Summary of the international food information council

IFIC is a trade association focused on communicating scientific evidence related to nutrition, agriculture, and health to policymakers and the general public [26]. IFIC broadly disseminates nutrition information via partnerships with institutions in academia, government, and multimedia outlets. For example, IFIC conducts an annual survey of consumer food preferences, and partners with academic and professional organizations to disseminate nutrition information to dietitians and other health professionals [32, 33] According to its website, the IFIC Board of Trustees is made up of a majority of “public academic researchers and experts in food science, nutrition and agriculture,” and further states that it does not engage in any political lobbying advocacy for any specific business interest, but rather promotes “science-based information on nutrition, food safety and agriculture” [26].

IFIC is further split into organizations: IFIC and the IFIC Foundation, both of which are tax-exempt organizations under the 501(c) subsection of the US Internal Revenue Code [30, 31]. IFIC is a 501(c) (6) organization,), often referred to as a trade association, which is defined as an “association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest.” [34] Organizations designated as tax exempt under subsection 501(c) (6) may not engage in activities which are directly for-profit (e.g., selling goods or services), but may be “devoted to improving business conditions of one or more lines of businesses,” and may engage in certain forms of political lobbying [34]. The IFIC Foundation, on the other hand, is a charitable 501(c)3 organization. All published materials on the official IFIC website (www.ific.org) state that it is a 501(c)3 organization, and therefore presumably refers to the IFIC Foundation. However, the core leadership team, including CEO, is shared between IFIC and the IFIC Foundation [30, 31], and due to this sharing it is usually hard to discern whether any given action is emanating from IFIC or the IFIC Foundation. Publicly available federal tax documents (IRS forms 990) for IFIC and the IFIC Foundation include specific membership contributions but do not disclose the name of each contributor [30, 31]. However, documents collected in this study show that during fiscal year 2013, the IFIC Foundation received contributions from nine sources: eight large food and beverage companies (Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey, Kraft, Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever, Kellogg) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)).). Between 2004 and 2018, approximately 80–90% of IFIC total revenue, which ranged from approximately $3.4 M - $5.2 M per year (Additional file 3), came from program services that are comprised almost entirely of membership dues [30].

Overview of thematic analysis

In total, the data comprised 29,252 pages of email communications and attachments spanning years 2012–2018. The research team identified three major themes to emerge from this document review. The first and most prevalent theme identified was preference shaping, which refers to communications designed to promote specific beliefs about nutrition and health. The second theme identified by the research team as consistent and prevalent throughout these documents was manufacturing doubt, defined as the use of specific evidence and rhetoric to create doubt about negative health impacts of specific foods or food groups. Finally, the study team identified as a prevalent theme the consistent use of self-funded research disseminated by key opinion leaders in academia and government positions.

Preference shaping

Nearly all coded sections within the data fell under the “preference shaping” code, which includes the use of key opinion leaders and multimedia communications to promote narratives sympathetic to business interests [28]. IFIC appeared to engage in a variety of preference shaping tactics leveraged through close connections with for-profit food and beverage companies. In a newsletter sent to its members and affiliates on February 6, 2017 (Additional file 2), IFIC leadership announced changes to the Board of the IFIC Foundation and included the following summary statement:

The majority of the board, which oversees the IFIC Foundation, comprises representatives from universities, governmental bodies, research laboratories, and public foundations. The balance of the trustees represent [sic] for-profit companies.

Emails between IFIC leadership and its Board of Trustees revealed the connection between IFIC programs and its member contributions. In 2014, then CEO Dave Schmidt sent an email to the Board of Trustees containing a summary of Understanding Our Food, a food and nutrition education campaign designed by IFIC. The summary defined the education campaign as follows:

To communicate the important roles of modern food production, processing, and technology in providing a safe, affordable, and nutritious food supply.

Later, Schmidt commented on the goals of the program:

Since its inception, the initiative has been working to impact consumers’ perception of processed foods through science-based information while also recognizing consumers’ emotional relationship with food.

