Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics denies it faces conflicts of interest due to funding from junk food makers

6

A recently released report has found that a highly influential group representing approximately 100,000 dietitians, nutrition practitioners and students who advise people on what foods to eat accepted millions in contributions from ultra-processed food, pharmaceutical, and agribusiness companies.

The report finds that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and its corporate donors had a “symbiotic” relationship and that the group often acted as a pro-industry voice, with policy positions that conflicted with its mission to improve global health.

The study, published in Public Health Nutrition, is titled “The Corporate Capture of the Nutrition Profession in the USA: The Case of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.”

The Academy is largely dismissive of the report, claiming it is misleading and categorically denies that corporate funding has any influence on its policies or positions.

“The Academy’s procedures and formal agreements with external organizations are designed to prevent any undue corporate influence,” writes the Academy.

“As the report itself notes: ‘This study does not include interviews with key actors, which would have provided a detailed narrative of actions and decisions in the AND [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics] and ANDF [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation] and would have helped contextualize our findings.’”

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) refers to itself as “the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals” and, according to its website, represents over 112,000 credentialed practitioners which include registered dietician nutritionists, nutrition and dietetics technicians, and other professionals and students. The group is one of the most influential professional health associations in the United States and helps shape U.S. health policy.

Who Is the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics?

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded as the American Dietetic Association in 1917 by a group of women aiming to help the government conserve food and improve public health and nutrition during the first world war.

The Academy promotes itself as “committed to improving health and advancing the profession of nutrition and dietetics through research, education, and advocacy.” The group lobbies Congress, influences the development of U.S. dietary guidelines, and is considered an authority in food policy-making.

The Report’s Findings

The study was produced by researchers from non-profits and universities in the United States and the United Kingdom, and U.S. Right to Know—a nonprofit investigative public health group. It was based on a five-year investigation and approximately eighty thousand internal Academy documents that were obtained through freedom of information requests.

The documents show that the Academy had an ongoing relationship with ultra-processed food, beverage, pesticide, and pharmaceutical corporations which included accepting contributions as well as the Academy and its Foundation investing in some of the companies who gave them money.

Here are some of the study’s main findings:

• “The Academy accepted millions of dollars from food, pharmaceutical, and agribusiness companies, and had policies to provide favors and benefits in return.”
• “The Academy and its foundation have invested in ultra-processed food and pharmaceutical companies.”
• “Academy leaders have been employed by or consulted for multinational food, pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations.”
• “The Academy has discussed policies to fit the needs of its food, agribusiness, and pharmaceutical industry sponsors.”

The documents are posted on the U.S. Right to Know’s website.

The Academy counters that its investments are managed at arm’s length by an independent investment company “that has sole authority to make decisions to invest or sell equities on the merits of the stocks themselves.”

“Because all sectors of the S&P 500 are represented in the Academy’s and Foundation’s portfolios, investments in the Consumer Staples and Healthcare sectors are to be expected,” writes the Academy.

Top Contributors

The report details several specific contributions the Academy received and while the group does not deny the contributions, it does criticize how the report characterized the money.

“There is no reference in the report to the Academy’s stringent guidelines and principles that prohibit external influence from sponsors or any other group or individual,” notes the Academy’s response.

“Nor does the report cite the fact that less than 3 percent of the Academy’s and its Foundation’s investments are in food companies; or that less than 9 percent of the Academy’s funding comes from sponsorship.”

The study does however reveal that the Academy accepted more than $15 million from corporate and organizational contributors in 2011 and from 2013-2017 according to its IRS forms 990. The top contributors to the Academy in 2011 and 2013-2017 were:

• National Dairy Council $1,496,912
• Conagra Inc. $1,414,058
• Abbott Nutrition $1,246,389
• Abbott Laboratories $824,110
• AND Foundation $801,261
• PepsiCo Inc. $486,335
• Coca-Cola Co. $477,577
• Hershey Co. $368,032
• General Mills Inc. $309,733
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality $296,495
• Aramark Co. $293,051
• Unilever Best Foods $276,791
• Kellogg USA $273,272

According to one internal document, the Academy appears to have allowed quid pro quo purchases of “rights and benefits” by corporate sponsors. The documents show that the Academy makes a distinction between ‘sponsors’ and ‘supporters’—Corporate ‘sponsors’ receiving specific ‘rights and benefits’ whereas ‘supporters’ make “a charitable contribution with no expectation of a commercial return.”

In the Academy’s statement, they claim that there were key factors not included in the report in regards to its corporate sponsor guidelines and principles: “The Academy’s programs, leadership, decisions, policies and positions are not influenced by sponsors.”

But that position appears contradicted by an email from 2015 between Academy members discussing Academy business and sponsorship in particular, which includes a bulleted list of ‘recent conversations’ about Academy sponsors.

The first item is Abbott Nutrition’s product, Pediasure, a “nutritional supplement” for children. Abbott is an Academy sponsor. The email says both the Academy and its Foundation would form a collaboration with Pediasure around the FNPA, or Family Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment tool, and its usage in pediatrician’s offices with a tie to registered dietary nutritionists (RDNs, the title given to those credentialed by the Academy to give nutrition advice) as well as participation in a retailer program which would include stores like Walmart and Target with RDN support.

This seems to imply that Abbott’s sponsorship indeed came with “rights and benefits.”

Abbott Nutrition had a two-year sponsorship deal with the Academy, for $150,000 a year between 2015-2017.

Another item on the list is Subway, who apparently approached the Academy looking for an organization that would endorse the company’s “healthier product offerings.”

These examples certainly seem to suggest that companies sponsoring the Academy gain commercial benefit.

