Politico’s Morning Ag: Plant-based food companies join forces on Dietary Guidelines

CQ Roll Call (sub): Vegetarian Food Makers Try to Shape Dietary Guidelines

Food Navigator: Row intensifies over ‘Eat less red & processed meat’ message in dietary guidelines report

International Business Times: Tofurky Co. And Allies Support Draft US Dietary Guidelines Advising Americans To Eat Less Red Meat

New Hope 360: 21 plant-based businesses submit joint commentary to Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

Quartz: Plant-based food companies are rising up against Big Meat

Portland Business Journal: Oregon companies join vegetarian food fight

Greenwire (sub): Vegetarian businesses back revised dietary guidelines

WBEZ radio: NPR station in Chicago

VegNews.com: Vegetarian Companies Band Together for Dietary Guidelines

LatestVeganNews.com: Plant-Based Brands Lobby for New Dietary Guidelines

Mercy for Animals: Move Over Meat Lobby: There’s a New Plant-Based Powerhouse in Town

Despite the term’s popularity — or because of it — there is no official definition of “natural.” With the potential to deceive consumers, the issue is now reaching a breaking point. The proposed solutions from trade groups, lawyers and government agencies range from defining the term to suing over it to ignoring it. Some consumer-advocacy organizations are even calling for a complete ban on the use of “natural” in labeling. But such disparate approaches won’t help shoppers become any less confused and may even make the problem worse.

Read rest at Al Jazeera America ….

Ballot measure could become first sugary drink tax in California

Earlier this month, lawmakers in San Francisco introduced a bill that would tax sugary beverages at two cents per ounce, thereby setting off the latest big fight with Big Soda. The estimated $31 million in annual revenue would go to local health programs. Voters will decide the measure’s fate in November, with a two-thirds majority being required to pass.

It didn’t take long for Big Soda to respond in the way it knows best: by setting up a front group. This one is called, “The Coalition for an Affordable City”, a not so subtle jab at some recent economic tensions in San Francisco. The industry group claims grave concern for residents: “At a time when many San Franciscans confront a growing affordability gap… the last thing we need is a tax that makes it even more expensive to live and work in San Francisco.”

Really, the last thing “we” need? “We” as in the American Beverage Association—the lobbying arm of Coke and Pepsi and friends? The bottom of the front group’s website acknowledges the relationship: “Paid for by the American Beverage Association, member of Stop Unfair Beverage Taxes – Coalition for an Affordable City.” Member in chief.

Over at Beyond Chron, Dana Woldow skillfully takes down Big Bev’s spurious arguments against the measure, exposing how “some business owners have no idea how they ended up on the Coalition for an Affordable City’s list of small businesses supposedly opposed to the tax.” Industry reps have apparently resorted to lying – claiming the measure was about insurance or health care – to convince local businesses to display a sign in their window saying: “San Franciscans shouldn’t have to pay more.”

And just this week, the San Francisco Bay Guardian conducted a sting, also catching Big Soda operatives signing up numerous unwitting local businesses to their list of supporters. In some cases, low-level employees signed on without authority, while other businesses were no longer even open. Also, canvassers presented a very biased view of the tax, not stating where the money would go, and then failing to inform owners they would be placed on an opposition list.

These are just the kind of dirty and underhanded tactics I wrote about during the two recent state-wide ballot measure fights to label GMO foods – in California in 2012 and then last year in Washington State. Guess who were among the largest contributors to the No side in both states? Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. (PepsiCo owns much more than beverages.) One way to think of the sugary drink tax fight in San Francisco is that it’s opening another front on Big Food, and the more opportunities we have to wear them down, the better.

So far, states and cities trying to pass soda taxes though the legislative process have been facing an uphill battle as they face millions of dollars in lobbying by the soft drink industry. As Judith Phillips, a research analyst for Mississippi State University, told Businessweek: “Whoever is loudest tends to control the discussion and, generally speaking, you buy your microphone with money.” That was has been a hard lesson learned in the GMO labeling fight too: campaigns need money early on, to fight the endless bank accounts of the junk food lobby.

In the 2012 election, two other California cities (Richmond and El Monte) each suffered painful defeats on soda taxes due to an onslaught of industry lobbying. But San Francisco does not shy away from controversy and has a proven track record of being a national leader on cutting edge social policies such gay marriage. A progressive, high-profile city such as San Francisco, where a victory would inspire others, just may be Big Soda’s worst nightmare. The campaign has begun gathering a strong coalition with endorsements ranging from the Hospital Council of Northern California to the San Francisco PTA.

