I used the metaphor of a wily octopus for the food industry bodies - bent on its own survival (i.e. profit) and using its many arms infiltrating research, policy, non-government agencies and more to ensure its own interests (again, profit). Misinformation is better for the bottom line of those companies, but an epidemic of diet-related disease is forcing us to sit up and pay attention.
In Part 2, I want to take this metaphor further.
But before I do, here is yet another book debunking yet another nutrition factoid that justifies a multi-million-dollar industry. Yet again.
 |
| Source: Suma Aqualife Park |
In a book about omega-3 fish oil supplements, Paul Greenberg describes an industry based on faulty and untested assumptions about human health. No evidence at all actually supports the health claims for omega-3 pills from fish oil. Independent research has found no benefits for heart, brain or mental health. The industry's own research reported 'a non-statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease risk', which means 'did not find a link.' But nothing has stopped the health claims. Marketing alone fuels the US$15 billion industry, despite no benefit to human health. In fact, the industry is creating vast destruction of the ocean systems from which fish oil, and therefore its ongoing profitability, is extracted.
The octopus will do whatever is necessary to survive, even wreck our health and wreck the natural life systems which sustains it. We need to find another approach besides debunking each dubious claim.
I need some way to understand this behaviour.
To do so, I look at the broader context - what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.
Neoliberalism influences both research and the media in ways that impact on what we are told about nutrition.
Neoliberal economics is only interested in research with a direct commercial application - its cost weighed against immediate benefit. Over time, government has reduced public funding for research, so nutrition scientists sometimes have little option but to accept funding from food industries. But we know that funding sources can influence research findings. If someone wants to advance their career, they won't be highlighting these problems in nutrition science; they have to make a living, right?
Neoliberal economics views 'news' as a commodity to sell, not a source of information. Media needs a ready supply of stories to makes a profit; they jump on the catchy and sometimes supposedly 'controversial' findings pumped out from the well-resources PR arms of the food industry bodies. Industry knows PR is the dominant arm in maintaining profit, and social media and magazines are the main source of health information for many people.
The cleaning process should also take in the second broad contextual factor: our values about food.
These health gurus and cooking shows both fail to provide what is actually lacking.
We lack a set of values and a shared culture that extends beyond the food products and nutritional value to shared routines of food preparation, social rituals of eating, fun and conversation, the value of giving time to make meals that are genuinely healthful, respect for the natural systems which sustain us, and valuing whole foods growing in their natural cycles.
It's time to return to the tank where the food industry octopus dwells to bring the two contextual factors of neoliberalism and lack of shared food culture into the metaphor. I promised a drawing, so I found my 2B pencil. The explanation is below.
Nutrition science exists in this neoliberal fish tank as well. On the left, one arm of the octopus curls into academia to feed reductionist thinking and control the research questions while another sets up its own research and occasionally causes an algal bloom of reductionism and scientism. The slow snails of robust research cling valiantly to the seaweed and risk a squirt of clouding ink any time they get publicity for their contrary findings. They are still in the tank thank goodness and starting to highlight the mess of the tank itself. Still, the wreckage of debunked spurious health claims lies rotting on the floor.
To do so, I look at the broader context - what else is in the metaphorical fish tank with the food industry octopuses.
The water in the fish tank is neoliberal economics.
The first broad contextual factor is our neoliberal economic system, where profit and 'consumer choice' come first. ('Consumer choice' is always in inverted commas here at Wordly Explorations!) This economic ideology surrounds all of us, not just the food industry boards.
People working to maximise profit are doing what our society celebrates. Making a profit is fine as long as it is not achieved at someone else's cost or harm, which is all too often is.
Neoliberal economics is only interested in research with a direct commercial application - its cost weighed against immediate benefit. Over time, government has reduced public funding for research, so nutrition scientists sometimes have little option but to accept funding from food industries. But we know that funding sources can influence research findings. If someone wants to advance their career, they won't be highlighting these problems in nutrition science; they have to make a living, right?
Of course, plenty of research exists that debunks false or misleading nutritional claims, but this work doesn't get the food industry grants or their advertising budget and promotional muscle.
Neoliberal economics views 'news' as a commodity to sell, not a source of information. Media needs a ready supply of stories to makes a profit; they jump on the catchy and sometimes supposedly 'controversial' findings pumped out from the well-resources PR arms of the food industry bodies. Industry knows PR is the dominant arm in maintaining profit, and social media and magazines are the main source of health information for many people.
The debunking of spurious health claims tends to be in long form writing, mainly books, because it is complex, and good research takes a long time. But those ubiquitous food and health articles in the media: a catchy title (usually saying we can eat those 'naughty' foods after all, phew!) plus 400 words of misleading or simplistic diet advice.
Our society has adopted a profit-driven way of looking at illness too; we focus on its successes in treating diseases, including diabetes and obesity, rather than averting the many preventable illnesses through a healthy (less profitable for industry) diet. It goes on...
Lobbying government - representing your industry or manipulating policy?
The long and agile lobbying arm also enables the octopus to get involved in any government panel, policy or guideline that might impact their business.
