McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson, former President Bill Clinton, and Alliance for a Healthier Generation’s Dr. Howell Wechsler.

The headlines certainly sounded impressive: “McDonald’s to Scrap Soda From ‘Happy Meal’ Ads” and “McDonald’s Ditches Soda In Happy Meal Menus.” In a grandiose announcement from the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation), McDonald’s proved once again that it’s not only the world’s fast-food leader, but also the king of spin. This time, Bill Clinton himself was on hand for the nifty photo op with McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting. Despite the seal of approval from the (mostly vegan) former president, I’ve learned to approach these sorts promises from McDonald’s with skepticism.

And sure enough, when I started asking questions about the pledge on Twitter, fellow food activist Casey Hinds helped me locate this document, which seems to be a draft version of a “memorandum of understanding” between McDonald’s and the Clinton Foundation. I say draft because it contains internal notes, and is no longer available on the Alliance for Healthier Generation website where Hinds found it on September 26. (Oddly, the link to the document is still available, but download it fast.) This line jumped out at me right away:

McDonald’s may list soft drinks as offering on Happy Meal section of menu boards.

That sure didn’t sound like what was in the press release, or what headlines seemed to indicate, or what advocates were crowing over. The press release said McDonald’s would “promote and market only water, milk, and juice as the beverage in Happy Meals on menu boards and in-store and external advertising.” In fairness, the New York Times and other outlets – like NPR and the Associated Press – did report that “customers would still be able to buy soda,” but the damage was done.

So what gives? The explanation is pretty simple. McDonald’s cannot make truly meaningful changes to its menu, because to do so could risk losing money. Certainly not at a time when the company is already worried about losing the coveted Millennials market, and when its kid-friendly theme may be losing steam.

Another lost detail was exactly how any promise like this coming from McDonald’s HQ plays out in the 34,000 restaurant outlets around the world or even “just” the 14,000 outlets in the U.S. According to the company, more than 80 percent of outlets worldwide are owned by independent franchise owners, who are increasingly at odds with the mother ship over financial constraints.

Earlier this year, a sampling of owners characterized their relationship with McDonald’s corporate on a scale between 0 and 5 as 1.93, with frequent complaints about high costs and low profit margins. Franchise owners cited McDonald’s ”aggressive stance on discounting and promoting its Dollar Menu” as a main source of dissatisfaction. And McDonald’s refusal to pay its workers a living wage has exposed more ugly unrest between outlet owners and HQ.

This all made me especially suspicious of McDonald’s promise with Clinton to “provide customers a choice of a side salad, fruit or vegetable as a substitute for French fries in value meals.” But the fine print says only that McDonald’s will encourage franchises “to make this choice available to customers at no additional charge” and that the company “anticipates” that the majority will do so. Most important is this huge caveat:

Our franchisees are independent business men and women who ultimately determine pricing for all menu items at their restaurants based on many factors, including local market conditions.

Translation: McDonald’s cannot control pricing at the local level. This is a very big deal since low prices are obviously a major reason fast food is so popular. Given the economic challenges franchises are already under, why would owners replace fries with salads for free, when vegetables are more labor-intensive, require freshness, and are just plain messy? They won’t, because they can’t.

But really, none of this should have been a surprise. More than any other food corporation, McDonald’s has a long history of deceiving the public with empty promises, often resulting in legal action. Here are a few select highlights:

• In 1986, the Texas attorney general’s office had to threaten to sue McDonald’s to get the company to provide clear nutrition information.
• In 1987, McDonald’s was again investigated by the Texas AG’s office for a series of ads that promoted its food as nutritious; the ads were deemed “deceptive and illegal” and “falsely and deceptively represented that McDonald’s
  food was nutritious.”
• In 2002, McDonald’s was sued over the use of beef tallow in its cooking oil, which the company had claimed was 100 percent vegetable oil. The case was settled for $10 million and an apology.
• Also in 2002, McDonald’s made a public promise to remove trans-fat from its cooking oil within six months, but failed to follow through and didn’t bother to tell anyone. A fraud lawsuit was settled for $8.5 million.
• In 2006, McDonald’s “discovered” that its fries contain one-third more deadly trans-fat than previously thought, and didn’t offer an explanation.
• In 2011, after losing a heated policy fight in San Francisco to place reasonable nutrition standards on children’s meals sold with toys, instead of complying with the law, McDonald’s found a clever workaround.

Also in 2011, McDonald’s claimed to be offering a healthier Happy Meal but nutrition experts Marion Nestle and Andy Bellatti raised serious questions. Then earlier this year, McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson lied over and over at the company’s shareholder meeting, claiming for example, that the company doesn’t market to children, and provides “high-quality food.”

That’s why it was so shocking to see advocacy groups who should have known better applauding this latest public relations stunt and getting quoted in major newspapers such as USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.

And what happened at the Clinton Foundation? Didn’t anybody there bother to read the fine print? Or did they just go along with the charade? Global food corporations like McDonald’s have a long history of using reputable institutions to give public relation stunts like these greater legitimacy.

These hollow agreements can have far-reaching implications for public health, and organizations like the Clinton Foundation should be more wary. As healthy food advocate Nancy Huehnergarth recently noted (even as she acknowledged initially being fooled herself), “McDonald’s has already gotten the headlines and press coverage it desired for this pledge, whether it follows through or not.”

And that was the whole idea.

Originally published at Corporate Accountability International.

The funny thing is, the official evaluation, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, is not actually out yet, and won’t be until sometime this fall. Instead of waiting for what could be a negative, and certainly more scientific take, industry instead jumped the gun. The alleged data to back up its claims is contained in a vague document, posted here under the heading of “Preliminary Report,” even though industry is not even conducting the actual analysis. Instead, that effort is being done independently by Barry Popkin, a researcher at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who confirmed with me that his results won’t be available until the fall.

Meantime, what to make of this industry spin? I asked Bruce Bradley, a former food industry executive turned blogger and author. He was skeptical, to put it mildly. Here are his thoughts about industry’s claims of calorie reduction:

First off, measuring something like this at such a high level is recipe for bias. There are just so many ways to manipulate the data to say what you want. Then when you consider who is issuing the report (HWCF) and their self-interest in appearing as responsible, I am very suspicious.

One big question I have about the data is the economic times we live in. Pre-recession habits are reflected by 2007 data. Certainly lots of families have had to cut back their food expenditures with the harder times of 2012. Again, this is certainly convenient for the sake of HCWF’s calculation. One big caveat to this is that while harder times may have required people to cut down their grocery expenditures, it also required them to cut down their “eating out” spending and make more meals at home. I don’t know restaurant trend data as well as grocery data, but I’m guessing that given how this recession has hit lower/middle income households harder than upper middle/upper income households, the impact of restaurant/foodservice consumption trends is somewhat muted, especially since this data is for 2007 and 2012.

Another big question is how Walmart was accounted for in the data. Since about 2001 Walmart refused to release any sales data. They changed that policy in 2012 and again started to share their sales information going back three years (to 2008) [Source: MediaPost Publications Nielsen Adds Walmart Data To Sales Product 03/15/2012]. Since this report goes back to 2007 what I’m imagining HWCF had to do to equalize this number was to remove Walmart from the calculation since no data was available for Walmart from that period. This would be a very convenient “have-to” for HWCF since sales volume continues to shift from more traditional grocery formats to Walmart.

Another trend that could distort this data is the increased consumption of private label foods. Since the economic downturn, private label has grown significantly. Although private label has made inroads into healthier categories, it still packs a bigger punch in traditional, high fat/salt/sugar categories. I’m guessing growth in private label is yet another way that disproportionately took high calorie volume away, hence making the HWCF’s number look better.

Finally, the beverage category is for sure one that is “helping” HWCF’s numbers. Lower/no calorie drinks is a huge trend, but it’s a crime that low/no calorie beverages are considered “healthy.”

Let’s see if the analysis due out this fall paints a more accurate picture.

Last month, the International Food Information Council Foundation released the third edition of its report: Food Biotechnology: A Communicator’s Guide to Improving Understanding. What sounds like a reasonable and helpful document is in fact the product of a well-oiled PR machine whose board of trustees includes executives from such food giants such as Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, and Mars. In response to such tactics, I have authored a new report for Center for Food Safety that exposes the well-funded organizations and highly-sophisticated public relations strategies increasingly deployed to defend the food industry. Read rest at Center for Food Safety…

I remember when Colleen formed a relationship with Joe Connelly in 1999, and together they started VegNews magazine in 2000. (I wrote a column on food politics for the magazine briefly around 2004 and until recently, was friendly with Joe as well.) Things have been falling apart in their relationship for the past few years, but have recently taken a very ugly turn. Despite numerous attempts by Colleen to settle their differences, Joe has taken the drastic step of filing a lawsuit against Colleen. In a case that gives new meaning to the phrase “frivolous lawsuit,” Joe is suing Colleen for breach of contract and fraud, among other incongruous causes of action, claiming Colleen owes him the ridiculous sum of $4.5 million.

