Search results: the corporation not me

Published: October 5, 2015

Order from Oxford University Press.  Order from Amazon.

View the Table of Contents

Use and enjoy the list of media resources—links to videos, audios, songs, movies, infographics, commercials—keyed to illustrate the text.

This book:

• Answers the question, how did what is essentially flavored sugar-water come to mean so much and to have such devastating health and food policy consequences?
• Is the first to focus on the history, politics, nutrition, and health of soda, integrating public health science with historical and cultural research
• Helps readers understand how we created this food system, what its problems are, and what we can do to fix these problems
• Is illustrated with 70 figures and 50 tables
• Comes with a Foreword by Mark Bittman, food journalist and columnist for The New York Times
• Comes with an Afterword by Dr. Neal Baer, pediatrician and television writer and producer

Here are the book’s blurbs:

• “The soda industry is a powerful economic operator. Economic power readily translates into political power. Soda Politics is exactly the kind of carefully-researched investigative reporting needed to open the eyes of the public and parliamentarians to the health hazards of what is, as the author rightly notes, essentially liquid candy in a bottle.” –Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General, World Health Organization
• “No book in history has so completely laid bare the soda scourge that touches every corner of the world. Marion Nestle shows how this happened, its impact on human health and well-being, who the players are, and, most importantly, what might be done. This is the right book at the right time.” –Dr. Kelly Brownell, Dean, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University
• “Marion Nestle is one of the greatest muckrakers of our time, and what she does is vitally important-for our health, our environment, and for future generations. Here, she wages war against the soda titans with such piercing clarity and so many irrefutable truths that all other arguments crumble.” –Alice Waters, Founder and Proprietor of Chez Panisse
• “Comprehensive and well-written, this book will help frame a thoughtful public policy debate about nutrition and the societal impacts and costs of obesity.” –Ann M. Veneman, Former US Secretary of Agriculture and Former Executive Director of UNICEF
• “What happens when the food industry’s most insightful critic turns her sights on soda? This razor-sharp, fun to read, plan-of-battle for one of the greatest public health fights of our time. Big soda may have all the money, but those who would enter this fray, as we all should, now have their champion.” –Michael Moss, Author of Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
• “For decades, soda companies have amassed fortunes off drinks that are making us sick. It took someone like Marion Nestle to cut through the spin and uncover the high cost of cheap sodas.” –Robert Kenner, Director/Producer, Food Inc. and Merchants of Doubt
• “Long recognized as an important and informed voice in our national and international discussions on nutrition and health, Marion Nestle has written another book that will keep us talking. With an impressive combination of scholarship and advocacy, Dr Nestle takes an unflinching look at the soda industry, its products and the impact on health. Soda Politics deserves the attention of the public and policy makers, and should make us all think more carefully about choices we can make to improve health and well-being.”–Margaret Hamburg, M.D., Former Commissioner, U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

REVIEWS

Here’s the first review from the August 2015 Library Journal:

Nestle (nutrition, New York Univ.) once again exposes the dark side of the food business. As in her 2007 Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, the author examines the soft drink industry, demonstrating how products that are basically flavored water with added sugar contribute to obesity, type-2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. She discusses the composition and production of soda, the adverse effects of excess sugar consumption, and product marketing. The companies’ targeting of children, low-income, and minority communities; lobbying of Congress to prevent legislation that would impact profits; funding of research to produce results that obscure the facts about soda; and donations to health organizations and charities in order to be portrayed as socially responsible corporations make it difficult for citizens to act. Nestle reveals what can be done and how to do it, providing relevant data, analyzing that information, and illustrating its difficulties. She then advocates for smaller portions, taxing sugary drinks, and excluding soda from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and provides examples of successful campaigns, a list of groups advocating for healthy beverage choices, and extensive notes. VERDICT An outstanding manual for health educators, activists, and anyone seeking information about the soda industry and its impact on health.—  Barbara Bibel, formerly Oakland P.L.

David Katz in Nature 526: 34–35 (01 October 2015)

For me, the single most stunning and appalling revelation comes in the section about environmental impact and industry responses to it. It is that between 340 and 620 litres of water are used for every litre of soft drink produced, about 20% of that related to packaging. Despite such disturbing revelations,Soda Politics is not discouraging…Throughout the book, Nestle provides tactics for practical, local advocacy, such as working with school wellness committees and engaging local policymakers. And since 2002, the proportion of US citizens who say that they avoid soft drinks has risen by 20%, reaching nearly two-thirds of the population…For public health to prevail over soda politics as usual, we have miles to go. This book is the richly drawn map of how to get there, from here.

From Science Magazine, October 16, 2015:285

The standard operating practices of companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo demand the same level of scrutiny as cigarette companies, and for many of the same reasons, argues Marion Nestle in the introduction of her new book, Soda Politics. What follows is a thorough and unflinching look at the soft-drink industry’s role in promoting the consumption of sugary drinks despite growing evidence that they are detrimental to our health. The book begins with a basic primer of the range of health problems that have been linked to soda consumption, from tooth decay to obesity and diabetes, hitting its stride with an eviscerating assessment of the industry’s marketing and advocacy practices.

From US Food Policy, November 11, 2015

For those readers who share Nestle’s critical perspective on the food industry, it is obvious that this book would be informative. But here is the greater surprise: this solid book is by far the best source on this topic for any reader, with any perspective on economics or politics.  If I worked for a trade association, or an industry front group, or an esteemed professional association that relies on soda industry funding, or the House Agriculture Committee, or a sugar manufacturer, or a high-powered corporate law firm, I might store this book in my desk drawer rather than my book shelf … yet I would read it word for word.

From The Independent, November 12, 2015

In Soda Politics (OUP, £19.90), Dr Marion Nestle does us all a great service by spelling out clearly and authoritatively the dreadful price we are paying for guzzling gallons of sugared water – Coke and Pepsi by any other name. Big Soda, as Dr Nestle calls the billion-dollar corporate giants behind this poison, know exactly how bad their products are for us but are so powerful no one takes them on. Rise up and rebel, Nestlé urges.

From the L.A. Review of Books, November 19, 2015

Nestle writes like an investigator hunting every possible scrap of damning material for a prosecutorial brief, which will no doubt make her book an excellent resource for activists and reformers seeking remedies in Washington, in the courts, and, perhaps, in the aisles of the local supermarket.

From the New York Times Book Review, November 21, 2015

Big Soda knows what it’s doing.

Fortunately, so does Marion Nestle. The nutrition professor, advocate and investigator best known for “Food Politics” profiles the soft drink industry in her expansive, superbly researched new book, “Soda Politics: Taking On Big Soda (and Winning).” It isn’t so much a narrative as a well-organized barrage of facts, some eye-popping (the world’s soda companies produce nearly two trillion 12-ounce servings annually), others banally incriminating. They come off the page like jabs in a sustained pummeling lasting more than 400 pages. Even if Nestle is only half right, it’s still a total knockout.

From The Economist, November 28, 2015

Drinks companies must also reckon with a small army of health advocates, among which Ms Nestle is a major-general.

From Matthew Donnelly, Gulp, November 30, 2015

This is a food advocates’ book which forensically analyses the tactics of the ‘Soda’ industry.

From Jane Lear at TakePart, December 2, 2015

Nestle is foremost an educator and an activist, and Soda Politics is worth its price alone for the chapters on advocacy, from recruiting public health leaders and working from within to protecting public water resources…In other words, we can change things, one Big Gulp at a time.

From The Lancet–Diabetes/Endocrinology , February 4, 2016: “comprehensive…cogent and fair-minded.”

Caffrey M.  Is soda the new tobacco? An expert and new CDC data say yes.  American Journal of Medical Care 2016;22(4):139-141.

Sabnavis M.  Bitter fizz.  Financial Express (India), March 20, 2016: A book that exposes that there’s more ill in a cola bottle than mere sugar—environment costs, high water use and pure politics.

Das Gupta U.  The bitter fight over sugary drinks.  Business standard (India), March 22, 2016.

Angier N. The Bear’s Best Friend.  New York Review of Books, May 12, 2016: 56-58.

