Hey, the American Dietetic Association is having a big convention in Philly next fall. The ADA, which represents 65,000 dietitians, claims to ...
... serve the public by promoting optimal nutrition, health and well-being. ADA members are the nation's food and nutrition experts, translating the science of nutrition into practical solutions for healthy living.
Ah, the experts are getting together! Maybe they'll take a critical look at soaring diabetes and obesity rates, and perhaps brainstorm ways of linking consumers directly to fresh-food sources.
Then again, probably not.
The conference, it turns out, is funded by major food conglomerates, which will be fielding stands in the expo hall. Predictable players include: Archer Daniels Midland, Coca Cola, Chick-fil-A, ConAgra, Monsanto(!), Cargill (its "Sweetness Solutions" division, no less!), GlaxoSmithKline, Kelloggs, Kraft, Mars, McDonald's, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, Novartis, Pepsi, Sara Lee, Unilever ... I could go on.
Any major corporation you can think of that manufactures "food," click here and you'll likely find it. Clearly, these purveyors of plastic crap find the ADA conference and its attendees useful conduits for marketing their stuff.
Dear God, I wish more dietitians would push away the poison teat of corporate cash and start trying to teach people to choose, cook, and eat real food. Guess there ain't as much money in that, though.
(Tip of the hat to Martha Ma of the comfood listserv.)
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
Comments
View as Flat
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:46 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:47 am
31 Jan 2007
I can't imagine that ADM are out there handing out $100 bills to every nutritionist who pushes Doritos.
I imagine it must be a very frustrating job, in this day and age, to be a dietician or nutritionist. The rules for good nutrition are really pretty simple, but most people refuse to follow them. Your average American wants convenience in their food stuffs more than anything else - how else to explain the proliferation of really awful-tasting "food" that crams our supermarket aisles, with no benefit (and many detriments) over real food but that you can nuke it for 30 seconds and it's ready to eat? Of course, there must be a draw to all the sugar, salt and fat that these "foods" contain as well... it's hard to be more convenient that an apple.
I say that the bulk of the culpability of America's burgeoning health crisis rests with the consumer - it's not like there are not healthy food choices out there, and it's not particularly difficult to tell which ones they are.
Kaela
Permalink
d41295 Posted 7:19 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:59 am
31 Jan 2007
Given the food industry's huge marketing budgets, the lack of affordable fresh-food options in many low-income areas, and the fact that corporations essentially control school lunches, giving them a captive and impressionable market, i think it's a bit much to lay the "the culpability of America's burgeoning health crisis rests with the consumer." To speak nothing of federal farm policies, which make horrible food cheaper and more profitable for food companies.
The way we've set things up, it's a whole lot easier and cheaper to eat plastic crap than it is real food. to
As for the dieticians, I hope public displays of outrage like mine help wake them up. Why are they cavorting with the enemy? They should tell McDonalds and Coca Cola to get lost and tie in with farmers, farmers market reps, urban gardening groups, etc.
Victual Reality
Permalink
hedreyer Posted 8:47 am
31 Jan 2007
Herb Dreyer
Chef/Owner Good Friends & Company
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:21 am
31 Jan 2007
If your business depends on the good will of experts, you get your booths in their conference. You staff them with friendly, reasonable-sounding, people who give out lots of free stuff. Perhaps there are job offers, research grants, consulting opportunities.
Also, you try to convince people that if they eat badly it is their fault. Never mind the billions of dollars spent on advertising and psychological manipulations.
Never mind that industry lobbies seek to squash legislation or recommendations that run counter to their interests. (See, for exaample, how the beef lobby sunk good nutrition advice from a Senate Committee in the 70s in Michael Pollan's recent essay.)
Also, you encourage a cultural climate in which ignorant people shout down the suggestion that manipulation is happening.
Permalink
dietitian Posted 10:04 am
31 Jan 2007
It is the responsibility of the dietitian to help the consumer make the BEST food choices given what s(he) has available locally, is willing to consume, and is willing to prepare. This does not always mean that a consumer will be willing/able/or interested in purchasing fresh foods. A good nutrition professional works within a patient's way of life to help them eat the healthiest possible diet, given the circumstances of their life. That's Nutrition Counseling 101 and the reality of life as a dietitian in these United States.
Try to drop some of your anger and look at this subject rationally. The manufacturer is able to help pay the huge expenses (travel, meals, hotel, and honorarium) associated with getting quality scientitists to discuss cutting-edge research on the science of nutrition at the ADA annual convention. The dietitian makes educated decisions about which, if any, manufactured foods s(he) chooses to recommend to clients. These decisions are based on many factors, not simply a company's name on a banner at a meeting. To claim otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the complex issues behind consumer foods choices and the role the dietitian plays in influencing them.
If the small farmer is willing to help support the educational efforts of ADA, I'm sure ADA would welcome their support at an ADA convention. Hope to see your name in Philadelphia!
Permalink
Jamesesq73 Posted 10:07 am
31 Jan 2007
Your comment that Mr. Philpott is not paying your health care cost is surprisingly simplistic and not at all correct. When obesity rates and chronic illness rise across a population due to unhealthy food choices everyone pays. We pay when a business or corporation has to raise its' prices to be able to afford increased premiums. We pay when our personal health care premiums go up for the same reason.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:21 am
31 Jan 2007
But many of the companies honoring the ADA with their presence and cash have benefited greatly from that situation.