The case boils down to this: Joe claims he is the sole owner of VegNews and Colleen is just an employee. So in the split, he should get all of the business and she gets nothing. In contrast, Colleen has only ever asked for her rightful half of the value of VegNews. Having witnessed the magazine’s progress since the beginning, here is my take: Joe was a good writer, but Colleen brought the business smarts and creativity to turn their vision into a reality. What began as a tabloid newsletter in just a few years morphed into an award-winning lifestyle magazine, distributed widely and appearing on newsstands nationally. This could not have happened without Colleen’s golden touch. Moreover, since the beginning, Colleen has been responsible for selling advertising space, the magazine’s main source of revenue; her success is due to her warm personality and business acumen. While Joe was writing book reviews, Colleen was forming lasting relationships with clients, vendors, and staff, keeping the magazine going.

There has never been any question that Joe and Colleen started VegNews together, grew it together from a seed of an idea to a national magazine. But now, Joe seeks to rewrite history by claiming he is the sole founder and owner of VegNews. This is contrary to both reality and common sense. The sad thing is anyone who knows Joe and Colleen understands the truth: that Colleen is the creative genius behind VegNews. Even if you don’t know them, there is plenty of proof of their obvious partnership. Joe and Colleen have been interviewed over the years as co-founders. For example, in this 2009 feature on the couple in the San Francisco Chronicle, they are both referred to as “founders of the magazine VegNews.” In this 2010 podcast interview by Our Hen House, they are celebrated as a “vegan power couple, publishers of the uber-popular VegNews Magazine.” This is how the entire vegetarian movement thinks them: the couple that started VegNews together, and still runs it together 13 years later. Here is how another friend, Davy Davidson, put it in her declaration filed to support Colleen’s defense:

Throughout my relationship with Joe and Colleen, Joe has always referred to Colleen as his business partner and co-founder of VegNews. I have been part of the vegetarian community for a number of years and through my activities and business affairs have developed a close network of friends and associates who are familiar with VegNews and who know Colleen and Joe personally and as the partners behind VegNews.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Sorry Joe, but filing a lawsuit can’t change history or reality. To make matters worse, since the case was filed last August (and even before) Joe has engaged in numerous forms of harassment and unethical business practices, including locking Colleen out of the magazine’s finances and other important records she needs to function. Things have gotten so bad in the VegNews office that Colleen’s lawyer has filed a motion to have the business placed in receivership. This is an untenable situation for everyone involved. The VegNews staff is dedicated to putting out a high-quality magazine and deserves a stable work environment, one that isn’t full of tension and uncertainty.

While I am used to writing about injustices committed by powerful food industry interests, this one is being perpetrated by an individual who I used to respect. The worst part is how my dear friend Colleen – an incredibly talented, dedicated, and beautiful woman in every sense of the word – is being made to suffer so needlessly at the hands of a ruthless and bitter man. How can Joe claim to be an ethical vegan while demonstrating not one ounce of compassion for a woman he once loved? This lawsuit needs to come to an end; litigation is an ugly, lengthy, and expensive process. Joe can choose to negotiate a reasonable settlement with Colleen right now so they can both move on with their lives.

I am writing this in hope that bringing this injustice to light will motivate others to also rally support around Colleen Holland. Let’s send a strong message to Joe Connelly that he should settle this case in a fair and compassionate manner. Now.

Here are a few of the legal documents from the case:

- Amended Complaint filed by Joe Connelly
- Cross-Complaint filed by Colleen Holland
- Motion to Appoint Receiver filed by Colleen Holland
- Colleen Holland’s Declaration
- Davy Davidson’s Declaration in support of Colleen Holland
- Al Whaley’s Declaration in support of Colleen Holland

Sign at Mom’s Organic Market

As the frequent bearer of bad news about the food industry, I am thrilled to share a positive story. Last month, MOM’s Organic Market, a small retail chain based in the Baltimore area, announced it would stop carrying products featuring children’s cartoon characters:

Products ranging from Dora the Explorer frozen soybeans to Elmo juice boxes will be discontinued and replaced with organic alternatives in cartoon-free packaging.