Janer Z.  Profit Before People: The Case Against the Soft Drink Industry.  The Wire, April 24, 2016.

Hearne SA.  Behind the curtain.  Health Affairs, May 2016:936.

Mosaffarian D.  The politics and science of soda and our health.  The Lancet 2016;387 (May 28):2190-2191.

Wineberg D.  The San Francisco Review of Books.  October 20, 2018.

 

MEDIA ON SODA POLITICS

2017

May 26  Soda Politics: como baixar o consumo de refrigerante, Do Campo à Mesa (in Portuguese)

2016

April 14  Opinion piece in Reforma.com (in Spanish).

April 14 Article in La Jornada about my lecture in Mexico City (in Spanish)

March 24 BYU radio Matt Townsend show

March 2 ABC-FM interview with Margaret Throsby, Classic FM

March 1 Lecture to Sydney Ideas, U. Sydney

March 1 ABC News radio and print interview with David Taylor

Feb 29  Interview (online) with ABC Sydney

Feb 27  “At Lunch With” column in the Sydney Morning Herald: “the powerful foodie”

Feb 24  Podcast of lecture on Soda Politics at the University of Melbourne

Feb 19 Radio interview with Mark Colvin, ABC News (Sydney)

Feb 19 Podcast interview with Colvinius, ABC News (Sydney)

Feb 18  BTR Media podcast (my interview on Soda Politics is at 13.01)

Feb 7  Wisconsin Public Radio interview

Feb 1  Interview (online) with Chris Radicz of the American Society for Nutrition

Jan 29  Interview with BreakThroughRadio’s Rebecca Chodorkoff

Jan 20 Interview with Suzi Phillips, U. Auckland

2015

Dec 16  Podcast with Steve Mirsky of Scientific American

Dec 16  Food Tank’s favorite books of 2015

Dec 9 Edible Manhattan and Brooklyn, Favorite Books.

Dec 9 Civil Eats’ 20 Best Food and Farm Books of 2015

Dec 5 KCRW radio, Evan Kleiman’s Good Food

Dec 1  KALW hour-long radio San Francisco interview

Nov 23 Soda Politics podcast, New America NYC

Nov 11  Interview with Reserve Editorial Team, In the Kitchen

Nov 6  Audio recording of Q and A talk at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, with Dr. Alice Huan-mei Chen

Nov 3 Good Food World book description

Nov 1  Interview in Nutrition Action Healthletter, November 2015:1-5

Oct 28  The Seattle Times

Oct 27  The Salt on Soda Politics

Oct 27 Texas Public Radio on Soda Politics

Oct 20  Video of presentation to New York Times Food for Tomorrow Conference on soda taxes

Oct 19  Article in Veille Action pour de Saines Habitudes de Vie (in French)

Oct 19  Interview with Lingyi Hou for NYU’s Washington Square News

Oct 15 KUT News radio, interview with Tom Philpott 

Oct 9 Interview Q & A with Nancy Huehnergarth on Huffington Post

Oct 8  Interview Q & A with Andy Bellatti on Civil Eats

Oct 7  MP3 interview with Carl Lenoe on Super Human Radio

Oct 6  CSPAN video recording of book event at NYU

Oct 6  Radio interview with Dr. Mercola, with transcript.

Oct 5  Interview with Roberto Ferdman in the Washington Post

Oct 5 Caselli_Mechael L.  “Soda Politics” & science: 5 issues.  Food Insight, IFIC.

Oct 5 Foodline radio interview

Oct 4  Interview with Johnny Adamic of the Daily Beast

Oct 2  Interview with Jamie Ducharme of Boston Magazine online

Sept 28  Interview podcast with Dr. Mercola.  Condensed version.  Full version.

Sept 25  Interview with Julia Belluz, Vox

Sept 21  Interview  with Katy Kieffer, Heritage Radio

Sept 10  Interview Q and A with Natural Path

WikiLeaks is offering $100,000 for a leaked copy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, says the Washington Post.   It especially wants to see the agricultural chapters, as do we all.

For the WikiLeaks video (and pitch) that explains why it wants those TPP chapters, click here.

It’s worth trying to understand the TPP.  Since my earlier post on it, I’ve been collecting items to help clarify the various stakeholder positions on this agreement.

For the TTP  

The Obama administration, for reasons incomprehensible to Paul Krugman, among others, is very much for it.  It claims across-the-board benefits for U.S. agriculture.  For example:

Vegetables: U.S. exports of fresh and processed vegetables to the TPP countries face tariffs as high as 90 percent. Under the agreement, tariffs across the TPP region will be cut, offering new market access opportunities to U.S. producers and exporters of fresh and processed vegetables. In 2014 the United States exported almost $5 billion in fresh and processed vegetables to the TPP region.

The USDA’s has produced fact sheets on what TPP can do for individual states.   I checked the one for New York.  The expected benefits to the state are expressed generically, not specifically to New York State:

Fresh and Processed Vegetables: U.S. exports of fresh and processed vegetables to the TPP countries face tariffs as high as 90 percent. Under the agreement, tariffs across the TPP region will be cut, offering new market access opportunities to U.S. producers and exporters of fresh and processed vegetables. In 2014 the United States exported almost $5 billion in fresh and processed vegetables to the TPP region.

Dubious about the TTP

• Start with Robert Reich’s 2-minute video: “The Worst Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of.”  He calls it a Trojan horse.  It allows corporations to sue governments for passing regulations that might affect corporate profits, among other bad things.
• Paul Krugman votes “thumbs down” on the TPP.  He argues that trade agreements aren’t all that economically beneficial  and seem to be mostly about intellectual property rights–patents and the like.  He asks: “Why, exactly, should the Obama administration spend any political capital – alienating labor, disillusioning progressive activists – over such a deal?”  His slides illustrate these points.
• Senator Elizabeth Warren tells Rachel Maddow that corporate lobbyists and executives—not the American Public—are involved in the TPP negotiations.
• Joseph Stiglitz makes the same point.
• Henry Greenberg and Stephanie Shiau write in the Journal of Public Health: “As it stands the TPPA poses serious risks to global public health, particularly chronic, non-communicable diseases. At greatest risk are national tobacco regulations, regulations governing the emergence of generic drugs and controls over food imports by transnational corporations.”
• Eric Crosbie, MA, Mariaelena Gonzalez, PhD, and Stanton A. Glantz write in the American Journal of Public Health about how trade agreements prioritize investment and intellectual property rights over health.

WikiLeaks may be on the right track here.

What’s going on with the Trade Promotion Authority act (TPA) has lots of people worried.   The bill, known as “fast track,” allows President Obama to make trade agreements that Congress can approve or reject, but cannot change.

The Senate passed the TPA.  It now goes to the House.

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a congratulatory statement:

Today the Senate helped move America closer to securing responsible agreements that open markets for America’s farmers, ranchers and agribusiness and create jobs and improve wages across the country…Our farmers and ranchers face exorbitant tariffs and others barriers in important foreign markets, and if we do not act to maintain and gain market share in these places, our competitors will.

On the other hand, 2009 labor, environmental, family farm, consumer, faith, Internet freedom and other organizations oppose the TPA.  They say “Fast Track is rigged to give special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.”

In an article in the American Journal of Public Health last year, tobacco researchers explained the problem:

International trade agreements relocate decisions about tobacco control policy to venues where there is little opportunity for public scrutiny, participation, and debate…“Fast-track authority,” in which Congress cedes ongoing oversight authority to the President, further distances the public from the debate.

As I explained in previous posts on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), trade agreements:

• Are conducted in secrecy
• View safety regulations and matters such as country-of-origin labeling (see yesterday’s post) as trade barriers
• Allow multinational corporations to sue governments for passing laws that might affect corporate profits

I’ll be trying to keep up with what’s going on with trade agreements.  Stay tuned.

I am indebted to Pro Politico Morning Agriculture for this tidbit:

HOUSE AG COMMITTEE PRIES INTO DGAC COMMENT REVIEW: The chairman and ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee have requested that the USDA and HHS supply an accounting of how they intend to review the more than 29,000 public comments on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s report, as well as an accounting of the staff maneuvering that’s been required to review those thousands of comments in a timely manner.

In a letter sent by Reps. Michael Conaway and Collin Peterson, the committee has also requested more information on whether the departments will be able to deliver the final Dietary Guidelines for Americans document by the end of the year, as originally intended.

“Have you reconsidered that goal given the overwhelming number of comments that now need to be reviewed,” the letter states. “If not, do you intend to incorporate the review of the 29,000+ comments received into this work product, and how do you intend to complete that process?” You can read the full letter, which the lawmakers expect a response to by June 10, here: http://1.usa.gov/1EJcrSM

OK.  Let’s review the process here.

• Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants the Dietary  Guidelines reviewed and redone every five years.
• We’ve had Dietary Guidelines every five years since 1980.  Their basic messages have not changed much.
• The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) reviewed the research and issued a lengthy report.
• The report was released for public comment.  More than 29,000 comments came in.
• Now the agencies—USDA and HHS—must deal with the comments are write the actual Dietary Guidelines.

Until 2005, the DGACs wrote the actual guidelines with minimal editing from the agencies.  That was certainly how it worked in 1995 when I was on that committee.

We did the research and wrote guidelines based on that research.  The agencies published them pretty much as we wrote them.

That changed in 2005 under the Bush II administration.

By now, nutrition advice has become so politicized that the public—from individual consumers to corporations—has a say in them.

Which method helps the public eat healthier diets?

You decide.

I withholding judgment until I see how the agencies extract guidelines from the 650-page DGAC report and its 29,000 comments.

I’m guessing that after all this fuss, the guidelines will still basically say:

• Healthy diets are based largely on foods from plant sources (eat your veggies)
• Don’t eat too much sugar, salt, or saturated fat (avoid junk food)
• Don’t gain excess weight if you can avoid it (balance calories)

Good advice.  Too bad that following it does not increase profits for the food industry.

I am increasingly concerned about the proliferation of research studies sponsored and funded by food, beverage, or supplement companies with a vested interested in the outcome.  These almost invariably come to conclusions in favor of the sponsor’s food product.

You must understand that I am not searching for sponsored studies in any systematic way.  They just appear in the tables of contents of journals I typically read and are easily identified by their titles.

My plan is to post a list of sponsored research studies every time I accumulate 5 examples.  My first post in this series appeared March 16.

Recent examples

1.  Purified palmitoleic acid for the reduction of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and serum lipids: A double-blinded, randomized, placebo controlled study, by Adam M. Bernstein, MD, ScD, Michael F. Roizen, MD, Luis Martinez, MD, MPH.  Journal of Clinical Lipidology 2014;8:612–617.

• Conclusion: Purified palmitoleic acid may be useful in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia with the beneficial added effects of decreasing LDL and hs-CRP and raising HDL.
• Sponsor: Tersus Pharmaceuticals (maker of Provinal palmitoleic acid).  Dr. Roizen is chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of Tersus Pharmaceuticals and chair of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute.

2.  Whey Protein Supplementation Preserves Postprandial Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis during Short-Term Energy Restriction in Overweight and Obese Adults, by Amy J Hector, George R Marcotte, Tyler A Churchward-Venne, Caoileann H Murphy, Leigh Breen,Mark von Allmen, Steven K Baker, and Stuart M Phillips.  J Nutrition 2015;145:246–52.

• Conclusion: We conclude that whey protein supplementation attenuated the decline in postprandial rates of MPS [Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis] after weight loss, which may be of importance in the preservation of lean mass during longer-term weight loss interventions.
• Sponsor: The Dairy Research Institute through the Whey Protein Research Consortium.

3.  Natural cocoa consumption: Potential to reduce atherogenic factors? By Brian K. McFarlin, Adam S. Venable, Andrea L. Henning, Eric A. Prado, Jill N. Best Sampson, Jakob L. Vingren, David W. Hill.  J Nutritional Biochemistry 2015: in press.

• Conclusion: Collectively, these findings indicate that acute natural cocoa consumption was associated with decreased obesity-related disease risk.
• Sponsor: The Hershey Company

4.  The effect of a high-egg diet on cardiovascular risk factors in people with type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes and Egg (DIABEGG) study—a 3-mo randomized controlled trial, by Nicholas R Fuller, Ian D Caterson, Amanda Sainsbury, Gareth Denyer, Mackenzie Fong, James Gerofi, Katherine Baqleh, Kathryn H Williams, Namson S Lau, and Tania P Markovic.  Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 101:705-713.

• Conclusion: High egg consumption did not have an adverse effect on the lipid profile of people with T2D [type 2 diabetes] in the context of increased MUFA [monounsaturated fatty acid] and PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acid] consumption. This study suggests that a high-egg diet can be included safely as part of the dietary management of T2D, and it may provide greater satiety.
• Sponsor: Australian Egg Corporation

5.  Dietary Flaxseed Independently Lowers Circulating Cholesterol and Lowers It beyond the Effects of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications Alone in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease.  Andrea L Edel, Delfin Rodriguez-Leyva, Thane G Maddaford, Stephanie PB Caligiuri, J Alejandro Austria, Wendy Weighell, Randolph Guzman, Michel Aliani, and Grant N Pierce.  J. Nutr. 2015; 145:749-757.

• Conclusion: Milled flaxseed lowers total and LDL cholesterol in patients with PAD [peripheral artery disease] and has additional LDL-cholesterol–lowering capabilities when used in conjunction with CLMs [cholesterol-lowering medications].
• Sponsor: Flax2015, the Canola Council of Canada, and others.

I was invited by CNN to comment on the announcement by Nestlé that it is removing artificial colors from its chocolates.

Here’s what I said:

(CNN) When food giant Nestle USA (to which I am, alas, not related) last month announced plans to remove all artificial flavors and colors from its chocolate candies, it understandably made headlines. According to the company, by the end of 2015, none of a group of 250 chocolate products including Butterfinger and Baby Ruth will contain artificial flavors or colors such as Red #40 or Yellow #5.

With the expectation that these chemicals will also disappear from the company’s other candies, it looks like the end of the use of artificial flavors and colors in anything but the cheapest food products. If that proves to be the case, it will be a welcome shift.

Nestle USA intends to advertise the reformulated products with a “No artificial flavors or colors” claim on package labels. If sales of the “no artificial” candies grow as expected, the company will surely extend the removal to all of its other colored and flavored food products. After all, Nestle’s international parent company — and the company’s competitors — will have to take notice and find ways to remove these chemicals from all their product lines.

Nestle USA has undeniable clout. It accounts for a quarter of the $100 billion in annual revenues of the more than century-old, privately held parent corporation, which itself is the largest food company in the world. This move surely will not only reverberate through the candy industry, but also affect every other major food company.

In substituting natural for artificial flavors and colors, Nestle USA is responding to what its customers are saying. The company’s own research indicates that Americans prefer their beloved candy brands to be free of artificial flavors and colors, while other surveys find majorities of respondents saying that artificial chemical additives negatively influence their buying decisions.

Nestle is also responding to decades of complaints from consumer advocates about the potential health risks of these chemicals, especially the dyes. Studies in experimental animals have linked high doses of food dyes to health problems, among them organ damage, cancer, birth defects, and allergic reactions. In humans, studies link food dyes to hyperactivity and other behavioral problems in young children.

The credibility of these studies and their implications for human health remain hotly debated. In the 1970s, for example, Ben Feingold, a physician in California, suggested that food additives caused children to become hyperactive. Much of the evidence for the “Feingold hypothesis” rested on anecdotal reports by parents, whereas double-blind, controlled clinical trials produced contradictory results.

On the basis of current evidence, some artificial food dyes have been banned, while others remain in use despite suggestions that they too might be harmful. But the makers and users of food dyes argue that the chemicals are safe at current levels of usage. As a result of all this, and in the absence of convincing evidence of their safety, the advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest has campaigned since the 1970s to remove food dyes and other chemicals from foods, and has continued to petition the Food and Drug Administration to ban them.

The opposing views complicate the regulatory status of food dyes. But after one clinical trial reported that dyes induce hyperactivity in half the children studied, the British government asked companies to stop using most food colors; the European Union requires a warning notice on many foods made with them.

In the United States, the FDA does not permit artificial food dyes to be used unless the manufacturers can meet safety requirements. But the amounts of these substances in the country’s food supply have greatly increased in recent years — soft drinks, breakfast cereals, frozen desserts and even salad dressings all contain artificial coloring agents. True, the FDA considers a dye to be safe if there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from its intended use. But that standard is vague enough to cause concern.

Given the unresolved scientific questions, it is reasonable to ask why artificial colors have to be in foods at all. From the standpoint of manufacturers, such additives are essential for covering up and hiding unattractive colors in processed foods. To the public, red candy seems to taste better than the drab variety. And while natural colors exist, they are less stable or more expensive to produce. But for Nestle to have taken the action that it has, the company must have found substitutes it can live with. And appealing to consumers’ preference for “natural” makes good business sense.

The truth is that whether artificial colors do or do not cause health problems in adults or children, they are there strictly for cosmetic purposes. For that reason alone, getting rid of them is a good idea.

Michele Simon’s latest investigative report deals with sponsorship by food corporations of the Australian Dietetics Association.

The School Nutrition Association (SNA) is the organization that ostensibly represents the interests of school food service personnel.

I say ostensibly because the SNA has moved in a quite different direction.  It now fully represents the interests of its corporate food industry donors.

In the recent past, it supported federal efforts to improve the nutritional quality of school meals.  Now it fights all efforts to do so.

Recent events illustrate these points.

1.  Nancy Huehnergarth reports on the SNA meeting in Phoenix:

The annual conference, which this year ran from January 11 through 13, is “where school nutrition directors and industry representatives [came] together to build successful partnerships to better serve the nation’s children,” according to the SNA’s website. But a review of the conference agenda, speakers, educational sessions and sponsors paint a far different picture — one of an overwhelmingly industry-driven event heavy on the promotion of food and beverage offerings from major processed food corporations.

2.  The SNA has just issued a Position Paper on school meals.

It calls for more funding for school meals (good idea).

But then it insists on some very bad ideas:

• Stop requiring fruits and vegetables to be served with every meal.
• Don’t require so much whole grain.
• Back off on lower sodium.
• Allow any junk food to be part of the reimbursable meal.
• Allow any junk food to be sold in competition with school meals.

In other words, return to the junk food school environment that flourished before the Institute of Medicine wrote two reports on improving the nutritional quality of school meals, Michelle Obama instituted Let’s Move!, Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 authorizing USDA to set nutritional standards, USDA wrote those standards, and most schools in the United States went right ahead and implemented them.

The ostensible reason for the pushback?  Prevent waste.

3.  The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) did an analysis of trends in student participation in school meals.

This  research firmly counters the idea that students are turning away from school meals in droves in order to avoid having to eat fruits and vegetables.  It cites the recession and the increased price of the lunches as the reasons for the decline in participation.

Writing in Politico, Helena Bottemiller Evich points to the politics:

Student rejection of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products and declining participation has been a key part of the political debate over the push to relax some of the new standards. The move has sparked a battle that is expected to intensify this year as Congress looks to reauthorize the law governing school nutrition programs.

4.  Tom Stenzel, president and CEO of United Fresh Produce Association issued a response to SNA.

While we agree with many recommendations in the School Nutrition Association’s (SNA) 2015 Position Paper, we are deeply disappointed that SNA has chosen to continue its ill-advised fight against serving kids more fruits and vegetables in schools. The requirement that kids receive one-half cup of fruits or vegetables in school meals is being successfully met by tens of thousands of schools across the country. This is a modest step for the health of our children, especially in these critical learning years. When health classes teach students to make Half Their Plate consist of fruits and vegetables, it would be unconscionable for the school cafeteria to undercut that message by not serving at least one-half cup in school meals.

With friends like the SNA, school food advocates don’t need enemies.

Chalk this one up to food industry divide-and-conquer strategies.  Food companies pay SNA’s bills.  They get what they pay for.

The SNA ought to be the strongest advocate for healthier school meals.  It’s a tragedy that this organization has become the leading defender of junk food.