GMW: Are we being fed big fat lies?

[Guest guest]

GMW: Are we being fed big fat lies?

" GM WATCH " <info

Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:00:56 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

--*---

EXCELLENT PIECE OF JOURNALISM FROM THE TIMES, FEATURING OUR OLD FRIENDS

THE BBSRC, SPIKED, SIRC, THE SCIENCE MEDIA CENTRE AND OTHERS.

 

NOTE THAT SIRC, WHICH FEATURES NOTABLY IN THIS ARTICLE, IS THE BODY

WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE ROYAL SOCIETY PRODUCED GUIDELINES ON HOW THE

MEDIA

SHOULD REPORT SCIENCE AND HEALTH ISSUES!!

 

FOR MORE ON ALL THESE BODIES, SEE THE PROFILES AT www.gmwatch.org

------

Are we being fed big fat lies?

The Times, September 10, 2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-1771556,00.html

 

In the summer of 2004, the media was obsessed with one sensational

story: a three-year-old girl who had apparently died from being

overweight.

The news, leaked to Radio 4's Today programme, came from a report on

childhood obesity that was expected to kickstart the Government into

action.

When the House of Commons Health Committee published its Obesity Report

on May 27 last year, its authors were blunt about the national health

" crisis " . Over ten months, the committee had conducted 69 witness

interviews and produced 148 pages that demanded radical changes in

government

nutrition policy. For the food industry, this meant a widespread and

costly set of new restrictions.

 

Our excess weight, the MPs concluded, was costing the NHS GBP7.4

billion a year, a figure expected to rise quickly. With childhood obesity

having tripled in 20 years, this would be the first generation in which

children died before their parents. " Wholesale cultural and societal

changes " were needed urgently, they wrote, including an end to television

advertising of unhealthy food to children, greater control over food

labelling, and the threat of " direct regulation of the food industry " if

it failed to co-operate.

 

However, the little girl's death, mentioned only briefly in the report,

gave critics of government intervention an opportunity to question its

entire credibility. Dr Sheila McKenzie, a paediatrician at the Royal

London Hospital's obesity clinic, had sent in written evidence suggesting

that the child had died from " heart failure where extreme obesity was a

contributory factor " .

 

This observation merited just one of the report's 510 paragraphs, but

it gave the next day's papers their story: " Obesity kills child aged 3 " .

There was one problem. As the polemical website magazine Spiked

(www.spiked-online.com) revealed on June 7, the girl - never

identified - had

been suffering from a rare genetic disorder that had caused her weight

to swell. Dr McKenzie had not known this crucial detail.

 

The Health Committee's critics wasted no time in using this singular

discrepancy to undermine its wider competence. In a Daily Mirror article

headlined " A big fat lie " , Professor Tom Sanders, a media-friendly

nutritionist at King's College London, cited the three-year-old as

evidence

that the MPs had been mistaken in other respects, too. It proved a busy

week for Sanders. In The Daily Telegraph, he attacked the report's

authors for " tarting it up " to attract headlines; on the Today

programme he

accused them of letting themselves be " duped " . He also had time to

write an angry commentary in the Mail on Sunday, denouncing the report as

" flawed, ill-researched and . . . factually wrong " .

 

" It may surprise many readers to learn, " Sanders wrote, " that most

published studies do not show that overweight children report eating more

'junk food' than their lean peers. " The problem, he suggested, was that

the committee had been taken over by powerful " anti-food industry

lobbyists " - a charge echoed by apparently independent think-tanks

such as

the Oxford-based Social Issues Research Centre (Sirc).

 

David Hinchliffe, then an MP and the Health Committee's chairman, smelt

more than a rat. The aggressive media assaults on his committee, he

believes, were symptomatic of wider behind-the-scenes manipulation by the

food industry in a battle for public opinion.

 

" The food industry was concerned that we were pointing to the urgency

of dealing with a problem directly related to their commercial

interests, " he says. " We didn't mention the three-year-old in our

media summary,

or even at our news conference. But she was used by those who wished to

divert attention from the substance of the report. It was co-ordinated

and used to discredit the report. It was a disgrace. "

 

Is food policy in Britain being dictated by a " co-ordinated " industry

campaign aimed at safeguarding corporate profits, as Hinchliffe is

suggesting? Are vested commercial interests secretly using academics and

media-savvy research bodies to shape public debate? These are bold

claims,

which industry bodies contacted by Body & Soul were quick to dismiss as

baseless. Yet for most of us, bombarded daily by nutrition advice, it

remains almost impossible to assess how impartial such messages are. How

can we know if commercial interests are shaping our decisions about

what we should be eating? The food industry certainly invests heavily in

making its views known, from lobbying in Whitehall and Brussels to the

development of " education " packs for schools. Far less apparent is the

extent to which industry money funds research institutes, academic posts

and " non-profit " bodies which articulate supportive views.

 

The problem for those seeking clarity is that much of the direct policy

lobbying takes place in private. There is no public record of meetings

between food-industry representatives and government departments. Only

occasionally do leaked letters and memos reveal the extent to which

ministers are swayed by industry interests. During the foot-and-mouth

epidemic four years ago, for instance, Tony Blair dropped a previous

commitment to vaccinate cattle after intense pressure led by Peter

Blackburn,

then the chief executive of Nestle UK and president of the industry

pressure group, the Food and Drink Federation. Blackburn, according to a

leaked document, stressed industry concern about the loss of meat and

dairy exports; the PM appears to have been persuaded.

 

A more visible sign of the food industry's reach at the heart of

government is the role of the former supermarket group chairman Lord

Sainsbury of Turville as science minister. His department controls the

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), one of

the main

public bodies funding academic research in Britain, whose grant

recipients are prevented from becoming " involved in political

controversy " -

by expressing any concerns, for instance, about genetically modified

foods. Membership of the BBSRC's governing council - appointed by the

trade secretary - suggests just how close are the links between industry,

government and academia. They include professors with declared financial

ties to GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Syngenta and other businesses

with a strong interest in food production.

 

When the industry wishes to suppress potentially damaging public

debates, the pressure it applies can be breathtaking. The Institute

for Food

Research (IFR), a charity in Norwich financed by the BBSRC, was

retained by The Times in 2003 to assess health claims made on food

labels.

After Masterfoods took exception to the IFR food scientist's independent

view of a " positively healthy " Mars chocolate drink, the institute

abruptly terminated the arrangement.

 

Industry money is also used more directly to support academic research

considered helpful. Dr Susan Jebb, a nutritionist based at the Medical

Research Council, criticised the Atkins diet two years ago as a

" massive health risk " whose claims lacked scientific evidence. Her

impartiality was later questioned when it emerged that the Flour

Advisory Bureau -

representing a sector hit by this low-carb fad - had paid her employer

a reported GBP20,000 to produce two diet-based reports written by Dr

Jebb. Although she denied any conflict of interest, the media reporting

her initial comments appeared unaware of the financial context. Without

such disclosure, it is impossible for consumers to make up their own

minds.

 

It is a discrepancy that can suit food-industry interests well. When

newspapers report, for instance, the latest dietary findings of the

Social Issues Research Centre, rarely do they point out that recent Sirc

contributors include Cadbury Schweppes, Kellogg's, Masterfoods and the

Sugar Bureau.

 

Tom Sanders has links with the Sirc, whose website carries his earlier

controversial claims - such as that giving free fruit to schoolchildren

" can cause malnutrition " .

 

David Hinchliffe, the former Health-Committee chairman, remains

convinced that Sanders was speaking for commercial interests when he

attacked

the committee. Sanders, he told the House of Commons last February, was

" at the heart of this affair . . . Sanders acts as a consultant to the

food industry, and was obviously wheeled out to do a hatchet job on its

behalf " .

 

Sanders rejects as " spiteful and false " Hinchliffe's claim that he was

behind the rubbishing of the report, or that he received industry money

to do so.

 

" The implication that I was somehow involved in a conspiracy on behalf

of vested interests is untrue, " Sanders says. " I chose to become

involved when I read it and saw how the Select Committee had been

manipulated. "

 

Public-health campaigners raise further questions about Sanders's links

to Spiked, the online magazine that " exposed " the flaws in the Health

Committee's report. Spiked, which has regularly challenged the " myth " of

childhood obesity, declares funding from Sirc, as well as an American

website, Tech Central Station, whose " publisher " is DCI Group, a US

lobbying firm. And who funds Tech Central Station? Foodindustry giants

including Coca-Cola and McDonald's, among others.

 

None of this, of course, proves any direct link between corporate

money, " independent " advocacy groups and journalists and a string of

media

articles which deny the existence of an obesity crisis - and indeed any

need for government action. As Sanders tells it, he knows the Sirc and

Spiked crowds " just as a source of gossip but I have never received any

money from them " . Spiked's managing editor, Helene Guldberg, insists

that " whoever we receive funding from does not interfere with what we

write " . Still, unless these financial links are made clear whenever such

views are aired, it is easy to understand why those concerned about food

policy can accuse the industry of using secretive financial ties to

distort public debate. " Corporations have learnt that they can influence

public opinion and public policy more effectively by working through

seemingly independent organisations, " says Michael Jacobson, of the

Washington-based Centre for Science in the Public Interest, which

campaigns

for greater transparency.

 

After all, until the media challenge this veil of secrecy, how can we

have an objective debate on important matters that affect all of us?

 

Who's paying the piper?

 

It may surprise you to discover the extent to which the food industry

funds " independent " scientific bodies. Does this affect the views

expressed? You judge next time a food story hits the headlines:

 

BRITISH NUTRITION FOUNDATION

Calls itself " A scientific and educational charity which promotes the

wellbeing of society through the impartial interpretation of

evidence-based nutritional knowledge " .

Need to know: It is the voice of established food companies. Its

governing council includes representatives of Associated British Foods,

Nestle, Kellogg's and Cadbury Schweppes.

 

INTERNATIONAL LIFE SCIENCES INSTITUTE

Calls itself " A non-profit, worldwide foundation that seeks to improve

the wellbeing of the general public through the advancement of science

(and) collaborates with international health organisations ... to

develop science-based consensus. "

Need to know: This is one of the biggest international food-lobbying

outfits. It seeks to influence the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation

and the WHO. It claims that " intake of sugars is inversely associated

with the prevalence of obesity " , which may suit the interests of

founding companies such as Coca-Cola, General Foods and Kraft Foods.

 

SOCIAL ISSUES RESEARCH CENTRE

Calls itself " An independent, non-profit organisation founded to

conduct research on lifestyle issues (and) provide a balanced, calm and

thoughtful perspective on social issues. "

Need to know: Sirc's thoughtful perspective may chime with the views of

recent sponsors Cadbury Schweppes, Kellogg's, Masterfoods and the Sugar

Bureau; such as its study dismissing the child obesity epidemic as a

myth and rejecting calls to ban junk-food adverts.

 

SCIENCE MEDIA CENTRE

Calls itself " An independent venture working to promote the voices,

stories and views of the scientific community to the news media when

science is in the headlines "

Need to know: Although housed in the Royal Institution's London

offices, the SMC receives funding from the Chilled Food Association,

Kraft,

Tesco, Tate & Lyle and Unilever (and media organisations including the

parent company of The Times). Its press release accompanying the Obesity

Report last May contained stark warnings against needless government

intervention: there remained " real uncertainties about the causes of

obesity " and " a lot more research " was now needed, declared some

scientists

quoted.

 

NATIONAL OBESITY FORUM

Calls itself " An independent medical organisation established to raise

awareness of the growing impact of obesity on our patients and our

National Health Service. "

Need to know The NOF lobbies MPs and the media about the " alarming

levels of obesity " in the UK, " a serious medical problem " for which it

demands action. Yet it, too, has " been supported " by companies such as

Slim

Fast Foods, Canderel and drug companies with an interest in obesity

management.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------