Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Food Giants' Endless Appetite for Profit

By Matthew Wheeland, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2007.


An interview with author Michele Simon, whose latest book covers the ruthless manner in which corporate giants market junk foods to boost their profit margin.
appetiteforprofithropti
bobks

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matthew Wheeland

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In recent years, the United States of America has morphed into what one writer calls "the United States of Arugula." The rise of the celebrity chef, of the 24-hour Food Network, and Martha Stewart's do-it-all perfectionism has brought on a similar yearning for all things gourmet.

During the same time, a number of notable books have shined a light on the darker side of our new food obsession. Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma and Peter Singer's The Way We Eat, among many others, showcase how the decisions we make at grocery stores or restaurants affect us and the planet. But very few books address the policies that shape the food supply and influence eating habits in this country, policies that make some foods cheap or expensive, that bring us "fresh" asparagus from Argentina, and that arguably have led to our current epidemics of obesity, diabetes and other health problems brought on by our food choices.

Michele Simon's new book, Appetite for Profit aims to address this oversight. Simon is the founder of the Center for Informed Food Choices and Research and Policy Director for the Marin Institute, and Appetite for Profit helps illuminate the many ways that food companies -- from General Mills to McDonald's -- market the unhealthiest foods to boost their profit margin and fight any attempts to reverse this trend. AlterNet spoke with Simon over the phone earlier this month.

Matthew Wheeland: First off, tell me how the book came about. You've obviously been working on these topics for a long time, so why now?

Michele Simon: I've been following the food industry and government policy for many years, but, really, in the last couple years the national debate has been heating up around the obesity epidemic and other topics.

Where I got the idea for the book was at a conference in 2004 hosted by ABC News and Time magazine. It was called "The Summit on Obesity" and they said they were bringing together 500 of the nation's top experts to forge solutions to the obesity epidemic. Giving the keynote address was former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, a man who knew nothing about public health, but he was giving his cheerleading speech about how we all "had to spread the gospel of personal responsibility," which sent chills down my spine. [Laughs]

He then went on to talk about all the major food companies and what a great job they were doing in coming on board, and one of the companies he mentioned was Coca-Cola. And Thompson said something to the effect that Coca-Cola has stopped marketing in schools, which I knew wasn't true.

Then a funny thing happened: He took questions from the audience. A man got up from the audience by the name of Charles Brown, who is a representative from Indiana. He wanted to know that if Coca-Cola was such a responsible company, then why had they sent five lobbyists to his state capital to kill his piece of legislation that would have required just half of all beverages sold in the school vending machines to be healthy? Well, Tommy Thompson didn't have a very good answer to that, and he just kinda stammered and said, "Well, I don't know anything about that, but if it happened again, you call me."

So that was kind of my eureka moment, because I realized that Representative Brown probably wasn't the only politician finding himself on the receiving end of this kind of lobbying, and I realized there was this kind of dichotomy, this hypocrisy where, on one hand, you had major food companies claiming to be part of the solution and meeting with these top government health officials to say that they were on board, but, on the ground in legislatures, where some policies were trying to get passed, it was a totally different story, or basically business as usual.

I felt that this needed to be exposed, so I put it together with a lot of other examples of hypocrisy and responses to it, so the book is basically an expose of the various ways that major food companies are responding to the criticism that's been leveled against them -- and rightly so -- and then basically tearing apart their claims and exposing the truth behind it and showing how it is just a lot of PR.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fast food, food industry, michele simon, appetite for profit, food policy, food politics

Matthew Wheeland is a former editor at AlterNet. He is currently managing editor at GreenBiz.com and lives in Berkeley, Calif.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Broad Brush
Posted by: alsh on Jan 29, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author uses a broad paint brush to paint everyone in the food supply chain as villians. THe spotlight should be on the food processors who control what goes on the shelves and control what is bought from the farmer. The individual growing the base product is as much a captive of the processors as the consumer and I dare say is also a proponent of healthy food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» All the more reason... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Broad Brush Posted by: fork
It's not just marketing.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jan 29, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until very recently in human history, we had essentially no choice in what we ate. Sweet, salty and starchy foods and any kinds of fat were so rare that when available they were always a positive addition to our diets. The tables have been turned on us and we are deluged with these once rare foods, in historically out of balance proportions. Our basic instincts have not had time to change through evolution, so we are genetically wired to crave foods that are now killing us.

As a matter of fact, we have put evolution on hold, because we use modern medicine to offset the breakdown of vital systems to keep our unhealthy bodies alive past the point where we pass on our now detrimental genes. The whole "syndrome X" assortment of diseases, including diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease result largely from our diets.

