by Nathaniel Birne
“For digestion’s sake… Smoke Camels!” Throughout much of the 20th century, Camel and other cigarette manufacturers featured a wide array of health claims in their advertisements. According to these ads, cigarettes were a scientifically-backed cornerstone of a healthy American lifestyle. Not only would smoking improve digestion, but it would also relieve asthma and soothe an irritated throat. Today, any sane scientist or health professional would scoff at the so-called “scientific evidence” behind these claims. There is no longer any debate about the severe health consequences of smoking. For decades, however, the tobacco industry penetrated public opinion and convinced Americans that smoking was beneficial by funding its own scientific research and interfering with the research process. Although the tobacco industry has fallen from its pedestal, giants within the food industry have adopted similar tactics. Now, manufacturing juggernauts including Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are funneling millions of dollars into laboratories and spouting empty health claims to potential buyers. To protect the health of American consumers, the US government must drown out deceptive, corporate-funded health claims by financing trustworthy sources of nutritional science. When food manufacturers fund nutrition research, they do so with a simple goal in mind: to convince consumers that their products are healthy. Because of this goal, industry-funded research is rarely impartial. In an analysis of 206 nutritional studies, researchers at the Boston Children’s Hospital determined that industry-sponsored studies were “four to seven times more likely” to support the sponsor’s product than “research paid for by disinterested parties.” Marion Nestle, an acclaimed author and professor of nutrition at New York University, verified these findings through her own research. After gathering 170 industry-financed studies, Nestle found that roughly 90% of these studies “favored the sponsor’s interest.” This apparent bias can stem from flaws within the research process or from incomplete and dishonest publication. Often, researchers have no intention of altering their work to benefit sponsors; however, bias can interfere with research regardless of intent. Even when research is conducted in a neutral manner, a sponsor can remove unfavorable findings before publication or choose not to publish the results at all. As stated by Bonnie Liebman, Director of Nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, “When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for.” Through journalism, labelling, and deceit, industry-funded research has governed the food choices of Americans for decades. In the 1960s, members of the sugar industry joined forces to fund Harvard researchers, deflecting evidence that sugar contributes to heart disease and instead casting doubt on the healthfulness of dietary fat. As a result, Americans continued to gorge on dangerous amounts of sugar, believing that it would do no serious harm to their health. In a more recent (but equally egregious) example, Coca-Cola spent 132.8 million dollars between 2010 and 2015 on a particularly shady bout of nutrition research. This number alone is unremarkable among companies of Coca-Cola’s stature; however, the New York Times revealed that much of this money went toward a secretive effort to convince Americans that obesity is rooted in a lack of exercise, with little connection to a poor diet. With so many corporations injecting this sort of deceptive advice into the minds of Americans, it has become increasingly difficult for consumers to maintain a healthy diet. The confusion surrounding food science in America has contributed to Americans’ questionable dietary choices. By funding and publicizing misleading research, large corporations like Coca-Cola can maintain a firm foothold in the American diet. However, most distributors of unprocessed foods, including fruits and vegetables, lack the financial resources to fund nutrition research. In the words of award-winning food author Michael Pollan, “You find health claims on processed foods. Fruits and vegetables, they don’t have the budget, they don’t have the packaging. The healthiest food is silent.” Whereas Americans consume far fewer fruits and vegetables than the government recommends—in 2015, less than 15% of Americans met the federal guideline for daily fruit consumption—sugary snacks and other unhealthy products remain popular. Although most Americans believe themselves to be healthy eaters, the common definition for “healthy” is distorted by misleading health claims. In 2016, the New York Times found that 71 percent of Americans viewed granola bars as healthy, while only 28 percent of nutritionists agreed with that sentiment. For other processed foods, such as frozen yogurt and powdered breakfast drinks, the study revealed a similar gap. This widespread disconnect should not be surprising; faced with a constant stream of erroneous health advice, Americans struggle to make healthy dietary decisions. As a result of this poor diet, America has witnessed skyrocketing rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, and other life-threatening ailments in recent years. More than one in three Americans is classified as obese, and another third of Americans is overweight. Likewise, many other diet-related diseases are increasing in prevalence. According to the US Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, “About half of all American adults—117 million individuals—have one or more preventable chronic diseases, many of which are related to poor quality eating patterns.” America’s diet is not only a threat to public health; it is also an economic black hole. In 2005, the US spent approximately $190 billion in health care expenses due to obesity-related health issues. By improving the American diet, the US government would do more than improve quality of life for citizens; it would also relieve a major strain on the economy. For decades, wealthy food corporations have poured millions of dollars into research studies, bolstering their products with deceptive and incomplete health claims. For many scientists, there is no alternative to working with these food manufacturers. Marion Nestle describes the pressure scientists face to accept funding, stating that, “As early investigators, you face intense pressures to bring in external grants to pay for your studies, overhead, and maybe even your salaries.” In recent years, decreased government funding has compelled scientists to seek out corporate money. Between 2006 and 2014, funding by the National Institute of Health has decreased by 24%; meanwhile, privately-financed research has risen by 43%. To ensure that Americans receive adequate and trustworthy health advice, the government must reverse this trend. As long as corporations are the primary source of nutritional guidance, citizens will continue to suffer.