Government releases statements which frequently require compromise to achieve agreement. Refusal to approve final publication is a powerful tool used by industry bodies to reduce limits and soften cautions about consumption of their product. Perhaps there are donations involved as some suggest. The dominance of pro-business government ideology is also a factor, particularly when health costs and diet-related diseases contribute to GDP as well!
Industry is keen to point to the serious economic implications of making changes to our food consumption, given the large scale of some industries. True, but the reality is: these industries have been propped up by misinformation for decades, and the real costs are only now become clear. Not only costs to our health, but major damage to the natural systems of soil, air and water which support all life.
 |
| Source: Oxfam International |
Why would the food industry corporations be different from any other business - making a profit is its 'bottom line'? If manipulation, covert influence and 'health-wash' work, then they are used.
This is the neoliberal economic fish tank in which we all swim. The food industry octopuses are part of a system, and they are working the way they are supposed to if we accept neoliberal values. So do we?
The tank itself needs some attention, perhaps emptying and cleaning out fully. Some new additions might also help establish a more health balance.
The tank itself needs some attention, perhaps emptying and cleaning out fully. Some new additions might also help establish a more health balance.
Missing from the tank is the value of food beyond nutrition.
 |
| Source: Clipart |
Seeing food as just about health and nutrition misses the fact that social connection and positive attitudes to food also play a role in health and well-being. We've lost those traditions of growing, cooking and eating which were passed down for generations, part of personal and cultural identity. Unless your family still cooks its Italian, Japanese, Eritrean, etc., traditional foods (no, not take-away), most of us in the West have no concept of food as part of our culture.
While we focus on getting the right number of nutrients, food industry bodies have been able to promote food and food consumption values that serve them. They promote values related to convenience (our 'too busy to cook' lifestyles), masculinity (specifically meat consumption) or motherhood (feeding is caring), fun (often outdoors in the warmth), reward: chocolate or alcohol being a 'reward' after hard work (you deserve it), the 'boring' foods of traditional diets (not beans again!), and the refined diet of 'civilised' person compared with the 'coarse' peasant or indigenous diet.
While we focus on getting the right number of nutrients, food industry bodies have been able to promote food and food consumption values that serve them. They promote values related to convenience (our 'too busy to cook' lifestyles), masculinity (specifically meat consumption) or motherhood (feeding is caring), fun (often outdoors in the warmth), reward: chocolate or alcohol being a 'reward' after hard work (you deserve it), the 'boring' foods of traditional diets (not beans again!), and the refined diet of 'civilised' person compared with the 'coarse' peasant or indigenous diet.
Many of us are confused or sceptical about food and health claims. We don't know what is nutritious to eat!
Into this space comes the online health gurus spruiking various 'super' foods, fad diets, health fraud, and misdirected health claims. The highly-rating competitive cooking shows apparently highlight the aesthetics and joy of food, but very few people actually 'plate up' more than occasionally.
These health gurus and cooking shows both fail to provide what is actually lacking.
We are lacking a shared food culture
 |
| Source Jake Berenguer |
A culture that values whole food grown without environmental destruction also values human connection through food.
The slow food movement and others represent a return to prioritising shared food culture, but it is no competition for the PR arms of the food industry octopuses.
These contextual factors explain the behaviour of the food industry octopuses; we are not talking about an 'evil' empire, just a successful corporation in a large fish tank neoliberal economics with no competing values to resist its messages.
The slow food movement and others represent a return to prioritising shared food culture, but it is no competition for the PR arms of the food industry octopuses.
These contextual factors explain the behaviour of the food industry octopuses; we are not talking about an 'evil' empire, just a successful corporation in a large fish tank neoliberal economics with no competing values to resist its messages.
Nutrition in the fish tank of neoliberalism
It's time to return to the tank where the food industry octopus dwells to bring the two contextual factors of neoliberalism and lack of shared food culture into the metaphor. I promised a drawing, so I found my 2B pencil. The explanation is below.
Nutrition in the fish tank of neoliberalism
Dominating the nutritional picture is the large octopus of the food industry bodies with its arms reaching out into many areas of activity.
Along with the food industry octopus, we are all swimming in a large tank of neoliberal economics and values.
Profit is not just desirable, it is everything. Tufts of not really different sea grass of ''choice'' of 'value-added' (i.e. over-processed and nutritionally vacant) products are everywhere. Floating all around are tiny critters that represent our values about food, forged through industry advertising over decades. These are the plankton of profit: convenient, fun, cheap, morish, cool. Our failure to value the broad social and natural systems that sustain us and produce our food allows profit to be the final arbiter.
Nutrition science exists in this neoliberal fish tank as well. On the left, one arm of the octopus curls into academia to feed reductionist thinking and control the research questions while another sets up its own research and occasionally causes an algal bloom of reductionism and scientism. The slow snails of robust research cling valiantly to the seaweed and risk a squirt of clouding ink any time they get publicity for their contrary findings. They are still in the tank thank goodness and starting to highlight the mess of the tank itself. Still, the wreckage of debunked spurious health claims lies rotting on the floor.
The industry bodies strategies to control the message are on the right. The multiple arms of media, lobbying to limit regulation and policy, minimising negative findings using confusion, and setting up or funding faux independent community advice bodies - all serve to control the message and spruik their product to the greatest number of consumers.
Meanwhile, the frightened fish of food culture are in the tank, but daunted and overwhelmed by the massive influence of the food industry octopus. They know there is more to food than nutrients and health, but they risk being eaten themselves when they venture out.
And there, lurking at the back, is the pharmacy industry octopus, Big Pharma, with its long slippery arms infiltrating everywhere, keeping the focus on treatment and pills, not diet. The tank is brimming with the krill of easy access to pills and treatment.
In the midst of all this sits a confused general public: a treasure chest of profit.
Canada just released a new food guide which excluded the food industry entirely. The guide provides advice about how much and what broad types of food to eat, and it also includes suggestions such as 'be aware of food marketing', cook more often, read labels, be mindful of your eating habits. (Images taken from the Canadian Food Guide website).
It's a good start.
Meanwhile, the frightened fish of food culture are in the tank, but daunted and overwhelmed by the massive influence of the food industry octopus. They know there is more to food than nutrients and health, but they risk being eaten themselves when they venture out.
And there, lurking at the back, is the pharmacy industry octopus, Big Pharma, with its long slippery arms infiltrating everywhere, keeping the focus on treatment and pills, not diet. The tank is brimming with the krill of easy access to pills and treatment.
In the midst of all this sits a confused general public: a treasure chest of profit.
There are signs the tank may soon be getting a good clean out.
Canada just released a new food guide which excluded the food industry entirely. The guide provides advice about how much and what broad types of food to eat, and it also includes suggestions such as 'be aware of food marketing', cook more often, read labels, be mindful of your eating habits. (Images taken from the Canadian Food Guide website).
It's a good start.
But we need to remove the food industry octopuses from nutrition advice entirely.
That's a big challenge. The industry bodies will fight back, and they have resources and more than enough arms! How can we control the advertising and dubious claims that saturate our media? And there are legitimate implications for our broader economy due to the scale of change required to these industries (after decades of growth propped up by dubious nutrition claims).
Getting industry funding out of research entirely would be a excellent step. We need to take a very good look at everything in the fish tank so we can do more than divert precious research funding to debunking spurious nutrition claims one-by-one.
We would do well to return to thinking about food as part of our personal identity and our culture, and not just an assembly of nutrients. Developing a positive food culture as an aspect of healthy eating would also be an excellent step.
Getting industry funding out of research entirely would be a excellent step. We need to take a very good look at everything in the fish tank so we can do more than divert precious research funding to debunking spurious nutrition claims one-by-one.
We would do well to return to thinking about food as part of our personal identity and our culture, and not just an assembly of nutrients. Developing a positive food culture as an aspect of healthy eating would also be an excellent step.
We can still benefit from nutrition science, but let's return to seeing food primarily as part of the richness of our connections with other people and the natural world.
Books, articles and summary magazine articles
- Cullerton K, Donnet T, Lee A, Gallegos D (2016) Exploring power and influence in nutrition policy in Australia. Obesity Reviews, 17 (12), 1218-1225
- Campbell TC, Campbell TM. (Revised edition, 2016). The China Study: Revised and Expanded Edition: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health. BenBella Books (Contains extensive nutrition research information plus a chapter on the way that food science has been manipulated; it was the main prompt for this article and drawing)
- Huffington Post article by Campbell summarising his book
- Well+Good blog article by Lisa Elaine Held outlines The China Study content quite differently
- Hennessy M, Cullerton K, Baker P et al. (2019) Time for complete transparency about conflicts of interest in public health nutrition research. HRB Open Research, 2:1
- Kealey, T (2018). Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal: Why You Should Ditch Your Morning Meal For Health and Wellbeing. Harper Collins Publishers (AU) (Like The China Study, it contains research information, and heaps of examples of manipulation of the food science.)
- BBC article by Jess Brown on the topic of questionable research about breakfast, Nov 2018
- Malhotra, Aseem (2018) Presentation and panel discussion at the European Parliament, Brussels. Killing for Profit – Dr Aseem Malhotra discusses the dark world of Big Food and Big Pharma
- The Saturday Paper article on the development of Canada's new food guidelines by Linda Moon: Bias-free dietary guidance. May 2019
- Nestle, Marion. (2007) Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. University of California Press. Marion's blog explores the book's themes
- Vox article on Marion Nestle's book by Julia Belluz: Nutrition research is deeply biased by food companies. Nov 2018
Sources for images, all used under Creative Commons licence
- Octopus in barrel: Suma Aqualife Park [CC BY]
- Degraded soil: Oxfam International [CC BY]
- Clean empty fish tank: Coral Clipart Fish Tank #714 [CC BY-SA-NC]
- Cooking and eating together: US Navy photo by Jake Berenguer [Public domain]
- Nutrition in the fish tank of neoliberalism: drawing by the author (c) Wordly Explorations
- Canadian Food Guide photos [CC BY-ND-NC]
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are moderated. After you click Publish (bottom left), you will get a pop up for approval. You may also get a Blogger request to confirm your name to be displayed with your comment. I aim to reply within two days.