When The Media Says "Experts" They Mean Paid Corporate Shills (Part 34)
If your seemingly leftwing movement is easily co-opted by multinational conglomerates without changing the message you are not a thorn in the side of global capitalism but a useful idiot whose message they would like to amplify and cash in on. Such is the case for the so-called fat acceptance/liberation and ‘body positivity’ movement or whatever the hell they call it these days that plays right into the hands of the ultra processed food industry without tweaking their message one iota. The UPF industry has not only embraced the movement but stepped it up a notch by partnering with “influencers” and registered dieticians to act as paid shills that bring their “healthy at every size” and “anti-food shaming” message directly to consumers on social media.
Anti-Diet Dieticians are paid shills for UPF industryA joint investigation between The Examination and The Washington Post of more than 6,000 social media posts by 68 registered dieticians (so called food and nutrition experts) with at least 10,000 followers found that 40% of them who had a combined reach of 9 million followers promoted anti-diet messaging. The majority of the anti-diet dieticians were paid to promote food, beverage and supplement brands. General Mills is the largest sponsor of this astroturfed social media campaign particularly exploiting the anti-food shaming angle to promote high in added sugars garbage cereals and hosting national food conferences to coordinate messaging with registered dieticians. The national food conference in question is the Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo (FNCE) held annually in different cities and hosted by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics who as I pointed out in (Part 1) of this series are bought and paid for by the same corporate interests. At least some of the shills disclose that they are paid off but attempt to whitewash their shilling as some kind of altruistic act of kindness.
Dubious Industry Funded ScienceDespite peddling in nutritionless garbage conglomerates like General Mills and Kellogg are not without their bonafide scientific literature supporting their product lines albeit on the shaky foundation of observational research and the most tenuous kind that relies on 24 hour dietary recall. Although 24 hour dietary recall interviews and food frequency questionnaires are a staple of nutrition research the terms of reference of General Mills and Kellogg's funded studies compare ready to eat cereals (RTECs) against non-specific non-RTEC breakfasts or no breakfast at all. A cross sectional Canadian study for instance found, using the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey, that consuming RTEC at any time during a one time 24 hour dietary recall led to a higher diet quality and nutrient intake compared to non-consumption of RTEC for breakfast. What the non-RTEC breakfasts consisted of is never specified but given how prolific UPF items are in Western diets, especially during breakfast, it was probably something much worse than cereal such as pop tarts, pastries, muffins or granola bars that would explain why sugary cereals were more nutrient dense. A more recent systematic review of 14 industry funded observational studies and 14 RCTs found that all of the observational research showed eating RTEC breakfast was associated with lower BMI, lower prevalence of obesity, and less weight gain over time, but none of the three RCTs conducted without hypocaloric (low calorie) conditions reported differences in weight loss or body composition between RTEC and non-RTEC interventions and RCTs that compared hypocaloric diets with RTEC with other hypocaloric diets without them found only mixed results. What is never mentioned in the industry research circle jerk is that the nutritional benefits they attribute to the cereals themselves could more easily be attributed to the vitamin D fortified milk, fruits and nuts often added to cereal or that people who eat cereal for breakfast have more active lifestyles already than people who eat other UPF junk for breakfast.
There were two peer-reviewed observational studies conducted over a decade ago, funded by the National Confectioner’s Association, that showed that candy consumption is associated with 22-26% lower rates of obesity in both adolescents and children. While no scientifically literate rational person would attribute the 22-26% lower rate of obesity in children and adolescents who eat candy to the candy itself, it isn't uncommon for the UPF industry to frame similar observational research as evidence for their products to be used in official nutritional guidelines. Between 2011 and 2016 Kellogg tried to pass off an advisory ‘breakfast’ council as a body of independent dietary experts that guided their nutrition research. All of the dietitians on this expert breakfast council were paid $13,000 annually by the company, signed non-compete agreements and agreed to use their esteem as dietitians to engage in “nutrition influencer outreach” on social media. These paid shills also provided continuing education courses to other dieticians, published academic papers on nutrition research related to breakfast, and influenced government dietary guidelines. A Kellogg employee even oversaw the editing of the published journal articles and had cautionary statements about added sugar edited out. As a NYT columnist pointed out in an article titled ‘Sorry, There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast’ industry funded observational research that consistently tries to attribute eating breakfast to healthier weight and cholesterol levels, especially consuming their products for breakfast, are hopelessly confounded by SES risk factors and reverse causality wherein people with unhealthy weight skip breakfast in an effort to lose weight. However, such research can sway the general public that is oblivious to how tenuous and biased observational research tends to be especially when the terms of reference are framed by industry or industry sponsored scientists.
Full Blown Capture of Official ExpertiseThe UPF food industry’s corruption of nutrition science extends beyond scientific journals, registered dieticians and organizations such as the AND or ILSI to the very regulatory body placed in charge of safeguarding America’s food. A Cambridge study found that 19 out of the 20 members of the advisory committee involved in creating the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the USDA, had financial ties to industry with the most common ties being industry research funding, employment and membership on a company or corporate front group advisory/executive board. A full 13 out of 20 advisory committee members were board members or employees of corporations and/or their front groups and 15/20 received research grants from these industry actors or were consultants (the polite word for shill). 17/20 members had more than 1 conflict of interest including 11 with ties to the International Life Science Institute I covered in (Part 20), 5 with ties to General Mills, and 3 with ties to Nestle. The two advisory committee members with only one industry tie were the editor of an industry sponsored publication and another member with speaker fee/honoria for participating in an industry sponsored event such as the annual Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo. While this study cannot prove that these industry sponsored advisory committee members financial ties influenced their recommendations, the recommendations appear to be UPF industry friendly as they recommend limiting added sugars to 10% of total energy the same as saturated fat from meat and dairy, 6 servings of grains and 12% of total energy from oils in a 2,000 calorie/day diet.