5 Shocking Examples of Food Lies and Politics

Food politics is always controversial, and it exists because there’s a clear separation between profitable food and public health.

Our food is supposed to sustain our health, but big corporations are always seeking greater profits. By selling the cheapest possible food for the highest possible price, they make their money. At the same time, people who regularly eat this ultra-processed food lose their health.

Rather than admit the food they sell is unhealthy, commercial food corporations use their massive wealth to promote it as healthy.

As part of these food lies, they lobby to the government and spend huge sums on public advertising. All this is to convince us that their factory-made food is healthy.

In shocking examples of food lies and politics, this article will look at five unethical events that jeopardized (or are currently compromising) public health.

#1 Dietitians Taking Money From Coca-Cola to Oppose a Soda Tax

A flurry of activity on Twitter drew suspicion in early October 2016. Many dietitians suddenly, and in tandem, started tweeting against a soda tax. Included in these tweets were clear examples of fear-mongering, attempting to persuade their followers that a soda tax will push up the overall price of groceries.

Several newspapers and media sources broke stories about it early. Under pressure, coca-cola admitted that they had been funding dietitians and released the list of names. Unsurprisingly, the dietitians who spoke out against a soda tax had all received financial compensation from the soda giant for doing so.

The question to ask is this: what place does the promotion of sugar have in public health? Dietitians are the ‘official source’ for dietary advice, yet they promote an ingredient that destroys health.

Of course, there are many great dietitians out there, and I don’t want to paint all with the same brush. However, why are some dietitians (health advisors) even able to take money from companies who make ultra-processed food?

Isn’t that a conflict of interest in itself?

#2 Healthy Professionals Taking Money to Promote Coca-Cola

Interestingly, a very similar thing happened in 2015. Coca-cola were caught paying nutrition professionals (mainly dietitians again) to pen nutrition articles in the media. If you’re wondering what these articles regarded, then the answer is “how coca-cola mini cans are a healthy drink”.

When the information became public, Coca-Cola apologized and said they would aim for greater transparency in the future. It seems like they haven’t quite got there yet?

#3 Food Lies, Labels and Unknown Animals

It’s important to realize that food labels can be wildly incorrect. Whenever you buy refined, packaged food with a list of ingredients you never truly know what you’re getting.

The primary example I want to talk about here is burgers. Burgers obviously come in different scales of quality, ranging from 100% beef to a big list of unpronounceable ingredients.

However, 100% beef doesn’t sound too bad right?

Well, thousands of Europeans probably thought the very same thing when they bought their burgers from a range of stores and fast food joints. The only problem was that these burgers were not 100% beef at all, and instead, they were a random mixture of horse meat and beef.

Among the stores selling “100% beef burgers” (made of horse meat) were the British retail giant Tesco and Burger King.

However, at first, Burger King gave their “absolute assurance” that their products were in no way involved. A few weeks later they had to backtrack on their position after tests revealed horse DNA in their burgers. In an apology, Burger King stated they were “deeply troubled by the findings.”

Probably not as troubled as the people who ate horse meat after receiving “absolute assurance” it was beef.

#4 Margarine is ‘Heart Healthy’

Study after study shows that saturated fat isn’t truly a dietary villain.

Despite this, big food spends huge sums of money to promote their “low in saturated fat” products.

In reality, any product that claims to be low in saturated fat is most likely bad for you. Additionally, it probably contains a huge load of refined carbohydrates, sugar and vegetable oil.

The reason for this is likely the profits involved. Margarine and vegetable oils can be made entirely from machinery; it’s an automated process, cheap to produce, and sold for a large profit.

The fact that it’s bad for us is a threat to these profits, and so the industry uses advertising funds to convince us that it’s healthy.

Sure, it’s morally and ethically wrong, but for the companies involved it makes sense for business.

An obvious example of this is Australia’s ‘health star’ system. The general idea of this scheme is to rate a food based on its health properties, with ratings on a 5-star score system.

How does butter score? 0.5 stars. As for margarine, it gets five health stars!

So, they are telling us that butter, made naturally from cream, is a terribly unhealthy product.

At the same time, they are telling us that solidified vegetable oil that is chemically flavored (to hide the terrible taste) and chemically colored (to make it look yellow instead of gray) is a perfect example of a health food.

The truth is that margarine, as well as vegetable oils in general, are damaging to our health.

As for butter, there’s nothing to fear about healthy fats.

#5 The Myth of a Balanced Diet

“<insert any junk food> is healthy as part of a balanced diet.”

This kind of promotion is pretty much the slogan of every company that produces ultra-processed food.

