The China Study - T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell

The "Science" of Industry

WHAT DOES EVERY AMERICAN SPEND money on several times a day? Eating. After a lifetime of eating, what do we all do? Die-a process that usu- ally involves large costs as we try to postpone it for as long as possible. We're all customers of hunger and death, so there's a lot of money to be spent and made.
Because of this, the food and health industries in America are among
the most influential organizations in the world. The revenue generated
by the companies that produce food and health products is stagger-
ing. Many individual food companies have over $10 billion in annual
revenues. Kraft has revenues of roughly $30 billion a year. The Danone
Group, an international dairy company based in France, operates the
Dannon brand and has revenues of $15 billion a year. And of course,
there are the large fast food companies. McDonald's has revenues in ex-
cess of $15 billion a year, and Wendy's International generates almost $3
billion a year. Total food expenditures, including food bought by individu-
l
The massive drug company Pfizer had $32 billion in revenue in 2002, while Eli Lilly &:. Co. chalked up over $11 billion. Johnson and Johnson collected over $36 billion from selling their products. It's not an over- statement to say over a trillion dollars every year is riding on what we choose to eat and how we choose to treat sickness and promote health. That's a lot of money.
There are powerful players that compete for your food and health
  als, government and business, exceed $700 billion a year.
289

290 THE CHINA STUDY
dollars. Individual companies, of course, do what they can to sell more of their products, but also there are industry groups that work to in- crease general demand for their products. The National Dairy Council, National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, International Sprout Growers Associa- tion, American Meat Institute, Florida Citrus Processors Association, and United Egg Producers are examples of such industry groups. These organizations, operating independently of any Single company, wield significant influence-the most powerful among them have yearly bud- gets in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
These food companies and associations use whatever methods they can to enhance their products' appeal and grow their market. One way to accomplish this is to claim nutritional benefits for the food products they sell. At the same time, these companies and associations must protect their products from being considered unhealthy. If a product is linked to cancer or some other disease, profits and revenue will evapo- rate. So food business interests need to claim that their product is good for you, or, at least, that it's not bad for you. In this process, the "sci- ence" of nutrition becomes the "business" of marketing.
THE AIRPORT CLUB
While I was getting the China Study off the ground, I learned of a com- mittee of seven prominent research scientists who had been retained by the animal-based foods industry (the National Dairy Council and the American Meat Institute) to keep tabs on any research projects in the u.s. likely to cause harm to their industry. I knew six of the seven members, four of them quite well. A graduate student of mine was visit- ing with one of these scientists and was given a file on the committee activity. I have never learned exactly why the file passed hands. Perhaps the scientist's conscience was getting the better of him. In any case, the file was ultimately given to me.
The file contained minutes of committee meetings, the latest being held at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. From then on, I have called this group of scientists "The Airport Club." It was run by Professors E. M. Foster and Michael Pariza, faculty members of the University of Wisconsin (where AU Harper was located), and was funded by the meat and dairy industry. This committee's main objective was to have members observe projects that might do "harm" to their industry. With such surveillance, the industry could more effectively respond to unexpected discoveries

L
THE ·SCIENCE" OF INDUSTRY 291
from researchers that might make otherwise unanticipated news. I had learned well that, when the stakes are high, industry was not averse to putting its own spin on a story.
They listed about nine potentially damaging projects, and I had the dubious distinction of being the only researcher responsible for two of the projects. I was named once for the China Study, which one of the members was assigned to watch over, and once for my association with the American Institute for Cancer Research CAICR), especially my chairing of the review panel that decided which research applications on diet and cancer got funded. Another panel member had the task of keeping an eye on the AICR activity.
After learning of The Airport Club, and of the individual aSSigned to watch over me at the AICR grant meetings, I was in a position to see how his spying was going to unfold. I went into the first AICR review panel meeting after learning of the Club with an eye on the spy who was keeping an eye on me!
One might argue that this industry-funded "spying" was not illegal, and that it is prudent for a business to keep tabs on potentially damag- ing information that might affect its future. I agree completely, even if it was disconcerting to find myself on the list of those being spied on. But industry does more than just keep tabs on "dangerous" research. It actively markets its version, regardless of potentially disastrous health effects, and corrupts the integrity of the science to do so. This is espe- cially troubling when academic scientists do the spying and hide their intentions.
POWERFUL GROUPS
The dairy industry, one of the sponsors of The Airport Club, is particu- larly powerful in this country. Founded in 1915, the well-organized, well-funded National Dairy Council has been promoting milk for al-
2
most a hundred years. In 1995, two major milk industry groups put
a new face on their old establishment, renaming it Dairy Management,
Inc. The purpose of this new group was "to do one thing: increase de- 3
mand for U.s.-produced dairy products," to cite their Web site. They
4 had a 2003 marketing budget of more than $165 million to do it. In
comparison, the National Watermelon Promotion Board has a budget 5
of $1.6 million. A Dairy Management, Inc., press release includes the following items4: