Emma Geraghty, Lee Sheridan, & Lizzy Albuquerque

WRT 490

Professor Roth

11 February 2021

Food Justice Manifesto: Sneaky Science

Prewrite

For this assignment, our group will be examining the influence of large corporations on

food science, and thus, the narrative of healthy eating. This matters to us because we believe in

the integrity of science, but we will never get people to trust it with all these biased studies

prowling around out there. The audience targeted would thus be consumers, so that they know

what to look out for when doing their own research and learning. In a way, it leans toward a goal

of greater information literacy in general, since this is in shortage these days. It's important for

everyone, though. In this case, it is for helping people maintain their health despite the

overwhelming amount of information out there, because they will be able to prune the hoard if

they are more informed consumers. If people know how to weed out what is biased, then they

will also be able to find good information that they trust. The forum will likely be a PowerPoint

or blogging site accompanied by explanation, perhaps in a more narrative format because this is

a sort of a history lesson. Narratives help people to understand and remember too. Hopefully,

demonstrating how bias can infiltrate science will be a compelling argument. We are the only

group studying this, so we must make sure that it is comprehensive and gives a full perspective

on the issue, including confronting any sort of counter argument.

Outline
Our claim is that consumers need to stay active and informed in order to make responsible

choices about their health and the politics of their food. The status quo we want to disrupt is the

way that corporations can manipulate the people they are selling to, which this scientific

persuasion is a part of. Knowledge is power, and so the mission of this manifesto is to educate.

People cannot evaluate something that they do not know is happening. We hope that the

information we present will prompt people to be more active in the relationship between

themselves and those who have power rather than going through the motions. We decided to

create a blog site (https://sneakysciene.wordpress.com). We thought this genre would be best to

use because it allows us to incorporate our own personal voices and bring a narrative to the topic

we chose to write about. We wanted to include three separate blog posts to showcase the variety

of the food industry’s influence in our society. We started with an introduction to the topic to

inform readers and allow them to understand the content fully. Next, we included pieces on the

dairy industries as an example of an industry that employs these tactics. Lastly, we also included

a case study on the sugar and soda industry to highlight more of the ways industries attempt to

influence science.

Annotated Bibliography - Works Cited (MLA 8)

1. Tempels, Tjidde, et al. “Big Food's Ambivalence: Seeking Profit and Responsibility for

Health.” American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, Mar.

2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296687/.

a. This text debates the responsibility the food industry has on reporting public

health, as the industry is a significant contributor to widespread health issues in

the United States. The article mentions that the food industry is a “split
 personality,” meaning that these food companies both contribute to public health

problems, while simultaneously advising against eating unhealthily and failing to

properly exercise. Businesses and corporations are constantly arguing over the use

of health labels on their products. These labels would be telling of the types of

unhealthy and unreliable food sources present in the product the consumer is

potentially purchasing. Overall, the article stresses the importance of holding the

food industry accountable for the moral wrong-doings, in order to ensure that

food companies are doing everything in their power to promote proper health

practices. To wrap up the study, the author mentions that all players in the food

industry - whether it be the government, nongovernmental organizations, or

consumers - each role has their own duties and responsibilities to carry out.

2. Linda. “Industry Influence.” NutritionFacts.org, Health Topics,

nutritionfacts.org/topics/industry-influence/.

a. This article educates readers on the influence of the many different sectors of

society that play a role in how everyday people perceive and consume their food.

As mentioned in the article, many research studies on the topic have discovered a

principle called the “funding effect.” This is the idea that researchers will skew

their data - whether intentional or unintentional - through their own biases to

create the results most favorable to their agenda. Multiple various food industries,

like milk, meat, and sugar, usually downplay the risks of consuming their

products, while nutritional supplements will exaggerate the health benefits of their

products. Interestingly enough, the pharmaceutical industry can also play a role in

the perception of the food industry, although it usually sticks to focusing on

 developing certain drugs for a specific action or purpose, rather than promising a

specific health benefit.

