In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Technology and Culture 44.4 (2003) 839-841



[Access article in PDF]
Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. By Marion Nestle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Pp. xii+457. $29.95.

Food Politics is a well-researched, thoughtful, and angry book. Marion Nestle has analyzed the technological marvels of fast food, junk food, and variously "processed" food. The book illustrates the power of the food industry, a power gained through manipulation of governmental regulatory agencies, the legal system, research strategies, and the press. Nestle is not surprised by the industry's passion for expanding its markets, especially since firms "place [the] needs of stockholders over considerations of public [End Page 839] health" (p. viii). She is, however, anxious about the effects of this on the nation's health.

The rise in obesity, coronary heart disease, some cancers, stroke, diabetes, and hypertension are all connected to our modern diet. The food industry produces nearly twice what is needed to feed the entire U.S. population, even after exports. Therefore, companies need to persuade consumers to buy (and eat) their products, rather than those of their competitors, and to buy (and eat) more. Persuasion can be direct, through advertising, or it can be indirect. Companies exploit educational media to portray their products as healthful components of the U.S. diet, and they persuade government regulators about the alleged nutritional value of their products. None of this is necessarily illegal, which is probably why it is virtually invisible. Nestle's book analyzes the tactics of the processed food industry in order to enable policymakers and consumers to judge for themselves the ways in which our diet has been and is being manipulated for profit, not health.

Nestle is most eloquent in her analyses of the relationship between government and industry. One of her early examples comes from the report titled Dietary Goals for the United States, originally released by Senator George McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in January 1977. Due to opposition from the food industry, it was revised and rereleased later that year. Though the revision gave added urgency to recommendations about alcohol and obesity, it also made definite concessions to the industry, in one case rewriting the phrase "reduce consumption of meat" to read "choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake."

Such advice by indirection has continued in federal reports to this day. Nestle's chapter on olestra, the highly publicized fat substitute from Procter and Gamble (P&G), reveals how the government-industry relationship shapes product development and marketing. Olestra was accidentally discovered in 1968; in 1971, P&G asked the Food and Drug Administration to approve the product as a food additive. Later the company petitioned for approval of olestra as a drug, based on its purported ability to lower blood cholesterol. Then there were new studies, and P&G modified its proposals several more times. The FDA asked for more research; consumer advocacy groups raised objections. But once the FDA approved olestra, albeit with warning labels, major advertising campaigns were launched and P&G curried favor with health professionals through grants, conferences, sponsorship of professional journals, and the recruitment of paid consultants, not all of whom revealed their connections with the company.

Nestle concludes that "the primary beneficiaries of techno-foods are most likely to be the companies that make them. The degree of benefit to the public is much less certain, and the potential for harm . . . is not insignificant and should concern all of us" (p. 357).

Currently chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at [End Page 840] New York University, Nestle draws on her experiences with the Public Health Service and on numerous governmental panels as well as cogent analysis of government and industry reports, media coverage of the food industry, and relationships with various producers. She has given us a work of scholarship but also of advocacy. She concludes that health-care professionals and concerned citizens need to learn from the experience with the tobacco industry how to...

pdf

Share