Can the ADA emerge from the embrace of McDonald's, Coke, et al, with its integrity intact? I agree that sustainable-farming advocates and dieticians should form links. Indeed, it is happening all over the country in farm-to-school efforts and myriad projects associated with the LA-based Community food Security Coalition.
No, you probably won't see me at the Philly conference next fall. You've already identified why (lack of time and resources). But the ADA could reach out to all manner of sustainable-ag groups while there. Here's one.
Rather then another grope-fest with Monsanto and ADM, I'd love to read about a revolt within the ranks: a kind of Society of Radical Dieticians, Any takers out there?
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:17 pm
31 Jan 2007
As for health care costs, as long as people who lead healthy lifestyles are able to pay less for insurance than those who don't I'm all for complete freedom in this regard as well. This does not include accidents or genetics, only persistent choice behavior- e.g. smoking, eating McDonald's every day, etc.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:15 pm
31 Jan 2007
As a newspaperman, I was occasionally offered favors, meals and bribes. As soon as I saw what the game was, I refused to have anything to do with them. It is not worth the damage to your credibility.
Covering science, I was shocked to see how vulnerable many scientists to influence from industry. A prominent scientist accepts millions of dollars in funding from a corporation pushing GMOs; he then writes articles and makes pronouncements about GMOs (about which he is not an expert). A bribe? I'm sure not. Influence? You betcha.
In the last couple of years, I've noticed a growing backlash against this sort of influence. I'm afraid that scientists, many of whom are naive about such things, will be surprised and hurt. The dietitian makes educated decisions about which, if any, manufactured foods s(he) chooses to recommend to clients. These decisions are based on many factors, not simply a company's name on a banner at a meeting. The social sciences are full of studies about how lobbies work to influence experts, legislators, etc. Are you aware of them? Are you aware of the sophisticated techniques that marketeers use to influence scientists, doctors, etc. Are you aware how accepting support likes this damages the credibility of dieticians?
Tom suggests a Society of Radical Dieticians. I'd contend that this is more a matter of professionalism and integrity. Not radical at all.
Permalink
exercisedude Posted 11:03 pm
31 Jan 2007
It isn't rock science buddy!
The reason we have such an increase in TYPE 2 DIABETES is because we have more fat lazy Americans who drink way too much Coke and Pepsi, sit in front of there computer railing against the machine, not getting enough exercise, and HOPING someone else will take care of them.
Go take a good long look in your mirror!
Permalink
Dietitian not Dietician Posted 12:05 am
01 Feb 2007
Before you start bashing a group of professionals, can you please learn how to spell their title correctly? It is dietitian, not dietician... is that too much to ask???
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:22 am
01 Feb 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
RD2 Posted 12:45 am
01 Feb 2007
These companies provide sound research information, and yes samples (like a ketchup size container from one of those ketchup pumps at a fast food place.)
* Raisin Board
* Almond Board
* Rice Council
* Walnut Board
* National Pork Association
* National Cattleman Association
* United Soybean Board
These companies provide nutrition information on their regular products and their nutritionally modified products. The focus is on the nutritionally modified foods because the target market (RDs) are looking for what their customers will be spending money on and choosing to eat. Nutritional modified foods include high fiber, low fat, low calories, sugar-free, low carb. These companies provide handouts on their nutritionally modified products and typically a taste of their product(s). Again, the samples are the size of 1-2 tsp.
* Quaker
* Dole Fruit
* Kaski
* Eco Foods
* Gatorade
* Multiple small companies of gluten free food, natural foods, and organic foods!
* Campbell
* Kraft Foods
* Kellogg's
* Nestlé's
* General Mills
* Coke
* Pepsi
* Splenda
* NutraSweet
* Equal
* Mc Donald's ALWAYS hands out nutrition information on their menu line, which is handy to have the latest breakdown to aid those individuals who wish to change their health.
I suppose we don't have to have FCNE. The 1 or 2 days spent walking around the exhibit floor learning about new product could be done away with. But then I would have to spend weeks in the grocery store seeing what my customers are eating, calling companies to get specific information instead to fighting the war on obesity. You're not the only one with limited time.
Since your time is so limited you may wish to spend it in exercising your body, improving your health instead of bashing us. Then, we would have 1 less person to worry about in the war of obesity.
Kathy, RD
Helping you make the most out of life
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 1:45 am
01 Feb 2007
As Michael Pollan describes in the essay Bart referenced above:
"Epidemiologists also had observed that in America during the war years, when meat and dairy products were strictly rationed, the rate of heart disease temporarily plummeted.
Naïvely putting two and two together, the committee drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products. Within weeks a firestorm, emanating from the red-meat and dairy industries, engulfed the committee, and Senator McGovern (who had a great many cattle ranchers among his South Dakota constituents) was forced to beat a retreat. The committee's recommendations were hastily rewritten. Plain talk about food -- the committee had advised Americans to actually "reduce consumption of meat" -- was replaced by artful compromise: "Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake."
Similar instances of this sort of corporate and political corruption abound, and have understandably led to increasing cynicism with the government, doctors, and dietitians who dole out "scientific" advice on nutrition.
And to "Dietitian not Dietician:" FYI, per the American Heritage Dictionary, "dietician" is, indeed, a correct spelling.