3. Eyermann, Craig. “Why Does the Federal Government Have 1.4 Billion Pounds of

American Cheese Stockpiled?” FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 5 Mar. 2019,

fee.org/articles/why-does-the-federal-government-have-14-billion-pounds-of-american-c

heese-stockpiled/.

a. In this article titled “Why Does the Federal Government Have 1.4 Billion Pounds

of American Cheese Stockpiled?” by Craig Eyermann, the author discusses why

exactly the United States Department of Agriculture currently has 1.4 billion

pounds of cheese. This is due to the fact that the USDA buys the surplus milk

through subsidies to help save the collapsing dairy industry. Milk does not last

very long, so the US, in order to get it to last longer, uses the surplus milk that

they’ve spent so much money on and they turn it into cheese and store it in

various warehouses across the country. Rather than donate this cheese to the poor,

in the 1990s the USDA made numerous business deals with fast food companies

to incorporate more cheese into their products at low cost. It’s given to places like

McDonald’s, Dominos, Taco Bell, etc. Forcing this cheese into the diets of

Americans, it has had a massive impact on the obesity numbers of Americans. All

of this is great information to put into my blog post. It’s important to know what

happens to all the surplus milk that the USDA purchases.

4. Moore, Heather. “Milk Money: Why the Government Promotes the Dairy Industry-Part

2.” PETA Prime, PETA, 6 Aug. 2018,

 prime.peta.org/2018/03/milk-money-why-the-government-promotes-the-dairy-industry-p

art-2/.

a. In this article, the history of why the United States government got so involved

with the dairy industry is explained. Apparently, during World War One,

American citizens were misinformed about how good milk was for the body,

especially calcium for the bones. The US government, believing this as well,

thought that it would help with their soldiers, who were facing bouts of

malnutrition while on the battlefield. During this time, the dairy industry was

booming and so the US government put its foot in the door to get involved,

sending powdered milk to their soldiers. After World War One, the demand for

milk drastically declined and in order to save it, they kept buying the surplus milk

in order to keep the dairy industry afloat. This milk is then turned into cheese,

butter, and dried milk and stored in 500 warehouses across the country. All of this

information is super important because in order to understand the problem, we

need to know the history behind it and how it started.

5. Smith, Kat. “The Dairy Industry Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes: This Is Why.”

LIVEKINDLY, 15 Dec. 2020, www.livekindly.co/dairy-industry-collapsing/.

a. In this article, the reasons why the dairy industry is collapsing is brought to the

table. The US dairy industry is one of the largest in the world and would be on the

brink of collapse if it weren’t for the US government and its subsidies. This article

explains how the other replacements for milk aren’t all to blame as well as it is an

industry with just 1.9 billion in sales.

6. Sacks, Gary, et al. "How food companies influence evidence and opinion–straight from

the horse’s mouth." Critical Public Health pp. 253-256.

a. In this article Sacks deconstructs an email communication between two former

higher-ups in the Coca-Cola corporation. On this topic, Sacks raises an interesting

point. Tobacco companies have been forced to reveal much of their

communications and documentation where they admit to trying to influence the

narrative of public health; the food industry has not. This is curious to me, as we

do not need tobacco to live, but every human most certainly needs food. Hm.

Though neither man in the Coca-Cola email was still working for the company at

the time, they were still highly influential on those who were, as well as having

stakes in industry funded food science. In the email, the two speak of tactics that

will influence the public narrative of health. Alarmingly, one proposes literally

infiltrating prominent positions in scientific organization in order to influence

discussion. Likewise, he suggests these infiltrators spur debates, where the truth

about health is given false equivalency with the infiltrators biased statements.

7. Nestle, Marion. “The Food Industry and Nutrition” Unsavory Truth: How Food

Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat. Basic Books, 2018.

a. This book also starts out by looking at some emails from Coca-Cola, this time

leaked due to a company employee being likewise employed by Hillary Clinton

during the 2016 election. I don’t think I have to explain much more than that - we

all know what happened there. However, the emails revealed that Coca Cola has

taken deliberate, meditated steps to influence dietitians, control media coverage

and public health information, government food policy, and the research they
 funded at universities. For example, a Coca Cola funded research effort found that

a small amount of exercise - around 7000 steps per day - was enough to break

even with an average adults calorie intake, thus requiring no diet change for

weight loss, so people can continue to buy their sodas. Obviously, this is a study

that aids Coca-Cola’s effort to sell more soda, and would convince people of a

truth that probably wasn’t going to actually help them lose any weight. In the

second chapter, she also talks about the psychology of gift giving, using the

pharmaceutical industry as an example.