In addition, health authorities (commonly sponsored by the food companies) repeat the balanced diet mantra.

The simple truth is this: an unhealthy food in moderation is moderately harmful.

Unfortunately, this truth isn’t very profitable, and that’s why the ‘balanced diet’ myth persists.

There’s no problem with someone enjoying unhealthy food from time to time if that’s what they want.

But enough of these food lies; it’s about time the food industry were honest about their products rather than purposefully trying to mislead people.

If you are interested in food politics, then here are some great books that cover food politics and big industry.

5 Shocking Examples of Food Lies and Politics

Two Examples Highlight Issues Of Demonstrating The Advantage Of Digital Overall health Technological innovation

We are constantly told healthcare is “ripe” for disruptive innovation, a process of creative destruction enabled by the exciting new technologies of digital health.  Yet, the robust demonstration of almost any substantive benefit (beyond perhaps transient delight and toxic self- absorption) has been slow in coming.

The challenges of moving a health-related technology from promise to impact are illustrated nicely by two recent attempts to carefully evaluate the benefits of intriguing new devices.

The Propeller Health Inhaler Monitor

The first study (NCT01509183) was sponsored by Asthmapolis (now Propeller Health), and sought to examine whether use of the company’s inhaler monitoring device resulted in improved asthma control, the study’s primary endpoint.  Control, measured by the Asthma Control Test (ACT) would be assessed at 4, 8, and 12 months.

The device senses inhaler use – in this study, the use of fast-acting “rescue” inhaler medications, specifically — and communicates data to patients (via an app) and to providers (via reports and change of status alerts), according to MedPage Today.  In this study, asthmatic patients who had experienced a “healthcare utilization event” in the preceding year were randomized into either an active group , receiving the device and associated data, or a group receiving a deactivated device that provided no supplemental information.

As study co-author Bob Quade explains in an email, “the fundamental intervention is information.

At a national meeting last November, interim results were presented.  These data revealed slight improvements in the ACT in the active arm compared to the control arm in both adults and children, differences not statistically significant.

However, additional analysis found subjects in the actively monitored group used rescue inhalers significantly less often than the control group.  Perhaps most strikingly, inpatient days were reduced from 0.225 per person per year in control group to 0.087 in active group; emergency room visits decreased marginally (from 0.141 per person per year in control group to 0.103 in active group) as well.

This reduction in utilization is claimed to be associated with a savings of $ 688.05 per patient (compared to baseline);  subjects  in the control group, notably, were found to save $ 281.95 per patient compared to baseline, suggesting a regression to the mean effect, not surprising given that subjects were selected based on experiencing a healthcare event in the previous year (most asthma patients don’t experience events in any given year).  It’s also possible that simply participating in the study may have contributed to a change in utilization (the Hawthorne effect at work).  Both possibilities were  acknowledged by Quade.

However, the active group still exhibited a dramatic savings (~$ 400 per patient) associated with reduced utilization compared to the control group, despite the lack of significant changes in asthma control as measured by ACT scores.  This presents a real puzzle.

Some, such as wellness guru Al Lewis (author of Why Nobody Believes The Numbers, and more recently, Surviving Workplace Wellness) look at these results incredulously.

“Their own numbers don’t add up,” he asserts in an email.  “First, they say it’s not statistically a significant difference.”

“Even if it were significant,” Lewis continues, the difference reported on the ACT “is something like 2.2% improvement in the score.  Then, they claim an inpatient reduction of 62%. This violates several of the rules in Why Nobody Believes.  First, costs can’t decline that much and second, the cost reduction has to tie to the quality improvement.”

An alternative explanation, however, is that there are improvements in care not reflected in the ACT measure; for example, if the intervention doesn’t prevent exacerbation but catches them early enough to enable them to be managed as an outpatient rather than an inpatient, this could theoretically save significant dollars, yet be difficult to pick up on the ACT.

This study highlights the challenges of rigorously demonstrating the benefit of a digital health intervention that appears to make a world of sense.  It seems logical, even obvious, that improved monitoring of rescue inhaler use, coupled with improved, immediate communication with patients and providers would improve disease management.  As study principal investigator Rajan Merchant points out, it enables the care of asthma patients to transition from episodic to continuous – one of the key ambitions of digital health.

I look forward to examining a peer-reviewed publication once the study is completed later this year, and all data are read out.  My suspicion is that there may ultimately be a cost-savings achieved (vs the control group), and perhaps eventually a small improvement in asthma control.   Whether this economically justifies the use of the intervention will need to be determined, given the cost of the devices and software, and the extra provider time potentially required.