-Erin
Permalink
foodsleuth Posted 3:45 am
01 Feb 2007
Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D.
Food Sleuth Columnist
2004-2006 Food and Society Policy Fellow
Columbia, MO
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:53 am
01 Feb 2007
The Greek "diaita" basically means "way of living," but is often more narrowly used to mean "diet," e.g. by the great medical writer Hippocrates.
Hippocrates received a jab from Michael Pollan in his celebrated essay in last Sunday's NYTimes Mag, whether deservedly or not I could not say, though Pollan's point is excellent. It was Hippocrates who used the expression "diaitetike techne," "dietetic art," to mean what has come to be called "dietetics."
A more regular English formation for a professional practitioner of dietetics would be "dietetician," but that seems not to have got off the ground. It is unfortunate that the form that we ended up using, "dietitian," rather resembles such etymologically low-quality professional titles as "beautician" and "cosmetologist."
On a more germane moral note, we may wonder if Pollan believes that all dietitians, by definition, share in the error (by his reasoning) of Hippocrates, who pronounced that "food is the best medicine." Or something like that.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:16 am
01 Feb 2007
The issue is whether a group of professionals who claim to give objective, fair advice should accept gifts from parties whose products are being judged.
According to dietition, the gifts are quite a bit more than T-shirts and shopping bags: The manufacturer is able to help pay the huge expenses (travel, meals, hotel, and honorarium) My jaw dropped when I saw that -- this is big-time money.
I'm further astonished to find two dietitions who apparently don't see anything wrong with the practice.
Journalism has had similar problems and developed codes of ethics. For example, the Lincoln (Nebraska) Times Star has the policy:The acceptance of gifts or preferential treatment compromises or gives the appearance of compromising the integrity of the newspaper. Employees generally shall not accept business-connected gifts, sample products or free services - but consider the intent. If the gift is from a business grateful for favorable publicity and hopeful for more in the future, return it politely with a note explaining the newspaper's policy. Why should dietitions not be held to similar standards?
If I were working for Mother Jones, or even the NY Times, I would salivating for the prospect of a big juicy story. Health is a big concern of the public, and to find that dietitions, whom we would like to trust, accepting funding at this scale! I can see a PR disaster coming.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:41 am
01 Feb 2007
Perhaps the ADA officials responsible for these associations, and not the critics who point them out, are the ones who shouyld be apologizing.
However, I do apoplogize, insofar as I implied that all or most dietitians are foot soldiers for the food industry. I am very happy to be informed of the Hunger and Environmental Practice Group. More of that, and fewer association with the likes of Archer Daniels Midland (which introduced generations of US kids to the dubious pleasures of hydrogenated fat and high-ructose corn syrup) will do the ADA's public reputation a world of good.
Victual Reality
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:53 am
01 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
mihan Posted 6:02 am
01 Feb 2007
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:03 am
01 Feb 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
willa Posted 7:42 am
01 Feb 2007
I've never eaten there, for obvious reasons (I've been a vegetarian for longer than I've been aware of said company) as well as un-obvious ones (never, ever allowed to have fast food as a kid, so never really got into it), so I can't tell you anything else except that they had some horrifying ads a few years ago. One of them was a billboard that showed cows painting a sign that said "Eat mor chikn," the most horrifying part of which was that they had made the paint "drip"--to show that cows are messy painters, I guess--but it looked to me like the dripping blood you'd see in a horror-movie poster, although the paint was black, not red. The whole thing made me despair in the same way the Yes Men despaired at their discovery that they couldn't parody George Bush outrageously enough to even pique the suspicion of the average person. If making cows look cute and funny actually encourages people to eat more animal flesh, we really are doomed as a species.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:50 am
01 Feb 2007
One of my heroes is nutrition educator Joan Dye Gussow. In her career, she has foreshadowed current thinking about psychological relationship to foods, local food, farming, corporate productization, and the the reductionism that Pollan criticized in his recent essay.
Google on her name for her many talks, essays and books.
Here is what she says about the issue: Joan Gussow, a former head of the nutrition education program at Teachers College at Columbia University, says the American Dietetic Association's reliance on industry money means that "they never criticize the food industry."
She explained in the text of a recent speech: "If professionals are led to agree that there are no 'good' or 'bad,' 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' foods, then we can't object to any food product that's put on the market, however wasteful or useless it may be."
"So the food critics of the 60's and 70's have been silenced," she added. "Which is, of course, the point. The food industry prefers it that way." This article (Additives In Advice On Food?) appeared in the Nov 15 1995 New York Times -- shows that the ADA has a history of accepting money from industry and trimming its message accordingly. It also shows that there have been many critics of the policy from within the ranks of dietitions: [The ADA] is being increasingly criticized for its aggressive pursuit of cash and in-kind contributions from trade groups like the Sugar Association and the National Livestock and Meat Board and from individual companies like Coca-Cola, M&M Mars, McDonald's and Sara Lee.
...is the association really telling the public what it needs to know?
"They won't go into specifics because they don't want to put any industry people off," said Melanie Putz, an association member who is the community outreach coordinator for the Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger, in Burlington. "A Big Mac is a bad choice, but the A.D.A. wouldn't pinpoint it as bad food."
[ADA president] Dr. Derelian doesn't disagree. "Actually, we could put our name on any McDonald's meal," she said.