It may also be interesting to note that the same document lists organizations that had Academy Foundation donations/grants pending that included Monsanto ($175,000) and the Gates Foundation ($200,000).

The Academy’s Investments in Ultra-Processed Food Companies

The investments held by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and its Foundation also present the appearance of an ethical issue, notes the report. The Academy’s investment portfolio for 2015 (pdf) included $244,036 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A. and $139,545 in PepsiCo. The Academy foundation’s investment portfolio (pdf) in June 2013 included $209,472 in stock holdings in Nestle S.A and $125,682 in PepsiCo. Those investments are problematic because of the nature of the foods produced by those companies, suggests Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right to Know and a co-author of the study.

“Nutrition groups should not buy ultra-processed food stocks. They are a blaring conflict of interest. Public health groups should not invest in companies that make products that detract from our health or directly conflict with their mission,” said Ruskin in a news release.

Financial Ties to Corporations

The Academy has several financial ties to corporations that are cause for concern. The Academy is not entirely transparent about its corporate financial contributions and does not disclose the amounts of the contributions it receives.

In 2022 some of its sponsors included:

• The National Confectioners Association, which represents candy makers
• Bayer CropScience, makers of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate
• Tate & Lyle, makers Splenda sucralose—an artificial sweetener linked to obesity, diabetes, and cancer
• Abbott, makers of a baby formula recently recalled from a Michigan plant an FDA commissioner described as “shocking” and “egregiously unsanitary”

High ranking Academy members seemed to be aware of the activities, as one of the documents revealed an email from then treasurer (who has also been an Academy president) saying:

“PepsiCo is one of our top ten stocks (in which the Academy has invested). I personally like PepsiCo and do not have any problems with us owning it, but I wonder if someone will say something about that. Hopefully they will be happy like they should be! I personally would be OK if we owned Coke stock!!”

The Academy’s Influence

As for how far the Academy’s influence goes, the White House’s National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition and Health includes several recommendations from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Six Academy members will also serve on the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) which provides “independent, science-based” advice and recommendations to be considered by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the USDA, as they develop the dietary guidelines for Americans for 2025-2030.

To fully appreciate the extent of this influence, dietary guidelines are the basis of recommendations given by people who work in federal agencies, public health, healthcare, education and business when providing information about diet and health to the general public. They set the very standards by which foods can be considered healthy or unhealthy by these key decision makers.

What Kinds of Practitioners Fall Under the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Where Do They Work?

You may be wondering where you might come into contact with the people the Academy supports, and where they exert their influence.

The Academy represents and supports registered dietitian nutritionists and according to the Academy’s website, a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) is a “food and nutrition expert.” RDNs have a wide reach and perform many roles influencing large sections of the population from children in daycare centers and nursing home residents to hospitals and other healthcare facilities where they educate patients about what to eat.

Perhaps most notably, RDNs work in universities and medical centers, teaching physicians, nurses, (dietetics students and others) “the sophisticated science of foods and nutrition.”

While individual RDNs may supplement their education or even disagree with many of the positions of the Academy, the report raises questions about the quality of their professional credentials.

In regards to how much influence the Academy has, “The documents reveal a depressing chapter of corruption at this influential nutrition group. If we’re going to get healthier, live longer and lower our astounding rates of obesity and diabetes, we’ve got to clean out the corruption at health groups like the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics” Ruskin said in a news release.

The Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics Response to the Report

On their website eatright.org, the Academy put out a statement in response to what it calls an “inaccurate and misleading report.” The statement reads:

“This report is a calculated attack against the more than 112,000 credentialed nutrition and dietetics practitioners whom the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics proudly represents. The report contains numerous factual and methodology errors, omissions and information taken out of context.

As a result, the report contains a great deal of opinion and unsupported assertions, coupled with many factual inaccuracies that mislead the public.”

The statement continues for many paragraphs, which may be read in its entirety here.

On the same statement page, the Academy states that “Academy/Foundation financial investments are managed by an independent investment company that has sole authority to make decisions to invest or sell equities on the merits of the stocks themselves.”

While the statement does detail the relatively minor amounts of its overall funding and investments linked to food companies, it does not deal with the ethical issue raised by taking money from the producers of foods generally considered unhealthy and disease-causing.

The Academy’s statements do not deny taking millions from junk-food makers, or investing in those companies.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics who responded that they had nothing more to add regarding the report.

Messaging with Obscuring Information in Mind

Americans are suffering from lifestyle diseases at epidemic numbers, with obesity, metabolic syndrome, cancer, heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes contributing to millions of deaths and billions in health care expenses every year. So why is there so much ambiguity and confusion about the health hazards of ultra-processed foods linked to these conditions? Ruskin says the influence of industry is largely to blame.

“Industry is pushing their products, but our government does not say the obvious. It does not say ‘eat as little ultra-processed foods as possible, eat as little added sugar as you can, eat as little vegetable and seed oil as you can, eat as little refined grains and corn as you can,’ and of course, they subsidize those. It’s definitely industry, but it’s our federal government too, their silence is purchased,” Ruskin told The Epoch Times.

Those subsidies come in many forms, including significant subsidies for crops that are key to the processed food industry, like genetically-modified corn.

“One of the things that’s sad to see is how little talk there is and reporting there is about corruption in our health institutions,” Ruskin said.

The wide reach and influence of the Academy, and its ties to food makers producing foods widely linked to common chronic conditions raise troubling questions about the integrity of nutrition guidelines in the United States, the new report suggests.

“This is one of the health tragedies that is happening in our country right now. If we’re ever going to solve the problems of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, we are going to have to tackle the corruption in our health institutions, and that means our public health organizations and also our health agencies.”