AND Corporate Sponsorship Report


1 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food? Michele Simon JANUARY 2013

2 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 1 Executive Summary By any measure, the nation is currently Findings: suffering from an epidemic of diet- • Beginning in 2001, AND listed 10 food related health problems. According to industry sponsors; the 2011 annual report the U.S. Centers for Disease Control lists 38, a more than three-fold increase. 1 chronic diseases – such and Prevention, • The most loyal AND sponsor is the as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and National Cattleman’s Beef Association, for diabetes – “are among the most common, 12 years running (2001-2012). costly, and preventable of all health • Processed food giants ConAgra and problems.” General Mills have been AND sponsors for Against this backdrop, we must ask: what 10 of the last 12 years. is the role of the Academy of Nutrition • Kellogg and the National Dairy Council have and Dietetics (AND)—the nation’s largest been AND sponsors for 9 of the last 12 years. association of nutrition professionals—in • Companies on AND’s list of approved preventing or at least stemming the tide continuing education providers include of diet-related health problems? What Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, and PepsiCo. responsibility does this influential group of registered dietitians bear to be a • Among the messages taught in Coca-Cola- leading advocate for policy changes to sponsored continuing education courses are: make eating healthfully more accessible? sugar is not harmful to children; aspartame Does forming partnerships with the food is completely safe, including for children over one year; and the Institute of Medicine is too industry compromise such a group’s restrictive in its school nutrition standards. credibility? And what does the food industry gain from such partnerships? • At AND’s 2012 annual meeting, 18 organizations – less than five percent of Why does it matter? As this report all exhibitors – captured 25 percent of the will show, the food industry’s deep total exhibitor space. Only two out of the 18 infiltration of the nation’s top nutrition represented whole, non-processed foods. organization raises serious questions not only about that profession’s credibility, • Based on square footage, only about 12 percent of the expo floor was taken up by but also about its policy positions. The fruit and vegetable vendors, using AND’s nation is currently embroiled in a series own generous classification. of policy debates about how to fix our broken food system. A 74,000-member • The AND Foundation sells “nutrition health organization has great potential symposia” sponsorships for $50,000 at the to shape that national discourse – for annual meeting. In 2012, Nestlé presented a better and for worse. session on “Optimal Hydration.”

3 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 2 • The Corn Refiners Association (lobbyists for high fructose corn syrup) sponsored Recommendations three “expo impact” sessions at the AND 2012 annual meeting. AND should make 1) Greater Transparency: more details available to the public (or at • Roughly 23 percent of annual meeting least to members) regarding corporate speakers had industry ties, although most sponsorship—far beyond what it currently of these conflicts were not disclosed in the provides in its annual reports. program session description. Trade 2) Request Input from Membership: • In an independent survey, 80 percent group policies should reflect the desires of of registered dietitians said sponsorship its members. Many RDs object to corporate implies Academy endorsement of that sponsorship but don’t know how to make company and its products. their voices heard. • Almost all RDs surveyed (97 percent) 3) Meaningful Sponsorship Guidelines: thought the Academy should verify that a AND should implement much stronger and sponsor’s corporate mission is consistent with more meaningful sponsorship guidelines, that of the Academy prior to accepting them. possibly looking to the Hunger and • A majority of RDs surveyed found three Environmental Nutrition Dietetic Practice current AND sponsors “unacceptable.” Group’s stricter guidelines as a model. (Coca-Cola, Mars, and PepsiCo.) 4) Reject Corporate-Sponsored • The AND lobbying agenda reveals AND should reject outright Education: mostly safe issues benefiting registered corporate-sponsored continuing dietitians. To date, AND has not supported education, as well as corporate-sponsored controversial nutrition policies that might education sessions at its annual meeting. upset corporate sponsors, such as limits on AND should also consider placing more soft drink sizes, soda taxes, or GMO labels. distance between its credentialing arm and • AND’s sponsors and their activities appear the main organization. to violate AND’s own sponsorship guidelines. 5) Increased Leadership on Nutrition • In 2011, AND generated $1.85 million in Policy: In recent years, AND’s leadership sponsorship revenue, which represents has taken important steps to improve about 5% the total revenue. This is down its policy agenda and create a positive from 9% in both 2010 and 2009. presence in Washington. However, while the staff in the D.C. office is lobbying on • For the AND Foundation, corporate behalf of AND’s membership, “education contributions were the single largest source sessions” are being taught to RDs by Coke of revenue in 2011: $1.3 million out of a total and Hershey’s. This disconnect will continue of $3.4 million or 38 percent. to undermine AND’s credibility on critical • In 2011, the AND Foundation reported policy issues until the conflicts are resolved. more than $17 million in net assets, more than six times its expenses for that year.

4 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 3 Introduction By any measure, the nation is currently a leading advocate for policy change to make eating healthfully more accessible? suffering from an epidemic of diet- Does forming partnerships with the food related health problems. According to industry compromise such a group’s the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 1 credibility? And what does the food Prevention, chronic diseases – such industry gain from such partnerships? as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes – “are among the most common, Formed in 1917, the American Dietetic costly, and preventable of all health Association changed its name in 2012 The numbers are stunning: problems.” to the Academy of Nutrition of Dietetics 133 million Americans – almost half of (AND). The organization’s 74,000 all adults – have at least one of these members are mostly registered dietitians chronic diseases, which cause seven out (RDs), among other health and nutrition of 10 deaths each year. In addition to professionals. (It’s incorporated as a factors such as smoking and excessive 501(c)(6), the IRS tax designation for alcohol consumption, poor diet plays a “business league” or trade group.) major causal role in chronic disease. The organization’s stated mission is “empowering members to be the There is also irrefutable evidence that nation’s food and nutrition leaders;” the food industry’s incessant marketing of unhealthy foods, especially to and its vision is: “optimizing the nation’s 2 children, is at least partly to blame for The health through food and nutrition.” group seems to do well financially. In America’s poor eating habits. It’s nearly impossible for “eat healthy” messages 2011, AND enjoyed close to $34 million to compete with an industry that spends in revenues, from a mix of membership 3 billions of dollars a year marketing dues, sponsorships, and other sources. “dollar menu meals” to adults and Happy Controversy surrounding the group’s Meals to children. relationship with the food industry is New York Times Against this backdrop, we must ask: what hardly new. In 1995, is the role of the Academy of Nutrition reporter Marian Burros wrote about and Dietetics—the nation’s largest criticisms of the group for taking funding association of nutrition professionals— from industry groups such as the Sugar Association, the Meat Board, and in preventing or at least stemming the tide of diet-related health problems? companies such as McDonald’s, Coca- 4 What responsibility does this influential Cola, and Mars. According to Burros: “Nothing negative is ever included in group of registered dietitians bear to be

5 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 4 ADA journal, along with a 20-page materials produced by the association, “educational” insert from the Dannon a fact that critics attribute to its link to 6 industry.” In that same article, veteran Institute in the April 2000 issue. sustainable food advocate and Columbia Little has changed since then—except University Professor Joan Gussow noted that things have gotten even worse. As that giving money to registered dietitians this report will show, the food industry’s is how industry silences its critics. deep infiltration of the nation’s top Food nutrition organization—the Academy In her seminal 2002 book, Politics of Nutrition of Dietetics—raises serious , New York University Professor questions not only about that profession’s Marion Nestle documented the credibility, but also about its policy American Dietetic Association’s (its positions. The nation is currently name then) troubling ties to the food industry. For example, Nestle cited embroiled in major debates and disputes about how to fix our broken food system, a 1993 collaboration between ADA from agricultural subsidies to GMO and McDonald’s to develop “Food labeling to marketing to children. A FUNdamentals” Happy Meal toys as part 74,000-member health organization has of a shared “commitment to nutrition 5 Equally worrisome, Nestle education.” great potential to shape that national found industry advertisements in the discourse – for better and for worse.

6 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 5 A Decade of Loyal Food Industry Sponsors An examination of AND annual reports Nutrition , the Academy implemented from 2001 to 2011 reveals a sharp rise in a new corporate relations sponsorship the number of food industry sponsors. program in 2007, including “partners” for Beginning in 2001, AND listed 10 food the first time, which confers an ongoing 7 relationship, sometimes over several years. industry sponsors. The 2011 annual The first Academy partners were Aramark, report listed 38, a more than three-fold GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, increase. Although in later years some companies are listed more than once the National Dairy Council, and Unilever, with PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Company for different forms of sponsorship, the becoming partners shortly thereafter. figures suggest a marked increase in sponsorship opportunities. (See table.) Certain food companies and industry trade groups have become especially According to an article published in the Journal of Hunger and Environmental loyal sponsors over the years, suggesting Number of food company / trade group TABLE 1: sponsors of AND over 10 years 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2009 2008 2011 2004 2006 2007 2003 2002 2001 2005 * * * * *Some duplicates due to more categories; others are donations to foundation.

7 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 6 a deeper relationship of cooperation Over the past five years, AND’s most and influence. The top loyalty prize loyal Academy Partners (for all five years) goes to the National Cattlemen’s Beef have been Aramark, Coca-Cola, and the National Dairy Council. During that Association, which has sponsored period, the following companies were AND for the past 12 years (2001-2012). listed as either “Partners” or “Premier NCBA is a large and powerful lobbying organization representing the nation’s Sponsors:” PepsiCo, Kellogg, Mars, beef producers. Most notoriously, NCBA General Mills, and Abbott Nutrition. has flexed its lobbying muscle over On its promotional web page where the years to influence federal nutrition AND solicits corporate sponsorships, guidelines to ensure that beef remains a the group offers its justification for 8 dietary staple. these relationships: “We think it’s Other loyal AND sponsors include important for us to be at the same table processed food giants ConAgra, General with food companies because of the Mills (for 10 of past 12 years), and positive influence that we can have on 9 Kellogg, along with the marketing group, They continue: them.” the National Dairy Council, each listed for For the Academy, relationships with outside nine of the past 12 years. organizations are not about promoting Most Loyal Corporate Sponsors TABLE 2: Academy Sponsors 2001-2012 10 years 10 years 9 years 12 years 9 years Academy Partners 2008-2012 Partners or Premier Sponsors 2008-2012

8 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 7 companies’ products; they are about creating nutrition messages that people can understand and act upon to improve their health and that of their families. The top level of corporate sponsorship, “Academy Partner,” garners a nice collection of perks, mostly buying access to educate nutrition professionals on how their particular products are 10 For conducive to a healthy lifestyle. example, partners can co-sponsor “all Academy Premier Events,” conduct a 90-minute educational presentation at AND’s annual meeting, and host either a culinary demo or media briefing also at PAST ACADEMY PRESIDENT SYLVIA ESCOTT-STUMP the annual meeting. AT COCA-COLA HEART TRUTH CAMPAIGN EVENT Partner status also confers this benefit: “The right to co-create, co-brand It’s important to view these materials as an Academy-themed informational opportunities for positive and free publicity consumer campaign.” Examples include under the guise of “education” for both the Coca-Cola “Heart Truth Campaign,” RDs and consumers. Dietitians working which involves fashion shows of women in clinical settings or as independent wearing red dresses and is also promoted practitioners are an important vehicle 11 by the federal government. through which many consumers become Another instance of partner/sponsor co- educated on how to eat healthfully. By branding is the National Dairy Council’s putting its seal of approval on materials “3-Every-Day of Dairy Campaign,” which developed by Coca-Cola and the National is a marketing vehicle for the dairy Dairy Council, the Academy is sending a industry disguised as a nutrition program. strong message that these are legitimate The partnership consists of several sources of health and nutrition information, fact sheets that bear the AND logo, using its members to then educate the demonstrating the value of the group’s general public. In reality, these materials 12 seal of approval. The National Dairy are little more than public relations Council does not disclose that they paid messages for food companies and trade for the right to use the AND logo. associations to sell more products.