Two Examples Highlight Issues Of Demonstrating The Advantage Of Digital Overall health Technological innovation

Two Examples Highlight Difficulties Of Demonstrating The Advantage Of Digital Health Technologies

We are consistently advised healthcare is “ripe” for disruptive innovation, a approach of inventive destruction enabled by the interesting new technologies of digital wellness.  Yet, the robust demonstration of nearly any substantive advantage (beyond probably transient delight and toxic self- absorption) has been slow in coming.

The issues of moving a well being-associated technologies from guarantee to effect are illustrated nicely by two recent attempts to cautiously evaluate the benefits of intriguing new units.

The Propeller Wellness Inhaler Keep track of

The initial research (NCT01509183) was sponsored by Asthmapolis (now Propeller Wellness), and sought to examine regardless of whether use of the company’s inhaler monitoring device resulted in enhanced asthma control, the study’s main endpoint.  Manage, measured by the Asthma Management Test (ACT) would be assessed at four, 8, and 12 months.

The device senses inhaler use – in this study, the use of quick-acting “rescue” inhaler medicines, especially — and communicates data to sufferers (via an app) and to companies (via reports and adjust of standing alerts), according to MedPage These days.  In this examine, asthmatic individuals who had seasoned a “healthcare utilization event” in the preceding yr were randomized into either an energetic group , acquiring the gadget and connected data, or a group obtaining a deactivated gadget that offered no supplemental data.

As research co-writer Bob Quade explains in an e mail, “the fundamental intervention is information.

At a nationwide meeting last November, interim outcomes have been presented.  These data unveiled slight enhancements in the ACT in the lively arm compared to the management arm in each adults and children, differences not statistically important.

Nonetheless, extra evaluation discovered topics in the actively monitored group utilized rescue inhalers drastically significantly less often than the manage group.  Maybe most strikingly, inpatient days were diminished from .225 per particular person per yr in manage group to .087 in lively group emergency area visits decreased marginally (from .141 per particular person per yr in manage group to .103 in lively group) as nicely.

This reduction in utilization is claimed to be associated with a financial savings of $ 688.05 per patient (compared to baseline)  subjects  in the handle group, notably, were identified to save $ 281.95 per patient compared to baseline, suggesting a regression to the indicate impact, not surprising offered that subjects had been selected based on experiencing a healthcare event in the previous year (most asthma sufferers really don’t knowledge occasions in any given 12 months).  It is also feasible that basically participating in the examine may possibly have contributed to a adjust in utilization (the Hawthorne impact at operate).  Each choices were  acknowledged by Quade.

Nonetheless, the energetic group nevertheless exhibited a dramatic cost savings (~$ 400 per patient) linked with decreased utilization in contrast to the management group, in spite of the lack of significant adjustments in asthma handle as measured by ACT scores.  This presents a actual puzzle.

Some, such as wellness guru Al Lewis (author of Why No person Believes The Numbers, and much more just lately, Surviving Workplace Wellness) appear at these outcomes incredulously.

“Their personal numbers do not add up,” he asserts in an e mail.  “First, they say it’s not statistically a considerable difference.”

“Even if it had been significant,” Lewis continues, the difference reported on the ACT “is one thing like two.2% improvement in the score.  Then, they claim an inpatient reduction of 62%. This violates a number of of the guidelines in Why No person Believes.  First, costs can not decline that significantly and 2nd, the price reduction has to tie to the quality improvement.”

An alternative explanation, even so, is that there are improvements in care not reflected in the ACT measure for instance, if the intervention does not prevent exacerbation but catches them early ample to allow them to be managed as an outpatient rather than an inpatient, this could theoretically conserve substantial bucks, nevertheless be challenging to select up on the ACT.

This review highlights the difficulties of rigorously demonstrating the benefit of a digital well being intervention that appears to make a globe of sense.  It seems logical, even evident, that improved monitoring of rescue inhaler use, coupled with improved, fast communication with individuals and companies would enhance disease management.  As examine principal investigator Rajan Merchant points out, it enables the care of asthma sufferers to transition from episodic to steady – a single of the key ambitions of digital overall health.

I look forward to examining a peer-reviewed publication when the examine is finished later on this 12 months, and all data are go through out.  My suspicion is that there may ultimately be a price-savings attained (vs the handle group), and perhaps ultimately a modest improvement in asthma manage.   Whether this economically justifies the use of the intervention will need to have to be determined, given the expense of the units and software, and the further supplier time potentially needed.

Two Examples Highlight Difficulties Of Demonstrating The Advantage Of Digital Health Technologies