8. Schwartz, Barry. “The Social Psychology of the Gift.” American Journal of Sociology,

vol. 73, no. 1, 1967, pp. 1–11. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776124.

a. In this article, Barry Schwartz breaks down the function of gift giving as a social

mechanism. It seemed as if this was pertinent to the transaction between industry

and scientists. The article details how it is a natural human response to feel

indebted to those that have given us something due to social conditioning. This

conditioning also makes us feel as if we need to give something in return. This

can help explain how scientists may feel indebted to corporations that fund their

research possibly without realizing it, because it is a societal norm.

9. Gornall, Jonathan. “Sugar’s Web of Influence 2: Biasing the Science.” BMJ: British

Medical Journal, vol. 350, 2015. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26518283.

a. This article gives information on how the sugar industry has sought to bias

scientific literature for decades. It shows the how the sugar industry has been

quite brazen in its quest to keep American diets high in sugar despite the health

risks. This article also covers common lies the sugar industry pushes, such as fat
 being the cause of the obesity epidemic while insisting sugar actually helps. It

claims that sugar may be more satiating, or could support a more active lifestyle.

These are not based in objective fact, but rather warped research and plain lies.

10. Goldman, Gretchen, et al. Industry Tactics to Obscure the Science. Union of Concerned

Scientists, 2014, pp. 6–18, Added Sugar, Subtracted Science: How Industry Obscures

Science and Undermines Public Health Policy on Sugar,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep00044.8.

a. This article breaks the tactics the sugar industry uses down into categories, and

then breaks down each. First, is the attacking of studies that find information that

oppose them by burying the data or blatantly making threats. Second is spreading

misinformation and half-truths through publicity stunts. Next, the use of

scientists, their forums of communication, and their jargon for ethos is discussed

as well as the influencing of academia. Finally, the article covers the sugar

industry’s influence over politicians and thus, public food policy.

Emma’s Blog Post: An Introduction to Food Industry Influence

Do you sometimes wonder the extent to which the food on your plate is providing you
with the nutrients society claims that it does? If so, kudos to you for asking yourself critical
questions most people would blindly accept without question.
Believe it or not, multiple sectors of our society (the government, research facilities, etc.)
contribute to the ways in which individuals buy, prepare, and consume certain beverages, foods
and food groups. This is partly due to an idea called the “funding effect.” The funding effect
claims that researchers will skew their data - whether intentional or unintentional - through their
own biases to create the results most favorable to their agenda. This is seen most noticeably in
multiple various presidential administrations that focus on healthy eating and receiving benefits
from “all sections of the food pyramid.”
 Another example we may neglect to see in our everyday life that uses the funding effect
is the idea that fast-food restaurants will promote themselves in a positive way with neighboring
health facilities, like doctors and patients, by donating to their causes and even locating their
restaurants in or nearby hospitals. Just because a hospital contains a fast-food restaurant in their
cafeteria, doesn’t necessarily mean that the doctors support it, but rather, they are probably
receiving sufficient funds to “turn a blind eye” to the negative effects fast-food can have on one’s
health and wellbeing.
On the other hand, there are still sectors of society that generally stay out of the food
industry influence scheme, especially the pharmactuel sector. Due to law-related reasons,
pharmaceutical companies usually stick to focusing on developing certain drugs for a specific
action or purpose, rather than promising a specific health benefit. Although, this is not to say that
food industry influence does not play a role in certain aspects of the pharmaceutical world.
Perhaps most astonishing and positive despite all the deception is the fact that, in most recent
years, the USDA has had less and less corporate influence over the years, calling for the biggest
increase in plant-based foods in the most recent year. Obviously though, it is still important to
ensure that zero corporate influence whatsoever should be the societal normalcy when it comes
to ensuring health and safety for all citizens.
After hearing this new information, you may be wondering how you can begin to detect
and prevent yourself from believing the nutritional benefits of food from the media, the
government, and private-paid research. There are many different ways to double-check the
authenticity of the information you are consuming, but providing you with a few tips and tricks
can also help you avoid having to ask yourself these critical questions every time you are focused
on finding your next healthy, nutritional meal.
1. Firstly, multiple various food industries, especially milk, meat, and sugar, usually
downplay the risks of consuming their products, so be sure to ingest these types of
products within moderation.
2. Secondly, nutritional supplements will exaggerate the health benefits of their products.
Do not fully believe the extent to which vitamins and supplements will positively affect
your body. It is important to continue to exercise, drink plenty of water, and eat lots of
leafy-green vegetables.
3. Lastly, do your research! Check out research databases that are not funded by private
corporations, but rather seem to be for the common good. This is most easily detected by
identifying the goal of the research, and those affiliated with it. If this information is not
easy to find, odds are, there is an ulterior motive.
The road to researching and eating free of food industry influence is not an easy one. Stay
motivated and remember your goals. The more people begin to realize the faults of the food
industry, the more they will demand to know the truth!

