CCF Follows in Big Tobacco's Footsteps

On Tuesday I briefly mentioned a study that compares the deception of the tobacco industry to that of the food industry. After reading the study, I wanted to write a follow-up post.

The study, "The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?", highlights strategies that are used by the food industry to sway public and government opinion.

In my previous post I told you that if you went to the Center for Consumer Freedom's Web site, you'd find evidence to support each strategy. Here is just a sample of that evidence:

• Focus on personal responsibility as the cause of the nation's unhealthy diet.
  
  On its "About Us" page it says this: "The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting personal responsibility..."
  
  
• Raise fears that government action usurps personal freedom.
  
  In an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune on Feb. 6, CCF's David Martosko writes, "[T]he boundary between personal food choices and government policymaking is gradually disappearing."
  
  
• Vilify critics with totalitarian language, characterizing them as the food police, leaders of a nanny state, and even "food fascists," and accuse them of desiring to strip people of their civil liberties.
  
  Martosko writes in a Nov. 17 op-ed in The Rocky Mountain News: "We all know we need to lose weight. But nobody wants to be scolded by the food police."
  
  
• Criticize studies that hurt industry as "junk science."
  
  A Sept. 24 piece on the CCF site is titled "Junk Science: The Food Cop Pick-Me-Up." Hey, that qualifies for two categories!
  
  
• Emphasize physical activity over diet.
  
  In a Jan. 31 op-ed in the Northwest Times of Indiana, J. Justin Wilson of the CCF writes, "While there is no clear relationship between soft drinks or fast-food restaurants and obesity, there is an unambiguous relationship between physical inactivity and obesity in the United States."
  
  
• State there are no good or bad foods; hence no food or food type (soft drinks, fast foods, etc.) should be targeted for change.
  
  In an op-ed published Dec. 25 in the DC Examiner, Wilson writes, "[W]e can expect that this fascination with 'bad' foods will continue to shape our public health policies ..."
  
  
• Plant doubt when concerns are raised about the industry.
  
  In a March 24 piece on its site about the recent red-meat study, the CCF plants doubt this way: "[T]he National Cancer Institute performed some impressive statistical gymnastics to come to its conclusion – its modest conclusion – that cutting red and processed meats out of your diet could be a life-saver." [italics theirs]

One of the worst things about this evidence is that these newspapers published this garbage, sometimes without fully disclosing what the CCF is and likely without knowing the full extent of their lies.

Surprisingly the tobacco vs. food study only once mentioned the CCF by name. But it did recommend that the food industry "cease funding front groups with consumer-oriented names."

That suggestion is one of many that the study's authors -- a Yale and a University of Michigan researcher -- laid out for how to put the public's health above profits. They seem more hopeful than I that the food industry will comply.

This quotation from a 2007 article about the tobacco industry aptly fits "Big Food": "If the past 50 years have taught us anything, is is that the tobacco industry cannot be trusted to put the public's interest above their profits no matter what they say."

Ironically the CCCF -- which fights for the meat, dairy, pesticide and fish industries, among others -- was created in 1995 as a front group for Philip Morris. Three years later it had accrued more clients, namely the restaurant, meat and alcohol industries.

(Image courtesy of SourceWatch.org.)