9 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 8 The Best Nutrition Education Money Can Buy • Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute One of the most important ways that for Health and Wellness food companies promote themselves to RDs is through the Academy’s • Institute of Food Technologists [leaders tied to industry] credentialing agency, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR). The • International Food Information Council agency, housed within AND, oversees Foundation [industry group] the credentialing process for RDs • Kraft Foods Global and numerous other credentials • National Pasteurized Eggs and awards. The CDR also approves • Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition “accredited providers” for Continuing 13 • PepsiCo Nutrition Profession Education” (CPE) for RDs. The following continuing education To teach RDs, one must pay a $250 session is available for purchase by non-refundable application fee, along RDs directly from AND’s website: with an annual $300 “maintenance Restaurant Menu Labeling: Impact fee.” The AND Commission promotes on the Environment of Nutrition and the “benefits” of becoming an 16 The two presenters are from Dietetics . accredited provider of CPE by the National Restaurant Association, emphasizing “marketing opportunities” the powerful lobbying organization for such as exposure to Academy the restaurant industry, which fought members, promotion of CPE activities, for decades against menu labeling; and being listed on the Commission’s 14 thus having them present on this topic website. Judging from the list of seems especially disingenuous. providers, (about 200) quite a few food companies are taking advantage of Also available are two sessions this opportunity—including Coca-Cola, presented by the public relations Kraft, Nestlé, and PepsiCo, often under group, International Food Information 15 the guise of the company’s “institute.” Council, which only puts out information that favors its food Accredited continuing education industry members and funders: providers include: • General Mills Bell Institute for Agricultural and Food Production • Health and Wellness 17 Practices • Calorie Control Council Translating the 2010 Dietary Guidelines • [industry group] 18 to Consumer Acceptance and Action. • ConAgra Foods Science Institute

10 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 9 the messages they bring are in line with Industry-spun Science is Not Continuing Education corporate goals to sell more. As a result, RDs are getting a very biased education Allowing industry representatives on numerous critical health issues. to provide continuing education is For example, Ronald Kleinman is an problematic on several levels. For example, the food industry is not in the MD who teaches continuing education webinars for Coca-Cola. From a quick education business: it’s in the selling- look at his bio, his credentials are more-food business. Just because Coca- impressive: professor at Harvard, chief Cola and Hershey’s launch their own branded “institutes” does not change this physician at Massachusetts General 19 But his resume also reads reality. Likewise, inventing a group called Hospital, etc. like a who’s a “council” who of the does not corporate automatically food industry. mean your In addition to information is Coca-Cola, science-based. Dr. Kleinman The point of consults for continuing Burger King education is to and General keep nutrition Mills. Kleinman professionals was also abreast of tapped by their field’s Monsanto cutting-edge last fall to be research and one of the other trends. numerous The food SLIDE FROM CONTINUING EDUCATION WEBINAR ON “BUILDING BETTER “experts” 21 BONE HEALTH” SPONSORED BY GENERAL MILLS, MAKER OF KIX, YOPLAIT. industry does speaking not monitor out against research: they select it; they spin it; and at Proposition 37 in California, which would times, fund it to get favorable outcomes. have required labeling of genetically- Often these companies rely on outside 20 engineered food in that state. “experts” to teach their sponsored webinars, but while these instructors give Then it may not be surprising that one the illusion of objectivity, the information take-away message from his Coke- can still be biased. Coca-Cola is not sponsored seminar is how sugar is just going to select (and pay) an expert fine for our kids. The goal was to assuage who has anything bad to say about parents’ concerns about sugar’s impact their products. These experts are hand- on their children. He dismissed such picked by companies precisely because ideas as being (in his words) “urban

11 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 10 myths” and “misconceptions.” Because while getting continuing education the message is coming from a well- credits they need to further their career? Moreover, most of industry’s sessions are credentialed MD, it carries weight; but that message was still bought and paid free, thereby furthering the RD’s incentive for by Coca-Cola. (See Table 2, p. 11.) to choose these over other options. Also, these companies not only have What’s Missing from their own large budget for marketing RD Continuing Education? these sessions, but also gain access to 70,000-plus RDs on AND’s email list. By Equally concerning, if RDs are getting comparison, an advocacy group such as their continuing education units from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade the food industry, what messages are Policy, which does excellent webinars, they missing? Coca-Cola or General does not have such access; as a result Mills are not going to sponsor sessions most RDs don’t know about them. on the harmful impacts of marketing to children despite the numerous studies Finally, the messages being conveyed demonstrating the connection. Nor will through the continuing education system they hire a scientist to explain why excess by definition have the Academy stamp sugar consumption raises the risk of of approval. In fact, in some sessions, the heart disease, despite that growing body Academy is cited as an authority on the of evidence. Where else, other than their issue being discussed, thereby closing own trade group’s approved providers, the loop on corporate-sponsored public will RDs get exposed to such information relations disguised as science.

12 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 11 TABLE 2: Sampling of Continuing Education Sessions Addressing Questions About Aspartame and Stevia Sweeteners Bernadene Magnuson and Marianella Herrera Presenters: Coke-friendly messages: • Aspartame is completely safe, including for children over one year • Aspartame allows enjoyment of sweet taste without raising blood sugar levels • Aspartame and stevia can help with weight loss Understanding Americans’ Approach to Weight Management Presenters: Adam Drewnowski and Robyn Flipse Coke-friendly messages: • Low-calorie sweeteners (LCS) do not overstimulate taste receptors, provoke hunger, cause overeating, or increase body weight • Use of LCS may be index of healthier diets (“Diet soda consumers had better diets!”) • LCS intake reduces total calories consumed and improves palatability of foods Children’s Dietary Recommendations Presenter: Robert Kleinman Coke-friendly messages: • Majority of studies have not found link between sugar and behavior in children Despite the evidence, parents continue to believe sugar leads to behavioral problems in children due to their perceptual biases • The safety of low-calorie sweeteners are supported by numerous peer-reviewed studies and major regulatory agencies • Institute of Medicine is too restrictive in its school nutrition standards 22 Source: Coca-Cola Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness website.

13 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 12 AND Annual Meeting Infused with Corporate Messages participation, RDs earned four continuing Known as the “Food and Nutrition education units for this full-day field trip. Conference and Expo” (FNCE) the Academy’s annual meeting brings Meanwhile, the Academy’s nonprofit, tax- together as many as 10,000 registered exempt Foundation offers “Foundation dietitians and other health professionals. Nutrition Symposia” for a cool $50,000 AND offers the food industry a dizzying The plus travel expenses for speakers. array of sponsorship opportunities for three companies that took advantage of the organization’s flagship event. Those this in 2012 were Ajinomoto (maker of groups already designated as either many food additives including aspartame “partner” or “premier” automatically get and MSG), Abbott Nutrition Health numerous perks at the conference. In Institute (maker of Ensure), and Nestlé addition, for $15,000 one can become a Nutrition Institute. Nestlé is a leading “FNCE event sponsor.” If all you can afford “maker” of bottled water and sweetened is $10,000 you can always be a “breakfast beverages aimed at children, including sponsor;” or any combination of the above. juices and chocolate milk. Their session (See Table 3, p. 13.) was called “Optimal Hydration: New Insight” (to stress the “importance of There are yet more sponsorship opportunities available through maintaining good hydration in children”). workshops, education sessions, and Each company offered two-hour sessions other presentations. Attendees at the for which RDs could earn two continuing AND annual meeting could sign up for educational units. The name “Foundation a “Pre-FNCE Workshop” sponsored by Nutrition Symposia” and the way the Hershey’s, in which RDs could “take a trip sessions are set off in the program imply to Hershey, PA, to experience the science an endorsement by the Foundation. of chocolate at the Hershey Company’s Then there was the “Kids Eat Right Chocolate Lab... [and] visit the Hershey Breakfast Series,” all three of which were Story Museum.” But to cover up the fact industry-sponsored. Those sessions: that nutrition professionals were visiting a candy store, the event was called • Breakfast in the Classroom: Convictions & Controversies. Sponsored by: Premier “From Nature to Nutrition: A Hands- Sponsor PepsiCo on Exploration of Natural Cocoa from the Bean to Health Benefits,” and was • Shaping up America’s Breakfast: RDs and Consumers Choose MyBowl. listed in the program as “Planned with Sponsored by: Premier Sponsor The Academy Partner: Hershey Center for Kellogg Company Health & Nutrition.” To ensure maximum

14 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 13 • Choose MyBowl: Tools and Resources for companies are attempting to counter Sponsored by: Building A Better Breakfast. any potential criticism by positioning Premier Sponsor The Kellogg Company. their products as being healthy for children. “Choose MyBowl” is Kellogg’s Both Kellogg and PepsiCo (owner of version of the federal government’s Quaker Oats) manufacture numerous “MyPlate” educational icon for optimal child-friendly cereals that have eating habits. (Kellogg’s booth also had come under fire for being too high in copious MyBowl materials.) sugar. Through this sponsorship, the TABLE 3: Sponsorship Opportunities at 2012 Meeting Foundation Nutrition Symposia – $50,000 (Maker of many food additives including aspartame) Breakfast Series – $10,000 Foundation Photo Shop – $10,000 Yoga – $15,000 Foundation Kids Eat Right Gala Foundation Gold FNCE Sponsor Package – $20,000 Foundation Silver FNCE Sponsor Package – $10,000 Foundation Bronze FNCE Sponsor Package – $5,000

15 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 14 • Think Inside the Box: Increase Fiber with Next came numerous opportunities for Food Ingredients. Presented by Premier industry to educate RDs on the expo Sponsor: Kellogg Company show floor. “Expo Impact Sessions” took • Taste, Versatility and Health: Soy as a place in the exhibit hall; of five offered, all Nutritious Kitchen Staple. Presented by were corporate-sponsored: Premier Sponsor: SOYJOY • Corn Refiners Association (three) • Seductive Nutrition: How to Make 1) Added Sugars and Sweeteners Healthier Foods Appealing to Your Clients . 2) Fructose, Sucrose, and High Presented by Premier Sponsor: Unilever Fructose Corn Syrup: Danger or • Diabetes in a New Light: Diabetes- Distraction? Friendly Fare with Flavor. Presented by 3) High Fructose Corn Syrup: Premier Sponsor: Novo Nordisk (with TV Myths vs. Science chef personality Paula Deen). Zeroing in on the Whole • General Mills: Finally there were “Education Sessions,” Grain Definition the main event. Seven out of 136 total • PepsiCo: Social Nutrition Solutions: sessions listed corporate sponsorship: Inspiring Lifestyle Changes through Peer-to • From Evidence to Practice: Peer Motivation. Understanding Dietary Fructose - Intakes, The Corn Refiners Association has been Presented by Research and Implications. spending millions of dollars on a marketing Academy Partner: The Coca-Cola Company campaign it calls “Sweet Surprise” to Presented by • Kids Are Drinking What?! disabuse consumers of any negative Academy Partner: National Dairy Council impressions they have about high fructose • Advancing Practice through Outcomes- corn syrup. General Mills makes dozens of Based Research. Presented by Academy child-oriented sugary cereals and is trying Partner: ARAMARK to hide that fact by putting “whole grain” • You Have the Coolest Job! – RDs in the labels on brands such as Reese’s Puffs Presented by Academy Food Industry. and Cookie Crisp. PepsiCo is the nation’s Partner: Hershey Center for Health & largest food company and in addition Nutrition to soda, owns the Frito-Lay, Gatorade, • Food Additives: Impact on Consumers Quaker Oats, and Tropicana brands, so has and Clients . Planned with the Academy much at stake in the national conversation of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American about healthy eating. Society for Nutrition, the Institute of Food Technologies and the International Food Next came “Culinary Demonstrations” in Information Council the exhibit hall; all six were corporate- • Call to Action: Elevating Your Role sponsored: in Patient Care. Presented by Academy • Cracking the College Code: Fabulous Partner: Abbott Nutrition Food Deconstructed. Presented by • Hot Topic: Germ Warfare – The Impact Academy Partner: ARAMARK of Home Food Safety™ on Safe Eating. • In the Kitchen and Outside the Box: Planned with ConAgra Foods and Academy Presented by Cooking Lactose-free. of Nutrition and Dietetics. Academy Partner: National Dairy Council

16 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 15 But session sponsorships tell only part Council Sounds Better Than Industry Front Group of the story of corporate influence, as many of the speakers also had industry Even more insidious is the influence ties. Out of more than 300 speakers, of the International Food Information 26 were directly employed by the food Council (IFIC), an industry front group. industry, with another 44 speakers A front group is an entity set up and who had current or past ties to food controlled by other groups, without its or pharmaceutical companies. All told, actions being attributed to the funders. roughly 23 percent of the FNCE speakers In other words, when companies don’t had industry ties. Most importantly, this want to take responsibility for certain potential conflict of interest wasn’t always activities, they fund a front group instead. made clear from the session description. IFIC presents itself as a legitimate Keep in mind that RDs could earn research authority, and sponsors continuing education units by attending numerous education sessions at FNCE— these sessions. (See Table 4, p. 16.) but it’s funded by the food industry. On Also at the annual meeting, each “dietetic 24 its board of trustees sit representatives practice group” (DPG) or “member from Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kraft interest group” (MIG) holds its own 25 Foods, and Mars, while its funders event(s). The following are examples of include the likes of PepsiCo, Hershey’s, 23 meetings with corporate sponsorships: McDonald’s, Nestlé, and Monsanto. • Filipino Americans in Dietetics and IFIC’s stated mission is “to effectively Member Meeting and Reception Nutrition. communicate science-based information Sponsored by Butter Buds Foodservice about health, nutrition and food safety • Medical Nutrition Practice Group. Gluten for the public good.” So what sort of Intolerance Session Sponsored by General “science-based” information was IFIC Mills and Schar (gluten-free products) communicating to thousands of nutrition • Nutrition Educators of Health professionals at the AND gathering? Professionals. 1) Member Reception Sponsored by Distilled Spirits Council One of IFIC’s sessions at the 2011 annual of United States; 2) Member Breakfast meeting was: “How Risky is Our Food? Sponsored by Corn Refiners Association Clarifying the Controversies of Chemical 26 • Sports Cardiovascular and Wellness Risks.” The Academy did not see fit Nutrition. 1) Member Breakfast Sponsored by to mention IFIC’s role in the session— Gatorade; 2) Member Breakfast Sponsored despite the moderator, Marianne Smith by Egg Nutrition Center; 3) Member Edge, being the group’s senior vice Breakfast Sponsored by Cranberry Marketing president of nutrition and food safety. Committee; 4) Member Reception Sponsored At no time during her remarks did by Unilever; 5) Member Meeting Sponsored she disclose IFIC’s corporate funding, by Solae although AND’s rules require speakers • Weight Management. Member Breakfast to disclose any conflicts of interest. Sponsored by Corn Refiners Association. The two panelists were Julie Miller

17 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 16 Table 4: 2012 Annual Meeting Speakers Employed by Either the Food or Pharma Industries TITLE NAME ConAgra Foods Director R&D Elizabeth Arndt, PhD Sara Baer-Sinnott, MRP President, Oldways Susan Borra, RD SVP, Food Marketing Institute (grocery store trade group) VP Health and Nutrition, General Mills Susan Crockett, PhD, RD, FADA Amy DeMage, MS, RD Dietetic Internship Director, ARAMARK Director, Health and Wellness, Cheryl Dolven, MS, RD Darden Group (owns restaurant chains such as Olive Garden) Corporate Nutritionist, Ahold USA Sylvia Emberger, RD, LDN Consultant Dietitian, Price Chopper (supermarket chain) Sylvia Geiger, MS, RD Marianne Gillete, MS, MBA VP Applied Research, McCormick and Company Cynthia Goody, PhD, MBA, RD, LD Senior Director - Nutrition, McDonald’s Corporation Mary Hise, PhD, RD, CNSD Director, Baxter Healthcare Glenna Hughes, MS Research Scientist, Solae (owned by DuPont) Beth Johnson, MS RD Consultant to leading food companies and lobbying groups Bonnie Johnson, MS, RD PepsiCo Global Nutrition Senior Principal Scientist SUPERVALU/Jewel-Osco Corporate Dietitian; Kim Kirchherr, MS, RD, LDN, CDE Advisory board for Facts Up Front Jess Kolko, RD, LD Healthy Eating RD, Whole Foods Market Idamarie Laquatra, PhD, RD Director, Global Nutrition, H.J. Heinz Company Elizabeth Pivonka, PhD, RD Produce for Better Health Foundation Erin Quann, PhD, RD Director Regulatory Affairs, Dairy Management Inc. Janice Raymond, MD, RD, CD Clinical Nutrition Manager, Sodexo David Schmidt President and CEO, International Food Information Council (industry-funded) Marianne Smith Edge, MS, RD, LD, FADA SVP, International Food Information Council (industry-funded) Lori Stockert, MS, RDH Clinician, Pfizer, Inc. Lisa Sutherland, PhD Consultant to Walmart, others Sara Swiderski, MBA, RD, LDN Director of Patient Services, ARAMARK Lindsey Toth, MS, RD Nutrition Communications, PepsiCo Additional speakers consulted with the following companies: Sara Lee, Monsanto, McDonald’s, Ocean Spray, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, and Burger King, among others.

18 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 17 group of scientists” arriving at “a different Jones and Carl Winter, both academic conclusion.” How convenient. What researchers, apparently hand-picked by concerned me even more was how most of IFIC for their industry-friendly positions. the audience appeared to find Dr. Clemens’ Each speaker downplayed the risks of defense of additives humorous. Sadly, it chemicals such as pesticides, food dyes, appeared that Dr. Clemens did not have to and other additives in food, while poking work very hard to convince many dietitians fun at the value of organic production 30 that chemical additives were safe. and dismissing the Environmental Dr. Clemens’ bio includes being past Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen” report on president of the Institute of Food pesticides on produce. It was a one-sided 31 has Technologists (whose leadership presentation, without any disclosure numerous ties to the food industry), and that the session sponsor had a conflict 32 21 years as Nestlé’s scientific advisor. of interest that informed their panelists’ But the RDs at this IFIC panel wouldn’t biased information. have learned of this expert’s conflicted IFIC was back in action at the 2012 event background at this biased presentation. 27 with multiple presentations, including Another industry group that AND one on food additives, again downplaying associates with is the International Life any concerns RDs might have, such as Sciences Institute (ILSI). While the name the connection between food dyes and sounds innocuous, the group’s board of child behavior problems. One panelist trustees (listed in its 2010 annual report) explained that additives are safe because, includes representatives of Coca-Cola, after all, strawberries and coffee contain Monsanto, PepsiCo, and Kraft Foods; the “chemicals” responsible for their taste Institute’s members are a who’s who of and aroma. So, why should we fear 33 And yet AND has the food industry. controversial preservatives such as BHT deemed it appropriate to plan continuing and BHA? The Center for Science in the 34 educational seminars with this group. 28 Public Interest recommends avoiding BHA because even the U.S. Department Even more disturbing and ironic: AND of Health and Human Services considers accepted funding from ILSI for a research BHA to be “reasonably anticipated to be study, “to determine whether the funding 29 a human carcinogen.” source (specifically industry) results in a difference in study quality,” according to Here is how registered dietitian Andy ILSI’s 2011 annual report. For its research, Bellatti described this session: ILSI relied on articles provided by AND’s Panelist Dr. Roger Clemens enthusiastically own library. Not surprisingly, the resulting defended chemical additives while article— published online only—found “no mocking survey results that showed how a evidence of bias...that could be attributed significant portion of the public mistrusts to industry funding sources in food and the Food and Drug Administration. When 35 nutrition research.” I asked him why other countries have banned additives that the FDA has not, I Although the article states that the was told it is simply a result of “a different “funders had no role in study design, data

19 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 18 collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript,” the The Academy is outcome certainly benefits the industry heavily sponsored group that funded the effort. That AND saw no conflict of interest in using industry by the National Dairy money to study the potential bias of Council and their using industry money is troubling to say biases show in their the least. Moreover, there is already a significant body of research demonstrating recommendations. a clear bias in the outcome of studies – HEIDI TURNER, MS, RD, CD funded by industry. For example, studies funded by the food industry on the health effects of soft drink consumption have Public Health, goes further, arguing that 36 been shown to have biased outcomes. consuming dairy products is not only unnecessary, it can even be harmful. “By Dairy Industry Marketing now there’s quite a body of data showing Disguised as Science a higher risk of fatal prostate cancer associated with milk,” he told WebMD in As an “Academy Partner,” the National 38 2011. Even if one doesn’t give up dairy Dairy Council is a prominent presence altogether, “it’s also important for people at FNCE. But there is significant debate to know that they don’t have to drink about whether dairy products are a milk to be healthy,” he added. necessary part of our daily diet. In recent years many top health experts have begun But no one at the dairy-sponsored to question this nutrition dogma that sessions at the 2012 AND conference has long been promoted by industry and heard anything close to that message— government alike. In her books and on quite the opposite. The “consume dairy” her blog, New York University Professor message was ubiquitous at the AND Marion Nestle has written about how: conference, throughout the expo hall [D]airy lobbying groups, aided and abetted (yogurt was everywhere) and in the by the USDA, convinced nutritionists that breakout sessions. dairy foods were equivalent to essential Here is how registered dietitian Andy nutrients and the only reliable source Bellatti described a National Dairy of dietary calcium, when they are really just another food group and one high in Council session he attended: 37 saturated fat, at that. A session on children and beverages titled “Kids Are Drinking What?” was In other words, we can get the same essentially an hour-long advertisement required nutrients from other, healthier for milk. The dairy reps acknowledged foods; there is nothing unique about how they target African-American and dairy that makes it essential. Professor Hispanic communities with a “drink more Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition milk” message, which I found particularly department of the Harvard School of disturbing as both ethnic groups have high

20 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 19 rates of lactose intolerance...Even more walked out of the session. One tweeted: disturbing was all the hand-wringing over “Encouraging Latinos to purchase children’s high intake of sugar-sweetened increasing amounts of cheese? No beverages, as if the dairy council really thanks.” And: “NO I won’t recommend 3 cares about kids’ health. This alleged dairy servings a day to someone who is concern disappeared when I asked about 40 lactose-intolerant.” the added sugar in chocolate milk. The panelists’ – all of whom were employed by It’s too bad these RDs weren’t able to the National Dairy Council — answer was get a refund on their registration fee. that chocolate milk is a “nutrient-dense” They came to their professional trade beverage. Never mind how, with three group’s conference for scientifically teaspoons of sugar per cup, one serving sound information on allergies and of chocolate milk supplies the maximum instead got an infomercial from the daily amount of added sugar for children dairy industry. ages four to eight, as recommended by the 39 American Heart Association. Registered dietitian Elizabeth Lee was also bothered by the dairy industry spin More disturbing were the sessions with and what she called a “lack of regulation dairy industry influence that was not from the Academy on the content of disclosed in the program. For example, some presentations.” (It was her first the session description for “Beyond Belly FNCE experience.) She reported: Aches: Identifying and Differentiating Food Allergies and Intolerances,” did I was shocked at some of the not mention that all three speakers had recommendations for dairy consumption even if the individual has evidence of ties to the dairy industry. This could lactose intolerance. To me, that wasn’t explain how the panelists pushed dairy sound dietetic evidence and advice consumption, even for those who are and shouldn’t have been shared at a lactose-intolerant. Apparently some professional gathering. RDs were having none of it and even

21 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 20 Nutrition Trade Show or Junk Food Expo? (This figure does not include AND A major component of AND’s annual meeting is the expo, where more than sponsors that received a “free booth” as part of their “partner” or “premier” 300 vendors have booths to sample sponsorship status; seeTable 6, p. 22.) their products and share information. It’s certainly the most dramatic and When sorted from largest booths to disturbing indicator of the extent to smallest, 18 organizations – less than which the food industry has permeated five percent of all exhibitors – captured the largest gathering of dietitians. 25 percent of the total exhibitor space An examination of the expo exhibitors (17,200 square feet out of 68,820). confirms what was all-too easy to see Only two out of the 18 trade groups— walking though the hall: major junk food Hass Avocado Board and the California Strawberry Commission—represented companies dominated the show floor. Based on the pricing of the booths, whole, non-processed foods. Moreover, exhibitor payments represent big money based on square footage, only about 12 percent of the expo floor was taken up for the conference: about $1.5 million. Table 5: Largest Expo Vendors Booth Fee Organization Square Footage Nestlé $47,200 2,500 $47,200 2,000 Abbott Nutrition 1,600 $38,000 PepsiCo $28,800 Unilever 1,200 $21,900 General Mills 900 Cargill $19,600 800 $19,600 800 Hass Avocado Board Hormel Health Labs/Diamond Crystal Brands $19,600 800 Kraft Foods (2 booths) 800 $19,600 $19,600 McNeil Nutritionals 800 $19,600 800 Safeway 600 $15,800 Biothera $15,800 California Strawberry Commission 600 $15,800 600 Cambro Mfg. Co. 600 $15,800 Campbell Soup Company $15,800 Chobani 600 $15,800 Coca-Cola Refreshments 600 ConAgra Foods 600 $15,800 Totals 17,200 $411,300.00

