Conflict of interest by nutritionists who approve Froot Loops

[Guest guest]

Excerpt from Marion Nestle's Nutrition Advice at

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/11/FDNU1A0KC8.DTL

 

Whose nutrition advice can you trust?

We are hearing a lot these days about conflicts of interest - and lack of trust

- caused by corporate influence on medical research and opinion about tobacco

and drugs. And now we must add food and nutrition to that list. . .

All of this matters because the goals of food companies and nutrition

professionals are not the same. The very purpose of food companies is to

increase sales and profits. That is their job. My goal as a public health

nutritionist is to promote more sustainable food production and to help people

make better food choices so that they can live longer and healthier lives. In

theory, these purposes do not have to be in conflict. But in practice, they

often are.

Those who accept food industry funding argue that it has no influence on their

work. Maybe, but evidence strongly suggests otherwise. For example, research

sponsored by food companies almost invariably favors the health benefits of

products sold by those companies. This is hardly a coincidence. Whether done

consciously or unconsciously, it is all too easy to plan studies to give desired

results. Indeed, the essential difference between good and bad science is the

degree to which investigators account for and eliminate potential sources of

bias in their experimental results.

Partnerships between nutrition professionals and food companies almost

invariably favor the marketing interests of food companies, and not necessarily

public health. The most recent case is the Smart Choices front-of-package

labeling program that I discussed in my July 26 column. According to a report in

Forbes, food companies spent $50,000 each, for a total of $1.67 million, to

create the program in partnership with four nutrition and health organizations.

The result? The program's nutritional approval checkmark ended up on Froot

Loops, a cereal containing no fruit but made with sugar as its primary

ingredient by weight, accounting for 44 percent of the total calories. Some

nutrition professionals who helped develop the program defend this choice on the

basis of comparative nutritional quality - i.e., Froot Loops is better than a

doughnut or sweet roll.

Perhaps, but in recent weeks, three of the participating nutrition organizations

have withdrawn from the program, a member of Congress has called on the Food and

Drug Administration to investigate, and the FDA and Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention have funded Institute of Medicine studies to recommend better

standards for front-of-package labels. But the American Society of Nutrition

remains the paid manager of the program, despite the evident conflict of

interest.

Nutrition and health professionals are supposed to have scientific knowledge or

public health as their goals. These examples demonstrate the need for caution

when entering into partnership with food companies whose first priority is to

increase sales of their products.