Study finds International Food Information Council misinforms public on dietary intake

The International Food Information Council uses media outlets to counter information on the negative impacts of sugars and processed foods, according to a new study published in Globalization and Health.

Companies that produce unhealthy food and beverages often oppose public health interventions that target their consumption, Daniel Zaltz, a PhD candidate in the department of health, behavior and society at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and colleagues wrote. However, opposition can also come from nonprofit organizations that are funded by company stakeholders in influential media campaigns, termed “front groups.”

“A front group is ‘an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned’,” Zaltz and colleagues wrote. “Front groups are an example of a third-party technique, which is considered the ‘heart of public relations’ as it can provide controversial actors with a legitimate voice.”

The researchers noted that prior studies on such actions from the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) revealed connections to its “sister organization,” the nonprofit International Food Information Council (IFIC).

“Despite the close connection between ILSI and IFIC, little is known about how and if IFIC acts on behalf of its funders to oppose public health dietary interventions,” the researchers wrote.

Many popular media outlets have used IFIC as a source for nutrition information, according to a press release from U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group. In addition, IFIC — which is based in Washington, D.C. — “sometimes works closely with federal agencies,” the release said.

To learn more about its practices, Zaltz and colleagues from Johns Hopkins and U.S. Right to Know conducted a study to determine how IFIC generates and disseminates nutrition-related information to policy stakeholders and the public.

Speaking to Healio, Zaltz said the analysis consisted of around 30,000 documents — such as tax forms, communications and annual meeting notes — that were reviewed using a specific framework. The researchers analyzed the documents individually and then as a group, identifying themes in how and why IFIC communicates nutrition information.

“We made all conclusions after careful consideration within a multidisciplinary team of public health and legal scholars,” Zaltz said.

Overall, Zaltz and colleagues found three overarching themes in IFIC mechanisms, including:

• consumer “preference shaping,” defined as a communications strategy to promote specific beliefs on nutrition and health;
• manufacturing doubt, where specific evidence and persuasion is used to create public doubt about harmful nutritional effects; and
• the use of self-funded research spread through industry and government leaders.

The researchers noted that IFIC engaged in “a variety of preference shaping tactics.” For example, a 2014 nutrition education campaign — titled “Understanding Our Food” — possessed several financial contributors that were large food and beverage corporations.

As part of its media outreach efforts, IFIC creates consumer surveys, according to U.S. Right to Know. Findings from these consumer surveys and communicated by IFIC frequently focused on “person-level” dietary changes, as opposed to broader public health dietary interventions, Zaltz and colleagues reported.

“This individualistic narrative is consistent with those promoted by other health harming industries such as the tobacco and alcohol industries and prior findings from studies of food and beverage companies,” they wrote. “Overall, personal choice narratives like those supported by IFIC bolster food and beverage industry efforts to weaken the regulatory environment in which they operate.”

Following the analysis, Zaltz said the research team is confident that IFIC engaged in activities “designed to specifically distract the public from the broad harms of added sugars and ultra-processed foods to push back against public health policies that, while shown to improve population health and health inequalities, may put a dent in the profits of multibillion-dollar food and beverage companies.”

Acknowledging decades worth of research on the harmful effects of excessive consumption of added sugars and ultra-processed foods, Zaltz said that “doctors today should know that these products are designed and marketed to be highly palatable and highly accessible, all to the detriment of people’s health.”

“Health practitioners should read conflict of interest statements, consider who sponsors certain conferences or media publications, and consider the fact that large food and beverage business interests are not aligned with the public’s health,” he said.

IFIC did not respond to Healio’s request for comment.

References:

• Zaltz D, et al. Global Health. 2022;doi:10.1186/s12992-022-00884-8.
• Study: IFIC misleads the public about diet, health, ultra-processed food and added sugars. https://usrtk.org/ultra-processed-foods/study-ific-misleads-the-public-about-diet-health-ultra-processed-food-and-added-sugars/. Published Oct. 30, 2022. Accessed Oct. 31, 2022.