Jessie Sheldon

Lettitor

Dear Reader,

On top of everything else going on in 2020—an increased awareness of the systemic racism that has built and sustained this country, a pandemic taking hundreds of thousands of lives, and state violence enacted against protestors all over the nation—it is also an election year. And democracy has scarcely felt more fragile than it does now.

 After weeks of heightened anxiety and days spent refreshing election results on Google, the man in the White House has been voted out. Some don’t think he’ll leave. Some think that even if he does leave, he’ll continue to maintain dangerous influence over this country.

 In this issue, writers delve into the anxiety, pain, division, and joy that this election year has generated. Hope Stonner takes us on a walk through the Old North End, where neighbors have silent feuds through their political yard signs. John Michael McCann dances through the streets of New York City on the day the election was called. Anya Steinberg explores why many anti-communist Vietnamese Americans choose to support Trump. Eve Stewart reflects on the anti-science Christian community she grew up in and how she navigates lasting relationships with people she now fundamentally disagrees with.

 Many spent this summer and fall campaigning and phone banking. This work is immensely important, and we want to thank those who devoted their time and energy to it. And while voting in our democracy is a crucial step, the work does not end when Biden and Harris enter the White House. We must continue to hold ourselves and our representatives accountable. The ongoing struggle toward a country that is more equitable, just, and loving continues. 


Yours in solidarity,

Logan and the Cipher Staff

Big Food, Big Problems

The food industry can be difficult to define, as it includes a diverse group of businesses involved in the production, preparation, packaging, distribution and sales that supply food to the global population. When you go into a supermarket, you see all kinds of products, labels, and brands—you have unlimited choices. But the source of this array is less transparent than it might seem.

Many people are not aware that most of these products fall under the huge umbrella of just a few corporations. What do Deer Park, Smarties, Toll House, Coffee-Mate, Hot Pockets, Lean Cuisine, Sweet Earth Foods, Drumsticks, Haagen-Dazs, and even Purina pet food all have in common? That’s right: they’re all owned by Nestle. Nestle is the largest food company in the world, owning over 2000 brands. While the consumer is given the illusion of choice, just a few companies dominate the production and sales of food, often forcing smaller brands to fail. These companies frequently abuse the immense power they wield, too often unbeknownst to the public. The term for this concept of total domination by a few large companies is Big Food. 

Big Food is the next Big Tobacco. The tobacco industry had a playbook, which included denying scientific findings, casting doubt on claims that hurt their image, and connecting their products to idealistic American values when all else failed. The food industry uses these same strategies. 

In order for the playbook to be effective, an industry must have an established policy monopoly, which means they control political conversations that impact the success of their sales and maintain the positive image of their policy. David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), explained

“When we launched our investigation of tobacco at the Food and Drug Administration, we had no idea of the power wielded by the tobacco companies. But we soon learned why the tobacco industry was for decades considered untouchable. Tobacco employed some of the most prestigious law firms in the country and commanded the allegiance of a significant section of the Congress. It also had access to the services of widely admired public figures ranging from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to Senator Howard Baker.” 

Like the tobacco industry, Big Food is able to exert tremendous influence, as David Kessler made clear in the same report. One example was the beef industry’s fight against the FDA’s daily calorie intake recommendation. Fewer calories mean consumers are buying less food, which means less money going into the beef industry. Therefore, they wished to exceed this limit and refused to label fat contents on their products. Kessler wrote: 

“From the White House, the pressure [from beef industry executives] moved down to the Office of Management and Budget, which had the power to block our regulations. As required, we had submitted draft after draft of the final rule to OMB and often had it returned to us with industry-sought changes. More than once, OMB's wording had been taken almost verbatim from food industry comments we had already carefully considered.” 