And polling released last week by the California Endowment looks promising. Two out of three California voters support taxing sugary drinks when the revenues are tied to children’s health programs. (This confirms earlier polling showing that voters are more likely to support soda taxes tied to health services versus a general tax.)

These results rattled the American Beverage Association so much that they put out this ridiculous press release a  day prior to the poll results, proclaiming that “Public Opinion Remains Opposed To Taxing, Limiting Soft Drinks,” but without any new research. Specifically, the release claimed: “Nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose additional taxes on soft drinks … according to a number of recent independent public polls.”

Really? An astute observer on Twitter named Colin Whooten noticed the related fact-free tweet from @AmeriBev and asked for some backing, tweeting at ABA: “you release a study without citing the source? No bias there I’m sure. How about study details?” In response, ABA cheerfully replied with three links, including this 2013 Associated Press survey that concludes there is “little support” for soda taxes but no underlying data is offered, along with this poll claiming that 63 percent oppose “sin taxes.” However that poll question only asked: “Do you favor or oppose so-called ‘sin taxes’ on sodas and junk food?” – nothing about dedicating revenue to social programs most voters favor.

We can expect much more of this in the months ahead. But most San Franciscans are unlikely to fall for such BS and the city’s electorate is pretty generous when it comes to voting for tax measures to fund important programs. And city residents passed a measure in 2012 to “repeal the notion of corporate personhood” – you gotta love that.

Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, thinks San Francisco has a real shot at winning this year. (Goldstein’s group failed to get a soda tax bill through the state legislature last year.) He told me that one important difference is how, in contrast to both Richmond and El Monte in 2012, San Francisco’s measure mandates that 100 percent of the revenues be spent on children’s health and community programs. He added:

The beverage lobby killed the tax bill in the state legislature. I expect it to be a different story in San Francisco where city leaders are putting together a highly sophisticated campaign to tell the truth about sugary drinks and the beverage industry that markets them. For perhaps the first time in the country there will be a fair fight between soda marketers and a city that cares about its children.

A truly fair fight takes money. San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener (one the authors of the measure) correctly predicted in the Guardian that “the beverage industry is going to flood San Francisco with enormous amounts of money spreading misinformation.” You can help level the playing field by donating to Choose Health SF here.

Those advocating for improvements to our broken food system have, of late, had little to crow about. However, in recent years, a growing movement to label foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has begun showing real promise. While the food industry continues to make unsubstantiated and deceptive claims that GMO labels would be confusing or increase food costs, polls show that more than 90 percent of Americans favor GMO labeling. And the states are listening. At least 20 states have proposed legislation requiring that genetically engineered foods be labeled. Read rest at Al Jazeera America ….

When President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) into law in January 2011, it was considered a long-fought, but significant and bipartisan victory to update the Food and Drug Administration’s authority and oversight of the food supply. While much of the wrangling over the language of the law was made public, through media coverage of Congressional hearings for example, the ensuing industry influence over implementation of the law has been subject to far less public scrutiny (with the exception of FDA’s unlawful delay of FSMA’s critical implementing regulations, which Center for Food Safety has successfully sued over.

As a recent report from the Sunlight Foundation illuminates, industry lobbyists have been on the Food and Drug Administration’s doorsteps from the beginning, even more so since FSMA passed, influencing the agency’s implementation of the law. Not content to pay their way into the public forum of legislation, industry groups also devote significant time and resources to influencing rulemaking and post-food-crisis management. Sunlight explains that:

Using FOIA, Sunlight obtained memoranda of meetings for the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) over a two year period, yielded dozens of industry contacts with the regulators who oversee them. Industry group representatives were present at meetings four times as often as representatives of consumer interests.

Winning the prize for the most frequent visitor to the FDA over the two-year period was Miriam Guggenheim of the law firm Covington & Burling. Thanks to her efforts, members of the American Bakers Association (ABA) will likely be exempt from FSMA’s proposed regulations regulating warehouse temperatures, measures the FDA says “prevent problems that can cause foodborne illness.” The exemption, the ABA press release notes, “was allowed under language in FSMA that was included at ABA’s recommendation.” Well done.

