汤头条原创

Image of A picture of supermarket shelves
Photo: https://unsplash.com/photos/KfvknMhkmw0

Food and drinks industry uses non-profit organisation to campaign against public health policies, study finds

A new study, led by Senior Research Associate Dr Sarah Steele, shows how a non-profit research organisation has been deployed by its backers from major food and beverage corporations to push industry-favourable positions to policymakers and international bodies under the guise of neutral scientific endeavour.

"We contend that the International Life Sciences Institute should be regarded as an industry group 鈥 a private body 鈥 and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good."

- Sarah Steele

The , published today in the journal Globalization and Health, analysed over 17,000 pages of emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests made between 2015 and 2018. The documents captured exchanges between academics at US universities and senior figures at a non-profit organisation called the International Life Science Institute, or ILSI.

Comprising of 18 bodies, each of which covers a specific topic or part of the globe, ILSI has always maintained its independence and scientific rigour, despite being funded by multinational corporations such as Nestle, General Mills, Mars Inc, Monsanto, and Coca-Cola.

Founded by former Coca-Cola senior vice president Alex Malaspina in 1978, ILSI states on its website that none of its bodies 鈥渃onduct lobbying activities or make policy recommendations鈥. As a non-profit organisation, ILSI is currently exempt from taxation under US Internal Revenue codes. 

However, researchers from the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Bocconi, and US Right to Know, found emails explicitly discussing tactics for countering public health policies around sugar reduction, as 鈥淸T]his threat to our business is serious鈥. 

These include exchanges with an epidemiology professor at the University of Washington, as well as the US Centre for Disease Control鈥檚 then director of heart disease and stroke prevention, all strategising how best to approach the World Health Organisation鈥檚 then Director-General Dr Margaret Chan, to shift her position on sugar-sweetened products.

鈥淚t has been previously suggested that the International Life Sciences Institute is little more than a pseudo-scientific front group for some of the biggest multinational food and drink corporations globally,鈥 said the study lead author Dr Sarah Steele, a researcher at Cambridge鈥檚 Department of Politics and International Studies. 

鈥淥ur findings add to the evidence that this non-profit organisation has been used by its corporate backers for years to counter public health policies. We contend that the International Life Sciences Institute should be regarded as an industry group 鈥 a private body 鈥 and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good.鈥

In one email, Malaspina, who also served as long-time president at ILSI, described new US guidelines bolstering child and adult education on limiting sugar intake as a 鈥渞eal disaster!鈥. He writes: 鈥淲e have to consider how to become ready to mount a strong defence鈥. Suzanne Harris, then executive director of ILSI, was among the email鈥檚 recipients.

James Hill, then director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado, was involved in a separate exchange on the issue of defending industry from the health consequences of its products. Hill argues for greater funding for ILSI from industry as part of 鈥渄ealing aggressively with this issue鈥. He writes that, if companies keep their heads down, 鈥渙ur opponents will win and we will all lose鈥.  

The FOI emails also suggest ILSI constructs campaigns favourable to artificial sweeteners. Emails reveal Malaspina passing on praise from another former ILSI President to a former Coca-Cola employee and the Professor, describing both as 鈥渢he architects to plan and execute the studies showing saccharine is not a carcinogen鈥, resulting in the reversal of many government bans.

The FOI responses suggest that ILSI operates strategically with other industry-funded entities, including IFIC, a science communication non-profit organisation. 鈥淚FIC is a kind of sister entity to ILSI,鈥 writes Malaspina. 鈥淚LSI generates the scientific facts and IFIC communicates them to the media and public.鈥

鈥淭he emails suggest that both ILSI and IFIC act to counter unfavourable policies and positions, while promoting industry-favourable science under a disguised front, including to the media,鈥 said Steele.

In fact, the emails suggest ILSI considers sanctioning its own regional subsidiaries when they fail to promote the agreed industry-favourable messaging. Correspondence reveals discussion of suspending ILSI鈥檚 Mexico branch from the parent organisation after soft drink taxation was debated at a conference it sponsored. Mexico has one of the highest adult obesity rates in the world.

Email conversations between Malaspina and the CDC鈥檚 Barbara Bowman are open about the need to get the WHO to 鈥渟tart working with ILSI again鈥 and to take into account 鈥渓ifestyle changes鈥 as well as sugary foods when combatting obesity.

Further exchanges between Malaspina and Washington Professor Adam Drewnowski support ILSI鈥檚 role in this. Drewnowski writes of Dr Chan that 鈥渨e ought to start with some issue where ILSI and WHO are in agreement鈥 to help 鈥済et her to the table鈥.

In a further email, Malaspina points out that he had meetings with the two previous heads of the WHO, going back to the mid-90s, and that if they do not start a dialogue with Dr Chan 鈥渟he will continue to blast us with significant negative consequences on a global basis鈥. 

The tide has begun to turn against ILSI in recent years. The WHO quietly ended their 鈥渟pecial relations鈥 with ILSI in 2017, and ILSI鈥檚 links to the European Food Safety Authority were the subject of enquiry at the European Parliament. The CDC鈥檚 Bowman retired in 2016, in the wake of revelations about her close ties with ILSI. Last year, long-time ILSI funder Mars Inc. stopped supporting the organisation. Much of the study鈥檚 correspondence precedes these events.

鈥淚t becomes clear from the emails and forwards that ILSI is seen as central to pushing pro-industry content to international organisations to support approaches that uncouple sugary foods and obesity,鈥 added Steele.

鈥淥ur analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies.鈥

Reference
. Globalization and Health; 3 June 2019; DOI: 10.1186/s12992-019-0478-6.

Dr Sarah Steele is a policy researcher from Cambridge's Department of Politics and International Studies, the Deputy Director of 汤头条原创's Intellectual Forum, and a Senior Research Associate at the College. This article was originally published on .