No Purveyor of Unhealthy Products Wants the Public to Know the Truth

In 2011, Denmark introduced the world’s first duty on saturated overweight. “After merely 15 months, nonetheless, the overweight duty was abolished, ” due to massive push from raising and food company interests. “Public health preaches are weak in tackling the files of the corporate power…A well-used approach for alcohol, tobacco, and, most recently, food-related corporate interests is to shift the focus away from health. This involves reframing a solid or soft drinks tax as an issue of consumer rights and a debate over the role of the state in’ nannying’ or curbing people’s choices.” I discuss this in my video The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition.

“The’ Nanny State’ is a term that is usually used in a pejorative acces to discourage authorities from inserting legislation or regulation that might undermine the superpower or actions of industry or individuals…Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the’ Nanny State’ phrase.” But those complaining about the governmental manipulation of people’s alternatives hypocritically tend to be fine with firms doing the same thing. One could argue that “public health is being undermined by the’ Nanny Industry’ …[ that] uses dread of government regulation to maintain its own preeminence, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant business and social cost to the community and to public health.”

The tobacco industry offers the classic sample, touting “personal responsibility, ” which has a certain philosophical appeal. As long as beings understand the risks, they should be free to do whatever they crave with their own bodies. Now, some argue that risk-taking affects others, but if you have the right to put your own life at risk, shouldn’t you have the right to aggrieve your parents, widow your spouse, and orphan their own children? Then, there’s the social cost argument. People’s bad decisions can expense the society as a whole, whose excise dollars may have to care for them. “The independent, individualist motorcyclist, helmetless and free on the open street, becomes the most dependent of individuals in the spinal harm ward.”

But, for the sake of argument, let’s forget these spillover gists, the so-called externalities. If person understands the hazards, shouldn’t they be able to do whatever they miss? Well, “first, it assumes individuals can access accurate and offset message relevant to their decisions…but deliberate manufacture intervention is often used to initiated the case where buyers have access only to incomplete and inaccurate information…For decades, tobacco companionships successfully quashed or undercut scientific evidence of smoking’s dangers and down represented the public health concerns to which this information gave rise.” Don’t worry your little honcho, said the nanny companionships. “Analyses of documents…have divulged decades of subterfuge and manipulation by the tobacco industry, and approved deliberate targeting of…children.” Indeed, it has “marketed and sold[ its] lethal produces with zeal…and without regard for the human rights tragedy….”

“The tobacco industry’s deliberate approach of challenging scientific evidence subverts smokers’ ability to understand the distress inhaling poses” and, as such, subverts the whole concept that smoking is a fully informed choice. “Tobacco companies have revoked smokers truthful information…yet contain smokers[ accountable] for incurring cancers that will cause half of them to die prematurely. In situations such as these, government intervention is vital to protect consumers from greedy industries….”

Is the nutrient industry any different? “The public is bombarded with information and it is hard to tell which is true, which is false and which is merely overdid. Nutrients are sold without clarity about the nutritional material or harmful effects.” Remember how the menu manufacture spend a billion dollars drawing sure the easy-to-understand traffic-light labeling system on nutrient, which you can see at 4:26 in my video, never saw the light of day and was replaced by indecipherable labeling? That’s ten times more money than the medication industry devotes on lobbying in the United District. It’s in the food industry’s interest to have the public a little confused nutrition.

How mystified are we about nutrition? “Head Start schoolteachers have the responsibility of affording nutrition education to over 1 million low-income children annually…” When 181 Head start schoolteachers were put to the test, exclusively about 4 out of the 181 answered at least four of the five nutrition knowledge questions correctly. Most, for example, could not correctly answer the question, “What has “the worlds largest” calories: protein, carbohydrate, or overweight? ” Not a single coach could rebut all five nutrition questions accurately. While they appraised nutrition education, 54 percentage “agreed that it was hard to know which nutrition information to believe, ” and the nutrient industry wants to keep it that way. A one-quarter of the teachers did not consume any fruit or vegetables the previous day, though half did have french fries and soda, and a part expended fried meat the day before. Not amazingly, 55 percent of the professors were not just overweight but obese.

When even the professors are confounded, something must be done. No purveyor of undesirable produces demands the public to know the truth. “An interesting example comes from the US’ Fairness Doctrine’ and the tobacco advertising know of the 1960 s. Before tobacco promote was banned from television in the US, a court ruling in 1967 required that tobacco fellowships funded one state ad about smoking for every four tobacco Tv ads they located. Very than face this corrective advertising, the tobacco industry took their own advertising off television.” They knew they couldn’t compete with the truth. Just “the threat of corrective push even on a one-to-four basis was sufficient to constitute the tobacco business withdraw their own advertising.” They needed to keep the public in the dark.

The trans fat narration is an excellent example of this. For more on that, appreciate my videos Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban and Banning Trans Fat in Processed Food but Not Animal Fat.

Isn’t the Fairness Doctrine example amazing? Just goes to show how strong the truth can be. If you want to support my efforts to spread evidence-based nutrition, you can donate to our 501 c3 nonprofit here. You may also want to support Balanced, an ally society NutritionFacts.org helped launching to throw this evidence into practice.

More tobacco industry parallels can be found in Big Food Using the Tobacco Industry Playbook, American Medical Association Complicity with Big Tobacco, and How Smoking in 1959 Is Like Eating in 2016.

Want to know more about that saturated solid tariff notion? See Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health ?.

Also check 😛 TAGEND

The Role of the Toxic Food Environment in the Obesity Epidemic The Role of Corporate Influence in the Obesity Epidemic The Role of Processed Menu in the Obesity Epidemic Highlights from the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Hearing Will Cannabis Turn Into Big Tobacco ?

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t more, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presents 😛 TAGEND

2019: Evidence-Based Weight Loss 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food 2013: More Than an Apple a Day 2012: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death

Read more: nutritionfacts.org