Guggenheim also accompanied representatives from Mars candy when the company wanted a faster approval processes for food additives, held telephone calls with the FDA about “bottled water labeling,” among other client needs. But oddly, despite Guggenheim being identified as a frequent visitor to FDA, according to Sunlight, she has not been registered as a lobbyist since 2010, before FSMA even passed. How so? Sunlight says it just shows the weakness of our lobbying disclosure rules, and a lack of enforcement:

Guggenheim’s work on behalf of food industry heavyweights shows how much of the influence game in Washington still remains in the shadows. Not everyone who pushes private agendas in Congress and at regulatory agencies registers to lobby. Those who are registered to lobby disclose minimal information about their activities.

The only way Sunlight was able to obtain the information it did was because “agencies keep track of which special interests come calling and why”, however “those records are rarely made available to the public without a Freedom of Information Act request.” The documents Sunlight obtained from FDA revealed a wide variety of lobbying by industry, in no way limited to the FSMA lawmaking process. Several issues reveal an interesting cause and effect pattern: Soon after an industry-tarnishing report appears in the media, meetings at the FDA ensue.

Take for example, highly caffeinated energy drinks, which have caused a lot of controversy lately. On November 14, 2012 the New York Times ran a story with the headline, “Caffeinated Drink Cited in Reports of 13 Deaths.” The next day, D.C. lawmakers, led by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) once again called on the FDA to investigate the safety of energy drinks, following up on letters the lawmakers sent in April and September of that year. “We urge the agency,” the Senators wrote, “to assert its regulatory authority over caffeine levels in energy drinks marketed as beverages.”

Just two weeks later, on November 30, 2012, Guggenheim and three of her Covington colleagues, as well as Thomas P. Davis, the Chief Scientific Officer for their client, Monster Energy Drink, sat down with thirteen members of the FDA.  The description of the discussion in the official Memorandum is vague, but proving the drinks were safe was clearly a top priority. Dr. Davis provided “studies relating to the safety of Monster energy drink ingredients” and “emphasized the safety of Monster’s products.”

Almost a month and a half later, on January 11, 2013, the Times ran another story on the dangers of energy drinks, this one with the headline, “More Emergency Visits Linked to Energy Drinks.” Just four days later, on January 15, FDA hosted another meeting with energy drink insiders, this time with Kraft Foods representatives, on the topic of their new energy beverage, MiO Liquid Water Enhancer (which was not specifically named in the Times article).

Another hot topic in the news has been arsenic in rice. A Consumer Reports study published on September 19, 2012 revealed that organic rice, baby cereal, and numerous other rice products contained arsenic, often “at worrisome levels.” Within a few weeks, on November 8, 2012, members of the Organic Trade Association, rice producer Lundberg Family Farms, California Natural Products, USA Rice, and others met with representatives from FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The subject, according to the memorandum: “Arsenic in Rice.”

That large corporate interests lobby our lawmakers to legislate (or not legislate) in their favor is nothing new. But the Sunlight report shines a light on a dark corner of the workings of the Big Food lobby that—in part thanks to the complicated FOIA process—we rarely get to see. A review of the agency records shows that while the FDA also takes meetings with consumer interest groups, however, the vast majority of the agency’s schedule is comprised of meetings with large corporations such as Coca-Cola and Campbell Soup Company, along with major trade groups, including the National Chicken Council, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the American Spice Trade Association (turmeric and cardamom need lobbyists, too). According to Sunlight, consumer groups were present at only 18 percent of the meetings, versus industry representatives showing up 78 percent of the time.

So how can those of us not adept at filing regular FOIA requests even know these meetings with government officials in charge of food safety are happening? The report’s author, Nancy Watzman, told me that federal lobbying disclosure rules are “very porous, rely on the honor system, and give a very incomplete picture of what’s really going on.” Given these weaknesses, Sunlight’s government affairs consultant (and former legislative assistant to John Kerry) recommends several improvements, including a requirement that all lobbyists report the name of the official contacted by the lobbyist, a summary of issue discussed, specific actions requested, and the name of the client. This sort of transparency Sunlight says, would have an important impact on democracy:

Had these principles been in place while the lobbying for an exemption to the food safety rules had been ongoing, it would not have taken the relentless digging of an intrepid reporter to uncover who was shaping the rules. More importantly, real time, public disclosure of industry’s efforts for special treatment is paramount for healthy debate.

Originally posted at Center for Food Safety.

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

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.