Playing Hardball

As for the "McLibel" case, I think both parties are at fault and just kind of ridiculous. I think it was a little wrong for private citizens to be printing materials against a whole company because likely they are very bias and their are falsehoods in what they are printing up for people. Also, I think it is ridiculous to claim that it is a fast food restaurants fault for "tempting customers with food too high in fat, sugar and salt...." It is not the job of a restaurant necessarily to keep in mind the health of the customer. People should have the choice to eat unhealthy food. Although in general I agree with a trans fat ban, I also see why is it a person's choice to eat unhealthy food and McDonalds is a business not everyone's parent and doctor. On the other hand, McDonalds was completely ridiculous by sueing over this. There is no way this small pamplet was going to bring their company down and it was just a waste of money on both sides. I understand if it had been just completely innaccurate (the pamphlet) but since it had accuracies they shouldn't have gone out and sued. They could have tried to counteract the claims in better, more productive and less embarassing ways.

I honesty am a little appalled that the NRDC jumped on such a claim from an animal study and put it out like it was a fact. Having learned a lot about trials and chemicals with animals, they give animals excessive, unnaturally large doses in order to induce an effect. There are alot of ways that animal studies do not match up to human results. Although I think pesticides and herbicides are bad and we should pursue more sustainable methods, I think that the NRDC should look into things more before they become alarmist. No child is drinking enough apple juice to give them cancer and there are much more things to worry about that are more important, like a healthy diet overall and exercising. However with the Oprah thing, it is just true that they feel ground up cattle, they may not have mad cow disease and I"m sure if they knew they did they might not use the cows, but that is a fact that they feed other cows. I think that it was ok for Oprah to talk about this and it is just her choice to not eat ground beef if she thinks its gross. Unfortunately since she is so influential, more people hear it, but thats the nature of celebrities making comments. They should be care though before they do it because they are so influential and they should make sure they really have all the facts.

However, if these reporters and citizens did not commit libel or whatever, we might not have any information about bad practices so I guess it is good that they take the risk to get out information, as long as it is accurate and not too alarmist in nature.

I had no idea that price fixing was going on, I remember learning about it in economics in high school but I never really thought about it after that. In my opinion companies should have to compete for business, that is the essence of our economy to me. I understand how formulas cannot be very different for each other and price fixing helps to ensure they make money but it makes me feel a bit indignant that companies could be forcing up prices higher than they should be. Although I doubt consumers would care so much if they somehow price fixed down....

Working the System

I don't understand why Congress is allowed to take gifts and regulatory officials are not. It seems to be that no one should be allowed to take gifts. Congress is very influential too, alongside regulatory officials and it just seems like a weird system to me. It's a little unnerving to see how easy it was to influence an official, I am unsure how representative Mr. Espy's case is of all officials, I feel like she could have just focused on this one because it was particularly unsettling.

I don't know how I feel about the check-offs. I don't know what the author expects these companies to do though, they are businesses who obviously want to promote their products and our economic is capitalistic so what else could a business be expected to do? I suppose it would be better if government and business were separated more, I just don't know how that would come about, especially in times like these when the economy is hard and the government might have to help out businesses. It is weird to me that different commodities feel the need to compete with each other, like beef vs dairy, since they are really different and could both be construed as part of a varied, healthy diet. Its just such a conflict of interest between food industry and the USDA, I cannot even begin to fathom how to reconcile it.

I do agree with the underlying premises regarding breastfeeding as superior to infant formula. I definitely disagree with heavy formula advertising, especially in developing countries where it is vital that babies receive the immunological and health benefits of breast milk. There is just too much to worry about in developing nations with using formula. I do think the quote Nestle uses about "deliberate infanticide" is completely over the top though. I get pretty appalled when I see formula adds suggesting that its as good as breastmilk and then say in really tiny print that breastmilk is best. It's pretty unsettling how much effort Nestle went to to try to convince people that a fact that is so clearly wrong is right. However, I do not agree with the idea that some people posited in one of my classes that their should be no formula advertised or given out. Some women simply just cannot afford the implements or have the time to spend breastfeeding for 6 mos to a year like advised. Especially poor women. Yes it is true that everyone can usually breastfeed but that doesn't mean that its a very viable option for them, and formula is better than nothing. Its wrong in my opinion to chastise a mother too much about not breastfeeding, especially because if she is having trouble with it and the baby is not thriving, stress about it can make the feeding even harder. So I think formula does have its place, but not in developing countries.

Co-opting Nutrition Professionals

I found this chapter to be very interesting. I was reading through the ADA Journal that I received recently in the mail and I noticed a huge insert from soy producers talking about their product. This is what I was reminded of while reading Nestles section on Journals and advertising/ monetary contributions. I also noticed other food related ads in the journal, which I remember being surprised about. This also reminded me of how many brochures on the importance of breastfeeding are produced by formula companies. Seems a little contradictory...

I am completely astounded by how entrenched business is within the nutritional science world. I did not know that the FNB is sponsored by food industry; I was so surprised. Also, the section on conflicts of interest is scary. Research is what we often look to to make decisions and if the validity of the results is being compromised more or less over monetary interest then our decisions will be based on inaccuracies. This could be hurtful to us, both health wise and money wise. Her list of studies that were sponsored by food industry and just happened (likely not coincidental) to have favorable outcomes for the company was really interesting to see and made me realize the importance of finding out about sponsors when reading and evaluating studies. I also had NO idea that companies could enter partnerships with universities and effectively control the research. It seems like scientific integrity is really being compromised all over the place in the nutrition field, how are we supposed to get accurate information to make solid, informed decisions?