Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat

by Marion Nestle

A James Beard Award-winner and the author of What to Eat and Soda Politics , leading nutritionist Marion Nestle exposes how the food industry corrupts scientific research for profit.

Is chocolate heart-healthy? Does yogurt prevent type 2 diabetes? Do pomegranates help cheat death? News accounts bombard us with such amazing claims, report them as science, and influence what we eat. Yet, as Marion Nestle explains, these studies are more about marketing than science; they are often paid for by companies that sell those foods. Whether it's a Coca-Cola-backed study hailing light exercise as a calorie neutralizer, or blueberry-sponsored investigators proclaiming that this fruit prevents erectile dysfunction, every corner of the food industry knows how to turn conflicted research into big profit. As Nestle argues, it's time to put public health first. Written with unmatched rigor and insight, Unsavory Truth reveals how the food industry manipulates nutrition science -- and suggests what we can do about it.

Genres: Nonfiction, Food, Science, Nutrition, Health, Politics, Audiobook

320 pages, Hardcover

First published October 30, 2018

About the author

Marion Nestle, Ph.D, M.P.H., is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is also a professor of Sociology at NYU and a visiting professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University.

Nestle received her BA from UC Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa, after attending school there from 1954-1959. Her degrees include a Ph.D in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition, both from the University of California, Berkeley.

Reviews

[Bam cooks the books · Rating 3 out of 5]

*3-3.5 stars. A very well-researched, documented and presented discussion of how the food industry influences nutritional studies. It is perhaps geared more towards scientists, college professors, dietitians and nutritionists, meaning it's a tough read for someone like me, just a reader who is interested in healthy eating and trying to decipher what the latest studies mean.

Have you ever felt confused by food studies with conflicting advice? One study might say 'Limit what you eat of this!' and the next will say 'Eat all you want! You just need to exercise more!' Most of us throw up our hands and just eat what we want.

The reasons for these conflicting results could be because of just who funded the study. Follow the money. Shocking, right?

"Unsavory Truth is about the conflicts of interest induced by food industry interactions with nutrition professionals and the systemic effects of this conflict on public policy and public health."

"The real question here is how you--as a reader, eater, and citizen--can recognize and protect yourself against the onslaught of misleading information and advice that results from food-industry manipulation of nutrition research and practice."

"As citizens, we have the right to demand that government agencies dealing with food and nutrition matters put public health first."

And that last quote is the reason I think this book is an important read--to educate oneself about who influences research and studies and then analyze what we are being told. While reading this book, I heard a news report that the dairy association is concerned that children are drinking less milk in schools and they recommend that chocolate milk be provided again. Is this good for the children or good for the milk suppliers?

I received an arc of this book from the publisher via NetGalley for an honest review. I am grateful for the opportunity.

[Quintin Zimmermann · Rating 3 out of 5]

The aptly named Unsavory Truth is an exhaustive account of the pervasive influence of the food industry, more particularly their monetary largesse, upon nutritional science and research.

The simple truth in a nutshell (pun intended) is that there is no such thing as superfoods, sugar is bad and plants are good. Yet, the food industry spends millions of dollars telling us otherwise.

They have borrowed the same playbook that was first established by the tobacco companies, with strategies of casting doubt on the science and promoting the virtues of self-regulation and personal responsibility.

For me personally, I have no issue with our freedom to choose the crap we put into our bodies, but don't, please don't lie to me and try to fool me into believing it's good for me. Set the truth as free as our own personal choices.

We are faced with the mutually exclusive aims of nutrition education versus the aims of the food industry. One seeks to promote public awareness of healthy food choices,  whilst the other seeks promote food purchases for the most profitable outcome.

Marion Nestle is a wonderful, strong woman fighting the good fight, armed with the truth and not being shy to shine the light on falsehood. However, Unsavory Truth, as illuminating as it is, can be very dry and replete with organisational acronyms that span the alphabet. Yes, the devil is in the detail, but there is such a thing as too much detail.

Unsavory Truth is an unapologetic examination of the food industry, but it is a heavy read for the average reader.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It can be difficult to differentiate between scientific research and marketing research when it comes to information on the food that we eat. Nutritionist Nestle, of no relation to the food company of the same name, goes into great detail about how corporate interests influence nutrition science, especially as reported to consumers. I would recommend nutritionists, journalists, and those with an interest in research science to read the whole book in detail. The average consumer would probably get too bogged down in the detail of this book but can take away the following main points:

• Always look for who funded any research about food. If not mentioned, ask.
• Pay attention to wording. “Might” means just as likely to be “might not”.
• If it sounds good to be true, it probably is (especially if it highlights one specific food; there are no superfoods)
• Best nutritional advice: eat a wide variety of relatively unprocessed foods in reasonable amounts

After reading this book, I will be more skeptical about the food and other types of research I hear about. For instance, I never considered that corporate interests would fund other causes of a problem that do not involve their product. For instance, big sugar gives money to research on plaque and tooth care to move focus from the effects of sugar on teeth while soda companies fund research on how physical activity is more important for avoiding obesity than food choices. Without a big pool of funds for unbiased research, we don’t have an avenue for pure scientific research. Take all scientific news with a a grain of salt.

Thanks to NetGalley, Perseus Books, and the author Marion Nestle for an advanced electronic review copy.

[Mystereity Reviews · Rating 5 out of 5]

I requested Unsavory Truth by Marion Nestle from Netgalley because I was interested in learning more about just how the unsuspecting and trusting public is being manipulated by companies. I've known for years how news articles about health have been manipulated, ever since an article I read years ago about how doctors who ate nuts were healthier than those who didn't. The last paragraph in the article mentioned that the study was sponsored by The Nut Growers Association. Hmmm.

I had to read this book in fits and starts because it was rage inducing! The book was fascinating, unsurprising (because I'm a cynical grump) and infuriating! As I got into the book, the author discusses how the strawberry industry was actively seeking studies linking their product to good health and realized I had just seen a headline about how strawberries are good for digestive health. Ugh.

This book tackles the myths with the hard truth behind all the hyperbole and psuedo-science thrown at us every day in the news. From scientists' bias, whether conscious or sub-conscious to active marketing of these biased findings to the public. So maddening! At this point, they could try to sell me a study about how the sky is blue and I still wouldn't believe it.

This was an excellent read, and one I've already recommended to several people and will continue to do so. It's an important tool against this bad "science" they're peddling and will only be of benefit in the long run.

[Kara Babcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been intrigued by food science for a while. We have all at one point or another tried some kind of fad, whether it’s a specific diet or overloading on a superfood or something like that, I’m sure. Some of us fall harder than others. The more I tried to research and understand nutrition and food science for myself, the more I realized that a lot of food science is junk science. I wanted to know why, and that led me to the two realities that Marion Nestle confronts in Unsavory Truth. So picking up her book for more details on these issues with food science was a no-brainer!

Nestle takes us through several examples of ways in which food companies skew the science, as the subtitle says. This book is a mixture of topics. She gives us some history lessons on how nutrition and food science departments came about in the United States after food companies shuttered their own research wings. Similarly, she traces the development of important industry lobbyist groups and how these interact with government departments like the Food and Drug Administration. Nestle also tries to point out the accurate science where she can, reminding us that a lot of the science is complex and it’s not so much that we don’t know anything about nutrition (I hope my mention of junk science in the first paragraph didn’t give this impression) but rather, food companies are always interested in simplifying and removing nuances because they care more about marketing than health. Finally, Nestle rigorously explores how we might fund nutritional research if we don’t want to be beholden to industry funds and the biases that accompany them.

From this book and others, I’ve come to understand why food science is difficult even without industry funding bias. Basically, you can’t run the same kinds of clinical trials in food science that you would in other scientific disciplines, because—believe it or not—it’s unethical to do things that might starve or malnourish a human being or potentially cause a disease like cancer. So experiments in food science are very difficult, and as Nestle explains, most of what we know about nutrition comes instead from qualitative observations that are subject to error bars relating to participants’ lifestyles, genetics, etc.

Probably the most useful “truth” that Nestle reminds us of is that it is never about one particular food or nutrient. All those commercials when I was a kid about eating eggs for “omega-3 fatty acids”? All the hype about why it’s fat or sugar or carbs that are bad for you this week? That’s marketing. Really, the best thing we can do for our bodies is to practise moderation. Nestle acknowledges that some substances (like processed sugars) are objectively harmful, but she isn’t here to preach a sugar-less diet. Instead, she just points out that if we are indeed mature, responsible adults, we should be able to balance our food intake accordingly. I kind of wish she had mentioned that this is often a problem for low-income households, where there is probably less of a choice between processed foods and more “natural” products.

So, overall, Nestle does a good job elucidating the essential conflict of interest between food companies and food/nutrition science. Food companies want to sell their product, so naturally they want research that supports recommendations favourable to their product. In contrast, nutrition science is more about building a body of knowledge that allows us to give advice to people about how to ensure they have a healthy body. Given this conflict of interest, Nestle explains that when a food company offers funding for a specific study, that introduces the potential for bias. She spends a lot of time explaining this, adding that many scientists refuse to accept the potential for bias exists, which frankly boggles my mind.

From there, Nestle explores other ways that food companies influence the research. These parts of the book get somewhat technical and are very U.S.-centric. That doesn’t make them irrelevant to other countries—Canada definitely has similar issues, particularly with our dairy lobbyists, and in general the U.S. sets a tone for a lot of the world. However, if you’re not really involved in this sector, some of the details that Nestle recounts will feel extraneous or more than you bargained for. Indeed, my main issue with the way the book is written and edited would be that it feels, in some places, repetitive. I understand wanting to build an exhaustive body of evidence to support your claim, but after a while, all the discussions of arm’s length groups, foundations, checkoff programs, etc., just kind of blurred together in my head.

This was an informative book, and if you are interested more in policy around food and nutrition research, I’d recommend it. If you’re interested more in the science behind food and nutrition, you might not find what you are looking for here.

Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.

[David Wineberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conflict of Interest as a career

If you have followed Marion Nestle’s books as I have, you will note not so much a progression, as a regression. They started with the nutritional value of foods in the body, worked their way back to manufacturing and chemicals, and now with Unsavory Truth, there is almost nothing about food at all - just money. It’s as American as – individual apple pie in a cardboard sleeve.

The issue is the discipline of nutrition. It is decades behind other sciences in recognizing that money corrupts. They’ve only just begun arguing about it, as they are absolutely inundated with cash, gifts and samples to help sell pretend food. Just like doctors with pharmaceuticals. Netsle opens with the real foundation of the issue: the slightest gift influences the recipient. Those pens and umbrellas and freezer bags and coffee mugs, all serve to make the recipient feel indebted. They make them remember the donor’s company when it is time to buy, recommend or prescribe. It works. Beautifully. Or they wouldn’t do it.

The recipients whine and complain they aren’t that gullible or stupid. But they are. Worse, medical practitioners claim they are actually entitled to the gifts because of all the hard work and expense they went thorough to get to where they are. So bring on the junkets, the conferences in resorts around the world and all expenses paid plus honoraria. They earned it all! There’s an entire chapter just on Coca-Cola’s masterful efforts. She also includes a delightful cartoon – a bingo card one of her colleagues created, with a box for every moronic excuse why researchers can and should accept corporate money.

And it has been going on for so long, it is an accepted part of the culture. “The link between drug industry gifts and prescription practices is so firmly established that it is considered beyond debate,” she says. They live a career of conflict of interest. And so does nutrition.

Possibly the most important new bit of information in the book is what Nestle calls nutrifluff. Any study that claims one single food or additive improves health, prevents disease or provides all the nutrition you need – is nutrifluff. Those news releases come out all the time. Reporters take them at face value. But the world, nutrition, and science don’t work that way. Taking one element out of context is a scientific absurdity. Similarly, there is no such thing as a “superfood”. Foods work in combination. They each contribute in their own way. Alone, they can’t do the job. And none is endowed with special powers.


Companies are forever funding studies to prove their product performs exactly that way. Industry and foundations account for 70% of food-related research. NutraSweet funded 74 studies, all of which found it safe. In 94 other studies, 90% (84) questioned its safety. Since studies without corporate backing are becoming an endangered species, all studies should be read with a cynical eye. But they should actually be read, Nestle says, because the truth is often easy to see, and it doesn’t appear in the news release or the news report.

There are exceptions to the corporate study plague. The honey industry paid for a study to show that honey is healthier than high fructose corn syrup. It isn’t. It turns out that honey has about the same levels of fructose, and therefore all the problems of fructose. That the study was published at all is a small miracle.

Some frauds are easy to spot. Fifth Quarter Fresh brand chocolate milk claimed it alleviates symptoms of concussion in high school football players. It had the study to “prove” it. And it got school districts to switch to its products on that basis.

Nutritionists want to know what are the real of effects of various additives. ”We would find out a lot sooner if trade association agendas were not involved,” Nestle says. All the studies to prove chocolate is a beneficial supplement to any diet, diverts scarce research resources from more worthwhile studies, she adds.

At bottom, the industry uses the playbook devised by Big Tobacco. It is, as everyone now knows, a combination of diversion, selective use of data, obfuscation, flooding the market with sponsored “research”, quoting out of context and out and out lies. Later, the industry learned to create “grassroots” groups, fake associations of consumers demanding the freedom to consume at will. Apparently, you can get four or five decades of obscene profits using those tactics, while customers become ill and die by the millions. Whatever works.

What all this leads to is somewhere Nestle won’t go. She recommends consumers call food producers and demand to know where the money goes, and that companies pool donations in blind trusts to be doled out to worthy studies. But she acknowledges this is a longstanding disaster, the result of the takeover of the government by huge corporations. It is capitalism that is the problem. Giving the FDA, the EPA and other agencies the ability to force disclosure, retract false claims, prevent false advertising and fund research without strings would go most of the way to solving Nestle’s issues.

Not happening. The best we can hope for is being informed. Unsavory Truth meets that requirement.

David Wineberg

[Nina · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Unsavory Truth" covers the growing problem of industry sponsorship in nutrition research. Every food company wants to claim that their product is a "miracle" or "superfood," but as Nestle argues, that is never the case. What goes on behind the scenes is food companies paying researchers -- university or independent -- to examine the claims that their product will provide x benefit. The studies seem trustworthy enough, but if you read between the lines, you see the reciprocity principle, the pointed questions, and the more positive interpretations of the results in each of these reviews.
This book was eye-opening. I feel that I have had a healthy distrust for the claims food companies make in my teenage and adult life thus far, but a lot of topics that Nestle discussed had never occurred to me. I did not realize just how many ways food companies twisted results, or even premises, of studies in order to claim that their products are better than anything else out there.
Though the information provided was thoroughly researched and eye-opening, the style in which this book was written brought down my rating in the end. Firstly and most prominently, I felt that Nestle seemed to write herself in a circle, repeating the same arguments multiple times on different topics (such as symposiums, specific companies, and nutrition journal practices). To me, the book could have been half this length and still have contained the same volume of information, just by cutting out the same points Nestle made again and again.
Additionally, more than once I felt that Nestle was trying to jump into her own narrative and clear her own name, though no one was doubting it in the first place. I noticed she would mention the follies of other researchers in regard to industry support, but would often include a sentence about how she would not make the same mistakes, that she contributed industry-gifted money to her college's nutrition program, etc. It distracted from the story and felt unnecessary and even self-centered. A bit of personal background and practices may have been useful to contribute, but no one is accusing Nestle of anything, yet she seems to perceive it as so.
Overall, I give this book 2.5 stars. I felt that it had strong evidence of food companies meddling in research and consumer opinion, but the writing style was weak and repetitive. In my opinion, what this book really needs is a tough editor to cut out all the "noise" and repetition and let the core of Nestle's argument shine the way she clearly intended it to.

