The food industry and our health

The history of nutrition and health in the US is a story about capitalism, politics, and marketing. As a capitalist, nothing has exposed me to the impact of free markets more than the past century of nutrition and health in the US.

The cigarette industry illustrates how lobbying and marketing can keep an industry alive distributing a product that kills hundreds of thousands of people. Corporate interests in foods from dairy to meat to sugar have a similar influence on American’s health and lives.

The US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Agriculture publish The Dietary Guidelines for Americans to “provide authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk of major chronic diseases.” (1) This report is revised every 5 years.

Each five year update brings together diet and nutrition experts from around the country. While the system is well intended, the reality is that special interests influence what this report tells Americans every five years.

“In the 2015-2020 update, for example, the advisory committee recommended limiting the consumption of red meat. But the guidelines presented to the American public didn’t say that and instead recommended consuming lean meat.” (1) This was influenced by meat lobbyists like the North American Meat Institute.

Similar to cigarettes, it takes decades of research to form a conclusion on what constitutes a healthy or unhealthy diet. Real people are hard to control for testing, and it takes decades for a food consumption habit to yield meaningful results. As a result, companies can convince the public that there is no proof or that science hasn’t provided a causal link between “X” food and “Y” chronic disease.

For example, throughout the second half of the 20th century, there was a battle between science and the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry formed the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) to create controversy around the health of cigarettes. They mislead the public to give the impression that they were concerned with the scientific research. Note the press release from the TIRC in 1954:

“‘It is an obligation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee at this time to remind the public of these essential points:

1. There is no conclusive scientific proof of a link between smoking and cancer.

2. Medical research points to many possible causes of cancer....

5. The millions of people who derive pleasure and satisfaction from smoking can be reassured that every scientific means will be used to get all the facts as soon as possible.’

Hartnett [Chairman of TIRC] and his successors would reiterate this message for the next forty years.” (2)

It took about 50 years of work from congress, grassroots support, cultural shifts, additional studies, and more to reduce the US’s consumption of cigarettes. Mind you, cigarettes are intuitively harmful - it shouldn’t have been that hard.

The corporate interests and lobbying in the drafting of the The Dietary Guidelines for Americans shows how difficult it will be to reduce the use of less harmful products that companies try to sell to us.

Walter C. Willett notes in “Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy” the following about the process to draft the Guidelines: “What should be a scholarly and scientific process is often a free-for-all among lobbyists for agribusiness, food companies, and special interest groups.” (1)

The consequences of this lobbying is impactful. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans influences how millions of Americans live their lives. It influences federal policies, school lunches, and food served in the military and in prisons.

However, as Willett notes, what’s good for American farmers (supported by lobbyist) unfortunately is not always good for Americans’ health. This leads to politics and businesses influencing our lives in ways we do not realize.

In 2017, the food corporate interests were at it again. They have successfully taken back the Obama administration nutrition initiatives in schools and reintroduced milk into the diets of American children.

“The win is especially sweet for the $200 billion U.S. dairy industry, which has been in a self-declared crisis for years because of declining milk consumption.” (3)

The Obama Administration passed The Health, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2012. This required all flavored milk to be skim milk in schools. Also, the act included included a focus on lean proteins, limits on calories, and a fruit or vegetable at every meal.

The backlash from major companies to this bill shows how these organizations operate. They are interested in selling their product and creating unhealthy eating habits for children from a young age so that they will be customers for life. It is the same as Camel Joe in the parking lot of high schools.

They are not interested in research or arguments against their products. Rather, they care about increasing growth by creating lifelong consumers.

Kellogg Co. and the National Dairy Council were led by

“Dave Grotto, an executive for Kellogg, the cereal maker in Battle Creek, Mich., and Jim Painter, a volunteer adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Brownsville. Painter told the crowd he’d try to talk them through one of their common frustrations: “moms that have it their goal in life to get rid of chocolate milk in your school.” The teaspoon and a half of added sugar in the typical half-pint carton of chocolate milk, Painter said, is worth it for the calcium it contains. He asked people to imagine a 16-year-old girl: “If she doesn’t get enough by the time she turns 30, her bones start turning to dust.”” (3)

In addition to influence over politics, industries will attempt to influence the public through marketing. Marketing plays to our psychological weaknesses. Without knowing what we’re doing, we can be tricked into potentially harmful eating habits.

Consider the margarine craze when studies warned of the dangers of saturated fat in butter. Companies hopped on the trend and marketed margarine as healthier than butter because it contains less saturated fat. With little knowledge of trans fats (which most margarine is full of), companies successfully convinced people that margarine was healthier than butter. Clever marketing like “I can’t believe it’s not butter” convinced people to consume more margarine.

Unfortunately for the public, it turns out that margarine is even worse than butter. The FDA had to step in on trans fats. In 2015, the FDA ruled “that partially hydrogenated oils, which are the main source of harmful trans fats in food, are no longer ‘generally recognized as safe.’” (1)

Food companies were given until 2018 to stop using trans-containing partially hydrogenated oils. Clever marketing was slowly killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Willett notes, “We have estimated that eliminating trans fats from our food supply would prevent between 72,000 and 220,000 heart attacks or heart disease deaths per year. The Center for Science in the Public Interest projected that this would save $50 billion in medical costs a year.” (1)

I can’t talk about marketing without mentioning the Coca-Cola Company. Coke successfully embedded its product into our culture through genius marketing.

As Nassim Taleb says in Antifragile, “What business are [Coke and Pepsi] in? Selling you sugary water or substitutes for sugar, putting into your body stuff that messes up your biological signaling system, causing diabetes and making diabetes vendors rich thanks to their compensatory drugs.” (4)

“I fail to see why the arguments we’ve used against tobacco firms don’t apply - to some extent - to all other large companies that try to sell us things that may make us ill.” (4)

This begs the question - what are we being pressured to consume that is hurting us? What companies are profiting off misinformation of the hidden risks of consuming sugar or dairy or red meat? Should we be worried? Are there answers to the healthcare crisis in the US in preventative medicine through better nutrition?

Long term risks are difficult to fight. We go to extreme caution to make our cars and roads safe because the harm is instant and graphic. Nutrition is more invisible. It takes decades to see impacts and it is difficult to address the root cause. This leaves people vulnerable to misinformation, marketing, and persuasive lobbyist saying our bones will turn to dust without milk.

We should take a serious look at our health and nutrition. We are beginning to see the trend in major cities that seek out more natural, healthy ingredients. We should continue to push in the direction of better nutrition and not be afraid to fight against companies and groups that do not have our health in mind. We should continue to search for the best answers and be aware of the influences and incentives around us.