Schmidt continued, commenting on the program impact:

The creation and distribution of the Understanding Our Food Tool Kit, participation in the Food and Nutrition Science Solutions Task Force, and development of the Alliance to Feed the Future are just a few of the successes the initiative has achieved.

Schmidt then commented on program funding:

We are looking forward to building upon these successes in the coming years and appreciate financial support from several member companies.

The email then contained a list of all contributors, which are comprised entirely of food, beverage, and agro-chemical corporations (Additional file 4).

Schmidt then appeared to solicit voluntary contributions:

From previous research we know that negative perceptions of processed foods are deeply rooted and cut across all consumer demographics. For this reason, it is crucial that the benefits of food processing are communicated by credible individuals and organizations such as the IFIC Foundation. If you are not a current supported, please consider contributing the suggested $10,000 voluntary contribution to the Foundation to support the Understanding Our Food initiative to health further our work.

Manufacturing doubt

IFIC organized meetings between media outlets and selected scientific researchers covering specific food and nutrition topics. For example, in 2013, Kris Sollid, then Associate Director of Nutrients at IFIC, emailed Dr. Mark Kern from San Diego State University:

This August, we will be hosting a Media Briefing in New York City and would be honored to have you speak at the event. The Media Briefing is with New York-based editors, journalists, influential bloggers and registered dietitians in the media. The event will focus on communicating the scientific evidence on carbohydrates and sugars: what it suggests and equally important, what it does not suggest; impact on health; and role in a healthful diet.

Sollid later mentioned the history of these events:

We’ve done similar briefings in NYC over the past few years and have found them to be very effective.

Sollid included a description of IFIC compensation policy:

As part of our mission, our commitment to science and amplifying the voices of credential [sic] and respected experts such as yourself prohibits us from paying fees for speaking to media or approving your comments. We are, however, able to cover travel-related expenses and will discuss those with you in more detail in a follow up email.

Kern later sent a copy of his presentation to be made at this media briefing, titled “The Sweet Truth: Unraveling the Myths and Mysteries of Sugars.” The presentation appeared to downplay the relation between sugar consumption and negative health outcomes and cites a variety of empirical studies and reviews related to sugar consumption, sources of sugar, and their impacts on health (Additional file 5). The majority of these studies cited in this presentation were funded by food and beverage companies or sugar manufacturers, and some of the conclusions provided by the authors of the studies cited by Kern were contemporaneously refuted by large bodies of evidence [35,36,37,38].

Media influence and preemption

Another central theme in this study was the proactive use of media to preempt specific messages in the public conversation related to nutrition and health. In a 2013 email to the IFIC Board of Directors and the IFIC Foundation Trustees, then Executive Director Kimberly Reed detailed plans to provide an early critique of two books related to the health impacts of processed foods:

In anticipation of the Feb. 26 release of the books Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss and Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner, we wanted to update you on recent media coverage and actions that we are taking.

The email then summarized tactics to be implemented by IFIC and the IFIC Foundation:

Based on Moss’ just-published adaptation, we are:

Moving up the Feb. 27 release of the Feb. edition of our Food Insight Newsletter that features our book reviews. These reviews will also be repurposed as blogs on foodinsight.org

Providing general and committee-specific talking points in the near future.

Exploring additional options to enhance our engagement in the digital media measured by the extent of coverage.

IFIC described a media strategy, called the “Media Dialogue Program,” which is defined as follows in their 2013 IRS form 990:

To pursue aggressive, ongoing media relationship building to provide context and improve accuracy in the reporting of food safety and nutrition issues, as well as to support long-term educational outreach to journalists and experts.

IFIC pursued this “educational outreach to journalists” through what appears to be informal agreements with academic researchers. In a 2014 email, then Associate Director of Nutrients, Kris Sollid, emailed Dr. Mark Kern from San Diego State University regarding the documentary “Fed Up” by Katie Couric:

Just wanted to let you know that we did issue a release to media that included a list of available experts for comment – you were included per your agreement. Have you had any contact, by chance?

Sollid included in this email exchange a summary of the movie which contained the following note:

IFIC member companies’ specific products and programs featured were Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC, and Kraft Foods.