[Barbara Maidel · Rating 4 out of 5]

VIESES E LOBBIES NA CIÊNCIA DA ALIMENTAÇÃO

Conheci Marion Nestle por meio do livro Sal, açúcar, gordura, de Michael Moss, que li em 2015. Apesar de ter má vontade com nutricionistas, classe obcecada com nutrientes e calorias — prefiro abordagens práticas e simples sobre alimentação como aquelas feitas pelo jornalista Michael Pollan —, simpatizei com Nestle e seu ativismo contra os lobbies da indústria alimentícia. Este Uma verdade indigesta trata disso e vai além, alcançando a infiltração das grandes marcas e associações em pesquisas de valor científico.

Nestle (que não tem parentesco com a família Nestlé, e cujo sobrenome se pronuncia mais ou menos [néssãl]) mostra como a indústria financia cientistas que, comprometidos e muitas vezes partindo duma hipótese já enviesada, passam a ajudá-la no próprio marketing, mas chamando o que fazem de ciência. A mesma pressão é feita pra passar interesses no Congresso dos Estados Unidos — país a que a autora dedica grande parte das suas investigações —, e quem viu a série documental Rotten (2018-2019), em 12 episódios e produzida pela Netflix, sabe que o “país do livre mercado” é altamente corrupto quando se trata de atender aos lobbies da indústria alimentícia — imagine o volume de maracutaia que ocorre noutros ramos mercadológicos. Todo esse esforço interesseiro vale pra marcas de produtos ultraprocessados que tentam se vender como melhores pro coração, pro controle do peso, pra disposição infantil, mas também abarca grandes comerciantes de commodities naturais, como nozes-pecã e ovos. Neste trecho podemos ler sobre a obsessão do Conselho Americano do Ovo sobre uma marca de maionese que não levava ovos:

[…] em 2015, a Associated Press usou a lei para obter os e-mails de um checkoff — o Conselho Americano do Ovo. As mensagens mostraram que o grupo estava engajado em uma campanha coordenada e bem financiada para minar o crescimento da Hampton Creek, empresa que fabricava o substituto de maionese sem ovos Just Mayo. A leitura era de que a ameaça do Just Mayo à venda de ovos havia chegado a um ponto crítico. O Conselho Americano do Ovo tentou impedir que o Whole Foods Market, maior comercializador de orgânicos dos Estados Unidos, vendesse o Just Mayo; pressionou a Unilever a opor-se à Hampton Creek; induziu a FDA a averiguar a rotulagem do produto; ameaçou o CEO; pagou blogueiros para desacreditar a empresa; e recrutou uma firma de gestão de crises para fazer uma campanha contrária.

No caso dos alimentos saudáveis — como a noz-pecã — representados por gente que tem interesse na ascensão deles no mercado, o marketing se torna pesado no sentido de transformá-los em superalimentos, cheios de benefícios que os diferenciariam de outros alimentos também saudáveis. Propagandas sobre os milagres de comer uma maçã por dia ou está provado: a quinoa é um alimento completo, desconsiderando o contexto duma alimentação saudável, podem partir de pesquisas científicas que foram financiadas por produtores de maçãs ou comerciantes de quinoa.

Um dia Nestle recebeu uma carta de Matt Tupper, presidente da POM Wonderful, que produz suco de romã e suplementos:

Tupper escreveu que admirava meu trabalho, mas tinha ficado desapontado por ler uma citação minha em um artigo, dizendo que “a romã não é melhor do que qualquer outra fruta. É apenas brilhantemente comercializada. Gaste vinte milhões de dólares em pesquisa somente sobre uma determinada fruta. E você descobrirá que ela certamente proporciona benefícios milagrosos.” A carta de Tupper explicou que “a pesquisa médica financiada pela POM Wonderful não é simplesmente uma ferramenta para comercializar mais romã […] Em vez disso, o objetivo fundamental do programa de pesquisa da empresa é desenvolver uma compreensão cientificamente sólida sobre como e por que a romã impacta a saúde humana”. Tupper disse que a companhia acredita que a romã é superior a outras frutas e legumes porque só ela possui “uma infinidade de compostos antioxidantes potentes, e, portanto, está no topo da pirâmide nutricional”. Ah, sim, antioxidantes.

