I don’t think dismissing something based solely on who funds it is a good choice. Look at the science and the facts. The fact that someone you don’t like funds an organization doesn’t mean that that organization is spouting lies, and it doesn’t mean the science behind the health advice is wrong. There’s a pretty simple reasons for why all of those companies would fund a health organization: it’s good PR.
I don’t think dismissing something based solely on who funds it is a good choice. Look at the science and the facts.
It’s quite easy in nutrition to argue for a lot of different positions by cherry picking studies.
It also easy to find them lying in favor of the commercial interest of mosanto:
The FDA uses the Total Diet Study to determine pesticide residues in foods. The study limits pesticide residues to five to ten times lower than is found to be safe. In short, these residues are regulated to levels that are considered safe based on the average daily food intake of both adults and children
Studies don’t determine what’s safe but test for evidence of specific kind of harms. It’s takes clear reading to spot the lie but it’s still a lie. You could argue that the author simply missed epistemology 101 but that’s still a problem.
There’s a pretty simple reasons for why all of those companies would fund a health organization: it’s good PR.
The website is deliberately constructed in a way that makes it hard to see who funds the organisation. If a company does something for PR they usually want their logo displayed.
Also as far as science goes, the effect of funding on scientific studies is well established. It creates a bias in the results.
Your latter reasons about the author and organization hiding information are great. I’m not trying to imply you don’t have any basis upon which to be cautious. I was trying to say, though, that who funded a study or an organization does not make that organization’s or study’s findings wrong: often times, organizations like IFIC are not in a good position to turn any money down, as long as the money doesn’t dictate their message. If you have good reason to think that the money is indeed dictating the message, then by all means, be skeptical.
I would note that there’s very good reason for why the website might choose to keep the logos from being openly displayed: having the logos in a prominent position on the site would be very counter productive to the message of the site. If you are advocating healthy choices—and from reading the articles on the website, it does indeed seem like IFIC is advocating healthy food choices—pretty much the last thing you want to do is put the McDonalds or Pepsi logos on your front page, because it creates a confusing message. Companies like Pepsi and McDonalds still gain something from the exchange: they get to say in press releases and on their own websites that they fund health organizations, which is great PR for them, and it provides a foundation for those companies to claim that they do not encourage people to make unhealthy choices.
Unfortunately, with regards to scientific studies, the problem of funding is pretty widespread. I’ve had a pretty long term interest in ecology, and it’s pretty well known that there’s just about no way to do agricultural research without having some influence from Monsanto—and it’s sometimes dangerous, career-wise, to publish results counter to Monsanto’s party line.
I was trying to say, though, that who funded a study or an organization does not make that organization’s or study’s findings wrong
It doesn’t make them wrong but it makes them more likely to be wrong. The effect is well established by scientific papers. There are many ways to bias a study that you can’t trace by reading a paper.
It doesn’t make sense to say look at the science, and ignore the science that clearly establishes that funding sources bias scientific papers.
IFIC are not in a good position to turn any money down, as long as the money doesn’t dictate their message
You don’t need to dictate a message to encourage an organisation to argue position that are in line with your interests if you are clear about your interest and give them money. Corruption works quite well without direct dictates.
pretty much the last thing you want to do is put the McDonalds or Pepsi logos on your front page, because it creates a confusing message
If you look at the website it’s interesting to see the hoops they put up to get people to see the funding sources. The first step is to find an click the about button. There you get the paragraph:
OUR STAKEHOLDERS We bring together, work with, and provide information to consumers, health and nutrition professionals, educators, government officials, and food, beverage, and agricultural industry professionals. We have established partnerships with a wide range of credible professional organizations, government agencies, and academic institutions to advance the public understanding of key issues. For example, we have a long-standing relationship with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion as part of the Dietary Guidelines Alliance, a public-private partnership focused on the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the MyPlate Food Guidance System.
It misleading. It speaks about relationship with professional, when in fact the organisation has relationships with companies that pay the majority of it’s budget.
If you want to know more, you can click “Partner and sponsors”. That brings you to a black and white PDF page. There no reason avoid having normal html page that list the “Partner and sponsors” and uses the logos unless you want to design the website in a way that makes it harder for the user to find out the funding sources.
