Dr Marion Nestle isn’t afraid to make enemies in the food industry.
The New York University Professor of Nutrition was one of the first to call out the corruption behind the scenes – proving that more than 90 per cent of industry-funded studies have results that benefit industry.
Now, that industry is threatened. When the I Quit Sugar team heard Marion speak on the findings of her book Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (And Winning), we never expected there might be a double agent in our midst. Leaked emails from Coca-Cola show the corporation had been surveilling Marion at her events in Australia. Yep, creepy.
But that only scratches the surface of how Big Soda is pulling the strings on public health.
A not-so-secret service.
It comes as no surprise to Marion that Big Soda keep her under surveillance, given that Michael Pollan ranks her the second most powerful foodie in America (after Michelle Obama).
“I assume people from the soda industry are attending every talk I give,” says Marion.
Naturally, Marion isn’t the only one under Big Soda’s watch (Sarah likes to joke that Big Soda must have dartboards of her face in their offices). Coke also monitors Professor Lisa Bero, who studies industry-funded research at the University of Sydney.
Coke’s defence was that all their monitoring of academics is out of pure interest in the science and totally transparent. Which is why we had to find out about it through Wikileaks.
“I assume people from the soda industry are attending every talk I give.”
Pop and politics.
It’s important not underestimate the influence of the soft drink and food lobbies. As Marion says, “the number of lobbyists is rather amazing”.
Take, for example, Hillary Clinton’s short-lived sugar tax campaign. Leaked emails revealed Coca-Cola’s outrage over Clinton’s sudden support of a soda tax in April.
“Really??? After all we have done. I hope this has been falsely reported,” wrote chief public affairs and communications officer Clyde Tuggle.
Reportedly, the remark caught Clinton’s team off-guard – and they assured Coke that Clinton would not push the tax again. True to their word, she didn’t.
Since then, reports revealed Clinton considered Coke’s CEO Muhtar Kent for the vice-president position. Talk about having friends in high places.
Sponsored science.
The food industry’s sway on the science goes way, way back. Only recently was it revealed that the sugar industry paid scientists in 1967 to downplay sugar’s role in cardiovascular disease, while demonising fats.
A recent example blazed in our minds is Coca-Cola’s “non-profit” Global Energy Balance Network (which basically said you could exercise off the health effects of sugar).
“This is about marketing, not science,” says Marion, rejecting the idea that if industry didn’t fund the science, it wouldn’t get done.
“If scientists are doing science worth funding, it will get funded.”
“Most research sponsored by food companies is designed to get results useful for marketing.”
The future of soda.
It’s easy to get bogged down in Big Soda’s machinations. But look at it this way – they’re only doing it because they’re scared. Soft drink consumption in the U.S. is reportedly lower than it has been in 30 years and five U.S. cities have voted in a sugar tax, three in the last election alone.
“The one bright sign was the popularity of soda tax initiatives – five wins for five tries,” says Marion. “I’ve already read about other cities planning soda taxes. They are an easy target and if the money goes for useful social purposes, voters will vote yes.”
With sugar taxes on their way in the UK and South Africa, and proposed in Australia (one we continue to campaign for), we’re hopeful we can can keep up the momentum and take a bit more power back from Big Soda.
What shocks you the most about Big Soda’s tactics?
0 comments :
Post a Comment