Esse “ah, sim, antioxidantes” finalizando o parágrafo está em consonância com a crítica de Nestle ao nutricionismo, que faz sobressair nutrientes específicos nas abordagens alimentares em vez de pensar em padrões mais amplos:

Desde 1980, o Guia Alimentar dos Estados Unidos tem recomendado sempre a ingestão de menos açúcar, embora com o objetivo principal de reduzir calorias “vazias” (sem nutrientes) ou evitar a cárie dentária. Somente em 2015, o documento indicou a ingestão de menos açúcar para redução do risco de doenças crônicas. No mesmo ano, a Organização Mundial de Saúde considerou que o ingrediente é um importante fator de risco para obesidade, diabetes tipo 2 e outras doenças crônicas. No que diz respeito à gordura saturada e ao açúcar, a recomendação dietética geral permanece praticamente a mesma desde 1980, mas as razões para a redução do consumo de açúcar aumentaram. Esse pode ser o motivo pelo qual o foco da mídia mudou. A revista Time disse que os cientistas estavam errados sobre a gordura e que “a manteiga está de volta”, e os jornalistas têm escrito livros argumentando que o açúcar causa doenças crônicas que vão de obesidade e diabetes tipo 2 a gota e demência.
As empresas alimentícias responderam a essas tendências, tentando remover o máximo de açúcar possível dos produtos — exemplo de “nutricionismo” em ação. Cunhado pelo sociólogo australiano Gyorgy Scrinis e popularizado por Michael Pollan, esse termo descreve o uso reducionista de nutrientes individuais ou componentes alimentares, em vez de olhar para padrões alimentares. Os açúcares e as gorduras saturadas são os marcadores dos padrões alimentares ocidentais associados a excesso de comida e peso, obesidade e doenças crônicas relacionadas. Quando as recomendações dietéticas se concentram em nutrientes ou alimentos isolados, as empresas alimentícias são beneficiadas — facilita o marketing.

*

Voltando ao financiamento da pesquisa alimentícia por empresas que têm interesse em resultados que as favoreçam, Nestle utiliza uma boa síntese feita por Joan Gussow no artigo “Who pays the piper?”, expressão em inglês que faz referência à primazia daquele que paga o flautista pra tocar. Diz Gussow:

“o objetivo final de qualquer empresa é vender produtos.”

No mesmo artigo, Gussow reagiu ao pedido das corporações pra que profissionais da nutrição parassem de vilanizar alimentos processados, salgadinhos e bebidas açucaradas, e passassem a fornecer informações nutricionais sobre esses alimentos a fim de que os consumidores “decidissem por si”:

“é claro que não há a mais remota possibilidade de que o consumidor médio — categoria que inclui crianças, analfabetos, incapazes de fazer equações e assim por diante — faça isso.”

Parece que o radical “as pessoas devem ter liberdade pra decidir sem que o Estado interfira em suas escolhas” pode virar mantra de empresários que temem perder mercado se o Estado regular os danos populacionais que promovem, e algumas vezes sobre populações que não têm competência informacional pra bem avaliar aquilo que as afeta.

*

Financiamentos comprometem pesquisadores, mesmo que eles se pensem imunes à orientação do dinheiro. Isso já é evidente na área médica — a indústria farmacêutica paga jantares, viagens, e “fornece” amostras grátis de remédios a médicos a fim de fidelizá-los, muitas vezes inconscientemente —, mas também aparece noutras áreas:

Sheldon Krimsky, professor da Universidade Tufts que estuda a manipulação da ciência pela indústria, afirma que esse “efeito de financiamento” foi descoberto em meados da década de 1980, quando cientistas sociais perceberam que, se soubessem quem pagou por um estudo, poderiam prever os resultados.

A crítica de se deixar financiar vale pra pesquisadores isolados, institutos de pesquisa e mesmo sociedades profissionais, tantas vezes patrocinadas por empresas e grupos que exercerão uma pressão de “gratidão” sobre elas:

Todos os que pertencemos a sociedades de nutrição por razões profissionais enfrentamos o problema de, às vezes, discordar das políticas. Os profissionais de nutrição são humanos, e nós, humanos, acreditamos que somos imunes à influência do patrocínio. Premeditadamente ou não, as sociedades de nutrição endossam os produtos dos patrocinadores. Quando, por exemplo, a academia permite que a Associação do Açúcar exponha na reunião anual, pode ser constrangedor recomendar ao público a redução do consumo de açúcar. Essa é uma situação que dá a entender um conflito de interesses e leva à perda de confiança — e, às vezes, à ridicularização.

Um dos principais estudos de caso do livro trata do esforço da Coca-Cola pra mudar o foco da explosão de obesidade nos Estados Unidos — da alimentação pra falta de exercícios:

Em 2012, a vice-presidente e diretora de Ciência e Saúde da Coca-Cola, Rhona Applebaum, que também se tornaria presidente do ILSI [International Life Sciences Institute] três anos mais tarde, anunciou um grande esforço para combater as evidências que ligam os refrigerantes a dietas pobres e a problemas de saúde. Applebaum não mediu as palavras. A pesquisa financiada, disse ela, foi essencial para rebater a ciência promovida pelos defensores de impostos sobre refrigerantes. A Coca-Cola pretendia treinar jornalistas e atrair cientistas parceiros para conduzir “pesquisas defensivas e ofensivas”. Caso contrário, a indústria ficaria à mercê de “ativistas e jornalistas fanáticos”.
Esse esforço foi de fato significativo. Foram identificados 389 artigos publicados em 169 periódicos de 2008 a 2016, ou diretamente financiados pela empresa, ou realizados por pesquisadores com laços financeiros com a companhia. De maneira geral, a conclusão foi de que, no controle do peso, a atividade física é mais efetiva que a dieta; os açúcares e os refrigerantes são inofensivos; as evidências contrárias estão erradas; e as pesquisas bancadas pela indústria são superiores às financiadas por outras fontes.