Add to this dilemma the new, untested foods that are constantly being injected into our diet and you have a recipe for disaster. Remember, it took over fifty years for anyone to realize that trans fats were not only not good for us, but that they contributed to heart disease. We don't have fifty years to find out whether and which genetically and chemically modified foods will damage our bodies.

It's not just marketing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not just marketing. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: It's not just marketing. Posted by: dagnymeetsassisi
A dangerous political error
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 29, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I don't have a whole lot of hope for what will come out the other end --- given the fact that the administration is still Republican."

It's a mistake to focus on the Republicans. Industries make sure that they're success is independent of elections. A visit to Open Secrets will show that in the 2006 election Agribusiness "donated" $28.6 million to Republicans and $12.8 million to Democrats and these figures don't include Levin funds to state and local party committees. No matter which party wins "we the people" lose.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you frame a bad thing as "good" all the while downing a good thing as "bad" from childhood to
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 29, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
adulthood, you end up with an unhealthy nation. It is time to get parents and children involved in erasing the bad notion that somehow "veggies are yuckie". Take yourselves and your children away from the television set more often. Instead of going out to restaurants more often, encourage yourselves and your children to get into the joy of healthy cooking, not the "Emiril" style of one hour of cooking unhealthy bullshit. Like Jerry Springer always says "Till next time, take care of yourself and each other."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a global problem
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 29, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example; see this report from The Washington Post on corn in Mexico - after ten years of NAFTA, the large agribusiness concerns have succeeded in running the small farmers off their land and into poverty, and now that they've managed to corner the market, they're boosting the prices (and trying to blame it all on ethanol - though only 15% of US corn produced in 2005-2006 was used for ethanol production; 20% was exported to countries like Mexico under NAFTA rules; over 55% went to factory farming hogs and chickens and to cattle feedlots, and 2% went to corn syrup/junk food).

This is why Korean and Indian and African small farmers are up in arms over the 'free trade agreements' between their countries and the United States - because they know the same thing will happen to them - they'll be turned into slave labor after being driven off their land by unfair market practices. It's all about controlling markets with giant agricultural monopolies - not that the corporate-owned US press wants to admit it.

The total control of agriculture by a handful of megacorporations is the goal; and while some writers on the left have picked up on the role of megacorps in ethanol production, that's only a smallish fraction of the corporate picture; after all, the same corporate concerns that control agribusiness also control the coal and oil industry - which is why Midwestern ethanol refineries are using coal to produce ethanol. However, there is obviously also a major public relations push by gasoline refiners to prevent ethanol from taking away any of their market share; infighting is taking place, but the big money is still in fossil fuels.

The problems are that industrial agriculture in all its forms is unsustainable, but it also provides a lucrative market for fossil fuels. The solution is simple; get rid of subsidies for industrial agriculture and for the fossil fuel corporations, and transfer all those subsidies to renewable energy production and to sustainable agriculture. Within no time, we could then cut off all foreign oil imports, and there'd be no reason to keep military bases in the Mideast, either, or to keeping dumping billions into the Pentagon's overseas activities, aka "the global oil field security program".

Archer Daniels Midland top 5 institutional owners (Sep06)
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd
$2,238,439,127
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
$2,132,444,826
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC
$1,123,751,640
STATE STREET CORPORATION
$686,083,544
VANGUARD GROUP, INC. (THE)
$637,927,799

ExxonMobil's top 5 institutional holders (Sept 06)
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd.
$16,049,900,893
STATE STREET CORPORATION
$12,664,354,692
VANGUARD GROUP, INC.
$10,521,299,391
FMR CORPORATION
$6,846,403,698
AXA
$6,311,467,870

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Disagree with the premise; agree with the approach.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 29, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The premise--that we are slaves to marketing--doesn't hold water. But, for the benefit of those who've been duped, I'll lay it out here explicitly:

FOUR BIG MAC'S PER DAY ARE BEE-AI-DEE BAD FOR YOU.

Now that we've gotten the obvious 2/3 of the article out of the way, let's address the proposals:

1) making children a focal point for nutrition
2) ending farm subsidies

Teach kids what to eat, lead by example, and most kids will follow the example. I don't need the government squashing freedom of speech by telling companies they can't portray Sponge Bob enjoying french fries because I'm too lazy to take my kids to the park instead of letting the Dummy Box baby-sit them on Saturday morning.

With the farm subsidies, the author is spot-on. We need to abolish the subsidies, not only for food crops, but also for ethanol. Farmers and farming companies in an industrialized, modern society should be able to stand on their own, or be allowed to topple to make way for better competitors. That goes double for "alternative" fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel: if the economy to support these technologies is profitable and productive, tax payers need not absorb the risk.