22 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 21 by fruit and vegetable vendors, using How can consumers AND’s own very generous classification. For example, AND put the following trust us when vendors in the fruit and vegetable our professional category: organization • Meatless Monday campaign (educational) partners with junk • Monsanto (biotechnology) food companies? • Organic Valley (dairy, juice, eggs) • Publications International (cookbooks) – CARLA S CACCIA, RD, LDN • Stonyfield (dairy) • Supermarket Savvy (educational) are smart enough to not be fooled. But • Suzanne’s Culinary Tours that misses the point: AND is sending the wrong message to its profession • Walmart by allowing its annual meeting to The largest booth, sprawling 2,500 square be heavily influenced by the very feet, was occupied by Nestlé, which might companies that are undermining good reflect that Nestlé is the largest food nutrition and public health. company in the world. The booth was laid Also, FNCE is attended by many students out like a house, complete with a rooftop. and future RDs, thus exposing upcoming In each room one could find different generations of professionals to this products on display, usually in giant corporate influence. As RD Andy Bellatti coolers. In the kitchen one could watch notes: “Since the issue of corporate a chef demonstration, while in the dining sponsorships is rarely – if ever – brought room participants sat around the table up in the RD curriculum, there is no while a rep described various processed reason to believe RD students attend the food products. At the dining table, the annual conference with skeptical minds company conducted a “water tasting.” or even a cautious attitude.” Bellatti also Nestlé Waters is the world’s largest seller disputes the claim that RDs can just of bottled water. The “Nestlé house” ignore the industry PR: cost the company $47,200 in booth fees, plus the expense of staff covering all the If RDs are smart enough & know to rooms and other expenses. ignore these corporate sponsors, why is the Pepsi booth, for example, always so full of RDs? And, why, in sessions What’s Wrong with Having Corporate about processed foods, are there so few Sponsors at the Annual Meeting? comments where RDs acknowledge they are “on to” these companies? Some RDs don’t seem to mind the corporate sponsorship, saying it’s easy Registered dietitian Elizabeth Lee to avoid those booths and sessions and reported being “quite taken aback by just take advantage of other aspects of the number of attendees who lined up the conference. Other RDs insist they for product samples from McDonalds,

23 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 22 PepsiCo, and Coca Cola just to name a for the Public Good?” Lee said she few.” She “expected a lot of cold shoulders “expected to come away with thought- from attendees to these companies but it provoking info but the industry presenter was definitely not the case.” was practically reading from a very dry script. The most useful portion of that Lee was also disappointed by the session was the Q&A where a few RDs content presented at some of the challenged the speakers and pushed the sessions. At one session titled, “Can envelope a little bit.” Government and Industry Work Together TABLE 6: 2012 AND Corporate Sponsors 2012 Partners 2012 Premier Sponsors 2012 Event Sponsors

24 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 23 Eat Drink Politics President Michele Simon’s Experience at AND 2012 Annual Meeting a conversation with Wendy Reinhardt It’s a truly surreal experience just to walk into the expo hall. You know it’s Kapsak, MS, RD, senior manager of public affairs for Monsanto. Apparently, supposed to be a nutrition conference and yet it feels like a food industry she had only been with the company for a few months and told me she was the event. Junk food expo is really the best descriptor. As you walk in, all you can see first RD Monsanto had ever hired. I asked are the massive booths of companies like her why she thought Monsanto hired a dietitian and she said it was because the Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, and PepsiCo. company wanted someone to address Once you get past those, you have to walk any concerns RDs might have. She toward the back to see any “real food” explained that her role at this event was booths, which are much smaller, such as to talk to her fellow RDs, find out what the California Walnut Board. Then further their concerns were about Monsanto, back, tucked away in a special pavilion, are ask them how the company could better the organic and “natural” companies, such address those concerns, and then share as Amy’s Kitchen, Mary’s Gone Crackers, that information with her superiors. and Manitoba Harvest (hemp seeds). I interpret her role (as she described Other positive signs were the truly it) as this: to gain trust from fellow RDs educational booths such as the American and find out what negative impressions Cancer Society, Meatless Mondays, of Monsanto they might have, try to and several journal publishers. And the change that impression, then relay the Center for Science in the Public Interest conversations back to company HQ so (a nutrition advocacy group) was given they can come up with better public a free booth to promote its annual Food relations talking points to counter them. Day event. Another good booth was That Monsanto would engage in this sort Corporate Accountability International, of intelligence-gathering to improve its but it was stuck in the last aisle where PR is not surprising. What’s disturbing there was far less foot traffic, as was is how the Academy of Nutrition and the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. It Dietetics provided the biotech giant with seemed that vendors with more money the venue and opportunity to conduct to pay AND got better placement. this critical research. Based on the One interesting experience occurred at size of its booth (200 square feet), it the Monsanto booth, where I struck up appears Monsanto paid $4,600 for the

25 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 24 show why HFCS is perfectly safe and no privilege, a small price to pay compared different than regular sugar. to expensive focus groups. As I approached the booth, I noticed two In another conversation at the Monsanto RDs leaving with the material that White booth, I asked a different rep about gave them; one of them remarked, “We the company’s trademarked Frescada like corn.” While I was there, two others lettuce, which apparently was created approached and we got into a discussion through “traditional breeding” (not about the economics of HFCS. (I noted genetic engineering) in which iceberg it was cheaper than sugar, so that’s why was crossed with romaine lettuce. When companies use it.) White explained that I asked why this was even needed, the company rep explained that some HFCS is also used for its specific properties like browning. When one RD tried to argue people like the “crunch of iceberg, but want the nutrition of romaine.” OK. that HFCS is harmful, White opened up his slick materials with the charts and graphs Monsanto also had a sign on display to try to convince her otherwise. showing how their new version had more nutrients than iceberg. Again, that Reasonable people can disagree Monsanto would do this is not surprising, about the science of HFCS versus but having the product promoted at a other sweeteners, but the problem is, nutrition conference gives it legitimacy. the rep at this booth was not sharing In contrast, plain old lettuce from a impartial research. Rather, he was a paid local farmer was not on display. (See consultant only telling one side of the Monsanto’s “Biotechnology Quiz” in story. This scene was repeated over and Appendix 4, p.46, for more spin.) over at booth after booth. The companies I also chatted with reps from the with booths at FNCE weren’t just there Corn Refiners Association, which was to promote their food products and spin promoting high fructose corn syrup, them as good for you; many of them were also there to spin the scientific apparently attempting to counter any research in their favor. For example, negative information RDs might have the American Beverage Association, a heard. (The Corn Refiners also sponsored lobbying group representing companies three “expo impact” sessions during the such as Coca-Cola, had a booth conference – see above.) I talked to John White, PhD, who told me he was hired as promoting its PR campaign called “Clear on Calories.” The trade group also had a consultant to the CRA because of his numerous “fact sheets” on how sugary decades of experience researching the soft drinks don’t contribute to obesity. science of sweeteners. (His business card says he is president of “White Technical There is plenty of research countering this view, but where were those fact Research, The Nutritive Sweetener sheets? The ABA is not a scientific or Experts.”) White had lots of fancy charts and scientific articles at the ready to academic institution: its mission is to

26 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 25 While visiting the very large booth for lobby on behalf of its clients. Again, we can have a reasonable scientific debate the National Pork Board (the industry’s on this issue, but it’s highly problematic marketing arm) I noticed they had that RDs were exposed to plenty of educational handouts, including a pad public relations disguised as science at of tear-off sheets showing federal recommended serving sizes on a plate— their own profession’s annual conference. with pork displayed as a sample meat I was also struck by the booths that serving. I watched as an RD took a bunch promoted various breakfast items to RDs of these handouts and to get them to come I asked her why she to their booths first was doing so. She said thing in the morning. she wanted to educate For example, Kellogg her clients about was giving away serving sizes. When I processed cereal at its pointed out that the “truck,” which is ironic material was from given that the recent the Pork Board, and food truck trend is asked if that bothered mostly a symbol of her, she just said, independent food oh, they don’t have purveyors. to know. (The Pork Among the most Board logo was on the MCDONALD’S BOOTH ADVERTISED OATMEAL, BUT successful at back of the sheets.) FAILED TO MENTION THE 32 GRAMS OF SUGAR. this strategy was So, people who are McDonald’s. But paid to promote pork they weren’t serving up the company’s succeeded in getting an RD to use their common breakfast items like the Egg materials to promote pork to their clients. McMuffin or Sausage Biscuit. No, it was And where did this happen? Not at a all about oatmeal; to visit the McDonald’s meat expo, but at a nutrition conference, booth, you’d think the fast food giant where almost no countering information only sold oatmeal and smoothies. As I could be found about how a meat- approached, a McDonald’s rep offered centered diet can lead to chronic disease. me some oatmeal, insisting that I just try (See Appendix 5, p. 47 for FNCE prizes.) it. (I declined, explaining that I make my own at home.) I asked a few RDs why they Industry PR Presentations Disguised were there and they just said they were as “Education Sessions” hungry. Fair enough, but it was clear that I attended several sessions that were McDonald’s had succeeded in positioning either officially sponsored by the food itself as a purveyor of healthy food while industry or had industry representatives feeding RDs breakfast.

27 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 26 just heard. I asked Goody why McDonald’s as speakers. Each one was more continued to market to children as young surreal than the next. The first session I as age two, despite calls from public attended, called “Making a Difference: health professionals and others to stop Improving Nutrition at QSRs,” was not 41 exploiting kids. listed in the program as being sponsored She simply repeated the same PR line about alleged nutrition but consisted of two representatives improvements, without addressing the of the fast food industry. (QSRs are ongoing problem of marketing to kids. quick service restaurants.) One was a consultant to numerous fast food chains Later I had a troubling conversation with who goes by “Dr Jo®” – yes, she actually an RD friend about this session. As I trademarked her name. The other was began to tell her about it, she countered Cindy Goody, director of nutrition for that McDonald’s did not “have a session” McDonald’s. Goody introduced the at FNCE. I had to insist that I had “McDonald’s nutrition team” (most were witnessed it myself to convince her. This wearing red jackets, like a sports team), exchange demonstrated the problem with including several RDs and chefs. how the sessions are listed in the program. Because this particular panel did not say This session was a 90-minute infomercial “Sponsored by McDonalds,” this RD had for the fast food giant. In fact, when I turned to an RD sitting next to me no idea it was in fact a McDonald’s-run session. Moreover, because the speakers’ afterward, that’s exactly what she called affiliations are only listed at the very it. She told me she was disappointed end of the printed program, it’s easy for because she came to the panel expecting substantive information attendees to be misled about the sources about what chain restaurants were of information presented. doing about nutrition. Instead, we saw Another panel, “Policy into Action in the slide after slide about how wonderful Real World,” consisted of three industry McDonald’s is for posting calories on its reps. This seemed odd; I was expecting menus (never mind how they lobbied for actual policy experts or policymakers decades against laws to require menu (like from government) or maybe even labeling) and for adding apple slices to lawyers. But in this upside-down scene, Happy Meals. Goody touted McDonalds policy is being made by corporations, in “commitment to children’s well-being... this case the food industry. Presumably Now parents feel better feeding their the “real world” is where industry replaces kids Happy Meals.” But not a word governmental policymaking with its own. about how the Happy Meals still contain The three panelists represented Darden hamburgers or fried chicken, and are Restaurants (owner of Olive Garden marketed to young children. among other chains), Disney, and When it came time for questions, I was Walmart. One by one, they glowed about the only one willing to challenge what we the wonderful ways their companies are

28 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 27 being responsible corporate citizens. For days. I came away with the impression that example, Darden is improving its menu while many RDs do not like the corporate options for children. But no mention of sponsorships, their voices are not being the myriad labor violations the chain heard by the AND leadership. (See 42 has been accused of. Next, the Disney Appendix 1, p. 42, for more from RDs.) rep boasted about that company’s new Of course there were numerous other food marketing policy for kids: using its sessions that I did not attend and I am characters to market only “healthy food.” sure many of them were worthwhile. But Finally, Walmart’s rep spoke about how my experience in attending just a few the retail chain was helping by opening of the many industry-influenced panels stores in food deserts and putting little was that the information RDs were being green man stickers onto its food products. exposed to was biased, non-scientific, Again, I was alone in challenging these and little more than industry PR. corporations’ claims. I asked Walmart On the positive side, I connected with to explain the research showing how many truly dedicated RDs who reject the communities have actually suffered as a conflicted corporate sponsorships, are result of Walmart stores, resulting in less embarrassed by it, and are actively trying 43 The (not more) access to healthy food. to change it. rep (Lisa Sutherland, an independent For example, the dietetic practice group consultant) claimed not to know what (specialties into which AND members I was talking about, and declined to organize themselves) called Hunger answer except to say I should ask and Environmental Nutrition offers someone at Walmart. Sadly, the session an inspiring vision: to “optimize the was listed in the program as being nation’s health by promoting access to planned by AND’s Legislative and Public nutritious food and clean water from a Policy Committee and Government 44 secure and sustainable food system.” Relations Team, indicating that this idea I attended their evening film and panel of public relations disguised as policy discussion on fracking, during which I was endorsed by AND’s lobbying arm. learned more than I had during the rest After the session, several RDs stopped to of the entire conference. I know many thank me for my question, prompting a RDs come to FNCE to connect with their very healthy and constructive conversation colleagues within their practice groups about the role of corporations at FNCE. or specialties and are grateful for the These RDs were genuinely bothered by the opportunity to do so. I also heard from public relations they had just witnessed some RDs who come only to meet with and were generally unhappy with the their interest groups and avoid the rest infiltration of junk food companies at of FNCE altogether, a sign of the growing the event. This type of conversation was disconnect between what AND offers repeated numerous times over the three and what members want.


30 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 29 Does Sponsorship Impact AND Lobbying and Policy Positions? Most of them are about getting the To its credit, AND has a political action committee, ANDPAC. More health profession insurance reimbursement groups should have PACs to be an of their services and expanding effective political player. However, opportunities for nutrition services. One AND’s policy positions remain mostly encouraging sign is ANDPAC’s lobbying on the farm bill in favor of assistance self-serving, relatively safe and non- programs such as food stamps. controversial. While there is no way to know for sure if the corporate Additional research shows that AND sponsorships are playing a role, it’s also has filed regulatory comments disturbingly clear the group is not to several federal agencies including showing leadership on the most pressing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, on nutrition policy issues of our day. improving nutrition standards on school A look at the most recently reported meals (AND also lobbied for passage of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization activity for 2012 reveals that ANDPAC Act, the underlying bill). It was also spent $106,375 on campaign very encouraging to see that AND contributions to political candidates, with 86 percent going to Democrats filed supportive comments to the 45 and 13 percent to Republicans. In 2012, Federal Trade Commission on the very ANDPAC spent $86,250 lobbying on the contentious issue of junk food marketing 46 to children. Inquiries to various nutrition following federal legislation: advocates revealed that AND has been • Affordable Care Act – Prevention and taking much more positive steps in Nutrition Reimbursement recent years on these issues. • Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (Farm Bill) But much more remains to be done. The Academy remains either silent or • Medical Foods Equity Act - Nutrition Coverage and Reimbursement counter-productive on too many pressing issues, as discussed below. The following • National Diabetes Prevention Program table shows AND’s own stated policy • Preserving Access to Life-Saving agenda over the next several years. Medications Act Again, most of these issues are either • Preventing Diabetes in Medicare Act internal to the profession or fairly safe • Older Americans Act Amendments territory politically—nothing that might ruffle the feathers of the likes of Coca- These are all certainly legitimate policies Cola or Hershey’s. for a nutrition trade group to lobby on.

31 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 30 approach to this problem by proposing reasonable cup-size limits served at food AND’s Public Policy Priority Areas service establishments. Of course, this 47 (2012-15) proposal has garnered much controversy. Consumer and Community Issues However, public health leaders such as 1. Prevention and treatment of chronic Harvard’s Walter Willett, Yale’s Kelly disease, including health care equity Brownell, and New York University’s Marion Nestle, along with nutrition 2. Meeting nutrition needs through the life cycle: Maternal and child nutrition to advocacy groups such as the Center for healthy aging Science in the Public Interest, and many others, are all strongly in favor. 3. Quality food and nutrition through education, production, access and delivery Where then, does AND come down? 4. Nutrition monitoring and research Silence would be bad enough, but in May 2012, they put out a press release, titled: Professional Issues “In Wake of New York Soda Ban Proposal, 1. Licensure: Protection of the Public Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2. Workforce demand: Assuring the Public 49 Encourages Education, Moderation.” has access to nutrition services delivered Arguing that the New York proposal by qualified practioners was “based on theoretical models,” AND 3. Outcome driven nutrition services in called for evaluation of such measures changing health systems and said they had “convened a working group to examine the effectiveness of measures like proposed bans and There is one encouraging sentence in the taxes that are designed to influence document: “The Academy has identified consumers’ purchases and their potential sustainable food systems as a priority in impact on people’s health.” Evaluation their commitment to helping individuals sounds reasonable, but why not enjoy healthy lives.” But it’s unclear how recommend studying the policy while it’s AND intends to promote this goal. in effect? The release goes on to say that “even after we have more science-based Historically, the Academy has never been information about measures like New much of a leader on nutrition policy York’s, it is vital that we as registered and at times, quite the opposite. For dietitians educate consumers about the example, in 1999, the Academy actually components of a healthful eating plan opposed mandated labeling of “trans 48 and help people make informed decisions fats” on food packaging. Looking back, that will positively affect their health.” this seems shocking and yet, similar This last comment is stunning, especially examples exist today. for a “science-based” organization, One of the most pressing public health which AND claims to be. The nutrition and nutrition issues is that of excess soda profession must face the reality that consumption. New York City is taking a our nation’s chronic disease epidemic commonsense and public health-oriented

32 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 31 has worsened because educational measures have failed miserably. One I think the can’t help wondering how much Coca- partnership Cola’s sponsorship plays a role in AND’s with big food position on this issue. companies ruins The Academy’s startling response to the soda ban initiative lost the group at our credibility as least one member. (See Appendix 1, p. nutrition experts. 42 for more from RDs.) Aaron Flores, an RD who decided to not renew his AND – AARON FLORES, RD membership partly as a result of the organization’s position on the New York this is no longer its position, many RDs City policy, explained: and others were disappointed that When Mayor Bloomberg proposed his ban the leadership chose to take a neutral on large sugary beverages, it was such position instead of speaking out in favor a controversial topic and everyone had 50 of the consumer’s right to know. The an opinion on one side or the other. But group is currently conducting a review of instead of taking a stand, AND had no position. How could they have no position the issue, which it says will be released on such a topic? I felt that it was their in 2013. While it’s admirable that AND partnerships with Coke and Pepsi that positions itself as an “evidence-based prevented them from taking a stand even organization,” and many of these issues if they wanted to. are complex, not every policy issue or During the 2012 election, AND decision can wait for months (or years) inadvertently became part of the of committee review and analysis. California Proposition 37 fight over the One also must wonder why AND ever labeling of genetically-engineered foods. opposed labeling GMOs in the first place, The No on 37 campaign claimed that and why only now is it working to clarify AND was opposed to GMO labeling, its stance on this long-controversial apparently relying on an out-of-date issue of genetically engineered food. position paper the organization had (See Appendix 2, p.44 for what food once published. While AND made clear companies say about sponsoring AND.)

33 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 32 The Academy’s Money – Does AND Even Need Corporate Funding? if that figure reflects all of its revenues Data collected from the most recently available four years (2008-2011) of annual from corporate sources; for example, a separate line item under “programs and reports show the Academy in relatively decent financial health. (See Table 7.) meetings” ($5.2 million in 2011) likely includes expo booth income. In 2011, AND enjoyed close to $34 million in revenues and $20 million in net assets, Still, just looking at the “sponsorship” category, AND generated $1.85 million, allowing the organization to spend a little more than it took in – $34.8 million which represents only about 5% the in expenses. While AND reported about total 2011 revenue. This is down from 9% in both 2010 and 2009. It’s also $1.8 million in “sponsorships,” it’s unclear TABLE 7: AND Financial Statements AND 2008 2009 2010 2011 $15,978,484 $16,230,127 Net Assets $19,960,306 $12,516,187 Expenses $34,815,498 $31,669,141 $31,366,596 $32,911,641 Total Revenue $31,869,801 $31,901,696 $33,941,396 $32,967,588 Revenue Sources (not all) $10,860,030 $11,159,656 Membership dues (net) $10,703,454 $11,076,602 $2,771,453 $1,854,316 $2,703,736 Sponsorships $2,949,786 9% 9% 5% Sponsorships as % of Revenue 8% CEO Compensation $240,339 $368,583 $368,583 $212,654 $229,348 $229,348 CFO Compensation source - IRS 990 forms AND Foundation 2010 2011 2008 2009 $15,098,945 $17,322,148 $12,365,008 Net Assets $12,068,402 $2,588,722 $2,668,653 Expenses $1,823,939 $1,963,456 $3,224,696 $3,430,902 $2,299,142 Total Revenue $4,213,720 (not all) Revenue Sources Member Contributions $1,016,409 $2,136,804 $1,354,006 $926,184 $541,132 Corporate Contributions $1,258,858 $1,032,764 $991,339 45% 17% 24% 38% Corporate Donations as % of Revenue All data from annual reports, except compensation, which is from 990 forms.

34 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 33 possible that some corporate funding is holds net assets of more than six times coming from other sources than just the its highest annual expenses. “sponsorship” category. Furthermore, since 2008, the Foundation has enjoyed an excess of revenue minus Since 2008, AND has been operating expenses ranging from $475,000 in 2008 at more or less break-even, meaning to $1.5 million in 2010. Added to that expenses closely matched revenues. surplus, the Foundation posted investment Since 2009, however, AND’s net assets gains of $2.1 million in 2011. This healthy have increased from $12.5 million to $19.9 million, a nearly 60% increase. These financial picture raises the question: why is increases have come primarily from gains ADAF setting aside so much of its revenue year after year? The annual report does not in investment returns, which totaled $4.2 million in 2011 alone. In its annual appear to offer any explanation. Corporate report, AND acknowledges its investment contributions were ANDF’s single largest reserves are strong and are ready to be source of revenue in 2011: $1.3 million out of a total of $3.4 million, or 38 percent. invested in “new member programs and services.” Perhaps that money could Taking a closer look at expenses, the replace corporate sponsorships instead? main priority the 2011 annual report The financial picture of the AND identifies is for “the Foundation to continue its investment in scholarships, Foundation is more troubling because of the enormous sums of unspent funds. awards and research to support the In 2011, the AND Foundation reported dietetics profession.” However, of its $2.7 revenues of $3.4 million with more than million budget in 2011, the Foundation spent around $500,000 on scholarships, $17 million in net assets. Given expenses and less than $35,000 on research. Both ranging from a low of $1.8 million in 2008 to a high of $2.7 million in 2011, this is an seem quite low given ANDF’s stated unusually tidy sum to keep in the bank. intention of “bringing more registered The general rule of thumb is to have on dietitians to the forefront and arming hand between six months and two years consumers with the most relevant and 51 accurate food and nutrition information.” ADAF currently of operating expenses.