A vontade da indústria alimentícia de não pagar mais impostos e não permitir a diminuição do consumo dos seus produtos foi tão poderosa que houve, pelo menos por algum tempo, comoção geral — e financiada, e governamental — colocando exercícios físicos como prioridade pra reverter a epidemia de obesidade nos EUA, em vez de culpar a comida, em quantidade e qualidade.

Uma verdade indigesta poderia ser uma reportagem longa pra maioria dos leitores, mas pra quem gostaria de saber detalhes e exemplos dos problemas da “parceria” entre indústria, cientistas, universidades e governos, vale a pena ler o livro na íntegra. Discordo de Nestle quando ela minimiza o impacto dos vieses não financeiros — trazidos à tona por cientistas interessados em manter seu financiamento pela indústria, na linha dos-vieses-ideológicos-ninguém-fala-nada —, pois eles também podem prejudicar pesquisas. Ela diz:

[…] os vieses ideológicos e intelectuais geralmente podem ser deduzidos a partir da hipótese de um estudo — o que ele tenta provar. Os vieses financeiros, porém, só ficam óbvios quando são divulgados.

Me parece que ela entra em contradição com o que já disse anteriormente: que há estudos patrocinados pela indústria mostrando já na hipótese que têm viés. Excetuando esse ponto, não tenho quase mais nada pra lembrar de negativo no livro. Nestle não é uma dessas nutricionistas radicais que só comem “o que nutre o corpo” e aí promovem guerras totais contra o açúcar e a farinha de trigo, mas gosta de separar as coisas: a nutrição com prazer do mero prazer, que deve ser moderado se não nutrir. Sua razoabilidade fica clara num trecho do capítulo em que trata de doces e marcas de chocolate querendo se vender divulgando os “benefícios dos flavonoides pro coração”:

Doces não são alimentos saudáveis. São um prazer e, como tal, é melhor que sejam consumidos de forma ocasional e em pequenas quantidades.

Ela come doces, esses alimentos não saudáveis. Mas pontualmente, e pouco.

*

No último capítulo, “É hora de agir”, Nestle discute o que pode ser feito pra melhorar a pesquisa alimentícia dado tudo o que abordou nos treze capítulos anteriores. O mundo ideal é difícil, mas ela se contenta — e nos contenta — com uma solução pra minar a influência financeira das empresas no campo da nutrição:

Diante dessas dificuldades, penso que apenas uma opção pode realmente funcionar: um programa de pesquisa para que toda a indústria pague um imposto ou uma taxa obrigatória. Tornar as contribuições obrigatórias eliminaria o problema de ter de agradar aos doadores para garantir o financiamento contínuo. A ideia seria exigir que todas as empresas de alimentos, bebidas e suplementos com vendas acima de determinado nível pagassem um imposto proporcional à receita. Uma agência do governo, uma fundação privada ou um grupo independente poderia coletar os fundos e administrá-los, assim como acontece com o Instituto Nacional de Saúde. Tais sistemas teriam as próprias fontes de viés, mas os vieses não seriam comerciais.

É algo tão bom pra pesquisa nutricional e pra sociedade que parece impossível de ser realizado, pois atrapalha um ator muito importante e poderoso no negócio: o máximo lucro. E ele é bem atuante na feitura das leis e no encantamento dos profissionais de nutrição.

*

A EDIÇÃO
Lamento que o livro da editora Elefante não tenha revestimento plástico na capa — se cair uma gota de café aqui, ela será absorvida —, mas o restante da edição é muito agradável ao manuseio e à leitura: papel Pólen Soft, tipografia (Adelle, Rhode & Swift), diagramação, combinação de cores. Há uma introdução de Paula Johns, diretora-presidente da ACT Promoção da Saúde — que diz que “Uma verdade indigesta ajuda o leitor a entender por que comer é um ato político” —, e um posfácio de João Peres e Moriti Neto, intitulado “Uma verdade indigesta à brasileira”. O posfácio tem algumas afirmações taxativas que ainda preciso verificar, como “todos os estudos mostravam que alertas [na rotulagem] adotados de forma pioneira no Chile têm maior eficácia em desencorajar o consumo de ultraprocessados”. Sei que eu fico desencorajada de comprar produtos que vêm indicados como “alto em açúcar” ou “alto em sódio”, mas não sei se a estatística responde da mesma forma.

[Olivia M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love love love! There is a lot written in this book on responsible vs irresponsible science and there are a lot of technical, scientific details pertaining to the conduction of studies and their conclusions. I think the average reader may have to have some slight understanding of scientific studies before starting it; regardless, Nestle wrote an easy-to-read, smoothly informative book. Overall, it was a fascinating read that has opened up an entirely new field of interest for me as a food science undergrad.

[S.M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

More of a book about Marion Nestle ((whoever that is...but apparently she considers herself very important and "LOVES" (quote, over and over and over) food a whole lot, based on edibility alone it seems)) than what you would expect to get out of the book's selling premise. Basically nothing but ad nauseam and self-promotion. Unless you're really young or have been living under a rock for the past 30+ years, there's nothing new or interesting here. Disgusting how this is still a topic all the same.

