They took on the food giants
In this era of alternative “facts” and rising industrial sway in Washington, the well-being of Americans depends more than ever on financially and politically independent organizations that inform consumers and advocate for policy changes that help to keep all of us healthy.
One of the most influential such groups is the Washingtonbased Center for Science in the Public Interest, or CSPI, led for more than four decades by Michael Jacobson, who recently stepped down as executive director to work in semiretirement as a senior scientist.
Inspired by Ralph Nader and armed with a degree in microbiology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jacobson and two co-founders burst onto the nutrition scene in 1971. Backed by the best scientific evidence of the day, CSPI relentlessly attacked the ingredients, marketing practices and dietary habits that research showed can undermine the health of Americans.
With a natural bent as a communicator, Jacobson was able to sell serious science with catchy phrases and humor, alerting the public to foods to avoid and offering suggestions for more wholesome alternatives.
Today, the organization’s Nutrition Action Healthletter still counters unwholesome products (it calls them “Food Porn”) with healthier options (“The Right Stuff”).
In tackling the powerful soft drink industry, Jacobson memorably labeled sugar-sweetened sodas “liquid candy,” and CSPI fought to get “added sugars” listed as a separate item on the Nutrition Facts label. Now consumers can distinguish between sugars naturally present in fruits, vegetables and dairy products — and those sweeteners added in factories.
Dr. Walter C. Willett, an internationally regarded researcher and professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said Americans would know a lot less about the foods they eat and how their health could suffer were it not for CSPI.
“Quite a bit of public dollars and scientific effort have demonstrated a clear relationship between diets and long-term health consequences,” Willett said. “The data are published and maybe reported in the news, but if that’s all that happens, the information is often forgotten.
“If you really want to improve public health, it has to be translated into public policies, and that’s where CSPI has played such an important role.”
The center has campaigned vigorously to rid foods of potentially hazardous food dyes; to get soda and junk food out of schools, and to include more vegetables and fruits in school lunches; to reduce trans fats in processed and restaurant-prepared foods to near zero; and to cut the amount of cardiovascular-damaging sodium in these foods.
Thanks largely to CSPI, food labels now list the seven most common food allergens, like peanuts or soy, which can be fatal to sensitive people. Now there are notices on alcoholic beverages warning of potential harm to an unborn child. The term organic now has a legal definition, and safety measures have been strengthened to prevent foodborne illness.
As you might expect when a small nonprofit takes on a multibillion-dollar industry, CSPI has not been free of controversy. Objections have been raised to the organization’s campaign to reduce dietary salt, for instance. Although some experts maintain salt is not a problem for most people, Jacobson believes that the best evidence says otherwise.
“We advocate a public health approach and government intervention, while the conservative approach is personal responsibility and no government involvement,” he said in an interview.
Willett noted, “Policy doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and an independent organization like CSPI is needed to counter the strong industry influence that seriously distorts nutritional science by influencing what research is done, what results get published and how the findings are slanted.”
Dr. David Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and now a CSPI board member and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, said Jacobson “moved the country to demand healthier food. No single individual has done more. He converted an industry that initially was downright hostile to adopt nutritional values that have become mainstream.”
CSPI was accused of helping to create the trans fat problem when decades ago it pushed the food industry to substitute hydrogenated vegetable oils for highly saturated animal fats. “In the ‘70s and ‘80s, there was no good evidence that trans fats were a problem,” Jacobson recalled.
After reliable studies showed these fats were more damaging to cardiovascular health than beef and dairy fat, CSPI petitioned the FDA in 1994 to label trans fats and championed their removal from commercially produced foods.
Marion Nestle, emeritus professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, called CSPI “a unique organization with no conflicts of interest that is able to look at the whole big picture.”
Its newsletter, she added, is “an extraordinary publication that over the years has covered every single issue in nutrition that anyone would care about. It boggles my mind that everyone doesn’t get it.”
Full disclosure: I have been a decades-long fan of CSPI and subscriber to Nutrition Action Healthletter, and have given many friends and relatives gift subscriptions.
From ice creams to meat substitutes, the newsletter helps take the guess work out of grocery shopping, ranking scores of commercial products as “best bites,” “honorable mentions” or simply “average,” according to nutritionally relevant contents like calories, sodium, sugar and protein.
In a recent evaluation of commercial breads, the newsletter touted one — Dave’s Killer Bread Organic Thin-Sliced, loaded with whole grains and seeds and only 60 calories — that has become my absolute favorite.