Big Food, however, is less cohesive than Big Tobacco: rather than having a single main product, food involves thousands of products produced by thousands of companies. Despite this, the industry is still politically powerful and organized in intentional ways. Many companies own multiple chains. Pepsi-Co owns Frito and Lays; Yum! owns Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, and more. In terms of the players involved, tobacco and food are not as distant as they initially appear. For example, until recently, the companies that manufactured Marlboro and Virginia Slims cigarettes were a part of the same corporation as Kraft Macaroni & Cheese and Kool-Aid. RJR Nabisco owned the companies that made both Camel cigarettes and Chips Ahoy! Cookies. Although many food companies have split from tobacco companies, the two industries still rely on alarmingly similar strategies. 

Many major companies in the food industry are able to exert influence over policy, as they are represented by lawyers, lobbyists, and trade organizers. As a result, their power often extends into surprising and troubling places. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should be promoting healthy eating, their main objective is to bolster American agriculture by selling more food. This goal generally prevails over public health when the two conflict. 

Leaders in both the USDA and other government departments are frequently recruited from food industries and then return to businesses like lobbying firms after working for the government, a cycle known as the revolving door. Tommy Thompson was the secretary of the USDA and is now a partner with Akin Gump, a law firm that has defended both tobacco and food companies. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) claims to be a “source for science-based food and nutrition information.” They create Nutrition Fact Sheets that appear on their website to provide the public with nutritional advice. However, food industry sponsors pay AND $20,000 per fact sheet and participate in writing the documents. Some of the Fact Sheets that have been included on their website include “What's a Mom to Do: Healthy Eating Tips for Families” (sponsored by Wendy's), “Lamb: The Essence of Nutrient Rich Flavor” (sponsored by the Tri-Lamb Group), “Cocoa and Chocolate: Sweet News” (sponsored by the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition), “Eggs: A Good Choice for Moms-to-Be” (sponsored by the Egg Nutrition Center), “Adult Beverage Consumption: Making Responsible Drinking Choices” (in connection with the Distilled Spirits Council) and “The Benefits of Chewing Gum” (sponsored by the Wrigley Science Institute). Unsurprisingly, their longest-running sponsor is the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The food industry is very similar to the tobacco industry, as it is also made up of a select few companies who have a lot of power and who choose to ignore human health and even lie to the public for profit. 

Once the corporation is able to exert power over the government and influence public perception, they have successfully established a policy monopoly. Not only have they diminished consumer choice and controlled supply, but they are also able to maintain the dominant image of their product despite controversy. In order to maintain this image, corporations deny scientific evidence that is against their industry’s products. Denial was the first tactic employed by the tobacco industry after the Surgeon General declared that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer in 1964. At the release of the health risks associated with foods that Americans consume, the food industry also clings to this strategy.

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a report classifying processed meat as a Group 1 human carcinogen, which places it in the same category as tobacco. Red meat was categorized in the next worst category as a Group 2 carcinogen. The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) replied that this finding “defies common sense” and cited a list of studies showing no correlation between meat and cancer, many of which were conducted by the meat industry. They use the convoluted argument that essentially everything causes cancer, even saying: 

“Don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A). And if you are a hairdresser or do shift work (both Class 2A), you should seek a new career.

They end by vaguely stating that a balanced diet is the answer, the specifics of which are left up to the interpretation of the reader. The WHO, in contrast, looked at over 800 studies, and the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund International reached the same conclusion after reviewing 7,000 studies. Despite the clear scientific consensus, the industry denied the science immediately, maintaining control over their public image.

The same process of denial also occurred with sugar. In 2003, the WHO released a draft outlining a global strategy to address public health, which recommended reducing sugar intake. In response, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, under pressure from the sugar industry, sent a 28-page report to the WHO criticizing the science and claiming that there are no “good” or “bad” foods. They also expressed concern for “the hard-working sugar growers and their families,” which is ironic from an industry that exploits child labor, physically and mentally overloads workers, and exposes them to pollutants and dangerous working conditions. The president of the Sugar Association even wrote a letter to the WHO, threatening to use “every avenue possible to expose the dubious nature” of the report, “including asking Congressional appropriators to challenge future funding of the U.S.’s $406 million contributions … to the WHO.” 