[Kelsey Grissom · Rating 2 out of 5]

The cover makes this book look like it’s going to be interesting and geared toward “regular people” (or maybe food consumers). But as a food consumer myself, only the first couple chapters and the last chapter were interesting or helpful. The rest of the book is a ton of acronyms, a lot of insider Nyah-Nyah-ing, and a bunch of details I have a hard time believing anyone would care about unless they’re directly professionally tied to the food or nutrition industry.

[Rafael Mendes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uma lavação de roupa só. Assunto muito interessante, mas, por vezes, repetitivo.

E um ps especial para a editora elefante, que fez esse livro ser MUITO BEM FEITO.

[Rogier · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have always appreciated Marion Nestle, but I have wondered in recent years why she is sticking to the legacy nutritional paradigm. In this book at least she explains herself. On page 68, she says:

quote
From my reading of the research, I concluded that dairy foods are just like other foods. I still hold that opinion. If you do not like dairy foods, cannot tolerate their lactose, are allergic to their prote
unquote

In short, unfortunately, Marion Nestly herself is the living testimony to her own thesis to trust no research, because everyone has a bias and you need to adjust for that.

We need to adjust for the fact that Marion Nestle simply likes dairy, and will do anything to justify it, including altogether ignoring the complete new nutritional paradigm that is now getting increasingly wide support, both on a lay level and in the sports world as well as in the medical world with the AMA, ACC (cardiology) and ACE (endocrinology) all supporting it. I am talking of course about the whole foods, plant-based nutritional paradigm that was defined by T. Colin Campbell in the books The China Study and Whole. Taken together this is the first EVER evidence-based, peer reviewed nutritional paradigm that has ever existed and Marion Nestle ignores it.

As a result, she may be the high priestess of the USDA and the food industry, exhorting them to be "honest," without ever allowing consideration of this magnificent alternative model of nutrition which is taking the world by storm, in part because the science is sound, but more importantly because clinical experience is proving again and again and yet again that it is sound and that the vast majority of chronic illnesses that plague our society can be prevented or reversed with a whole foods, plant-based diet, and NOT with pills and procedures.

In other words, Marion Nestle is fighting for the right to continue to eat yourself sick, but do it honestly. Her standard advice of nothing to excess may seem reasonable enough, but that's not how it works. The entire nutritional paradigm is obsolete, since the medical evidence for the Whole Foods, Plant-Based diet increasingly show that it consistently can prevent or reverse nearly all of the most serious chronic diseases that make up the majority of our healthcare spending. My conclusion is that a lot of her research is still helpful, but still her overall outlook is hopelessly corrupted by the a priori position she takes, as cited above.
In her blogs, she discusses the work of T. Colin Campbell just once, and dismisses it in a most disingenuous manner, here:
https://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/08/...

After that, any time she mentions Campbell, she is referring to the soup company. This much wilful blindness makes her work mostly obsolete and irrelevant overall, in spite of the merits of some detailed criticisms she offers. So I take the bits and pieces that make sense, and I appreciate that she is a keen critic within the frame of reference she represents. However, in my view that frame of reference is completely obsolete and itself a result of a combination of historical accident and biased research, namely research that seeks to confirm the normative assumptions that heretofore were the best we had in nutrition, but which never rose to the level of science. Tellingly, she never deals with the science of T. Colin Campbell, she just dismisses him a priori.

[Heidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book deals heavily with the structures of scientific research and funding and how those systems lead to less trustworthy research and research presentation than they otherwise might. As such, it's probably most useful to those in academics, food production, science, research, nutrition or related fields. As a reader and eater not in those fields, it has some interesting and useful tidbits, such as a short guide on what is probably an overhyped study or an unrealistic conclusion, but it's mainly useful within the subject fields.

'Lifestyle diseases' such as heart disease and diabetes are the leading cause of death, so the fact that the definition of a healthy diet and lifestyle are being distorted is extremely troubling. One of the hardest things about the facts in this book - research and publications form our nutritional view of the world and they're under siege from lobbyists, marketing departments and extensive economic and reputational links between the researchers and large food interests.

Some of the misleading information comes from research that is purpose driven, ie grants specifically for research into the beneficial effects of a specific food. Some comes from industry publications and organizations that are underwritten and influenced by the same food companies, including much of the data supporting exercise over dietary changes as ways to achieve a healthy weight. One of the examples the author uses is a Harvard food scientist & administrator who downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease during the 60s and 70s. Nestle compares pharmaceutical industry influence on doctors, which has been documented in several studies, to that of the food industry on nutritionists - and sees that they would be susceptible to the same influences - the gift of a pen, or a sponsored lecture at an industry conference could be pernicious.

This is primarily about the industry, but it's useful to know if you are thinking deeply about food.

[Felipe Beirigo · Rating 4 out of 5]

O texto é sucinto, convidativo e Marion faz sempre questão de ponderar, esclarecer e dar sua opinião de forma com que o leitor(a) tire suas próprias conclusões.

O teor não é de julgamento e sim esclarecimento, caso sua preocupação seja parar ou não de ingerir comida processada. Coisa que também faço de vez em quando.

