PHM-Exch> Are America's Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food ?

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: Arun Gupta <arun at ibfanasia.org>


AND NOW A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS


  *Are America's Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food ?*
*
*
*The report shows  "...the food industry’s deep infiltration of the
nation’s top nutrition organization raises serious questions not only about
that profession’s credibility, but also about its policy positions.."*
* *link :
http://www.aaci-india.org/Resources/Corporate_Sponsorship_Report.pdf

*Executive Summary*

By any measure, the nation is currently suffering from an epidemic of
diet-related health problems. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention,1 chronic diseases – such as heart disease, stroke,
cancer, and diabetes – “are among the most common, costly, and preventable
of all health problems.”

Against this backdrop, we must ask: what is the role of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics (AND)—the nation’s largest association of nutrition
professionals—in preventing or at least stemming the tide of diet-related
health problems? What responsibility does this influential group of
registered dietitians bear to be a leading advocate for policy changes to
make eating healthfully more accessible? Does forming partnerships with the
food industry compromise such a group’s credibility? And what does the food
industry gain from such partnerships?

Why does it matter? As this report will show, the food industry’s deep
infiltration of the nation’s top nutrition organization raises serious
questions not only about that profession’s credibility, but also about its
policy positions. The nation is currently embroiled in a series of policy
debates about how to fix our broken food system. A 74,000-member health
organization has great potential to shape that national discourse – for
better and for worse.

*Findings:*
• Beginning in 2001, AND listed 10 food industry sponsors; the 2011 annual
report lists 38, a more than three-fold increase.
• The most loyal AND sponsor is the National Cattleman’s Beef Association,
for 12 years running (2001-2012).
• Processed food giants ConAgra and General Mills have been AND sponsors
for 10 of the last 12 years.
• Kellogg and the National Dairy Council have been AND sponsors for 9 of
the last 12 years.
• Companies on AND’s list of approved continuing education providers
include Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, and PepsiCo.
• Among the messages taught in Coca-Cola- sponsored continuing education
courses are: sugar is not harmful to children; aspartame is completely
safe, including for children over one year; and the Institute of Medicine
is too restrictive in its school nutrition standards.
• At AND’s 2012 annual meeting, 18 organizations – less than five percent
of all exhibitors – captured 25 percent of the total exhibitor space. Only
two out of the 18 represented whole, non-processed foods.
• Based on square footage, only about 12 percent of the expo floor was
taken up by fruit and vegetable vendors, using AND’s own generous
classification.
• The AND Foundation sells “nutrition symposia” sponsorships for $50,000 at
the annual meeting. In 2012, Nestlé presented a session on “Optimal
Hydration.”
• The Corn Refiners Association (lobbyists for high fructose corn syrup)
sponsored three “expo impact” sessions at the AND 2012 annual meeting.
• Roughly 23 percent of annual meeting speakers had industry ties, although
most of these conflicts were not disclosed in the program session
description.
• In an independent survey, 80 percent of registered dietitians said
sponsorship implies Academy endorsement of that company and its products.
• Almost all RDs surveyed (97 percent) thought the Academy should verify
that a sponsor’s corporate mission is consistent with that of the Academy
prior to accepting them.
• A majority of RDs surveyed found three current AND sponsors
“unacceptable.” (Coca-Cola, Mars, and PepsiCo.)
• The AND lobbying agenda reveals mostly safe issues benefiting registered
dietitians. To date, AND has not supported controversial nutrition policies
that might upset corporate sponsors, such as limits on soft drink sizes,
soda taxes, or GMO labels.
• AND’s sponsors and their activities appear to violate AND’s own
sponsorship guidelines.
• In 2011, AND generated $1.85 million in sponsorship revenue, which
represents about 5% the total revenue. This is down from 9% in both 2010
and 2009.
• For the AND Foundation, corporate contributions were the single largest
source of revenue in 2011: $1.3 million out of a total of $3.4 million or
38 percent.
• In 2011, the AND Foundation reported more than $17 million in net assets,
more than six times its expenses for that year.

*Recommendations*
1) Greater Transparency: AND should make more details available to the
public (or at least to members) regarding corporate sponsorship—far beyond
what it currently provides in its annual reports.
2) Request Input from Membership: Trade group policies should reflect the
desires of its members. Many RDs object to corporate sponsorship but don’t
know how to make their voices heard.
3) Meaningful Sponsorship Guidelines:
AND should implement much stronger and more meaningful sponsorship
guidelines, possibly looking to the Hunger and Environmental Nutrition
Dietetic Practice Group’s stricter guidelines as a model.
4) Reject Corporate-Sponsored Education: AND should reject outright
corporate-sponsored continuing education, as well as corporate-sponsored
education sessions at its annual meeting. AND should also consider placing
more distance between its credentialing arm and the main organization.
5) Increased Leadership on Nutrition Policy: In recent years, AND’s
leadership has taken important steps to improve its policy agenda and
create a positive presence in Washington. However, while the staff in the
D.C. office is lobbying on behalf of AND’s membership, “education sessions”
are being taught to RDs by Coke and Hershey’s. This disconnect will
continue to undermine AND’s credibility on critical policy issues until the
conflicts are resolved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20130125/30bd191d/attachment.html>