Overall, this was a good article, the cheap shots at the audience's autonomy and inability to resist marketing notwithstanding. Educate your kids, repeal the farm subsidies and return those monies to the taxpayers, and enjoy a doubly enriched society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

End subsidies for fossil fuels and support small independent farmers!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 29, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These will total over $27 billion over the next few years - only $5 billion was trimmed off by the recent Congressional actions. The subsidies to agriculture are even greater; they amount to $26 billion per year, but that's what corporate farmers rely on so that they can export their crops at below-market prices.

On the other hand, subsidizing only sustainable, fossil-fuel free biofuel production will benefit farmers and will likely do away with the need for subsidies altogether, as a good fraction of the money going to gasoline sales will then be redirected to farmers; what's really needed is a massive research and subsidy program directed at cellulosic ethanol instead of corn-based ethanol.

The major oil corporations are completely opposed to this, however: here's what ExxonMob has to say-Bloomberg Report Jan 29 2007

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded energy company, considers ethanol irrelevant as a solution to an addiction that forces the U.S. to import two-thirds of its oil. No "viable, meaningful business proposition'' exists for Exxon in ethanol, Senior Vice President Stuart McGill told investors at a Jan. 17 conference arranged by Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

"The nature of the science as it stands today and the technology involved requires significant forms of subsidies and mandates to make a lot of sense,'' McGill said in New York, dismissing an industry that counts Microsoft founder Bill Gates and David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm, among its biggest enthusiasts."


So, the corporate giants are fighting it out...and they still seem to be ignoring large-scale investment in solar panel production, which is what they should be doing...

Hmmm... the question I'd like to see answered is this: can small organic farmers cheaply produce ethanol in a small-scale home still, as they did for centuries before the advent of fossil-fuel based industrial agriculture? See for example, The Secret History of Rum.

Personally, I still think that domestically produced ethanol is a far better fuel choice then foreign oil imports, though there are those who say we should use neither and stick to bicycles... which seems rather unlikely, to say the least.

A very good discussion with useful links on small-scale ethanol production by the independent farmer can be found at http://www.newrules.org/agri/smalleth.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are indeed slaves to marketing - that's why PR is a $10 billion/year industry...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 29, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the best details on how PR works:

Toxic Sludge is Good For You, Stauber and Rampton

Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future, Stauber and Rampton

Rolling Stone: The Man Who Sold the War:
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war, by JAMES BAMFORD"


The whole war with Iraq was an example of how the American people are slaves to marketing, especially when the corporate media goes along with the public relations program.

Similarly, the only reason that half the US population thinks global warming isn't happening is because of a massive public relations effort (see www.exxonsecrets.org for the details...) another example of how large chunks of the US are slaves to marketing.

These PR strategies are all based on "putting your words in someone else's mouth"; noone will believe a fossil fuel CEO who claims that global warming isn't happening, or that biofuels are the essence of evil, so 'independent third parties' are hired as 'unofficial spokespeople'.

You don't need to take my word for it - read what the propaganda monkeys have to say about their own "industry":

Inside the Minds: The Art of Public Relations is the most authoritative book ever written on public relations, written by CEOs from Edelman, Burson Marsteller, Golin/Harris, Euro RSCG, Fleishman-Hilliard and Ruder Finn. These industry visionaries reveal the secrets for companies of all sizes to get noticed, make a name for themselves and build a global brand through proven methods of public relations. Topics also covered include the everlasting effects of the Internet and technology, crisis management, establishing media contacts, working in teams, compensation and more. An unprecedented look inside the minds of the world's best PR leaders makes for critical reading for every executive, entrepreneur and anyone in the public relations, marketing and advertising world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A few free sources Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: A few free sources Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Agribusiness is a corporate welfare queen
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 29, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take The Rich Off Welfare

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Agribusiness is still business. And why is PR a $10 billion business?
Posted by: eddie torres on Jan 29, 2007 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
$10 billion is what Acxiom and Choicepoint are willing to sell you for. Your identity and citizenship have been leased out at bargain basement prices. Don't fight it, or they'll rape your credit rating.

See the PBS Frontline program on PR and advertising: "The Persuaders" from 2004. The interview with Peter Swire (OSU law PhD) zeroes in on Acxiom Corporation, a key player in the data mining and management industry. This is who Acxiom says you are:

"Personicx from Acxiom®, is a household level segmentation system built using InfoBase® data. By classifying all US households according to consumers’ different stages of life and related purchasing behaviors, it provides a current, accurate and consistent framework to view customers at a household level. It enables users to compare customers across their product mix, across time and across their enterprise. With 100% coverage, Personicx also enables users to see differences in how US households spend time and money. This turns raw data about customers into accurate, actionable information."