Another interesting part of the website is an article about beef. It reads like a beef commercial:
Every parent wants to feed their family safe, nutritious, and healthful foods. If you’ve seen recent news articles on grass-fed versus grain-fed meat, you’re probably left wondering how to choose what’s right to purchase for your house. The short (and pretty low stress!) answer is that whatever choice you make, either conventional or grass-fed beef or milk, is a great option for you and your family.
Of course McDonalds wants people to eat beef. In the mainstream nutrition community there a general belief that the average American eats too much red meat. Given that background saying “don’t stress about the choices you make about beef consumption” is problematic.
Of course there are paleo people who think that eating red meat is quite alright, but it’s still highly suspicious for the authors of the website manage to argue the position that it’s funders would want it to argue. The paleo people wouldn’t advocate milk as a good choice.
I don’t think dismissing something based solely on who funds it is a good choice. Look at the science and the facts. The fact that someone you don’t like funds an organization doesn’t mean that that organization is spouting lies, and it doesn’t mean the science behind the health advice is wrong. There’s a pretty simple reasons for why all of those companies would fund a health organization: it’s good PR.
It’s quite easy in nutrition to argue for a lot of different positions by cherry picking studies.
It also easy to find them lying in favor of the commercial interest of mosanto:
Studies don’t determine what’s safe but test for evidence of specific kind of harms. It’s takes clear reading to spot the lie but it’s still a lie. You could argue that the author simply missed epistemology 101 but that’s still a problem.
The website is deliberately constructed in a way that makes it hard to see who funds the organisation. If a company does something for PR they usually want their logo displayed.
Also as far as science goes, the effect of funding on scientific studies is well established. It creates a bias in the results.
Your latter reasons about the author and organization hiding information are great. I’m not trying to imply you don’t have any basis upon which to be cautious. I was trying to say, though, that who funded a study or an organization does not make that organization’s or study’s findings wrong: often times, organizations like IFIC are not in a good position to turn any money down, as long as the money doesn’t dictate their message. If you have good reason to think that the money is indeed dictating the message, then by all means, be skeptical.
I would note that there’s very good reason for why the website might choose to keep the logos from being openly displayed: having the logos in a prominent position on the site would be very counter productive to the message of the site. If you are advocating healthy choices—and from reading the articles on the website, it does indeed seem like IFIC is advocating healthy food choices—pretty much the last thing you want to do is put the McDonalds or Pepsi logos on your front page, because it creates a confusing message. Companies like Pepsi and McDonalds still gain something from the exchange: they get to say in press releases and on their own websites that they fund health organizations, which is great PR for them, and it provides a foundation for those companies to claim that they do not encourage people to make unhealthy choices.
Unfortunately, with regards to scientific studies, the problem of funding is pretty widespread. I’ve had a pretty long term interest in ecology, and it’s pretty well known that there’s just about no way to do agricultural research without having some influence from Monsanto—and it’s sometimes dangerous, career-wise, to publish results counter to Monsanto’s party line.
It doesn’t make them wrong but it makes them more likely to be wrong. The effect is well established by scientific papers. There are many ways to bias a study that you can’t trace by reading a paper.
It doesn’t make sense to say look at the science, and ignore the science that clearly establishes that funding sources bias scientific papers.
You don’t need to dictate a message to encourage an organisation to argue position that are in line with your interests if you are clear about your interest and give them money. Corruption works quite well without direct dictates.
If you look at the website it’s interesting to see the hoops they put up to get people to see the funding sources. The first step is to find an click the about button. There you get the paragraph:
It misleading. It speaks about relationship with professional, when in fact the organisation has relationships with companies that pay the majority of it’s budget.
If you want to know more, you can click “Partner and sponsors”. That brings you to a black and white PDF page. There no reason avoid having normal html page that list the “Partner and sponsors” and uses the logos unless you want to design the website in a way that makes it harder for the user to find out the funding sources.
Another interesting part of the website is an article about beef. It reads like a beef commercial:
Of course McDonalds wants people to eat beef. In the mainstream nutrition community there a general belief that the average American eats too much red meat. Given that background saying “don’t stress about the choices you make about beef consumption” is problematic.
Of course there are paleo people who think that eating red meat is quite alright, but it’s still highly suspicious for the authors of the website manage to argue the position that it’s funders would want it to argue. The paleo people wouldn’t advocate milk as a good choice.