how the food industry is trying to cover up the scandal – L’Express

At the heart of their debates: the Nova classification, used to divide foods into four categories, from minimally to ultra-processed. It is on this basis that almost all of the epidemiological studies carried out in recent years are based, and it is an understatement to say that the food industry takes a dim view of it. If it turns out to be ineffective, all the accumulated data would be called into question. The icing on the bowl of Coco Pops, any risk of seeing it used to inform consumers, for example by affixing a specific logo on the packaging of the products concerned, or to introduce a tax, would be ruled out. A bit technical, the discussion is therefore no less crucial.

In support of her demonstration, Véronique Braesco cites her own work, and in particular a publication from 2022. For this article, 177 “nutrition specialists” had to place around a hundred foods in the four categories of the Nova classification: “A A quarter of the products were classified in a very variable way depending on the people interviewed. This clearly shows that the definition of these categories lacks precision,” she summarizes. But what value should be given to a study carried out with anonymous contributors, whose professional affiliation cannot be verified, recruited through calls for contributions from research organizations, but also from Ania, the National Association of food industries, the main French agri-food lobby? Added to this is the proximity of the main author with the client companies of her consulting firm: “Of course I have an obvious link of interests, but that does not prevent scientific rigor. Moreover, three of my co-authors were academics,” defends Ms. Braesco. However, two also had links with industry or mass distribution, links not mentioned for one of the researchers. In addition, two other authors were also consultants for the agri-food industry. Finally, the study was partly financed by an organization co-founded by Ania…

“It’s quite classic. As governments have not yet taken up the issue of ultratransformed people, we see attempts to stifle science so that nothing is put in place at the political level,” notes Mélissa Mialon, assistant professor. at Trinity College Dublin and coordinator of the Governance, Ethics and Conflict of Interest in Public Health network. In 2018, this researcher worked in Brazil, with Carlos Monteiro, the inventor of the Nova classification. Already at the time, a handful of scientists around the world were virulently discussing the concept of ultratransformation and the relevance of the Nova tool. “We then carried out an exhaustive review of their publications and their funding: 90% of them presented links of interest with the agri-food sector,” summarizes Mélissa Mialon.

Since then, nothing has really changed. At the start of the year, the FoodDrinkEurope association, the sector’s main European lobby, produced an argument highlighting “the limitations” of the ultra-processing concept and the “weaknesses” of Nova. Their strong argument? A study by researchers from the University of Surrey and the European Food Information Council (Eufic). They analyzed “100 scientific articles on ranking methods” and concluded that “most systems do not take into account existing data on nutrition and food processing.” The problem ? Five of the six authors, again, had links to the industry, directly or via Eufic. Under the guise of an independent organization responsible for promoting healthy eating in Europe, this structure is 37% financed by large groups (Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Ferrero, Mars, Unilever, etc.).

Nothing surprising for Australian scientist Phil Baker, a specialist in the study of the economic determinants of food: “The food industry seeks to create doubt, like the tobacco companies before them. They subsidize researchers, but also apparently independent structures, which will take up their arguments.” A caricatured example according to this expert, the British Nutrition Foundation, a British non-profit organization providing dietary advice to the general public. In April, its experts published a position paper on ultra-processed foods. In addition to the limitations of Nova, they also underlined the possibility that the recommendations relating to fat, sugar and salt are sufficient to prevent the possible adverse effects of TUEs, or the need to better understand the mechanisms by which they could harm health. health. The authors were also concerned about the consequences of this negative discourse on food processing, which could discourage manufacturers from reformulating their products to improve their nutritional qualities, or make citizens feel guilty when they lack the time to cook or the money to buy. better quality products…

Any resemblance to the arguments put forward by FoodDrinkEurope is not coincidental. By browsing the annual report of the British Nutrition Foundation to its last pages, we discover that its work on TUEs was financed directly by manufacturers in the sector (Mars, Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, etc.). A mixture of genres which turns out to be quite widespread. Manufacturers thus contribute to varying degrees to structures such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics in the United States, the British Dietetics Association, or, in France, the French Nutrition Society. “No one thinks that Philip Morris should fund doctors who produce research on the effects of tobacco, or that the drafting of anti-tobacco laws should be influenced by organizations subsidized by the cigarette industry. Why should it be any different? in terms of nutrition?” asks Chris van Tulleken, the author of Ultra-Processed People.

The question arises all the more since the origin of research funding is not neutral on the published results. In 2020, a study published in PLOS One showed that 86% of articles involving direct or indirect funding from the industry presented results favorable to the interests of these groups. A proportion which drops to 20% when researchers work completely independently.