Apr 22 2009

Food industry self-monitoring

If it’s one thing the food industry does really well, it’s surely to pat itself on the back.  Something called The Ethisphere Institute (motto: “Good.  Smart.  Business. Profit.”) has produced a list of the world’s most ethical companies, among them Kellogg’s, Danone, PepsiCo, and Unilever.  How did Ethisphere do this?  It analyzed data from the companies.  I’m guessing it didn’t include marketing to children or misleading health claims as ethical criteria.

And food company representatives have gotten together to establish guidelines for funding food and nutrition research so as to prevent conflicts of interest.  The guidelines make sense – keep everything transparent and stay out of the way of research and publication – but do not address what I see as the most serious consequence of food industry sponsorship: setting up research studies to  inevitably yield results that favor the sponsor’s products.

This, I can assure you, is remarkably easy to do and happens all the time (see, for example, my post on Açaí).

Yes, food and nutrition research is difficult to do and interpret.  That is why independent funding is essential.  At least that’s how I see it.  You?

Comments

  • volatileconst
  • April 22, 2009
  • 12:14 pm

The fact that McDonald’s is on the list makes me think they should reevaluate their criteria for what constitutes an ethical company. At least, what constitutes “ethical” in the US.

Such a cynic, Marion.

  • SC
  • April 23, 2009
  • 11:56 am

Question for you: How are so many studies that benefit the industries that fund them winding up in peer-reviewed journals? (Today’s example: you need fish AND walnuts for heart health, funded by the California Walnut Commission – and I’ve nothing against walnuts, it just seems the conclusions are nicely convenient.) I’ve thought that once a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has earned more credibility; but I’m not so sure anymore.

Leave a comment