"It's not enough anymore to say balance, variety and moderation," said Margo Wootan, a senior staff scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group in Washington. "People are confused because they are not getting specific information and they are getting conflicting messages."
Nothing negative is ever included in materials produced by the association, a fact that critics attribute to its link to industry. Dr. Derelian agrees that the group "does not believe in negative material."
...The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is engaged in a running battle with the association over how nutrition information should be conveyed, was one exhibitor that ran into obstacles at the association's annual convention in Chicago last month. It was told in a letter that it would have to submit its material in advance because "there is some disagreement between our two organizations regarding nutrition messages." Their material critical of olestra, the fat substitute, was barred, the letter said, on grounds that there is debate on olestra and that the group did not have time to review the materials.
...At the same convention, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association handed out a pamphlet developed with the association on the virtues of chocolate; M &M Mars brought literature that said the company "has been committed to healthy eating for more than 80 years," and the Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council touted the virtues of palm oil, which most health professionals place in the same category as butter and suet.
Permalink
dietitian Posted 10:20 am
01 Feb 2007
Close your jaw. Settle down. There is no PR disaster unless it is one of your making. I need to set the record straight because you completely mis-construed what was said in my previous post. The huge expenses mentioned in my original post were not to the dietitian who visits the ADA meeting. If you read carefully you notice the comment was that expenses are paid to the speakers at ADA meetings...researchers, university faculty, scientists, authors, other health professionals, and yes, some dietitians. If this is a PR problem for RD's than it is also a PR problem for hundreds of other professions who have annual meetings and recieve sponsorship from corporations.
The dietitian benefits from ADA meetings by listening to presentations by the speakers and by visiting the exibit hall as was mentioned in another post. Usually somewhere between 7000 and 12,000 dietitians attend an ADA meeting. Often a dietitian attends the ADA conference at his/her own expense and incurs significant costs to do so. Dietitians do not in any way, shape, or form recieve big money from food manufacturers for attending an ADA meeting. To state or imply otherwise is incorrect.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:01 am
01 Feb 2007
The dietitian benefits from ADA meetings by listening to presentations by the speakers and by visiting the exibit hall
This cannot be done via internet?
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:09 am
01 Feb 2007
For example, as you say, the event is subsidized and those who attend benefit from that subsidy: expenses are paid to the speakers at ADA meetings...researchers, university faculty, scientists, authors, other health professionals, and yes, some dietitians. This is big money. Are you saying that this does not represent influence?
I think what shocks me is that you don't see the conflict of interest. Apparently (as in the NY Times article I quoted above), many dietitions disagree with you about whether industry money has distorted advice from the ADA.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:17 am
01 Feb 2007
As for health care costs, as long as people who lead healthy lifestyles are able to pay less for insurance
But this might never happen, given that insurance companies do not indicate that they are interested in competing with each other.
Permalink
Dietitian not Dietician Posted 2:10 pm
01 Feb 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 2:48 pm
01 Feb 2007
1,940,000 hits.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:03 pm
01 Feb 2007
Looking around the Web, one sees a pattern.
From the ADA website, a Dec 21, 06 press release ("American Dietetic Association Welcomes Unilever as First ADA Partner in the Association's New Corporate Relations Sponsorship Program") As an ADA Partner, Unilever will work closely with ADA to develop joint consumer education programs that will inform and educate the health professional community, promote ADA members and make a greater impact on the public's health. The ADA Partner level sponsorship in the Association's new corporate relations sponsorship structure provides a national platform via ADA events and programs with prominent access to key influencers, thought leaders and decision-makers in the food and nutrition marketplace.
SourceWatch says: The American Dietetic Association is a national association of registered dietitians. The group works closely with the International Food Information Council and raises large sums of money advocating for the food industry.
"Its stated mission is to 'improve the health of the public,' but with 15 percent of its budget--more than $3 million--coming from food companies and trade groups, it has learned not to bite the hand that feeds it," Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber write. "... The ADA's website even contains a series of 'fact sheets' about various food products, sponsored by the same corporations that make them (Monsanto for biotechnology; Procter & Gamble for olestra; Ajinomoto for MSG; the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers for fats and oils)
Corporate Money Co-opts Nonprofit Groups, Says Report - Critics Silenced & Friends Won Through Corporate Donations.
Kids, Soda, and Obesity (CareMark) At a time when more kids are overweight and obese than ever, why are public school districts and the American Dietetic Association defending soda consumption? It all comes down to money
I'm not sure whether this information is current. I think the ADA has changed their position on soda sold in schools, for example. But one does see a trend, doesn't one?
Permalink
Fern Gale Estrow an RD Posted 9:00 pm
01 Feb 2007
From: Sympa user [mailto:sympa@elist.tufts.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Philpott
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:03 AM
To: Helen Costello
Cc: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 117';l[30]=' 100';l[31]=' 101';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 102';l[36]=' 117';l[37]=' 116';l[38]=' 46';l[39]=' 116';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 108';l[43]=' 101';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 100';l[46]=' 111';l[47]=' 111';l[48]=' 102';l[49]=' 109';l[50]=' 111';l[51]=' 99';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
KathyF Posted 12:57 am
02 Feb 2007
Other professional conferences are full of corporate sponsors too, helping to foot the bill.