35 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 34 Discussion Oddly, the Academy of Nutrition and What Do RDs Think About Dietetics declined to offer [the researhcers] Corporate Sponsorship? a list of members to make the survey At least two surveys of RDs give us some representative of the membership...That clues about what the AND membership the Academy could not assist in research thinks of corporate sponsorship. One, from on a question that is beneficial for them to know is unfortunate. So instead they had to the dietetic practice group Hunger and contact state or district affiliates, most who Environmental Nutrition (HEN), showed 54 agreed to send out emails to members. that overall its members had a negative opinion of corporate sponsorship. Survey results included: Only 13 percent Respondents felt strongly that corporate disapproved of corporate sponsorship sponsorship has a “negative impact on outright but 68 percent said it depends the public’s perception” of the Academy, on who those sponsors are. The vast their profession, and even their “personal majority of respondents, 83 percent, 52 credibility.” agreed that members should have a say in deciding who the Academy sponsors The survey also showed that a majority are, which is certainly not the case now. of respondents would be willing to pay higher membership fees to offset the Almost everyone surveyed, 97 percent, need for corporate sponsorship. The felt the Academy should verify that a authors acknowledge several limitations sponsor’s corporate mission is consistent of their survey, including the small with that of the Academy prior to sample size (370) and self-selection bias: accepting them, something that would That those choosing to take the survey be hard to do for most current sponsors. may have stronger views on the matter. A majority surveyed said they would It’s also likely that the HEN membership be willing to pay more dues if it meant does not reflect the views of the AND having fewer sponsors. membership as a whole. Perhaps most revealing, 80 percent of In 2011, independent researchers registered dietitians said sponsorship conducted a survey of close to 3,000 implies Academy endorsement of that 53 AND members on this issue. The results company and their products, despite the were published in the Journal of Hunger lack of an explicit endorsement. and Environmental Nutrition. Notably, However, the opinions regarding AND leadership did not cooperate with acceptability of specific corporate the researchers on the study, as nutrition sponsors were somewhat disheartening. science blogger Colby Vorland explains:

36 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 35 55 TABLE 8. What Dietitians Think About Corporate Sponsors SPONSORS 2009 PRODUCTS ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE Pediasure, Ensure, Similac, Nepro 85% / 15% Abbott Nutrition Aramark 83% / 17% Food service & facilities management National Dairy Council Milk, cheese, yogurt 83% / 17% McNeil Nutritional 81% / 19% Spenda, Lactaid, VIACTIV Corn Flakes, Eggo, Fruit Loops, Pop-Tarts, Special K Kellogg Company 79% / 22% Bisquick, Cheerios, Larabar, Pillsbury, Trix, Yoplait General Mills 79% / 21% 78% / 23% Snack bars Soyjoy CoroWise Brand Smart Balance, VitaTops, Minute Maid Heart Wise 76% / 25% Stevia-based sweetener 72% / 28% Truvia Unilever Slim-Fast Ben & Jerry’s, Bertolli 68% / 32% Mars M&M”s Dove, Pedigree, Uncle Ben’s 45% / 55% Danani, Powerade, Sprite Coca-Cola 34% / 66% Frito-Lay, Quaker, Gatorade PepsiCo 34% / 66% conflict with the group’s vision “to An overwhelming majority found optimize the nation’s health through sponsors such as the National Dairy Council, Kellogg, General Mills, and the food and nutrition:” maker of Splenda, acceptable. This could When the Hershey Center for Health & partly be the result of AND allowing these Nutrition became a partner of the Academy companies to be sponsors over the years, to collaborate on their new campaign titled “Moderation Nation,” the announcement creating an accepted status quo. It’s also stated that they would be working with a sign of how well these companies have the Academy to provide resources for succeeded in becoming a normal part of the American public to achieve a healthy the American food experience. balance in terms of food (including Still that a majority of those surveyed sweets) and exercise. The partnership with Hershey’s is touted by the Academy as thought three current top AND sponsors one example of pairing with companies (Coca-Cola, Mars, and PepsiCo) were that have strong research-based data on unacceptable should give the organization their programs and help the Academy pause. The survey authors noted: to accomplish its mission for promoting “These results are inconsistent with the healthy eating. Many survey respondents information e-mailed by an Academy staff would question the validity of this claim. member who stated that their internal The article concludes that the “entire survey results show approval of corporate membership needs to have the sponsorship by Academy members.” opportunity to make their voices heard,” The authors also singled out AND’s and that since age was a factor in the partnership with Hershey’s as a notable responses, “the growing membership

37 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 36 appropriate portion size and combined will continue to have strong opinions on this matter.” Finally, because AND is with regular physical activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet.” a membership-based institution, “the Academy needs to reevaluate the current Despite some clear conflicts between its role of sponsorship and how it fits within policies and sponsorships, the Academy the values of Academy.” continues to defend its corporate funding. Consider this 2008 quote from Do Corporate Sponsorships Conflict past president Martin Yadrick, posted on with AND’s Own Guidelines? a page titled, “Why Become an Academy Sponsor:” “We think it’s important for The Academy does have “Guidelines for us to be at the same table with food Corporate Relations Sponsors,” but it companies because of the positive does not appear they are being followed. influence that we can have on them.” For example, AND says it is “mindful How this “positive influence” manifests of the need to avoid a perception of itself isn’t at all clear, unless you count conflict of interest and to act at all self-serving public relations. The former times in ways that will only enhance the president’s explanation continues: credibility and professional recognition 56 of the Academy and its members.” For the Academy, relationships with outside organizations are not about promoting The Academy also lists the following companies’ products; they are about specific criteria under the header, creating nutrition messages that people can “General Requirements for Acceptance understand and act upon to improve their of Corporate Relations Sponsors:” health and that of their families. • Fit with Academy strategic goals But the question remains: How can • Scientific accuracy companies that promote junk food possibly • Conformance with Academy positions, “fit with Academy strategic goals,” unless policies and philosophies those goals include furthering the nation’s • Academy editorial control of all content in diet-related disease epidemic? materials bearing the Academy name These two criteria from the guidelines • Clear separation of Academy messages and seem especially questionable: content from brand information or promotion • Clear separation of Academy messages • No endorsement of any particular brand and content from brand information or or company product promotion • The inclusion of relevant facts and • No endorsement of any particular brand important information where their or company product omission would present an unbalanced view of a controversial issue in which the Yet on a consistent basis, AND’s sponsors sponsor has a stake. promote their brands, whether at the annual meeting or during continuing For good measure, AND posts this education sessions. Moreover, as disclaimer-like note below the guidelines: the survey discussed earlier notes, “If consumed in moderation with

38 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 37 80 percent of AND members think I feel like there should sponsorship carries with it implicit endorsement, even if AND does not. be some sort of Another AND criterion—“inclusion internal boycott against of relevant facts and important supporting AND until information where their omission they represent our views would present an unbalanced view of a controversial issue in which the sponsor but no one is really doing has a stake”—would apply to almost that, so I am. every corporate-sponsored continuing educational session. – DENISE JULIA GARBINSKI, MBA, RD For example, Coca-Cola has a stake in all of its continuing education sessions to AND giving the soft drink giant its and yet the information presented was explicit endorsement: completely one-sided. Similarly, the Concurrent with its acceptance of money information presented by the National from Coca-Cola, [AND] has actually become Dairy Council, that even those who are an enemy of critical public health measures lactose-intolerant should consume dairy to reduce obesity, not merely an innocent products, is not only controversial—it’s bystander, and at the far extreme from being contrary to good health and common a leader in the nutrition policy movement. sense. And yet, RDs who attended Harsh words, but it’s hard to argue with the dairy industry sessions received them. It seems clear that this is exactly very biased information with no what Coca-Cola is seeking to accomplish: counterbalancing views or facts. silencing potential criticism within the AND leadership while using the organization as Can AND Redeem its a vehicle to spread its public relations. Tarnished Reputation? AND says as much in its own words. Numerous health experts and In a 2008 press release announcing its commentators have criticized AND new partnership with Coca-Cola, AND for its corporate sponsorships, described the significant benefits to further diminishing its reputation. For the company, saying how it provided example, Michael Siegel, professor at “ a national platform via ADA events Boston University School of Health and programs with prominent access explains how Coca-Cola is buying the to key influencers, thought leaders and Academy’s silence: “I defy anyone to decision makers in the food and nutrition find information on [AND’s] web site 58 .” [Emphasis added.] marketplace about the billions of dollars that Coke is spending annually to market its sugar- Food Politics author Marion Nestle 57 He goes further, laden products.” has long criticized the Academy for saying that silence would be preferable its corporate sponsorship. (Nestle and

39 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 38 Some positive changes have been other experts also criticize other health groups for similar conflicts, but AND occurring at the group’s national headquarters in Chicago as well. For is considered particularly conflicted.) example, the CEO, Patricia Babjak, Nestle has implored RDs to speak out in is more available and visible to defense of their profession: “As long as your organization partners with makers members. In addition, HEN members are having one-on-one meetings with of food and beverage products, its AND leadership. As a result of these opinions about diet and health will never constructive conversations, the Academy be believed independent (translation: based on science not politics) and neither sent the more stringent HEN corporate will yours...Is the goal of [AND] really the sponsorship guidelines to all affiliates and same as the goal of the sponsors–to sell dietetic practice groups as an example of 59 “best practices.” the sponsor’s food products?” One minor change regarding corporate Positive Signs of Change sponsorship at AND’s “House of Delegate” meetings demonstrates the Many RDs active within AND recognize leadership’s improved flexibility. After this history of problems, but report some delegates sent a letter asking that small positive changes have been to remove corporate sponsors from afoot in recent years. Two years ago, the two HOD annual meetings, AND the leadership cleaned house at the changed the format so that the sponsor D.C. office, bringing in several new staff. presentations would come at the end Previously, the D.C. staff had strong of the meeting, when delegates could ties to the food industry and not much choose to leave. This was apparently background in nutrition or health, and the only option because of current operated with a lack of transparency. contractual obligations. As those Now most of the D.C. staff are RDs, obligations expire, it will be important and two vice presidents are members to see if AND takes the next step and of the progressive HEN practice group. removes corporate sponsorships from This change that has made a significant these meetings altogether. difference for AND’s presence in the Based on survey results, there is still nation’s capital. For example, now AND significant concern within the AND has relationships with key government membership about how current sponsors agencies and well as nutrition and health reflect poorly on the organization. advocacy organizations.

40 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 39 Recommendations to members) regarding corporate 1) Greater Transparency sponsorship—far beyond what is In 2009, Senator Chuck Grassley of currently provided in its annual reports. Iowa sent letters to 33 groups including For example: AND, requesting information about the • How much money each individual financial backing they received from company gives to AND in the form of the pharmaceutical, medical device, sponsorships, continuing education fees, 60 and insurance industries. Grassley’s and Foundation donations; main interest was transparency. He said: • How much money AND makes on the “Letting the sun shine in and making annual meeting from corporate sponsors information public is basic to building versus registration and vendor fees; people’s confidence in medical research, • How much the “partner” and “premier education and the practice of medicine.” sponsor” levels cost; AND responded to that inquiry two • What is the connection between years later with a long list of sponsorship sponsorship and continuing education? funding from pharmaceutical and medical 61 Senator Grassley device companies. 2) Request Input from Membership then sent AND another letter, this time The 2011 survey authors were correct requesting that the Academy “improve when they said that the entire AND transparency and accountability” by membership should be heard on the making these materials available on 62 issue of corporate sponsorship. Trade its website. (It’s not clear how AND group policies should reflect the responded, but to date those materials desires of its members, not just the are not publicly available.) leadership. It was clear at the annual Perhaps the time has come for Senator meeting that while many RDs object Grassley or other members of Congress to to corporate sponsorship, they had no renew that call for greater transparency, idea how to make their voices heard. this time asking AND and other health Some had never even considered groups for full disclosure and greater speaking out, a sign that AND is transparency of the food industry’s role in failing to offer adequate and readily financing these organizations. accessible opportunities for members Barring a congressional inquiry, AND to give their feedback. Also, gathering should on its own make more details input should not take the form of a available to the public (or at least one-time survey. Rather, there should

41 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 40 sponsorship is that it’s desperately needed be easy access to AND leadership so to subsidize a group’s activities, but that that members have clear channels of does not appear to be the case here. Still, communication about ongoing policy matters. AND recently sent a survey more information is needed about where to some RD members about corporate corporate sponsorship money is going. sponsorship, a positive sign. 4) Reject Corporate-Sponsored Education 3) Meaningful Sponsorship Guidelines AND should reject outright corporate- sponsored continuing education, as well as Once the membership has been surveyed for its views, AND should put corporate-sponsored education sessions at that information into action. This could its annual meeting. Continuing education take different forms, depending on the units should not be tied to any business interest, as it diminishes the value of the members’ views. For example, AND could implement much stronger and credential. No sponsorship guidelines can change this simple truth: The food industry more meaningful sponsorship guidelines. As mentioned above, the Hunger and does not educate, it markets. Even when the companies hire “outside” experts to Environmental Nutrition Dietetic Practice teach the session, the information is still Group has its own set of sponsorship 63 biased, and the company still gets its guidelines, which could be a model. Perhaps as other practice groups take up brand name promoted. this issue, AND will be moved to reconsider Also, when corporations influence and its own sponsorships and guidelines. control so much of the educational Other organizations’ guidelines may be agenda, there is less room for learning useful as well. For example, the American about other important issues that might Public Health Association has relatively go against industry interests. Along these 64 and its annual meeting robust guidelines lines, AND should do more outreach is a completely different experience than to health, environmental, and nutrition FNCE. For example, in the expo hall are advocacy groups that offer webinars on mostly government agencies, publishers, substantive and controversial issues to schools, and other educational booths. encourage them to apply for CEU approval to encourage more diverse viewpoints. Another approach would be to do away with industry sponsorships altogether. AND should also consider placing more Based on the financial information provided distance between its credentialing arm in the 2011 annual report, sponsorships and the main organization. One possible currently comprise only five percent of model is the Accreditation Council for AND’s annual revenues—so why risk your Continuing Medical Education, which profession’s entire reputation for such a oversees continuing medical education small amount? Not to say that a larger for physicians. That body is comprised amount of money would be OK. Usually 65 of seven member organizations, which the reason given to justify corporate

42 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 41 seems to offer more checks and balances policy. As mentioned above, it was good that AND submitted comments to the than AND’s internal approach. FTC on the issue. However, by promoting industry-sponsored educational 5) Increased Leadership on programs such as “Kids Eat Right,” which Nutrition Policy provide zero information for parents As discussed above, in recent years, about how to protect their children AND’s leadership has taken important from predatory marketing (or engage steps to improve its policy agenda and in advocacy on the matter) AND sends create a positive presence in Washington. the message that it’s not serious about However, there is still a significant image children’s health. (See Appendix 3, p. 45.) problem that cannot be ignored. While As long as the Academy and its foundation the staff in the D.C. office is lobbying on allow the food industry to sponsor a behalf of AND’s membership, “education children’s healthy eating program, it will sessions” are being brought to you by remain in a conflicted position regarding Coke and Hershey’s. This disconnect will junk food marketing to children. continue to undermine AND’s credibility on critical policy issues until the conflicts are resolved. A Call to Action Moreover, as long as AND remains on the To conclude this report are the powerful sidelines on the most controversial issues words of registered dietitian and of the day, there will be a perception Academy member Andy Bellatti who that the organization has a conflict of believes his profession deserves better: interest. No guidelines will help shake that Now more than ever, members of the perception. AND will only truly become a Academy who recognize the insidious leader on nutrition policy once it cleans nature of partnering with Big Food must speak up and let the leadership know how up its reputation that has been damaged and why these partnerships are detrimental by being overly friendly with the junk food to the profession. We cannot allow industry. Then, when the organization ourselves to be steamrolled by the notion claims that it’s not endorsing a certain put forth by many in power that partnering policy based on scientific grounds, with the likes of PepsiCo and McDonald’s that claim can be taken more seriously. benefits our profession and the health of By rejecting corporate sponsorships Americans. It is simply untrue. We will never from junk food companies and industry seriously when experts be taken as nutrition lobbyists, AND will become freer to make our messaging and credential is co-opted by junk food companies who think we are truly science-based policy decisions. just an easy sell. I urge my colleagues to It’s also unclear how strong AND can be think critically, ask tough questions, and on such a contentious issue as junk food relentlessly defend the ideas of healthful, marketing to children, given that all its real food. It is up to us, as registered top sponsors engage in this practice, not dietitians, to take back our credential. to mention lobby to undermine public

43 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 42 APPENDIX 1 Overheard: Former AND Members Speak Out think those brands are somehow better or Carla S Caccia, RD, LDN more nutritious because it came from me, an I am not a member of AND. I am so upset RD, and has the “AND stamp of approval.” over their relationships with certain food AND says RDs are the food & nutrition manufacturers and lack of support for experts and I like to think we are. There are certain food policies, such as GMO labeling. many informed, professional RDs. Also, AND However, I was thinking of checking into [the However, it sends does a lot of great work. progressive dietetic practice group] HEN and a message of corruption when we have seeing if it would be worth it to join AND. relationships with food companies whose [Corporate sponsorship] is unethical. Some products are incredibly unhealthy. That of the food companies’ products are full of can put all RDs under a cloud of suspicion. questionable and/or harmful ingredients. The How can consumers trust us when our food companies are taking advantage of the professional organization partners with whole “variety, moderation, balance” theme. junk food companies? They say “all foods fit.” Well, I used to think that. But now I’m not so sure. Are GMOs Aaron Flores, RD safe in moderation? I don’t know. Caramel coloring? High fructose corn syrup? Is lean I was an ADA/AND member from 2002 meat still the healthy choice even though (when I started school to become an RD) to the animal was given general antibiotics? this year 2013. Is grilled chicken still the healthy choice For the past few years I have really struggled even though it ate feed contaminated with with whether or not I should renew my arsenic? I don’t know and I’m supposed to membership. I do not like the fact that AND be the expert! I would like to turn to AND for partners with organizations like Coca-Cola, these answers but I can’t trust them because Hershey’s, Mars, General Mills and Kellogg’s. they are in partnership with food companies I think that it sends the wrong message whose products are full of these things. about our organization as a whole—whose There are great handouts from AND. Also, primary goal is to promote good nutrition— the Nutrition Care Manual is a great resource, while taking money from companies whose but some of the sample menus list brand products are mostly thought of as not names: i.e., Quaker, Nature’s Own, Hot healthy. This year I have decided I will no Pockets and I’m not OK with that because: longer be a member of the Academy. 1) it indicates that those brands paid their What really disturbs me is that by partnering way into the menus (I don’t know if they did with agribusiness, I feel it dilutes our but why else would those brands and not credibility as nutrition professionals. What others be listed?) and 2) those brands aren’t really highlighted that to me was when [New the healthiest and I wouldn’t necessarily York City] Mayor Bloomberg proposed his recommend them to my clients. If I did ban on large sugary beverages. It was such provide these handouts, my clients might

44 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 43 a controversial topic and everyone had an And they pay to attend FNCE when all they really want to do is attend their DPG opinion on one side or the other. But instead of taking a stand, AND had no position. How meetings. AND doesn’t hear their battle cry could they have no position on such a topic? in this case, as AND still gets their money. I feel like there should be some sort of I felt that it was their partnerships with Coke internal boycott against supporting AND and Pepsi that prevented them from taking a until they represent our views but no one is stand even if they wanted to. really doing that, so I am. I think the partnership with big food companies ruins our credibility as nutrition experts. The perception is that because we Heidi Turner, MS, RD, CD partner with companies like Coke, PepsiCo, I left AND for a few reasons. One was Mars, and Hershey’s that we act on their its focus on mainstream dietetics. The behalf or in their interest. Even though recommendations they make to patients that might not be the case, that is the are industry-driven and out of date. If I perception and unfortunately, perception is was told one more time that dairy is the everything. primary way to get calcium into patients I I think it’s important to note that I’m not was going to scream. In this particular case, anti-AND. I am proud to be a RD. There they are heavily sponsored by the National are some great people in AND who are Dairy Council and their biases show in their doing some important work. I feel though of philosophy overall Their recommendations. that until they change this policy, that the what types of foods and diets to recommend biggest statement I can make is to vote with to patients was not consistent with my own. my pocket book. Some of my colleagues Also, I got tired of the fact that they do not agree with me and what I hope for continued to accept corporate dollars for is that this conversation continues. I want advertising in their journals/conferences RDs to talk about this issue. If more people from what I would consider to be “junk” start talking about it, AND might start to food companies. They seem to accept and listen. If AND were to change its corporate celebrate the idea that Coca Cola, Hershey’s, sponsorship policy, I would happily re-join. Pepsi, General Mills and others can be part of a healthy diet, completely ignoring the fact that these very companies are creating other Denise Julia Garbinski, MBA, RD products that are at the core of our obesity [current member re-considering] epidemic. I suppose they need to get money AND’s ongoing demonstration of being from somewhere, but, come on. If you’re in bed with agribusiness big food and trying to be at the forefront of changing its ‘neutral’ (but obviously not neutral what people eat, then at least accept stance) on Prop 37 [labeling GMO foods] funding from sponsors who truly share that just disgusts me to the point where I am vision, and aren’t just looking to appear choosing to vote with my dollars against “healthy” via their association with AND. supporting AND. I don’t attend their That said, AND has lobbied hard to ensure functions and am seriously considering that RDs like me are considered a critical withdrawing my membership next year. So part of the health care picture and for that many of the good folks in the HEN, DIFN I am grateful. and Veg DPG’s [dietetic practice groups] keep up their AND memberships because it’s mandatory in order to join the DPG.

45 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 44 APPENDIX 2 From the Mouths of Big Food consumers with the information, tools and The Academy is not shy about promoting resources they need to achieve a balanced its corporate sponsors. Following is a lifestyle. We are thrilled to be an Academy sampling from a web page called, “What Partner in the Academy’s sponsorship 66 The Our Corporate Sponsors Think.” program and are excited to help people theme throughout is the power this enjoy a well-balanced life.” large group of nutrition professionals holds and why sponsorhip is so valuable. Kellogg (American Dietetic Association is the “When it comes to helping people previous name.) understand how to make informed decisions about healthy lifestyles, ADA’s Coca-Cola members are the most influential source “We are proud to partner with the of food and nutrition. Kellogg Company American Dietetic Association, one of is proud to continue its longstanding the country’s leading authorities in health relationship with ADA to benefit and nutrition education... Like ADA, Coca- consumers.” Cola understands that a healthy lifestyle involves balancing many different elements Mars — staying physically active, consuming a “We’re proud to collaborate with the balanced diet, getting enough rest — and American Dietetic Association, the even keeping a positive attitude.” largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, to support ADA members’ General Mills missions to improve the health and “ADA members play a valuable role in wellbeing of our nation.” educating the public about nutrition and health, and we are pleased to support PepsiCo the American Dietetic Association as a “PepsiCo believes we have a responsibility Premier Sponsor.” to ensure the health and wellness of the communities we serve. We rely upon Hershey’s the expertise and commitment of ADA “The Hershey Center for Health & Nutrition® members to provide unique insight into recognizes the significant role that the health and nutritional challenges registered dietitians can play in empowering people face every day.”

46 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 45 APPENDIX 3 Kids Eat Right: Pennies from Corporations Making Billions in Profits sign up to volunteer to participate. The AND Foundation loves to tout “Kids Eat Right.” The annual conference makes General Mills sponsored the development a big deal about how the fundraising gala of a toolkit for cooking workshops with that benefits the program. What is it? parents, hardly an innovative approach. AND announced these small grants: 67 of Kids Eat Right AND says the mission “Congratulations to the 30 RDs selected is “to support public education projects to receive a Kids Eat Right Family and programs that address the national Champions, One Change at a Time RD health concern of obesity among our mini-grant! Each RD will children by assisting receive $250 to lead Academy members in one parent cooking working with schools workshop from the and communities to help Family Champions toolkit kids eat better and move in their communities.” more.” But how? A cookbook was created The Kids Eat Right as a part of the “Kids Eat website contains Right Shop-Cook-Eat mostly banal nutrition Summit” held in Napa, information and recipes California in March 2012, that could be found in which raised $350,000. many other places, with The “cookbook” features zero information about 17 recipes, each one the problem of junk food industry sponsored: marketing to children, or the page features the even tips for parents on corporate logo while this issue. Perhaps that the recipe contains a processed food has something to do with the project’s product. Sponsors include: National sponsors. Kids Eat Right started in 2010 Dairy Council, Kellogg’s, The Coca- with funding from the National Dairy Cola Company, ConAgra Foods, and Council. Additional sponsors include PepsiCo. For example, Coca-Cola’s Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and General Mills. page is a pork recipe with Minute Maid The program relies on RDs to volunteer orange juice and the PepsiCo pages to implement “tool kits” and other require Quaker Oats in recipes that educational programs in schools and would never otherwise call for them, communities. RDs are encouraged to like pasta and meatball soup.