In addition to denying scientific evidence against them, the big industry playbook includes casting doubt among the public about previous research by conducting their own privately funded research. After the Surgeon General condemned smoking, an executive at Brown & Williamson (which is owned by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company) said in a memo, “Doubt is our product” when referring to their proposals for the next steps of the tobacco industry’s public relations

Despite the scientific evidence that a whole-foods and plant-based diet is superior for human nutrition and longevity, the food industry has been extremely successful in confusing the public. Recently, the news was filled with headlines claiming that football players who drank chocolate milk regularly showed superior cognition after a concussion. This study was completely false and funded by the dairy industry. A meta-analysis on dietary cholesterol cited by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) asserted that cholesterol was “no longer a nutrient of concern.” However, 92% of the studies analyzed were funded by the egg industry, which also funds institutions who have members serving on the committee. The American Beverage Association, as well as Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne, have adamantly claimed that there is no scientific evidence that connects sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity. All of this sounds dangerously similar to tobacco’s “deny, deny, deny” tactic. Readers would have to look past the headlines to investigate if there is a conflict of interest, so these erroneous studies and statements are often extremely effective at quelling health concerns, and thus, the general public continues to buy products strongly associated with health risks. 

Once the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against the industry, they will often shift their argument to the issues of freedom and individualism. Tobacco executives utilized this strategy by asking: “What will they try to take next?” This tactic turns attention from concrete science to the abstract idea of freedom. When confronted with the health risks of McDonald’s food, the CEO remarked, “All of us have to make personal choices.” This argument has been used to block legislation; Congressman Ric Keller supported banning lawsuits against fast-food restaurants that claim health damages. He argued: “We’ve got to get back to those old-fashioned principles of personal responsibility, of common sense, and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and blames other people for their problems.”

These statements reflect the larger corporate strategy focused on shifting the responsibility from the industries who make and market these products to the consumers who purchase them. They blatantly ignore the extent to which industries manipulate customers, especially vulnerable populations. Across the United States, healthy food is often expensive or unavailable in supermarkets in urban neighborhoods of low socioeconomic status. Living in these food deserts leaves people little choice but to consume processed foods, which are often of low nutrient-density. Further, when comparing communities with similar poverty rates, Black and Hispanic neighborhoods have fewer grocery stores than white neighborhoods. This inequality is no mistake; the food industry uses targeted marketing, government subsidies, and federal food policy to limit the options of these already vulnerable populations

Children are another targeted population since they are susceptible to persuasion and are great candidates for becoming lifelong consumers. The food industry employs a number of tactics to heavily advertise unhealthy foods to children, including television advertising, in-school marketing, product placements, kids clubs, the internet, toys and products with brand logos, and youth-targeted promotions. These tactics begin when they are toddlers, in order to hook them on certain brands and influence purchasing behavior. At this age, children have no understanding of the persuasive intent behind advertising. Studies have shown that before ages seven or eight, children tend to view advertising as fun, unbiased information. Even into adolescence, when they understand the purpose of advertisements, teenagers are especially susceptible to their messages. The industry exploits children’s inability to evaluate advertising, only focusing on potential profits. They are constantly shown Happy Meals, sugary cereal, and candy, often accompanied by cartoon characters and prizes. Similarly, the cartoon animal Joe Camel was used to attract children to cigarettes. Under pressure from the State Attorney General, Joe Camel was retired in 1997, but the food industry continues to use this strategy today. 

Today, we know the truth about tobacco, and the industry has been punished. Through the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco companies are indefinitely required to pay state governments for smoking-related illnesses in exchange for not being sued by state and local governments. Also included in this agreement were restrictions on tobacco advertising, closure of the tobacco industry’s trade association, and increased funding for anti-smoking campaigns. However, it took 50 years and the loss of countless American lives for this shift to occur. Currently, diseases linked to unhealthy diets—such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes—are the leading causes of death in the United States. The food industry has effectively established a policy monopoly and are manipulating the public using the same playbook at the cost of public health. Ultimately, they are profiting off of the idea of freedom of choice when, in reality, consumers have none.