Or are dietitians the only professionals who are susceptible to influence from industry?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:17 am
02 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:49 am
02 Feb 2007
The ADA, however, does seem to be particularly upfront that it is selling influence to corporations: the Association's new corporate relations sponsorship structure provides a national platform via ADA events and programs with prominent access to key influencers, thought leaders and decision-makers in the food and nutrition marketplace.
ADA press release
The other difference is that many dietitions are idealistic about their profession, and would like to be seen as trustworthy and objective. There seems to be a contradiction here.
Permalink
d41295 Posted 4:16 am
02 Feb 2007
> Your comment that Mr. Philpott is not
> paying your health care cost is
> surprisingly simplistic and not at
> all correct. When obesity rates
> and chronic illness rise across a
> population due to unhealthy food
> choices everyone pays.
No cost is too small for nanny-state liberals like you to use it to force other people to live as you demand. My company pays for some of my health insurance costs, and I pay the rest. You pay precisely $0. So butt out.
> We pay
> when a business or corporation has to raise its' > prices to be able to afford increased premiums.
This is called the free market. Patronize some other company whose health insurance policies you do agree with. Or grow your own food. Or go hungry--I really don't care.
> We pay when our personal health care premiums go > up for the same reason.
They watch your own weight, and I will watch mine. You have no right to tell me how to live or what weight I should maintain. Mind your own damn business.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:25 am
02 Feb 2007
And how could we get more cynical, than by throwing around, as though sincerely, as though uttered by one who is pure of heart, such frightful terms as "key influencers," and "thought leaders"? As the late, lamented Molly Ivins said about Pat Buchanan's speech, at the GOP National Convention in 1992, it probably sounds better in the original German.
FYI, "thought leader" is Gedankenfuehrer.
Sieg heil!
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
frightened of food Posted 2:11 pm
02 Feb 2007
As a card-carrying member of the ADA as well as one of its toughest critics, I have read with interest all of the above comments, and it seems to me that there are two distinct threads involved:
Dietitians are vague and recommend all foods without regard to actual nutritional value, possibly because our professional organization is in bed with industry; and
The American Dietetic Association should not promote itself as an unbiased purveyor of nutrition information when some of its programs are funded by industry.
I have noticed in some posts an attempt to distinguish individual dietitians, who certainly have minds of their own and to whom being a member of the ADA is merely a credential, from the party line of the organization as a whole.
I would encourage this distinction, as there are many subgroups of dietitians, and perhaps even the occasional complete renegade, who are not only working in areas not necessarily sanctioned by the organization, but also working to change the internal workings of the organization.
The only way to change it is to be in it, so although it has been tempting to drop my membership in protest, I believe that my voice is louder as a member than as an outsider.
I have found many like-minded member dietitians and non-member dietitians (we are not required to be members of ADA to maintain our credentials - it is a voluntary membership fee) who agree that the party line of ADA does not represent us, our nutrition philosophies, or the work we do.
We have found a "home" in the subgroups of ADA, called Dietetic Practice Groups. This is where most of the work of ADA is done, where most of the books are published, where most of the grassroots advocacy is promoted, where most of the position papers are written. There are subgroups on just about every nutrition topic imaginable, from Educating the Public to Sports Nutrition and everything in between. However these subgroups are NOT in bed with industry (ADA has very strict controls over that) and therefore do not have the dollars to get the massive press coverage that ADA the parent organization does.
"ADA" may refer to the larger organization, but in a sense that is more of an administrative association run out of an office in Chicago and a Washington-based lobbying office. My impression from meeting with representatives from these two offices (which took place at FNCE, in a subgroup board meeting - FNCE is not merely an exhibit hall) was that relatively few of them are actually dietitians. From the executive director of ADA on down, few dietitians have paid positions with ADA. Most participate on a totally volunteer basis, receiving zero compensation from ADA or industry. Because of this, positions are only held for a year, or at most two, and you can imagine that the discontinuity causes a lot of reliance on those non-dietitian administrators. ADA is working to remedy this with strategic planning, so that from one year to the next, the ADA presidents can continue working on initiatives, instead of starting from scratch every term.
I am often disgruntled with ADA, but I believe that the leadership wants to make course corrections, as evidenced by the many surveys I receive asking me to comment on topics varying from What trends do you see in the practice of dietitics? to What topics do you think should be added to the dietetics educational curriculum? I never miss an opportunity to respond with my views, and suggest that my colleagues do the same. Change on an institutional level is slow, but I believe it can happen.
I remember years ago signing a petition protesting that Slim-Fast was a sponsor of our sub-group meeting... at the same meeting where the keynote topic was "The Myth of Scientific Objectivity." It was quite a galvanizing meeting, and I loved the social action aspect of it. But the truth is, that meeting probably would not have taken place without the sponsorship of Slim-Fast. This is the dilemma - how to maintain complete objectivity (or something close to it) when money talks? Membership dues would be exorbitant if no sponsorship dollars were allowed.
Finally, I would like to address thread one, that dietitians recommend all foods without regard to nutrition. My specialty area is eating disorders, in other words, people who have become so confused about the food messages in this mixed-up world that they no longer know what to eat, how to eat, how much to eat, when to eat.... I have patients who repeatedly chew food and spit it out; patients who eat foods they are afraid of on purpose in order to have a reason to vomit; patients who refuse to eat anything that another human has touched; patients so severely malnourished that they require medical intervention, even though all of their digestive organs work just fine; and every other combination of abnormal eating habits you have never even imagined. We are all products of our environment, and although one poster mentioned that she doesn't eat fast food because she was never exposed to it in childhood, we have just as many people out there who binge on fast food because they were never allowed to have it in childhood. When people hear messages that they "shouldn't" eat certain foods, some of those people begin to crave those very foods until they can think of nothing else, or eat them and throw them up out of guilt, or read cookbooks and cook for other people instead of eating. In essence, to help my patients be healthier, I have to help them give themselves permission to eat some of these less nutritious foods... in which case they often don't even want them any more.
Human eating behavior is a strange and unpredictable entity, and until we have more dollars for research, we will continue to be victims of the food industry, which does have the dollars, and uses the research to sell us more food (or food-like substances).
Thank you for taking the time to read all of this, and thank you to the hosts of this wonderful forum.
Best wishes.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:04 pm
02 Feb 2007
According to the ADA, as reported in the 1999 membership database, men accounted for only 2.6% of the association's 40,730 members.
Compared to males, females have lower:
IQs (1/3 standard deviation)
visuo-spatial ability (1 standard deviation)
cognitive flexibility
emotional maturity
All of these are major factors in scientific ability. Thus, females have low scientific ability. Given that human objective understanding of nutrition is based upon science, I would predict that dietetics would be objectively improved if all female dietitians were to leave the field.
Permalink
willa Posted 2:05 am
03 Feb 2007
Interesting to hear about the staff/volunteer issue; I think this is one faced by more or less all organizations, that the paid staff have more day-to-day responsibility and professionalism about operating the offices and programs, and perhaps more knowledge of the organization's needs, but less clout as far as big decisions and less involvement/awareness/professionalism WRT the field in general. It has both plusses and minuses, and it sounds like in the ADA's case it isn't working as well as it might.
Oh, and NucBuddy, I suggest you clarify the joke if you were joking, because, well, it'd be too bad if you were to let down your gender's reputation for being funnier than ours (see Christopher Hitchens' hilarious thoughts on the subject...okay, moving on...).
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:38 am
03 Feb 2007
"I know it when I see it." --Justice Blackmun
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:35 am
03 Feb 2007
Besides those whom he mentions, some very funny women who just pop into my head are Phyllis Diller, Carol Burnet, Joan Rivers, Barbra Streisand (esp. in "Funny Girl," in the role of Fanny Bryce), Lily Tomlin, Cloris Leachman, Madeline Kahn and Gilda Radner. Woody Allen has got some wonderful comic performances out of a number of women, including Louise Lasser, Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow. Cher is basically a kind of clown, in a class of one; we adore her "Moonstruck," which includes a few great funny performances by women, esp. Olympia Dukakis.
Classic TV shows with some very funny women, aside from Lucille Ball and Vivian Vance (Imogene Coca was a bit before my time), include "The Honeymooners" (Audrey Meadows), "The Beverly Hillbillies" family (Granny and Miss Hathaway; and Zsa Zsa Gabor in "Green Acres" is unforgettable), "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "All In The Family" (Jean Stapleton as Edith), and "The Bob Newhart Show" (Suzanne Pleshette). I was not that crazy about the two shows with Bea Arthur, though they have their fans.
Comic African-American women should not be forgotten, nor the female voices in "The Simpsons." And there are a number of good female cartoonists, my favorite being Nicole Hollander.
In a different context, the two recently deceased daughters of Texas politics, Ann Richards and now Molly Ivins, were, each in her own way, spectacularly funny. I love Richards' comment, at I think the 1972 Democratic convention, on the underestimation of women: "Ginger Rogers could do everything that Fred Astaire did, only she did it backwards and in high heels."
Anyway: Was Nucbuddy's comment, in which he goes a few steps beyond the superficially innocent but really offensive suggestion of Lawrence Summers, supposed to be funny? It seems pretty clearly to be a place where we can "locate the unfunny," if you ask me.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 6:07 am
03 Feb 2007
I won't start on Hitchens here, except to say that his attitude towards women as baby factories who also do double-duty as arbiters of social performance is appalling, and reflects an array of appalling tropes about gender in general. Oh, and I should add that all those straight guys trying to be really funny would get a whole lot more play if they would do their share of the housework with all that energy instead of pouring it into offensive jokes about how women can't make jokes about their bodies.
Oh, and you know why women are so bad at math? 'Cause men keep telling us this [picture my hands held a playing-card's width apart] is six inches.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:31 am
03 Feb 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:43 am
03 Feb 2007
The divisions you describe within ADA explain its split personality.
On the one hand, we have a history of statements that I can only describe as bizarre. A policy against labeling any food as "junk food." Standing up for food irradiation, McDonald's, soda pop. It's so bad that a congressional staffer was quoted in Nation as saying the ADA was "a front for the food groups."
On the other hand, individuals within the ADA are coming out with some great material. food sleuth, who posted earlier, has been writing some excellent columns. And I see that the ADA itself co-authored a great piece with Parents Magazine: How To Raise A Healthy Eater in a Junk Food World. (Does this mean the ban on the phrase "junk food" has been lifted?)
Several posters have pointed out that money from the food industry is necessary to run the organization. If a group chooses to take money, it is critical to take steps to prevent undue influence. For example, clearly label any material that comes from industry. Keep advertising strictly separated from content.
