Food Politics
How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health
By Marion Nestle
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
Copyright © 2013 The Regents of the University of California
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-520-27596-6
Contents
Foreword by Michael Pollan, vii,
Preface to the Tenth Anniversary Edition, xi,
Preface to the First Edition, xiii,
Introduction: The Food Industry and "Eat More", 1,
PART ONE UNDERMINING DIETARY ADVICE, 29,
1. From "Eat More" to "Eat Less," 1900–1990, 31,
2. Politics versus Science: Opposing the Food Pyramid, 1991–1992, 51,
3. "Deconstructing" Dietary Advice, 67,
PART TWO WORKING THE SYSTEM, 93,
4. Influencing Government: Food Lobbies and Lobbyists, 95,
5. Co-opting Nutrition Professionals, 111,
6. Winning Friends, Disarming Critics, 137,
7. Playing Hardball: Legal and Not, 159,
PART THREE EXPLOITING KIDS, CORRUPTING SCHOOLS, 173,
8. Starting Early: Underage Consumers, 175,
9. Pushing Soft Drinks: "Pouring Rights", 197,
PART FOUR DEREGULATING DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, 219,
10. Science versus Supplements: "A Gulf of Mutual Incomprehension", 222,
11. Making Health Claims Legal: The Supplement Industry's War with the FDA, 247,
12. Deregulation and Its Consequences, 272,
PART FIVE INVENTING TECHNO-FOODS, 295,
13. Go Forth and Fortify, 298,
14. Beyond Fortification: Making Foods Functional, 315,
15. Selling the Ultimate Techno-Food: Olestra, 338,
Conclusion: The Politics of Food Choice, 358,
Afterword: Food Politics: Five Years Later and Beyond, 375,
Appendix: Issues in Nutrition and Nutrition Research, 413,
Notes, 425,
List of Tables, 487,
List of Figures, 489,
Index, 491,
CHAPTER 1
FROM "EAT MORE" TO "EAT LESS," 1900–1990
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN telling people what to eat for more than a century, and the history of such advice reflects changes in agriculture, food product development, and international trade, as well as in science and medicine. In 1900, for example, the leading causes of death were infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and diphtheria made worse by the nutrient deficiencies and overall malnutrition that were especially prevalent among the poor. Life expectancy at birth for both men and women barely exceeded 47 years. To overcome nutritional deficiencies and related disorders, government nutritionists urged people to eat more of a greater variety of foods. Throughout the twentieth century, an expanding economy led to improvements in housing, sanitation, and nutrition. Diseases resulting from nutritional deficiencies declined, and by 2000 life expectancy had increased to an average of 77 years. Today, the leading causes of death are chronic diseases associated with excessive (or unbalanced) intake of food and nutrients. Table 5 compares the ten leading causes of death in the United States in 1900 and 2000. Despite the great advances in public health during the twentieth century, the leading conditions related to diet—coronary heart disease, cancers at certain sites, diabetes, stroke, and liver cirrhosis, for example—could be reduced in prevalence or delayed until later in life if people ate less of dietary components that increase disease risk. Advice to eat less, however, runs counter to the interests of food producers.
The conflict between more recent ideas about diets that promote health and the interests of the food industry accounts for much of the public confusion about nutrition. As this chapter will explain, dietary advice issued by the government never has been based purely on considerations of public health. The agencies that issue dietary advice inevitably have other constituencies as well as the public, most notably the agricultural and food industries. When the interests of these industries conflict with current thinking about nutrition, as in the examples described here, the result is controversy, confusion, and the invocation of science to support one or another point of view.
EAT MORE": PREVENTING DIETARY DEFICIENCIES, 1890s TO 1960s
The federal role in promoting food consumption developed as a result of colonial history. As far as one can tell, the diet of the earliest American settlers depended on foods obtained through farming, hunting and gathering, and—to a limited extent—internal and external trade. As trade increased, and as the country became more industrialized and urbanized, methods of food preservation, storage, and distribution improved. What people actually were eating before the twentieth century, however, is known only from anecdotal accounts or small surveys. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) began collecting information about the supply of basic food commodities in 1909, about household food consumption practices in 1936-37, and about the food intake of individuals only in 1965.1 Earlier dietary practices can only be inferred, and cannot easily be correlated with health status except indirectly through changes in disease rates or life expectancy.
Nevertheless, from the time of its creation in 1862, the USDA was expected to perform two functions. One was to ensure a sufficient and reliable food supply. The other was to "diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture in the most general and comprehensive sense of that word." This last was interpreted as a mandate to issue dietary advice. In early years, the two functions seemed perfectly compatible. Both promoted a greater and more varied food supply. By the early 1890s, the USDA began to sponsor studies on the relationship between agriculture and human nutrition, and it appointed W. O. Atwater as the first director of research activities. Atwater published tables that listed the content of calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat, and "mineral matters" in common American foods. He also estimated the amounts of food needed to meet the nutrient requirements of people performing different levels of work. His analysis of the eating habits of New England laborers and professionals, for example, confirmed "the general impression of hygienists that our diet is one-sided and that we eat too much ... fat, starch, and sugar. This is due partly to our large consumption of sugar and partly to our use of such large quantities of fat meats.... How much harm is done to health by our one-sided and excessive diet no one can say. Physicians tell us that it is very great."
Atwater believed that American men required more calories and protein than recommended by European physiologists of that era because people in this country worked harder. He suggested that men doing moderate work required about 3,500 calories daily, with a distribution that calculates to about 15% of calories from protein, 33% from fat, and 52% from carbohydrate. This intake level exceeds current recommendations by about 1,000 daily calories, but Atwater was ahead of his time; the proportions of protein, fat, and carbohydrate are quite similar to those currently advised.
Atwater's advice said nothing about vitamins. Although classic vitamin-deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beriberi, and pellagra were understood to be associated with diet in some way, their specific causes were unknown and no vitamin had as yet been isolated. Early in the twentieth century, as scientists began to identify the structure and function of one vitamin after another, the USDA immediately translated these scientific advances into advice for consumers. By...
Wow! eBook