Company CEO Scott Nash blogged last August about how his young daughter begged for a cereal she never tasted because of “Clifford the Big Red Dog” on the box, putting the store’s policy into motion. The company sent me this list of discontinued items, which includes numerous Earth’s Best products, along with a few other natural food companies.

While MOM’s is a small chain targeting a specific audience, the move is still significant, especially considering the greenwashing many natural and organic companies engage in. MOM’s community outreach representative Laura Holley-Poole told me many food makers were taken by surprise:

Several producers said they thought their products would be OK because they used mostly organic ingredients, or because they choose cartoon characters who had a positive or educational message. But they may be missing how using cartoon characters to target kids doesn’t go over to well with a lot of parents who buy their products.

As an example, she pointed to this confused apology from green household products maker Seventh Generation, in the wake of customer outcry over the company’s decision to co-brand its diapers with Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax.”

The move is very significant in the current discourse over the ongoing problem of marketing to children.

As I’ve written before, our federal government has turned its back on this issue so the only place left to demand change is with industry. But food companies are engaging in a massive public relations charade designed to make us believe they are making positive changes.

For example, Kellogg has a new product, Scooby-Doo! That’s the actual name of the cereal – Scooby Doo! – but this is less important the image on the box. Some think this product is a positive development because it contains “only” six grams of sugar per serving. But it’s very likely that Kellogg’s motivation was to be eligible for the very lucrative WIC (Women, Infants, and Children federal assistance program) market, for which six grams of sugar per serving is the maximum allowed. Kellogg says as much on this community feedback page where it also appears not everyone is so happy with the product, leading Marion Nestle to ponder if the product will last very long.

When I asked MOM’s CEO Scott Nash about marketing “healthy food” to children, he answer was simple: “The ends don’t justify the means. Marketing to children is wrong, no matter what is being marketed.” He believes marketing to children “should be illegal.” I couldn’t agree more and that’s why I support Corporate Accountability International’s ongoing campaign to stop McDonald’s from exploiting children (as opposed to just making “healthier” Happy Meals).

Supermarket News described the market’s announcement as “bold” and showing leadership but noted that “MOM’s caters to a specific demographic, so this kind of action wouldn’t float at a mainstream retailer.” Still, the article noted “taking a stand is controversial, but it’s empowering; it defines the retailer against the backdrop of everyone else.” This is exactly the point: the policy creates a new standard for other retailers to follow. Are you listening Whole Foods CEO John Mackey?

The company also hopes others, such as progressive co-ops and independent retailers follow its lead. Holley-Poole told me the largest impact would be on product manufacturers in the organic food industry. “I would not be surprised to see many of the discontinued items re-introduced with new cartoon-free packaging in a couple years,” she said. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood praised the new policy:

Using beloved media characters to sell kids on a particular brand of food is wrong, even if it’s healthy food. Children should not be trained to pick foods based on the cartoon on the box. We congratulate MOM’s for taking this courageous stance on behalf of families and urge other companies to follow suit.

I am often asked: who in the food industry is doing it right? I am very happy to finally have an answer to that question.

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.

The only numbers they dispute are how I counted the sponsors. In my report I explained that I counted food companies that also donated to the AND Foundation. So really the disagreement is over semantics: sponsors v. donors. The Academy also takes issue with my saying: “Kellogg and the National Dairy Council have been AND sponsors for 9 of the last 12 years.” Their response: “Kellogg has been a Premier sponsor since 2007. NDC has been an Academy Partner since 2007. NDC supported the Academy prior to the sponsorship restructure.” I double-checked and Kellogg is listed as a donor to the AND Foundation in 2001 and 2002 and as an AND sponsor in 2003. So 3 years plus 2007-2012 equals 9 years. (Similar story for the National Dairy Council.) Again semantics, not inaccuracies.

The rest of the list consist of disagreements over my interpretation and analysis and not factual disputes. For example, AND disagrees with my assessment that they have “not supported controversial nutrition policies that might upset corporate sponsors.” To try and prove me wrong, they list numerous position papers on issues such as sweeteners and vegetarian diets. OK, but publishing a scientific position paper isn’t the same thing as lobbying on a proposed policy. As I said in the report, AND’s lobbying has mostly been limited to self-serving and non-controversial issues. I have heard over and over again how the Academy takes only “science-based” positions by way of explaining its silence of critical current policy debates. This is fine, but as I point out in the report, AND hasn’t just been silent on controversies such as limiting soda serving sizes. Rather, they spoke out against the policy prior to conducting any analysis. So it appears the Academy’s “science-based” approach depends on the issue at hand, raising questions of conflict of interest.