An example of what to avoid is this piece in the ADA's "Eating Right" pushing low-fat ice cream has the feel of marketing literature rather than objective advice, as Connie Bennett of Sugar Shock says.
In researching the subject, I ran across the definitive book on the influence of the food industry: Food Politics by nutrition educator Marion Nestle. (An excerpt is here).
Dr. Nestle noted in an interview (PDF): Food companies try to make sure that there aren't any ideas out in the world that there might be something unhealthful about what they're selling. They do it in an especially nice way. They sponsor research, meetings, travel and journals. They provide food and product for events. They cooperate with food and nutrition professionals. And of course, food and nutrition professionals seek out food company support because they need the money.PS Thanks caniscandida for pointing out the Orwellian language in the ADA press release. How true it is, that bad writing = bad thinking.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:52 am
03 Feb 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
willa Posted 7:18 am
03 Feb 2007
It just occurred to me that I should say--while attempting not to be mean, because that's not how I intend this--that listing funny women is sort of like saying "but some of my best friends are ___!"
Oh, and bitchphd just got a bit of grief from her commenters for basically exactly this. Just so you know I'm not picking on you particularly. :)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:49 am
03 Feb 2007
Actually, Hitchens is far too intelligent to believe that any kind of stereotyping truly gets us very far. Anyway, as I read this piece, his subject seems not to be women at all. What he is really mocking is curious ideas that men have about women, and their own related insecurities. In a way, he is himself an example of a kind of insecure man, the kind that must flee to the womanless company of men in order to tell jokes of a certain kind.
I think he is right, that many men do have that prejudice about women expressed in the Kipling poem, that all women ultimately care about their duty toward their children, above everything else. Of course that is nonsense. On the other hand, it seems pretty certainly correct that no comic, whether male or female, has ever yet tried to make a joke of episiotomy, for whatever reason. (Childbirth itself is a fair subject, though. Streisand somewhere said that it is "like pushing a piano through a transom.")
I found these three sentences fascinating:
<<
One tiny snuffle that turns into a wheeze, one little cut that goes septic, one pathetically small coffin, and the woman's universe is left in ashes and ruin. Try being funny about that, if you like. Oscar Wilde was the only person ever to make a decent joke about the death of an infant, and that infant was fictional, and Wilde was (although twice a father) a queer.
>>
The first sentence is stylistically close to perfect. It is clearly meant to be funny; and that is precisely what Hitchens is denying it ever could be. The irony is wonderful. I would like to ask him how the queerness of Wilde fits into his scheme. He may be onto something. The first sentence is in fact very close in tone to many of the works of that other (much more out and secure) "queer," Edward Gorey. Cf. this, from Gorey's "Gashlycrumb Tinies," an illustrated alphabet composed of the deaths of 26 children:
<<
A is for Amy who fell down the stairs.
B is for Basil assaulted by bears.
C is for Clara who wasted away.
D is for Desmond thrown out of a sleigh.
E is for Ernest who choked on a peach.
F is for Fanny sucked dry by a leech.
G is for George smothered under a rug.
H is for Hector done in by a thug.
...
>>
You get the idea. But the subject is not at all the grief of a mother (mothers in Gorey are either absent or cold), or even the deaths themselves, but rather the peculiar imagination and manners of the Victorian and Edwardian eras. And that was Wilde's subject too, really, when he made his oft-quoted witticism on the death of Dickens's Little Nell. In fact, Hitchens comes much closer than either of those "queers" in presenting the bereavement of a mother as an object of humor.
Also, he is quite wrong to suggest that women cannot make fun of parts of their bodies. In the early or mid 1960s, not long after she had the semi-deifying role of the Virgin Mary in that biblical classic "King of Kings," the Irish actress Siobhan McKenna was a guest on a TV interview show, and, before a live audience, told the utterly unexpected story of a woman, walking through the streets of a city, with one breast exposed. And she made some outrageous hand-gestures to indicate the striking imbalance and asymmetrical up-and-down bobbing of the woman's appearance as she walked. An abashed man noticed, and followed at a distance, and at last found the courage to go up to her; he pointed, and said, "Madam, you are undressed!"; to which she responded, in shock, "Oh my God, I forgot the baby on the bus!"
Well, the audience, mostly women, was on the floor, helpless.
Back to Nucbuddy: Whatever the intention of his remark, it seems out of place, following the generous and impressive statement by Frightened of Food.
KathyF, on deletion in this case, you may be right. But the Supreme Court Justice who famously avoided to define pornography in the quote that you give was not Harry Blackmun, but rather his colleague Potter Stewart.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 8:13 am
03 Feb 2007
I've never heard a woman make a joke specifically about an episiotomy, but I've heard plenty of them about husbands' feeling on the, um, changes afterwards (either way, depending on whether thought was given by the doctor to retightening things). Mothers don't make jokes about dead babies, perhaps, but then neither do most men. Mothers do frequently make jokes about how they're thisclose to murdering their kids at various times and for various reasons, or about how their children manage by being really cute to bring said mothers back from the brink of murderous rage, which I guess isn't an avenue of joking that's as open to fathers given that there's less certainty that they are 110% joking. Let's not forget that most child abuse is perpetrated by men, whether they're fathers or otherwise, so I think claiming women can't joke about dead babies is sort of misleading if you don't take it to its logical conclusions.
Also, let us not forget that women!=mothers. Mothers do, it seems, live in a somewhat different world than do the rest of us, male and female (fatherhood presumably changes people too, but I don't think nearly as much). That said, I can be a woman perfectly well without ever trying to squeeze something the size of a watermelon through something the size of a lemon (from "Look Who's Talking"--hadn't heard the Streisand one before, but it's cute too). I guess physiologically I'm a "potential mother," but thank God for modern medicine's triumph over physiology in this case.
Oh, and both my fiance and I laughed hysterically at the "Oh my God, i forgot the baby on the bus!" line. I'll have to remember that one.
Okay, shutting up, not going to be off-topic anymore. Today at least.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:11 pm
03 Feb 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:40 pm
03 Feb 2007
Nucbuddy's comment [...] qualifies as the sort of [...] post I'd say deserves to be deleted.
What if the comment were accurate?
Here is one of the latest (April 21, 2006) papers on the male-female IQ gap:
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20Intell%20Jackson%20&%20Rushton.pdf
Any given difference between distribution-means is amplified toward the tails of those distributions. Health-care professionals and scientists are not selected from the middle of America's IQ-distribution. They are selected from more-toward the higher-end of the distribution where the male/female representation difference is even greater than it is near the mean.
Research has not only found a difference between the means of the male and female IQ-distributions. It has also found a difference between the standard-deviation values of the two distributions -- e.g., the male distribution has a greater standard-deviation value, and is therefore broader (looking something like this). This further amplifies the differences in representation. The above-linked Rushton paper states this as: "males have been found to have greater test score variance than females, being overrepresented at both the high and the low extremes."
So, we have many males and not very many females who, in terms solely of IQ, might qualify for scientific careers. Not only that, but there are several other factors known to correlate with scientific ability, and they all favor males. From that, we might reasonably conclude that there should be vanishingly-few females in the United States who qualify for scientific careers, even at a low-threshold of scientific ability such as one might assign to the field of dietetics. However, the ADA, per my previous post, in 1999 was 97.4% female.
If all of the above is accurate, should we expect the ADA, or typical dietitians, to be giving scientifically-sound advice?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:18 pm
03 Feb 2007
The best way to deal with these characters is not to engage their arguments, but rather ignore them until they go away, in search of a more gullible and entertaining group.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Jamesesq73 Posted 4:30 am
04 Feb 2007
Wow, you certainly are very brave with your tough speech through the comforting anonymity of the Internet. It is certainly too bad that you can't seem to grasp the way that health insurance premiums are calculated.
While it is true, in the cases of people purchasing individual health insurance plans, that health factors such as obesity make you pay more, the great majority of health insurance plans do not factor obesity into their premiums. One study estimates that up to 2/3 of those with health insurance are employed through group plans that do not factor obesity into their premiums and thus spread the extra costs to everyone in the same pool. If that is not clear enough for you let me quote from one study: "Obese and overweight people with health insurance impose significant negative externalities on normal weight people in the same insurance pool. This externality arises because weight-based underwriting of health insurance premiums is not practiced." (Health Insurance, Obesity, and Its' Economic Cost, Jay Bhattacharya and Neeraj Sood) To put it another way, in case you can't understand that, the same study dumbs it down for you: "Because medical costs are higher for the obese and premiums do not depend on weight, lighter people in the same pool pay for the food/exercise decisions of the obese. Furthermore, the negative health effects of obesity decrease the ability of the obese to pay for government-mandated social programs."
(I just bet your panties got all in a knot when you read "government-mandated social programs didn't they?)
Permalink
willa Posted 1:16 pm
04 Feb 2007
Permalink
Jamesesq73 Posted 9:21 am
05 Feb 2007
Just to clarify, I did not at any point say that heavier people should pay for lighter peoples' health insurance. I was simply pointing out that health insurance premiums are spread out over a large population of "consumers" and that one persons health can affect the premiums of other members of the same insurance pool.
Permalink
willa Posted 2:08 pm
05 Feb 2007
Permalink
Jamesesq73 Posted 11:52 pm
05 Feb 2007
In addition, while noting that I am not a medical doctor, the literature seems to be clear that there is a direct correlation between obesity and medical diseases such as heart disease and obesity.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:40 am
06 Feb 2007
Nucbuddy,
It wouldn't make any difference, because true or not, it's offensive, and people do not function well in offensive environments.
Suppose I have a higher IQ than you. Does it mean that I will be better than you are at any intellectual sort of job? It does not. Each of our individual interests has a big role in that. Based on a person's interests, they may do well at many jobs that would require more intelligence from someone less committed to the job. If we're going to talk about stereotypes, one that I have is that women tend to take their jobs more seriously than men and invest more of themselves in their work. A more committed person could easily make up for a little less brains if that's needed.
In any case, society is not about putting people in jobs based only on performance. Everybody has social and emotional needs, and it does not help to make one segment of society feel inferior to another, or to make an individual feel inadequate. People pursue careers that make them feel good. For me, that feeling comes from helping the environmental situation while still providing for my family. For someone else, it may be about earning a high salary or something else.
If you consider the effect your remarks would have if they were taken seriously, I hope you would realize the harm. Women are not going to quit their jobs because of what you say, and shame on you if they do. Whether it's true or false, accusing women of being less competent than men hurts society and individuals. I suggest that you spend some time thinking about why that could be.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 4:44 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink