The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

Abstract

Context:In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the "Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public's health was the industry's concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives. In the hope that the food history will be written differently, this article both highlights important lessons that can be learned from the tobacco experience and recommends actions for the food industry. Methods:A review and analysis of empirical and historical evidence pertaining to tobacco and food industry practices, messages, and strategies to influence public opinion, legislation and regulation, litigation, and the conduct of science. Findings:The tobacco industry had a playbook, a script, that emphasized personal responsibility, paying scientists who delivered research that instilled doubt, criticizing the "junk" science that found harms associated with smoking, making self-regulatory pledges, lobbying with massive resources to stifle government action, introducing "safer" products, and simultaneously manipulating and denying both the addictive nature of their products and their marketing to children. The script of the food industry is both similar to and different from the tobacco industry script. Conclusions:Food is obviously different from tobacco, and the food industry differs from tobacco companies in important ways, but there also are significant similarities in the actions that these industries have taken in response to concern that their products cause harm. Because obesity is now a major global problem,

Translating active living research into policy and practice: One important pathway to chronic disease prevention

“…As part of a strategy to reduce pressure on food companies to change their practices, many in the food industry have attempted to overemphasize the role of physical inactivity in the obesity epidemic. 2 Such industry tactics should not deter public health efforts to promote physical activity.…”

Governing through choice: Food labels and the confluence of food industry and public health discourse to create ‘healthy consumers’

“…Silverglade and Heller argue that FOP labels can provide '[a]ccurate, easy-to-read, and scientifically valid nutrition and health information' and are an 'essential component of a comprehensive public health strategy to help consumers improve their diets and reduce their risk of diet-related diseases' (2010, p. i). However, food industry representatives argue that regulated FOP labels are an unnecessary intrusion into the market and undermine their control of products (Brownell and Warner, 2009;Peacock, 2011).…”

“…A number of commentators suggest that the 'market success' of cheap processed food has led to the 'public health disaster' of an increase in incidence of heart disease and type 2 diabetes (Popkin and Nielsen, 2003;Brownell, 2004;Drewnowski, 2004;Patel, 2009). Public health advocates argue that elected officials and government departments need to intervene in the market to prevent obesity and diet-related diseases (Brownell and Warner, 2009;Baum, 2011;Mayor, 2011;Stuckler and Nestle, 2012). However, direct government interventions such as those in Denmark or New York betray neoliberal ideas of free markets, free choice and personal responsibility (Mares, 2011;Secretary of State for Health, 2010).…”

The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes: lessons learned and implications for the regulation of marketing of foods and beverages to children

“…While experts have drawn parallels between efforts to restrict marketing of foods and beverages to children and those of tobacco control (4) , the author is unaware of similar research comparing restrictions on marketing of foods and beverages to children with regulation on marketing of breast-milk substitutes. Thirty years of experience implementing the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes ('the Code') (5) provides lessons for strategy and policy that are likely to be relevant to such regulations.…”