Later in the email exchange, Sollid asked Kern to submit a media statement in anticipation of media coverage of Couric’s documentary:

Also, we’ve just been contacted regarding a show that will air tomorrow (Katie Couric Show) on sugar with Dr. [Robert] Lustig as guest. Although they are not seeking an additional live guest, they are potentially looking for a statement from a leading researcher that may offer a different perspective than Dr. Lustig. In advance of any potential submission of an expert statement, I was curious if would you be willing/able to submit a scientific statement on the topic of sugars, HFCS, fructose, etc.? If so, to limit your time-burden, we could do the “heaving lifting,” so-to-speak, and utilize your scientific breakdown of Dr. Lustig’s “Fat Chance” to draft a quote or statement for your review and approval.

In this particular instance, the statement discussed above was not included in the media coverage. However, the interaction between IFIC Foundation and scientific researchers in anticipation of media coverage that may be detrimental to the food and beverage industry was observed multiple times throughout this document review.

In another example of media influence, in 2015, then Senior Director of Communications Matt Raymond sent an internal email regarding recent efforts by IFIC to respond to an editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that challenged the connection between physical activity and obesity [39]:

We were contacted prior to the article’s release by Food Navigator. We reached out to several experts and connected four of them with Food Navigator, three of whom (including Marianne Smith Edge) were quoted in the story, providing the kind of balance not often seen when negative journal articles are first published.

The media outlet Food Navigator mentioned above described itself as the “leading online news source for the food industry” (foodnavigator.com). When this email was sent, Marianne Smith Edge was the Senior Vice President of Nutrition and Food Safety at IFIC.

Supporting research and key opinion leaders

IFIC funds and implements an annual survey of US consumer food preferences, and publishes results from this survey in academic journals [40]. Internal summaries of the survey, sent from IFIC to their Board of Trustees and a variety of academic advisors, included the following summary point:

It appears that poor eating in more a matter of lacking will than knowledge – adults appear to know the healthfulness of their eating habits.

This framing appeared throughout the summary document, including the following commentary:

Being more thoughtful about the amount one consumes and planning consumption occasions leads to healthier choices and are behaviors more commonly observed among healthy weight compared to obese persons.

The internal summary of the survey additionally contained a timeline describing IFIC’s dissemination strategy:

1.

Outreach to secure lead author for manuscript

2.

Hold stakeholder call to review complete findings and discuss promotion of findings

3.

Manuscript submitted to peer-reviewed publication

4.

Continued promotion of findings, including peer-reviewed publication; submission of comments to 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee; presentations at relevant, appropriate opinion leader and stakeholder annual meetings and conferences

Throughout the documents there was a consistent focus on behavioral determinants of dietary intake. In the IFIC 2012–2015 Strategy Document (Additional file 6), one stated goal was:

The Foundation will be recognized by key stakeholders as a credible convener on consumer attitudes and behavior related to food safety and nutrition and their role in health promotion and disease risk reduction, including non-communicable diseases.

One objective stated beneath this goal was:

Elevate value and significant insights of the Food and Healthy Survey to better inform strategic initiatives with behavioral focus.

One way IFIC appeared to elevate the public-facing value of their research and conclusions is through spokespeople and key opinion leaders. A staff member (Joanne Spahn) at the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, USDA, for example, served on the Academic Advisory Board to support IFIC in the development of DataDish - a checklist that could be used to evaluate research articles. She was subsequently invited to participate on a 2017 FNCE panel session to discuss DataDish. In email exchanges between this staff (Joanne Spahn) and Eve Essery (CNPP staff), Eve expressed concerns stating:

If this is an IFIC tool, wouldn’t IFIC be presenting it? If you present this, it gives the appearance CNPP/NEL either created or endorses the tool. Am I correct that NEL staff haven’t been informed of this activity and haven’t seen the tool? I feel like we need more information. Is it possible to provide us the draft tool- potentially highlighting what’s different compared to the RDI checklist? (And why was a tool selected that is no longer in use?)

Spahn continued:

Additionally, management voiced concerns that your presentation would imply CNPP endorsement or co-sponsorship with IFIC on the tool.