Information collected from:

Linda. “Industry Influence.” NutritionFacts.org, Health Topics,
nutritionfacts.org/topics/industry-influence/.

Lizzy’s Blog Post: The Rise and Fall of the Dairy Industry

Growing up, we all knew just how important dairy was. It was everywhere: in “Got
Milk?” advertisements, in our school lunches, in our own fridges at home, in our supermarkets,
etc. We were told about how good milk was for us and how we all should be drinking it if we
want a good source of calcium for our bones. The government has even backed it up, requiring
milk to be given in school lunches. However, as education on the subject increases, we see that
the consumption of dairy decreases, which is causing the downfall of the dairy industry.
In order to understand exactly how this is happening, we need to first understand the
history behind it. According to the article “Milk Money: Why the Government Promotes the
Dairy Industry,” the backing of the dairy industry by the government began during World War
One. It was believed that milk would help with the ever increasing malnutrition of soldiers, so
soldiers would be sent powdered milk. However, this information was wrong, but the dairy
industry was huge then as dairy was vastly in demand, so the US government ended up putting
its foot in the door. However, after the war, there was a drastic drop in milk consumption,
causing there to be a massive surplus of milk. To save the dying industry, the government bailed
them out with buying 2 million dollars worth of milk. Unfortunately, not much has changed since
then as the dairy industry has been on quite a steady decline. According to the article, “Why
Does the Federal Government Have 1.4 Billion Pounds of American Cheese Stockpiled?” by
Craig Eyermann, the US government once again started up with the dairy subsidies in the 1930s
to help farmers with the Great Depression. With the Department of Agriculture in charge of these
subsidies, nothing has changed since then. Rather than reduce the subsidies to help reduce the
amount of surplus milk, they’ve continued to follow the same pattern, arguably wasting taxpayer
dollars trying to save an industry that is collapsing.
The United States continues to see a massive decline in milk consumption. According to
the article “The Dairy Industry Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes: This Is Why” by Kat Smith, she
states that “per capita fluid milk consumption has plummeted 40 percent since 1975. That year,
Americans drank 247 pounds of milk per person. In 2018, that number dropped to 146.” With
milk drinking on the decline, the US government is continuing to buy more and more milk. What
exactly happens with this milk, you wonder? Well, the US government turns it mainly into
cheese, but also butter and powdered milk as well, and stores it in a warehouse. As of 2019, “the
USDA now has a stockpile of 1.4 billion pounds of processed American cheese” (Eyermann).
Instead of donating all of this surplus cheese to the poor, the USDA has made numerous
agreements with different companies in order for them to put their cheese into their menus at low
costs. These are places such as McDonald’s Dominos, Taco Bell, etc, all big name brands that
certainly can afford the cheese on their own. If these facts upset you, there are ways that you can
help. Write to your senators and any other people in government! Write to the USDA! Use your
voice to make a change!