Most of the other “inaccuracies” listed are just more attempts at spin control. For example, the Academy attempts to defend a field trip to the Hershey chocolate factory in which participants earned four hours of continuing education units by explaining:

The four credit hours were based on the portion of the day that was dedicated to scientific presentations on new epidemiological research on cocoa and chocolate; clinical nutrition research studies on topics like cardiovascular health related to cocoa; and the manufacturing and processing of cocoa in various geographical regions.

For four hours? And are registered dietitians really recommending their clients eat Hershey’s chocolate to keep their heart healthy? Then I guess I stand corrected.

Finally, a word about funding. My work is funded by a various people and as I explain on my website, for various reasons some funders prefer not to be named. For AND to point to this is just another distraction. The issues I raise in the report have existed and been written about by many others for at least a decade, including medical doctors, academic scholars, public health experts, journalists, food bloggers, as well as AND’s own members. So this isn’t about my report, this is about AND’s unwillingness to address its integrity problem head-on.

I am still waiting for the Academy to stop engaging in these industry-style shoot the messenger tactics and instead start listening to its own members’ deep concerns about how AND’s corporate sponsorship program undermines both professional credibility and the nation’s public health.

Thank you very much for your email. We appreciate your insight. You are correct, the author did not interview anyone at the Academy and as we anticipated, the report is definitely biased, is a mixture of facts, speculation and misinformation. Please read President Ethan Bergman’s response to members at http://sm.eatright.org/factvsopinion.

As Past President, Judy Rodriguez shared with members, “Blogs and other communications that contain falsehoods about our organization are easily written and – with a click on a keyboard – posted and re-posted the world over.”

Responding to the erroneous arguments and baseless charges, only lends credibility to and elevates the author and helps sell more books. This is the intent of our detractors. While the Academy will not be distracted by engaging in point-by-point rebuttals of disparaging untruths and insults every time they appear on the Internet, as an organization of professionals in a field based on science and evidence, the Academy is always ready to engage in mutually respectful dialogue with individuals and groups with whom we disagree. Levelheaded criticism is different from deliberate misinformation, which the Academy and many other credible organizations are occasionally subjected to.

A great deal of the report is based on HEN’s 2011 survey, which the author misinterprets. The fact is, each year the Academy utilizes Performance Research, an independent, third-party research company, to examine a random selection of members that is a statistically sound representation of the Academy membership as a whole. The results from these representative surveys have shown an increased awareness and continued support of the sponsorship program. Also, I want to assure you that the Academy does not tailor its messages or programs in any way due to influence by corporate sponsors and the report does not provide evidence to the contrary.

With the help of members like you, we are committed to continuing a civil dialogue. The Academy’s efforts on behalf of the dietetics profession and our members are and will continue to be our priority.

Thank you very much for your dedication to the profession and continued support of the Academy.

Pat

Patricia M. Babjak

Chief Executive Officer

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
(formerly the American Dietetic Association)
NEW NAME, SAME COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC’S NUTRITIONAL HEALTH

While AND might not want to engage in point-by-point rebuttals, I will defend myself against personal attacks. First of all, a week prior to release, I called the CEO’s office directly to get her reaction to my research and give her a heads-up about the report. I was referred to two other staff members, both of whom I left messages with. I never received a call back.

This is the second time the Academy has accused me of making erroneous statements in the report, and the second time they have failed to specifically list them. Please don’t make vague accusations meant to discredit the information presented in my report.

Next this: “A great deal of the report is based on HEN’s 2011 survey.” I believe AND refers to the independently conducted survey that was published in the Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, which I discussed for less than two pages of a 50-page report. And how exactly did I misrepresent it? I was simply repeating the survey results, some of which showed significant opposition among AND members to current sponsors. Sounds like a “baseless charge” to me.

Finally, “sell more books”? Talk about a cheap shot.

Let’s hope the Academy leadership stops engaging in these industry-style shoot the messenger tactics and instead addresses the significant problem on its hands.