Uma das preocupações da autora é nos ajudar a entender a diferença entre o que é marketing e o que é ciência. Isso fica claro logo quando a própria anuncia que entender a indústria farmacêutica é menos complexo, a alimentícia carrega o dobro de problematizações. É correto grandes corporações financiarem pesquisas científicas sobre alimentos? Ah, mas se o alimento for saudável? Ainda assim é correto uma empresa de alimentos considerados saudáveis promover pesquisa científica somente sobre os benefícios e não os malefícios de algo?

[Michael Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very repetitive

I found this book to be a repetitive, unnecessarily long exposition on one or two key points about the practices of food companies. Dry to read and seemed more like what should have been a quick essay that got streeeeeetccched into book length. The author certainly seems to have the credentials and experience to address this subject. But I just could not finish

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Big Food pays researchers to come up with results friendly to Big Food. What a shock! Nestle often seems to be writing an apologia for her academic peers more than the general reader. Nothing really about nutrition here unless you didn't know that the Mediterranean diet is healthy and added sugar is not.

[Jess Macallan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The latest book from Marion Nestle is a fascinating look at the world of nutrition science, how the food industry is involved, and the complicated ethical considerations. Most readers won't be surprised to learn that food companies play a huge role in nutrition science, but they'll likely be shocked at how widespread and entrenched these companies area in all facets of research, funding, policy making, and more. The reason is on both sides is obvious--financial incentive. Funding for research isn't easy to come by, and companies need research and experts to lend credence to the efficacy of their products.

Ms. Nestle provides evidence to show studies tend to yield conclusions that favor the sponsor's interests, and she makes an interesting distinction that consumers should be aware of--the studies that prove a foregone conclusion are marketing research, not nutrition science. Full disclosure of conflicts of interest is a good place to start, but is it enough?

Conflicts of interest can be impact everything from nutrition organizations to medical journals to well-respected nutrition experts. If you've ever tried to research the pros/cons of certain nutrients, supplements, or diets, you likely found studies with opposing conclusions. How do consumers know who to trust? Ms. Nestle has a few ideas everyone can employ, starting with voting with your fork, questioning studies that seem too good to be true, contacting your congressional representatives about corporate influence on nutrition science, and more.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in nutrition, food policy, and the integrity of science as it relates to food.

I received an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Lori Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an in-depth look at how food corporation's "research" is really for marketing purposes. When the Maine Blueberry Board sponsors research to determine if blueberries are good for you, is it surprising when the outcome is a yes? Most marketing research turns out positive for the sponsored food item. Scientists may not be immune as they think to the positive link with being given a gift/money.

This book can be a dull read if not in the nutrition or food science fields. Ms. Nestle doesn't provide adequate solution to the problem. Both the government and the universities don't have the money to promote unbiased scientific research. As a consumer, be leery when you read about the amazing benefits of chocolate, blueberries, avocados, coffee, etc. and enjoy a well balanced diet with all foods in moderation.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reading the blurb one might think this is a helpful book. But this is only a trojan horse. Take the power from Coca Cola and their bogus study, and give power to unscrupulous bureaucrats like Nestle himself who will prop up the corn lobby for the greater good of the Department of Agriculture. And of course, Nestle is oblivious of the governments who twisted the sugar business to fit their political agendas, and how politicians made corn syrup a reality. So in a way, this is the deceitful message from a gang warfare going on behind the scenes to enrich politicians and bureaucrats like Nestle with their titles and commissions.

[Jeanne M. Umland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Nestle provides a detailed account of how the food industries twist science to serve one purpose: to sell their unhealthy products to you. No processed foods are healthy and, if anything, are loaded with unhealthy sugar and salt. Only a whole foods, plant based diet can ensure good health. Advertisement is just a game the food industry uses to convince you to buy these unhealthy products. Shop the produce area of your
supermarket, buy healthy grains and avoid the rest!

[Remi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great informative read about how we as Americans are very badly informed when it comes to nutrition. And all because we allow food companies (whose sole purpose is to make us buy more of their product) fund and therefore skew studies claiming health benefits that don't exist or over-hype them. It also covers conflicts of interest for scientists in the food industry.

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was familiar with the majority of the information provided in this book already. It was nice to read it from a seemingly more neutral source than the plant based crusaders I usually read. This also made the 2 chapters about whole food science quite interesting, as she was skeptical of some of those claims without being totally dismissive.

[Victoria Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful and eye-opening look into the world of food research, this book sheds light on how much of the information we see about food and health is influenced by the companies funding it. The takeaway 🍜: be skeptical of bold health claims, as they’re often backed by corporations prioritizing their own marketing and sales goals. 👍🏻

[Juliana Murillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, enjoyed this book on industry-funded nutrition research! My critiques are that this book was on the verge of too technical and could of used more explanation on ways to identify and manage unconscious bias in nutrition research (really good at pointing out the problem, but not proposing solutions). In conclusion: the food industry sucks and I still am against Big Dairy!!!

[Rupinder · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-researched book on the consequences of food industry’s funding of research, and how it influences our purchasing and eating decisions.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

TFW the respected Marion Nestle trashes your career on page 23

[Elizabeth Gabhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marion Nestle is my favorite nutritionist and food author, so it's no surprise I enjoyed her latest book. As usual, her writing is clear, informative, and I think everyone should read it.

[Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5*)

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really liked this but every time I read one like this I’m not surprised. Partly because I’ve read so many of them but also because I am so cynical nothing surprises me.