The DisInformation Chronicle Subscribe

MÉLISSA MIALON: DICHRON INTERVIEW

A candid conversation with nutritionist Mélissa Mialon about the food industry’s
behind-the-scenes project to redefine lobbying, research ethics, and the practice
of science.

The DisInformation Chronicle

Apr 27

8 minute read

© 2021 The DisInformation Chronicle. See privacy, terms and information collection notice

Publish on Substack

1 of 12
 and reporters on the methods tobacco, alcohol, and gambling companies deploy against
public health. 

In a new study published this month, Mialon dives into the political tactics of the
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a lobbying organization for food
companies such as Coca-Cola, Mars candy, Nestlé, McDonald’s, ConAgra, and DuPont. 

Based on internal company documents, Mialon examined an ILSI program, started in 2007,

to rede�ne con�icts of interest and corporate in�uence, and a subsequent ISLI strategy for
creating standards for scienti�c integrity and ethical interactions between government and
corporations. While ILSI’s rhetoric on scienti�c integrity and con�icts of interest appears
academic and high-minded, the last several years have not been kind to the lobby group. 

In 2016, a United Nations panel chaired by Professor Alan Boobis ruled that glyphosate was
probably not carcinogenic to humans. As reported by The Guardian, Boobis was also the
vice-president of ILSI Europe, and documents found that ILSI had taken $500,000 from
Monsanto and $528,000 from CropLife International, just a few years prior.

In 2018, Mars candy le� ILSI, telling Reuters, “We do not want to be involved in advocacy-
led studies that so o�en, and mostly for the right reasons, have been criticized.” The hits
continued that next year as studies and media reports in 2019 identi�ed ILSI as an industry
lobby group that harmed public health.

A September 2020 study in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law exposed ILSI
helping Coca-Cola shape obesity policy in China. Last January Coke �nally severed ties
with ILSI, an organization it helped found in 1978. Since that time, ILSI rebranded itself as
the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences.”

Mialon started monitoring ILSI in 2013, when she started her PhD. Here is an edited and
condensed version of our talk.

Type your email… Subscribe

DICHRON: Since 2007, ILSI has been in�uencing science. They �rst started publishing
papers on con�icts of interest. Then around 2014, 2015 they started putting together papers
on scienti�c integrity. And then they began creating this framework for ethics on corporate
partnerships with the government? 

2 of 12
 MIALON: They also began slowly shi�ing from a focus just on nutrition, to science more
broadly. 

DICHRON: They're de�ning what science is. 

MIALON: Absolutely. I had an intuition about this a couple of years ago. In Latin America,
I was seeing them in 2019 participating in international scienti�c integrity conferences, but
they work in nutrition and have a clear con�ict of interest. 

I have colleagues working on con�icts of interest in nutrition, and they did a review of the
literature that cited quite a lot of industry papers, including ILSI papers. But my colleagues
did not recognize that ILSI papers were industry research, and they cited it as if it was
independent science. 

We replied to their review to clarify that the literature that they were citing was from
industry. 

DICHRON: So they did a review of con�icts of interest research using �nancially

in�uenced research?

MIALON: [Laughs] Yes. Because it was ILSI. It's not like it was Coca-Cola who funded the
studies they cited. Some of the studies that were obviously industry, they caught. But not
the ILSI studies.

DICHRON: Can you explain what ILSI is? There have been stories about them pushing the
agenda of junk food manufacturers and defending the pesticide glyphosate for Monsanto. 

MIALON: They also worked for the tobacco industry. They were founded in the 1970s by
some of the largest food companies, including Coca-Cola. Industry created them, but ILSI
presented itself as an independent organization, and they even had status at the World
Health Organization.

The ILSA North America set up a new group last February and it’s the same thing—they
receive most of their money from corporations which shape their agenda behind closed
doors. But on their website, they say they are an independent organization that works with
industry, governments, and academics. 

People don't know who they are because when they get invited to an ILSI conference, the
invitation doesn’t come from Nestlé.

3 of 12
 DICHRON: I love this. Their new name is not the “Trade Organization for Coca-Cola and
Nabisco.” It's called the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences.”
When you add the word “science” it’s no longer lobbying and political in�uence. It’s just
facts and data.

MIALON: Absolutely. They just changed their name. For scientists, it’s very di�cult to
recognize that this is an industry group. And in nutrition, a lot of people receive money
from the food industry so it seems like a normal nutrition institute.

I was talking to someone who was invited to present at a conference where ILSI paid for her
�ight, food, and accommodation. At the end of her presentation, she was thanked, as well
as Coca-Cola who sponsored her talk. 

