Congratulate the food industry on calorie reduction? Not so fast.

The nation's leading food companies have cut the number of calories in the food supply by 1.5 trillion, according to a recent release by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. There's just one problem: The data supporting the claim hasn't been published. 

|
David Ake/AP/File
The nutrition information is shown on the back of a Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup can in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2014. Some of the nation's largest food companies have cut their calories by the trillions according to a new study, but Simon points out that celebrating the effort is a tad premature.

When I was asked by POLITICO to comment on a press release from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation celebrating the food industry’s alleged reduction in calories, I thought, Oh, that data we’ve been waiting for is finally is published. But I was wrong. As I reported last June, a collection of food companies calling themselves the “Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation” jumped the gun with a self-congratulatory release claiming to have made good on its 2010 “pledge” with the first lady’s Let’s Move campaign to reduce the number of calories in the food supply by 1.5 trillion.

 Six months later, the data is still unpublished. Instead, the only information the media had to go on was the release with a promise of future publication. As Marion Nestle told POLITICO, “I can’t understand why RWJ would send out a press release without having data to back it up.” The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a primary backer of the Partnership for a Healthier America (the non-profit arm of Let’s Move) is also funding the scientific review of industry’s pledge. That analysis is being conducted by researcher Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina. I have no doubt his research will be sound, but it’s irresponsible for the funder to release data before the peer review process is complete. Academic research articles provide important details such as caveats and limitations, not to mention explanations that may have nothing to do with industry’s actions (such as the recession resulting in lower sales). On the other hand, the press release was all glowing, and the media dutifully reported the happy news.

Meanwhile, in a blog post (loftily entitled, “Through Commitment with the Partnership for a Healthier America, Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation Members Exceed Their Calorie Reduction Goal By 400%), Let’s Move’s Executive Director Sam Kass said he was “thrilled” with the results. Of course he is. Because when Michelle Obama stands side by side with the likes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, the White House needs positive results to back up its let’s-work-with-industry game plan.

Wherever the pressures were coming from, a foundation as influential as Robert Wood Johnson, one that prides itself on “research and evaluation” and who claims that “our work is published in peer-reviewed journals” should live up to its own promises. While it’s predictable that the food industry would release self-serving data without credible backing, we should expect more from a leading foundation. When the results are finally published, then let’s take a closer look.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Congratulate the food industry on calorie reduction? Not so fast.
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2014/0121/Congratulate-the-food-industry-on-calorie-reduction-Not-so-fast.
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe