You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Report Confirms Food Corps Using Junk, Misleading Science to Protect Profits

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Wednesday 13 February 2013
If the companies actually admitted that their ingredients were dangerous and made beneficial adjustments, they would be admitting that they had caused disease among consumers.
Article image

A new report hitting the headlines has confirmed what we have been stating for years: major processed food corporations that peddle health-decimating ‘food’ rely purely on distorted misleading junk science.

Thanks in part to pumping millions upon millions into lobbying the government in order to prevent legislation that would help to protect the public and ‘building relationships with health organizations’, The Indepdendent reports that multinational ‘Big Food’ corporations have been getting away with what could be argued as literal murder through the onset of chronic disease as a result of pushing their dangerous products on the public without restraint.

Corporations Using Junk Science to Protect Profits

The report states that these Big Food corporations are using techniques extremely similar to those utilized by Big Tobacco companies who sought to use fake ‘science’ in order to claim that cigarettes were not the cause of disease in order to secure profits. Tactics that are similar to those used by the author of the debunked study claiming that organic was the ‘same’ as non-organic, Ingram Olkin, a Stanford scientist who actually developed the ‘Dr. Ingram Olkin multivariate Logistic Risk Function’, the function was used by Big Tobacco to skew statistics. 

The “multivariate” statistical algorithm has been dubbed a way to ‘lie with statistics’. As one page on the subject described, “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality.”

Published in The Lancet, the report is sure to garner the negative attention of many corporations like PepsiCo and likely be attacked on all fronts by phony ‘corporate scientists’ that seek only to push phony science. Led by adventurous researcher Professor Rob Moodie, of the University of Melbourne in Australia, the findings even list certain multinational corporations like Kraft, Nestlé, Mars and Unilever and their impacts on consumers around the world. Moodie states that the top 10 largest companies now have control of over 15 percent of all food sales, with over 75% of said ‘food’ being heavily processed foods.

Report: Corporations Spend Millions to Distort Research, Deceive Consumers, Lobby Government

Sodas, fast food burgers and pizzas, biscuits, and processed snack foods being sold from these companies are seeing surges in low-income countries, which the report highlights as the focus for many junk food corporations. Furthermore, the write-up speaks out against the serious lack of progress being made on the subject. The report states:

“There is little objective evidence that public-private partnerships deliver health benefits, and many in the public-health field argue that they are just a delaying tactic of the unhealthy commodity industries”

Writers go on to call out corporations for spending millions to distort research, deceive customers, and lobby politicians to keep their mouths shut. For many readers, this comes as no surprise. The sad reality, however, is that many consumers continue to believe the junk science put out by corporations and even embrace it vehemently to justify their food addictions. To admit that the corporation is deceiving customers with junk science is to admit that they have been tricked, which is hard for many to come to terms with.

As a result, they instead cling to the rhetoric put out by the companies to resist the feeling that they have been fooled. It is similar to many people who fall victim to E-mail scammers requesting bank wires from other nations, often sending hundreds of thousands of dollars in finances with the small hope that they may someday be paid back as the scammer promises.

It’s a sad state of affairs, but many are becoming privy to the reality of human nature. If the companies actually admitted that their ingredients were dangerous and made beneficial adjustments, they would be admitting that they had caused disease among consumers. Lawsuits would ensue through a class action format, and competing companies would be held accountable as well. In fact, if the government were competent in protecting against things like GMOs and artificial sweeteners instead of high calorie counts and saturated fat, this could be done through legislation.

But let’s talk about the ‘big offenders’ that the report talks about.

The Big Offenders

The report details many of the big junk food offenders, a couple of which you may not be entirely aware of due to their British roots.

PepsiCo: In addition to putting high-fructose corn syrup in their sodas and using artificial sweeteners for their diet alternatives, Pepsi spent a whopping 9 million dollars lobbying the government via the United States Congress in order to keep selling consumers unregulated junk. They even spent $547,700 funding candidates for federal office through a third party organization in order to secure politicians who will secure their agenda. Thanks, Pepsi.

Tesco: This is Britain’s biggest retailer. Tesco spent a total of five years and 4 million Euros making sure that labels indicative of nutritional values were not placed on food items, knowing full well that their products would sell less due to extremely worthless nutritional content.

SAB Miller: The Lancet findings report that SAB Miller continues to look out for industry interests over public health, being instrumental in writing the very policies regarding the control of alcohol for public health.

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

More than a bit superficial,

More than a bit superficial, although I have long believed that our food supply has been contaminated and that is the root cause of our obesity epidemic. The author might try to see what the effects of putting growth hormones into our meat supply could have on those that consume the meat for instance.
But still, we know that processed food is not a healthy choice, yet make that choice anyway. Possibly because of the perceived cost of the processed foods versus the cost of natural foods. Possibly because there are very few alternatives to these foods. The author needs to spend a bit more time on looking at other areas and reporting on them.
As I said, superficial.

Wow, get a helmet! If you

Wow, get a helmet! If you are "tricked" by junk food wrapper that totes a twinkie as organic, then I guess you do need the government to protect you from yourself. You're such a victim. It's universally referred to as junk food for a reason. You know you shouldn't eat it, but you do.

'The sad reality, however, is that many consumers continue to believe the junk science put out by corporations and even embrace it vehemently to justify their food addictions.'

If this is true, legislation will have no affect on those addicts. They'll just find some other way to justify their addiction. The only way seems to outlaw everything that can be deemed as "not good for you" by some government entity. Maybe our king can save us with some executive orders concerning this issue.

Another laughably bad hack

Another laughably bad hack job from Mr. Gucciardi, who here "reports" on a "report" in The Independent; of a report in The Lancet ; by Rob Moodie, et al, about the need for government regulations of "unhealthy commodity industries".

The actual report published in The Lancet does not claim that processed food corporations rely "purely on distorted misleading junk science." It cites 1) biased research findings, 2) co-option of policy makers and health professionals, 3) lobbying of politicians and public officials to oppose regulations, and 4) encouraging voters to oppose regulations, as strategies to avoid regulation.

The actual report in The Lancet does not even mention Dr. Ingram Olkin, or the "multivariate logistic risk function" AT ALL.
The actual report in The Lancet does not mention e-mail scammers, class action lawsuits, or GMO's AT ALL.
The actual report in The Lancet does not even mention Tesco, AT ALL.

I fully agree with and endorse the findings of Moodie's report as published in The Lancet. But while Mr. Gucciardi's reporting does project some emotional satisfaction, it contains significant omissions and embellishments that subtract from its accuracy and usefulness. This reportage reminds me of the old Chinese Whispers game - we deserve better from The Nation of Change..

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...