She didn’t understand that this is who paid for everything, and if she had known before, she
wouldn’t have gone. It’s insidious. 

I heard from someone else invited to an ILSI conference, and she was attacked for her
presentation on hydration. People get trapped into these conferences. During her talk, she
said that water is su�cient. When you are thirsty, just drink. 

But the people who invited her wanted to hear you need multiple liters of water a day, or
maybe other liquids, like soda. 

DICHRON:  ILSI is now called IAFNS and they have their own science journal called
“Nutrition Reviews.” You found that it's among the top ten journals in the �eld of
nutrition. 

MIALON: They are transparent. On the Web page of the journal, they say it’s ILSI. But
again, many researchers don't know that they are submitting to a journal that is thoroughly
supported by food companies. 

We found that around 25 per cent of the studies in this journal had some involvement with
industry—funding or authorship. 

Type your email… Subscribe

DICHRON: All of this starts o� in 2007, with ILSI focusing on con�icts of interest or

corporate in�uence. Why does ILSI care about con�icts of interests? 

4 of 12
 MIALON: I think they were very clever. The discussion on obesity and food started around
2005 or 2006. And ILSI understood very quickly what this emerging discussion meant for
researchers working with food companies. There were not any ethical guidelines at the
time, so ILSI captured the discussion from the beginning to shape it. 

Companies work with a lot of nutrition researchers. Guidelines and policies at universities
on this type of work could be a problem. So before there were any guidelines, ILSI
published their own in the scienti�c literature so it would then get cited. 

My colleagues that I mentioned, they actually put this study in their review because it’s one
of the oldest papers in the scienti�c literature on con�icts of interest in nutrition. 

DICHRON: In medicine, most doctors acknowledge corporate in�uence and try to �gure
out how to deal with it. But in food and agriculture, researchers will say that corporations
don't cause in�uence. 

MIALON: Well, we once had doctors in advertisements for cigarettes. But in nutrition we

are way, way behind in terms of con�icts of interest.

It's okay if food engineering is funded by industry, because companies process our foods.
The issue is with nutrition, when corporations pretend that processed food is healthy. We
need to distinguish between food science and nutrition. 

The moment food engineers say that a processed food is making you healthy, that's where it
touches con�icts of interest. Because they are not in the business of health. They are in the
business of making pro�t and products. 

DICHRON: Food science is about making foods that are safe, that taste good, and that last
long. But they are not necessarily in the business of making food that's healthy. 

MIALON: Yes. The industry money in food science is not the problem. The corporate
money in nutrition, that's a di�erent story. 

DICHRON: One email chain you published for this study concerns a professor at

Nottingham University named Ian MacDonald. He’s one of the top nutrition experts, and
several British newspapers reported in 2014 that while he was on a UK government panel
about the health impacts of sugar he was also consulting for Coca-Cola on diet and obesity,
and for Mars candy.

5 of 12
 These industry people, like Rhona Applebaum, who was the Chief Science and Health
O�cer at Coca-Cola, seem appalled journalists would report this. One scientist sends this
email, saying that these articles on MacDonald were personal, ad hominem attacks. Instead
of worrying about �nancial in�uence, they reinvent these news reports as personal attacks. 

Email exchange among academics and industry representative discussing

news articles about a government advisor who was simultaneously consulting
for sugar companies.

MIALON: People understand con�icts of interest as an attack on themselves and their

integrity and credibility. People don't understand the issue, and all of the scienti�c studies
on con�icts of interest. It’s a very, very sensitive topic in nutrition. 

DICHRON: They think that reporters pointing out that Ian MacDonald was taking money
from the food industry is the same as the Nazis attacking Einstein for “Jewish science.”
Making that comparison is inappropriate and total craziness. 

6 of 12
 Email from an American professor comparing news articles of a government
advisoror consulting with food companies to Nazis attacking research by
Albert Einstein.

MIALON: They took it as a personal attack.

DICHRON: Rhona Applebaum, who was at Coca-Cola, also calls for principles on civil
discourse and guidelines to avoid what she calls “demonizing.” Not only do they not see
these corporate relationships as problematic, they call it “demonizing” when reporters
write about it. 

7 of 12
 Email from Coca-Cola’s Rhona Applebaum calling news accounts of food
consultants a type of “demonising”.

MIALON: They are trying to change the discussion.

DUCHRON: They’re trying to recast the controversy and ignore the science. There is
a peer-reviewed literature on corporate in�uence that they try to dismiss as opinion.
They're behaving in a non-scienti�c way.

