The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) bills itself as a“nonprofit, worldwide organization whose mission is to provide science that improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment.” And it wants you to know it has been around a while. “For over 40 years, ILSI has specialized in convening scientists from the public and private sectors to collaborate in a neutral forum on scientific topics of mutual interest.”
They sound absolutely wonderful, trustworthy, and attentive to individuals’ well-being everywhere. Look at the uplifting words “worldwide”, “science”, “health, “well-being”, “safeguards”, “environment”. In addition, they “convene scientists” in a “neutral forum” for “mutual interest”. How embracing, comforting, and anodyne. It's the usual sort of happy, boiler-plate crap every organization puts in its mission statement. And it raises the question, is there truth in their advertising?
To answer that question let’s start with one phrase - buried in the second sentence - I suspect the ILSI hopes you skip over, “public and private sectors”. ‘Private sector’ is a convenient phrase Big Business uses when it doesn’t want to say ‘Corporate America’. Why would they do that? Do you have to ask?
Corporations - despite Mitt Romney’s claim otherwise — are not people. They have no soul. They are not motivated by morality, ask anyone with a bank account — or concern for the customer, see cable TV companies. They operate to maximize profit and shareholder return. Consequently, they will do anything they think they can get away with. Or anything where the fines for doing it are less than the profit from doing it.
Sometimes good business demands corporate America supports noble causes - notably gay marriage and civil rights. But too often their concern for the customer is non-existent. No executive is rewarded for their social IQ. Their compensation is tied to financial performance.
So what does a corporation or industry do when questions arise about its business model — particularly when it appears likely their product is injuring and even killing people? It denies and obfuscates. For years Big Tobacco rejected any link between smoking and disease. And for years, companies in the food business have played down the health consequences of food additives — especially sugar.
Industrial Food learned its lesson well from Big Tobacco. Don’t just deny the science — pay for science that supports your position. What does this have to do with ILSI? A quick look at the organization’s funding will tell you. In 2017 it received 74.7% of its operating cash from member organizations. And who were its members? Chemical and food companies - including BASF, Coca-Cola, Nestle, McDonald’s, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Pepsi Cola.
So be it. There is nothing inherently wrong with trade groups. But ILSI goes out of its way to bury the identity of its members. On its FAQ page it poses the question: “Who are ILSI’s members? And then answers:
ILSI is a global federation of nonprofit entities united by common policies and goals of engaging in scientific public-private partnerships throughout the world. ILSI Entities engage with scientists from academia, government agencies and institutions, and industry to advance nutrition and food safety science for the betterment of public health.
Big Business’s lawyers have apparently figured out a legal loophole allowing the hugely profitable Coca-Cola, Monsanto, et al to call themselves ‘non-profits’. And it is unusually modest of these branding behemoths to hide their corporate identity under the generic term ‘industry’— which appears fourth and last on the list.
And what of these ‘scientists’? They are no different from any other worker. They need to make a living. A certain amount of funding comes from government and academia, but it is not unlimited and corporations have buckets of cash and are willing to buy convenient science.
That’s not to say scientists are craven (some are of course - every profession has its ‘bad apples’). They may carry out studies that give corporations news they don’t like. No problem. Those studies get buried. Additionally, nutrition science is a particularly difficult field. The effect of food on health is complex. And any study will at best point to likelihoods rather than absolute proofs. The tobacco industry used this kind of doubt to nitpick smoking reports to death for decades. And now the ILSI does the same.
Here’s an example from their “Nutrition and Health” section of their website.
Nudging and Sustainable Changes Towards Healthier Food Choices
Unhealthy food choices and related behaviors are currently driving increased rates of obesity, with concomitant increases in the incidence of non-communicable diseases. Nudging is being widely adopted as a measure to encourage healthier consumer food choices, although there is mixed evidence to support its use as a behavioral intervention, in particular in terms of long-term dietary changes.
What is ‘nudging’? It is a campaign, not to ban a product, but rather to nudge people away from its use with data and financial incentives. In the case of food, it includes clear labeling, nutrition information, the reduction in advertising to kids, sugar (sin) taxes, and the like. The food companies hate it. Much as Big Tobacco hated cigarette taxes, health warnings, smoke-free buildings and the ban of cartoon characters in advertising.
So look at what they do here. They start by seeming reasonable. They admit that ‘food choices’ are currently ‘driving increased rates of obesity’. Fair enough — that is impossible to deny. But note the word ‘choice’. It implies that the consumer’s ill-health is willingly self-inflicted. They further hedge by adding in ‘related behaviors’. What are those? They don’t say.
Then they dismiss nudging, saying there is “mixed evidence to support its use as a behavioral intervention, in particular in terms of long-term dietary changes.” The science on nudging may well be like the science on climate change. Even though 97% of climatologists find evidence for anthropomorphic warming, the nay-sayers point to the 3% and say there is ‘controversy’. Here ILSI finds a few scientists whose results are favorable to them and presto there is ‘mixed evidence’.
Then, following the W.C. Fields’ dictum, “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”, they add a second paragraph that uses the standard tool of obfuscating academics - complete drivel.
In addition, various theoretical approaches and methodological perspectives have been retrospectively aggregated under the “nudging” umbrella, in the absence of a formalized definition or theoretical perspective on what nudging actually represents.
Anyone reading this for meaning will be stymied. But in America’s boardrooms, executives will feel the warm glow of a meaningless phrase, couched in pedantic language, saying nothing. The author could have said, “In addition, there is no accepted definition of ‘nudging’.” But things stated simply are equally simply refuted.
If this organization were on the up-and-up, the name would reflect its aim. ‘International’ is an unobjectionable white-bread word. ’Institute’ conveys a sense of gravitas. But ‘Life Sciences’ is opaque. The ISLI may bemoan ‘the ”nudging” umbrella’ but it is quite willing to take shelter under ‘the “life sciences” umbrella’.
The ISLI is hardly the first trade group to hide behind a name. When New York tried to impose a sugar tax on processed foods and drinks a shadowy group, New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes sprang up. They announced they were, “A coalition of concerned New Yorkers”. However, this coalition included
the New York Association of Convenience Stores (NYACS), The Business Council of New York State; Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Buffalo Inc.; the New York State Automatic Vending Association; the National Restaurant Association; the National Supermarket Association; Gristedes; The Food Industry Alliance of New York State; the National Puerto Rican Coalition; the Can Manufacturers Institute; the New York State Restaurant Association; the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Council on Science & Health.
No individuals are mentioned. And how a ‘National’ anything can be called a ‘New Yorker’ is unclear.
In closing, let me point out the last name on the list ‘the American Council on Science & Health’ (ACSH). It’s almost as if we are seeing double. With the ILSI, we were presented with ‘International’ and ‘Institute’— with ACSH we have ‘American’ and ‘Council’. And like the ILSI, the ACSH receives the bulk of its funding from corporate America, including: Chevron, Coca-Cola, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Bayer Cropscience, Procter & Gamble, Syngenta, 3M, McDonald’s, and Altria (you know - the Phillip Morris cigarette people).
If you recognize some of those names from the ILSI member list, it’s no coincidence.