the disadvantage of cereal products, which are inherently low-calorie, nutrient-dense foods.  Importantly, this is true of both unsweetened cereals and sweetened cereals, because both tend to have roughly equal numbers of calories per serving – most being about 120 calories per serving – whether sweetened or not.

Finally, your email suggests that companies review the IWG proposal and focus on providing substantive feedback via public comment.  We agree.  We have reviewed every detail of the IWG proposal – and we remain opposed, as our public comment explains.

Thank you again for your email.   If your name was forwarded via this form email by mistake, or without your knowledge, please accept our apologies for responding directly.

Sincerely,

Tom Forsythe
Vice President, Corporate Communications General Mills