The journal PLoS Medicine has begun to publish a series of articles – “a multidisciplinary approach to exploring the role in health of Big Food, which we define as the multinational food and beverage industry with huge and concentrated market power.” Excerpt of an editors’ note:
Original image by Todd Hryckowian at flickr.com, with enhancements by Lizzy Parisotto, PLoS.
“The time is ripe for PLoS Medicine to shine a light on Big Food. Foremost, large food and beverage companies now have an undeniably influential presence on the global health stage. Whether it’s food company executives providing expertise at major conferences and high-level UN meetings or major global health funders lecturing on what nongovernmental organizations can learn from Coca-Cola, the perspectives and experiences of Big Food are shaping the field of global health. At the same time that their expertise is elevated in global health debates, food companies are rebranding themselves as “nutrition companies,” offering business acumen and knowledge in food science and distribution, and asserting authority over solutions to problems not just of food production but of malnutrition, obesity, and even poverty. The legitimization of food companies as global health experts is further fueled by the growing number of private-public partnerships with public health organizations, ostensibly designed to foster collaborative action to improve people’s health and wellbeing. And yet food companies’ primary obligation is to drive profit by selling food. Why does the global health community find this acceptable and how do these conflicts of interest play out?
Indeed, while problems of obesity and associated disease are dominating discussions and debates in health around the world, there’s a concomitant gulf of critical perspectives on the food industry’s role and competing interests. Despite PLoS Medicine‘s longstanding interest in the tobacco, pharmaceutical, and other industries in health, for example, we have paid relatively little attention to the activities and influence of food and beverage companies.”
Here are links to two pieces:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
In researching this @bopinon column on medical misinformation, I reached @garyschwitzer who said the information pollution problem goes back to the 1980s, when PR people started tempting reporters with easy, uplifting, prepackaged hype.
https://t.co/ch8rz2MqY4
https://t.co/4AeZZXNhiE
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
mary
June 22, 2012 at 7:20 pmGreat Read! We need to join together as ‘eaters’ and force more nutritous meals out of the big companies!
Ramachandran
June 22, 2012 at 11:34 pmEat to living; don’t live to eat
kala
June 25, 2012 at 3:27 pmConsider this blurb from the AARP Bulletin of May 30, 2012
Tax Attack:Is it time for a sugar tax?
Take a moment to consider this health care prescription from Adam Smith: “Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, [but] which are objects of almost universal consumption and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.” In the two centuries since, policy-makers have followed his advice — with one glaring exception: sugar.
Maybe this issue has finally reached the mainstream, as it should have done years ago.
kala
June 25, 2012 at 3:27 pmConsider this blurb from the AARP Bulletin of May 30, 2012
Tax Attack:Is it time for a sugar tax?
Take a moment to consider this health care prescription from Adam Smith: “Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, [but] which are objects of almost universal consumption and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.” In the two centuries since, policy-makers have followed his advice — with one glaring exception: sugar.
Maybe this issue has finally reached the mainstream, as it should have done years ago.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like