47 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 46 APPENDIX 4 Monsanto Biotechnology Quiz At the 2012 AND annual meeting, RDs Foods and crops derived from plant biotechnology are thoroughly tested could take this quiz at the Monsanto for safety. booth to enter a sweepstakes for a Coach a. True handbag. (Sampling of questions.) b. False Which tools or techniques does Monsanto Answer: True. Biotech crops have been use to develop innovative products to help reviewed by FDA, USDA and EPA; are tested the farmer feed, fuel and clothe the world? more than any other crops in the history of a. Plant breeding agriculture; and have been shown to be as b. Biotechnology safe as their conventional counterparts. c. Chemistries and equipment improve - Reality Check: Extremely deceptive. No ments to develop agronomic solutions federal agency requires biotech crops d. All of the above undergo human safety testing prior to All of the above. Biotechnology is Answer: approval. We have no long-term safety only part of what we do. We also use tools testing of these crops. such as plant breeding and agronomics solutions including crop protection What are some benefits of modern plant chemistries and equipment technologies. science techniques, such as biotechnology? “Feeding the world” is Reality Check: a. Improved yields a familiar refrain of biotech companies; b. Decreased tillage to protect soil and however we don’t need more technology water resources to feed people; we have enough food. c. Decreased use of fossil fuels resulting from fewer pesticides Is there a difference in the nutritional d. Improved nutrition value of organic crops compared to e. All of the above conventionally grown crops? All of the above. Modern plant Answer: a. Yes science contributes to sustainable b. No agriculture by helping farmers increase Answer: No. The evidence shows no yields, decrease pesticide use and improve significant differences among organic, on-farm management, while also improving conventional or biotech crops in terms of nutrition with healthful oils or vegetables with increase phytonutrients. nutrition and safety. Reality Check: Much research exists to Reality Check: There is research on both dispute each of these claims. For example, sides of this debate; also the question studies have shown increased herbicide ignores the safety concerns of consuming use as a result of weed resistance to pesticides, described euphemistically as Monsanto’s Roundup product. “conventionally-grown.”

48 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 47 APPENDIX 5 Annual Meeting Food Industry Giveaways, Raffles, Prizes promoted via Twitter Lindsey Toth, MS, RD @NutritionTalk Del Monte @DelMontebrand [PepsiCo] Play #FlavorBoom at our booth for a There’s still time to win a $100 gift card chance to win a knife set! It’s fun you won’t Stop by @PepsiCo’s Social today! Showcase want to miss! of Innovation, booth #901, for the chance Kristen Carlucci, RD @simplysavor to win! Stop by #unileverfnce at 1130, 1215 or 1pm Bell Institute @GenMillsBellIns 2day for risotto, bfast pizza, spaghetti/ [General Mills] meatballs + chance to win $100 ! Before the expo ends, be sure 2 stop by our booth (618) for the #FNCE Foodie @FoodInsight [IFIC – industry group] Challenge. Test your food knowledge & enter 2 win an e-reader! We would love to meet our twitter follower in person! Pls visit us @ booth 325 to say hi Laura’s Lean Beef @laurasleanbeef and enter to win an AMX gift card! Stop by booth 557 and visit the team @ California Walnuts @CaWalnuts laurasleanbeef during #FNCE... Scan your badge to win an iPad! #FNCE begins this weekend! Don’t forget to stop by our booth #852 to learn about Pork @allaboutpork [National Pork Board] heart-healthy @CaWalnuts and a chance to Congrats @theguidedbite & Courtney L. for win an iPad 3! winning today’s Pork prize packs at #FNCE! HealthEd On Demand @HEOnDemand Stop by our booth/DM us 2 claim prizes. #LeanerThanEver We’re almost ready to pack up for #FNCE. Stop by our booth for a chance to win an National Honey Board @NationalHoney iPad. Only 24 hrs left to visit booth 670 and let Walmart Healthy @WalmartHealthy us know at what age honey can be given to children. You might win something! ATTENTION #FNCE attendees: Stop by our #GreatForYou Booth, #107, & enter our CA Cling Peaches @CalClingPeach raffle for a new #iPad! Fill out our short survey and be entered to Frito-Lay N. America @Fritolay win an anthropologie apron! #FNCE attendees - Look 4 #ChipMyth SherryColemanCollins @PeanutRD quiz @ #Fritobooth1011 4chance2win Visit booth 119! ‘Like’ us & draw to win. MT KitchenAid® Stand Mixer or t-shirts! @LeanGrnBeanBlog: I need one!! MT @ steph_espo: Thx 4 t-shirts!!

49 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 48 REFERENCES 1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Chronic Diseases and Health Problems,” August 13, 2012, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Who We Are and What We Do,” 2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “American Dietetic Association / ADA Foundation Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report,” 3. 4. Burros, Marian. “Group’s pursuit of cash draws fire” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 6, 1995, Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (Califonia: University of California Press, 5. 2007), 127. 6. Ibid. 113. 7. Reitshamer, E., Steffey Schrier, M., Herbold, N. & Metallinos-Katsaras, E. (2012) “Members’ Attitudes Toward Corporate Sponsorship of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 7:2-3, 149-164 8. Nestle, op. cit, 49. 9. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Why Become an Academy Sponsor?,” 10. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Academy’s Sponsorship Program,” 11. Diet Coke, “The Heart Truth,” 12. National Dairy Council, “3-Every-Day® of Dairy,” pages/3everydayofdairy.aspx; fact sheets: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Academy Partner Consumer Education Programs,” 13. Commission on Dietetic Registration, “Commission on Dietetic Registration,” A separate component of AND accredits the “600 undergraduate and graduate didactic, dietetic technician, and supervised practice programs.” 14. Commission on Dietetic Registration, “Benefits of Becoming an Accredited Provider,” 15. Commission on Dietetic Registration, “Commission on Dietetic Registration Continuing Professional Education Accredited Providers,” 16. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Restaurant Menu Labeling - The Impact on the Environment of Nutrition and Dietetics - Module 1: Legislative Background, the Law and Emerging Trends,” 17. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Agricultural and Food Production Practices - Sorting Out the Science on Nutrition and Food Safety,” 18. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Translating the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to Consumer Acceptance and Action,” Massachusetts General Hospital, “Ronald E. Kleinman, MD,” 19. 20. No on Prop 37, “Videos,” 21. General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Wellness, “Strength Begins Within: Building Better Bone Health” Webinar, 22. The Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness, “CPE Programs,” 23. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics FNCE, “DPG/MIG Affiliate Events,”

50 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 49 24. International Food Information Council, “Board of Trustees,” 25. International Food Information Council, “Funders and Supporters List,” 26. Simon, Michele. “Pesticides Are Good For You” Food Safety News, October, 17, 2012, Baier, Wendy. “Connect with the IFIC Foundation During FNCE 2012” International Food Information Council – Blog, October 5, 27. 2012, 28. Center for Science in the Public Interest, “Chemical Cuisine: Learn about Food Additives - BHA,” National Toxicology Program - Department of Health and Human Services, “Butylated Hydroxyanisole,” 29. 30. Bellatti, Andy, “How Did My Profession’s Conference Get Hijacked by Big Food?” Appetite for Profit, October 15, 2012, 31. Institute of Food Technologists, “Our Leadership,” 32. Institute of Food Technologists, “Roger Clemens – Past President,” International Life Sciences Institute, “2010 Annual Report,” 33. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “The Family of Fibers: Dietary Variety for Maximum Health Benefits (Online Only),” 34. 35. Myers, E., Scott Parrott, J., Cummins, D., & Splett, P. (2011) “Funding Source and Research Report Quality in Nutrition Practice- Related Research,” PLoS ONE, 6(12), 36. Vartanian, L., Schwartz, M., & Brownell, K. (2007) “Effects of Soft-Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” American Journal of Public Health, 97(4), 37. Nestle, Marion. “Let’s Ask Marion Nestle: Could The USDA Get Any Cheesier?” Food Politics, November 7, 2010, 38. Jaret, Peter. “The Pros and Cons of Milk and Dairy” WedMD: Guide to a Healthy Kitchen, February 28, 2011, 39. Bellatti, op. cit. Citiing: Johnson RK, Appel LJ, Brands M, Howard BV, Lefevre M, Lustig RH, Sacks F, Steffen LM, Wylie-Rosett J. (2009). “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 120:1011–1020. 40. FavStar, “@NutritionistaRD’s (Debra Riedesel) Best Tweets,” Fast Food F.A.C.T.S., “Fast Food FACTS in Brief,” 41. Anderson, Curt. “Olive Garden, Red Lobster hit with labor-law suit” The Washington Times, September 6, 2012, 42. Simon, Michele. “Is Walmart’s March into Cities Helping or Hurting?” Food Safety News, January 17, 2012, 43. 44. Hunger and Environmental Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group, “Hunger and Environmental Nutrition – Welcome,” 45. Center for Responsible Politics, “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Summary,” Center for Responsible Politics, “Lobbying Spending Database – Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,” 46. 47. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “2012-2015 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Public Policy Priority Areas,” 48. Squires, Sally. “FDA Wants Food Labels To List Trans Fat” The Washington Post, November 13, 1999, 49. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “In Wake of New York Soda Ban Proposal, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Encourages Education, Moderation” Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Press Release, May 31, 2012,

51 And Now a Word From Our Sponsors 50 50. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Proposition 37: The Facts” Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Press Release, October 8, 2012, Grant Thornton, “Maintaining sufficient reserves to protect your not-for-profit organization,” Spring 2010, 51. organizations/NotForProfit files/NFP_Sufficient-Reserves_WP.pdf 52. Adler, L., Koomas, A., Wright, C. The HEN Post , “Attitudes Regarding ADA Corporate Sponsorship Among HEN Members.” (Summer 2011). Reitshamer, E., op.cit 53. 54. Vorland, Colby. “Member attitudes towards corporate sponsorship of AND”, September, 25, 2012, 55. Data from Reitshamer, E., op.cit, table adapted from Vorland, ibid. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Academy Guidelines for Corporate Relations Sponsors” 56. Siegel, Michael. “American Diabetes Association and American Dietetic Association Sell Themselves Out, Sacrificing their 57. Health Mission for Money” Tobacco Analysis, September 11, 2012, 58. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “American Dietetic Association Welcomes The Coca-Cola Company as an ADA Partner” Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Press Release, March 3, 2008, 59. Nestle, Marion. “OK. Time to talk about the American Dietetic Association’s alliances with food companies” Food Politics, March 17, 2008, 60. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, “Grassley works for disclosure of drug company payments to medical groups” December 8, 2009, 61. Babjak, Patricia, Letter to Senator Chuck Grassley. December 18, 2009, Grassley, Charles, Letter to Patricia Babjak, CEO of American Dietetic Association, May 4, 2011, 62. 63. Hunger and Environmental Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group, “External Collaborator Relationship Opportunities,” April 2012, 64. American Public Health Association, “American Public Health Association Summary Guidelines for Gifts and Donations,” Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, “Member Organizations,” 65. 66. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “What the Academy’ s Corporate Sponsors Think,” 67. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “Kids Eat RIght,” ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Anisha Hingorani, Christopher Cook, and Susan Miller, for expert research assistance, to Andy Bellatti and Anna Lappé for helpful feedback on earlier drafts; to Haven Bourque for top-notch media advice; and Ross Turner Design for professional layout. Thanks especially to all the dedicated RDs who bravely shared their concerns with me and helped guide this project. This report was written by Michele Simon, public health attorney and president of Eat Drink Politics, an industry watchdog consulting group. Contact her at: (510) 465-0322 or [email protected] © 2013 Eat Drink Politics

Related documents