Lee’s Blog Post: Sweetening the Science

In his article “The Social Psychology of the Gift”, Barry Schwartz talks about how the act
of gift-giving can be an assertion of power. In accepting a gift from a giver, the receiver makes
himself subordinate due to the social expectation of somehow repaying the giver’s favor.
This seems like a pretty obvious fact - someone does something for you, and you do
something for them. The whole “scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” deal, though usually with
less invasion of each other’s personal space.
So, why should researchers be any different?
Scientists are not mythical paragons of objectivity - they are mere human beings, just like
you and I. It has been shown that even simple, free trinkets can influence the usage of certain
drugs in the medical field.
So, why do people act like a bunch of money, and likely a living and career, would have
no effects on the outcomes of food industry funded studies?
Now, scientists getting money from the big dogs is inherently bad. Scientists need money
to do their job and make a living, like all of us. Many scientists assert that they are not influenced
by who’s doing the funding - but the bias can indeed be unconscious.
In 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a study on industry funded food
research. Though they concluded that industry funding doesn’t necessarily influence the outcome
of research, the pattern of it turning out advantageous is enough for it to pose a risk to the
objectivity of the scientific literature.
One of the biggest perpetrators in this lineup is the sugar industry. The sugar industry has
taken notes from the tobacco industry in their effort to bias the science and take attention away
from the simple truth: sugar just isn’t good for you, even if it's in most of our foods.
The Sugar Association has made it publicly clear in their statements that they are here to
support the high consumption of sucrose in American diets, and that they will back up their
claims with science. However, when getting this “science” , they are explicitly looking to find
data to corroborate their own claims.
In addition to this, organizations like the Sugar Association try to take their paid
scientists and plant them elsewhere: for example, the US Department of Agriculture’s dietary
guidelines advisory panel. The Association claimed these scientists were unbiased, but the push
for power over what American’s eat raises some eyebrow. Well known names in the world of
Coca Cola have mentioned in leaked email chains that they planned to infiltrate scientific
organizations in a similar way. These planted scientists would then falsely equivocate the real
science with industry claims, and advocate for the industry from within.
Funding studies isn’t the only tactic these companies use, however.
 Sugar has been found to have negative effects on health time and time again. It’s linked to
obesity and its comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The sugar industry
continues to rebuke this with vitriol, continuing to claim that quite the opposite is true. This is
one of their tactics: intimidating those that disrupt the narrative they want to export. When the
World Health Organization published a study telling people to limit their sugar intake, the Sugar
Association took action, threatening to have the WHO’s government funding cut. This is just one
instance of the sugar industry using their money and power to influence science. They have also
made an effort to bury research by independent scientists who had less of a voice than the WHO.
Those guys didn’t stand a chance.
So, should we completely stop the industry funding of science? I do not think that we
can. Scientists need to fund their work, and not everyone will be privileged enough to be able to
turn down these grants. However, we as public, do not have to believe everything that comes out
of them. When we are more educated, when we can see through lies that could affect our health,
and combat them. Pay attention to where your information is coming from, and how it's
delivered. And if you have a problem - speak up! In this age of social media, informing others of
what you have come to know is more important than ever. The more that people know, the more
active role they can take in taking back this narrative about our health.

Postwrite

For this project, we feel that we all worked well as a team to make sure we finished and

completed this project to the best of our abilities. Using the format of a blog allowed for some

flexibility in our pace of productivity because we could all work on our own pieces and later

combine them onto the same platform for our final presentation. The group as a whole stayed in

contact with each other through a group chat, which in this case worked well. Every group

member did their best to stay “in the loop” and hold themselves accountable for their portion of

the project. We each took a different role for the research by picking our own topics/parts of the

project that pertained to the main topic and doing our own individual research on it. This allowed

us to broaden our topic and share more information with the class.

Each group member did their fair share of work and dedicated as much time as they could

to create the work they were expected to perform. We were all able to complete our work in an

effective and efficient way because of our communication skills and shared understanding.
Obviously, the pro of working within a group is the ability to split up work that would otherwise

be done on one’s own. It is also nice to be able to communicate with group members to make

sure everyone is on the same page and learning the best they can. Working on this project in a

group also allowed us to bring different voices and ideas to our manifesto. As they say, three

heads are better than one. There are also cons to working in a group - especially now because of

the effects of COVID. Since we are unable to meet in person due to social distancing guidelines,

it can be difficult to get a hold of one another in a small amount of time over text. It’s also a little

bit more difficult to get all of our ideas across just through texting and the bit of time we had

together in class. However, despite this added challenge, we did well in maintaining contact and

doing our parts of the project. For this project, I think our group can all agree that working in a

group was a lot more effective for this project because of the goals we were tasked to complete

while adapting to the current restrictions.