On the sinister side:

"We found from Securities and Exchange Commission records that Acxiom, a company that was seeking Homeland Security contracts, agreed to pay former General Wesley Clark hundreds of thousands of dollars for his help in persuading the government to buy the company's wares. Clark was a registered lobbyist while he simultaneously served as a military analyst on CNN, and indeed, Clark was still registered as a lobbyist when he declared his candidacy on Sept. 17, 2003."
(Charles Lewis on GregPalast.com, January 20 2004 )

Over at Choicepoint, John Ashcroft is working hard on US domestic intelligence products for future private security forces:

"...instead of getting a judge's permission to spy on everybody named Mahmoud in Atlanta, the feds can just buy the records from ChoicePoint, including everything from home addresses to their targets' preferred Safeway stores. Plus, ChoicePoint is aggressively beefing up its vast data banks. It absorbed Database Technologies, the very company that provided the inaccurate felon voter list that prevented tens of thousands of minorities from voting in Florida during the disputed 2000 election."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It starts on the Farm and
Posted by: Krain61 on Jan 29, 2007 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My uncle was and still farms..He uses Chemical to keep the pest out of the field{He Has Cancer}and the seed is already enochulated and and by law the cows must have shot{More Chemicals} and then the milk goes to dairy and is Pasturized
which takes out the enzimes which help you stay healthy. As for corn ,soybean ,etc samething but during processing they use more Chemical which may I add there are 15,000 Chemicals they don't have to list and many make you crave the food. Perservatives are like the shit they put in you after your dead..Now there going to clone animals and not require them to lable it. Maybe theres nothing wrong with it and maybe there is{300,000,000 white rats will tell them later}
I drive truck and there are not many places to park which means what I eat while I'm out is very limited..To what there selling!!!! Somedays I will just go with out for 3 days at a time because of the choices..I don't take medicines but eating there food is just like eating Chemicals. Subways lettus comes from Where? It's not grown naturally but Chemicals are use. I haul HazMat and sometime ago I hauled to a plant in Ohio which makes condenced soup{MMgood}hint
Anyhow my truck had 4 plaquards on it..One was the poison one with the cross bones! But they say it was food grade.I also haul other that are concidered very very toxic but was used strickly for water treatment and add to that the toxic waste of floride{check and see where it comes from} which is also added.The average person cannot find or afford to eat healthy and alot think they are eating healthy but if they buy it in a supermarket you can bet your last dollar it's got some kind of Chemical in it..Processed food is the worsed but if your going to a resturant{where you think it better} you are most likely eating it. And now we will soon pay a even higher price because soon they will claim the yeilds are down but there using it for gas..I say pay the extra and buy natural and after they can't sell the stuff they'll have to go back wards and make the stuff the way it's suppose to be made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a Goat.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jan 29, 2007 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for milk and cheese and goat milk soap. Keep your kids home from public schools and teach them how to milk the goat and garden.
Get some chickens..for eggs and manure and bug catchers.
Grow a garden. Make compost.
Wear old clothes.
Live in a small house on a big piece of land.
Don't eat meat or smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. (or make it yourself)
Grind organic grown wheat and make your own bread.
Ride your horse or bike or walk.
Organize. Form food co-ops. Vote Green.
Read. Shoot the TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Puzzled
Posted by: Jarmadi on Jan 30, 2007 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author states,

"There's something like $25 billion worth of food subsidies in that piece of legislation, and most of the money tends to go to a very small number of crops, including soybeans, corn and wheat. All three of these crops basically perpetuate the unhealthy diet of Americans because specifically soy and corn are fed to cattle. ... That is how we get factory-farmed cattle, which is what keeps Americans eating a meat-centered diet -- basically what keeps meat prices so cheap."

I think that the first sentence is basically true, but I don't get what he is trying to say in the rest. Beef cattle have been finished out on feeds that are principally grain for centuries, either in feedlots, or in a corral out behind the ranch house. It is only in the last 15-20 years that the grain and packing corporations have owned more and more of the cattle that are being fed. When this corporate intrusion began, there was ample opportunity for it to be blocked by regulatory legislation, but nothing was done. It still could be blocked by laws that forbid grain companies or meat packers to own any beef animal for any more than 7 days before slaughter. Ownership of feeder cattle would then revert to individuals, primarily ranchers that would retain ownership of cattle through the feeding stage.

His last remark, about grains(and it seems that wheat is guilty only by the company it keeps with corn and soybeans) being "responsible" for America's "meat centered diet" and the "cheap price of meats" seems like he is now just trailing away into gibberish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great interview
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Jan 30, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks for the interesting interview, really made me think. More evidence that corporate capitalism is not good for people or the planet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]