Dietitian Organization Riddled with “Big Food” Support, New Report Alleges
Food activist and attorney Michele Simon has issued a report that explores
the relationship between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) and
corporations such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and Nestlé that make
what Simon characterizes as unhealthy food and beverages. Titled “And Now a
Word From Our Sponsors: Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket
of Big Food?,” the January 2013 report examines the level of financial support
provided to AND by the largest U.S. food manufacturers since 2001.
According to Simon, the companies provide numerous speakers for courses needed by dietitians to maintain their professional credentials as well as sponsorships for AND’s meetings, while taking up the most prominent and significant amount of floor space during AND’s annual meeting expo. The report includes a first-person account of Simon’s attendance at one of these meetings, including her dismay that other conference attendees (i) willingly accepted food samples from “Big Food,” and (ii) listened to industry representatives without an appropriate level of skepticism or disbelief. Conference programs do not apparently include conspicuous disclosure of speaker affiliations, something Simon calls for the organization to address.
Simon also complains that the organization is awash with unspent cash and strong investment reserves that could allow it to replace corporate sponsorships. The report states that “corporate contributions were the single largest source of revenue in 2011: $1.3 million out of a total of $3.5 million or 38 percent.” Simon contends that all of this money buys influence over organization policy.
She argues that AND’s public policy priorities for the next five years “are either internal to the profession or fairly safe territory politically—nothing that might ruffle the feathers” of corporate sponsors. She cites just two instances where AND should have spoken out as a nutrition organization in the midst of “our nation’s chronic disease epidemic”: New York City’s establishment of soft-drink cup-size limits and California’s voter initiative on labeling genetically modified foods. According to Simon, AND’s call for an evaluation of the effectiveness of New York City’s action and its failure to take a stand in California other than to correct an out-of-date position paper on the topic used by opponents of the initiative suggest that corporate influence has played a role in AND’s positions.
Discussing a survey showing that some 80 percent of 3,000 AND members oppose corporate sponsorship, Simon recommends that the organization adopt greater transparency, request input from membership, adopt meaningful sponsorship guidelines, reject corporate sponsored education, and increase leadership on nutrition policy. Simon is the author of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back.
New York Times food reporter Stephanie Strom, discussing the report in a January 22, 2013, column, states, “Questions about corporate influence have bedeviled the organization for years. In 2007, it revamped its corporate sponsorship program to address concerns among its members.” She also observes that corporate sponsorships accounted for just 5 percent of the organization’s $34 million 2011 revenue, “down from 9 percent in each of the previous two years.” Center for Science in the Public Interest Director of Nutrition Policy Margo Wootan is quoted as saying, “Ten years ago, the academy was really very closely tied to the food and beverage industry. But they really have cleaned up their act.”