MIALON: The science of con�icts of interest comes from social science and legal studies.
Scientists who work in laboratories don't feel that type of science is as important as theirs.
They think it’s very subjective. It's not. They don't understand that type of qualitative
research. 

DICHRON: You identi�ed �ve studies they published on con�icts of interest. And one
involved ILSI working with DuPont. Most people think of DuPont as a chemical company
and that food involves farmers out in the �elds.

MIALON: In total, we had eight studies—those �ve you mention were found through one

8 of 12
 source of information. Dupont was involved because they manufacture food ingredients and
supplements, these chemicals that go into foods. 

DICHRON: When people become concerned about these corporate ties to government,

ILSI responds by helping to dra� the guidelines on government and industry partnerships.

MIALON: Yes. [Laughs]

DICHRON: You're laughing but it's crazy. They basically write their own policies for
government ethics.

MIALON: It was just crazy. I was shocked to �nd all of these things—that they worked
with the National Academies of Science. I became interested in investigating this because
ILSI presented at the World Conference on Research Integrity. These respected institutions
work with ILSI.

DICHRON: A�er ILSI creates some principles on government working with industry, they
have their launch event at the National Academies of Science. They basically launder this
corporate-friendly policy through the National Academies and they get Undersecretary
Catherine Woteki at the USDA to give the keynote address. 

MIALON: That was quite shocking for us. They went right up to the top to work with the
National Academies and the USDA. The only organization to refuse to add its name to that
work was the American Public Health Association. Everyone else seemed happy to be
involved.

Type your email… Subscribe

DICHRON: In 2019, ILSI publishes these principles in Science and Engineering Ethics. Is

that a real journal? 

9 of 12
 MIALON: We haven't checked. The quality of the journal doesn’t really matter for industry.
As long as it’s in the scienti�c literature, it gets scienti�c credibility.

DICRHON: In 2017, ILSI started collaborating with the Center for Open Science. And at
an ILSI science program in 2019, someone from this Center gave a presentation titled,
“Bene�ts of More Transparent Research Practices and Bias Reduction Tools.” Lots of irony
here.

MIALON: I mean, it couldn't be worse than that. That's the type of thing that ILSI has
been doing. I was just telling colleagues in Brazil that more and more they're inviting
people working on ethics and core scienti�c principles.

And these people likely have no clue who ILSI is; they just show up to give a talk. 

DICRHON: When Rhona Applebaum was at Coca-Cola, she helped create the Global
Energy Balance Network, which the New York Times exposed as a lobbying e�ort to make
obesity about lack of exercise and not sugary drinks. The BMJ exposed her work funding
journalism conferences at the University of Colorado to get journalists to not criticize
sodas.

MIALON: She was very good at what she did and she was everywhere. Coca-Cola funded a
lot of research in this area.

DICHRON: Much of it got exposed, but all the research Coca-Cola funded is still part of
the scienti�c literature, and scientists will continue to cite it in their own research. It was a
win for them.

MIALON: Many people in nutrition don’t understand this because of the blurriness and
cross over between food science and nutrition. Many people in this area take money from
industry. Also, it was not very clear until recently that processed foods can make us sick.
People in health were only talking about salt, sugar, and fat.  

You think you can work with industry and help them decrease the salt content in their
products and that helps for health. Now there is more and more evidence that it's the
degree of processing that's problematic. It's not just salt, sugar and fat.

DICHRON: Every scientist who can’t grasp �nancial in�uence in science, de�nitely

understands �nancial in�uence in politics. If they see money going to a politician, they get

10 of 12
 very upset. 

MIALON: Because it's not them and not their profession. 

DICRON: Much of this study discusses America. Is that just because of the documents you
had available or is corporate in�uence worse in America? 

MIALON: All of these companies—Coca-Cola, ILSI, and the transnationals—are mostly

based in the US. The reality is that it started in the US. And the criticism and discussion of
nutrition also started in the US. But industry is now working to expand their scienti�c
integrity work to other countries.

DICHRON: Do you think your study will be widely read, or will industry try to ignore it?

MIALON: Within my bubble of people working on con�icts of interest or corporate

in�uence, I’ve gotten a lot of good feedback. This study is quite di�erent because we show
industry trying to in�uence the very principles of science. 

We already got a response from the new ILSI, the Institute for the Advancement of Food
and Nutrition Sciences. They say that they are quite transparent. Of course, we were
pointing out that they are not as transparent about their work as they pretend. 

I think we are now on their radar.

Type your email… Subscribe

← Previous Next →

Write a comment…

11 of 12
 Ready for more?

Type your email… Subscribe

12 of 12