Thoughts on the AND’s Sponsorship Policy, Cheese Product and Cheese

There has been quite an uproar among registered dietitians over an ABC news article that revealed the decision by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) to allow Kraft Singles to display the Academy’s “Kids Eat Right” logo.

The AND’s practice of accepting corporate sponsorship funding is nothing new. It’s been a long standing issue about which dietitians argue.

The AND’s annual convention is sponsored by meat and dairy trade groups, pharmaceutical companies, and junk food peddlers like McDonalds, Kellogg’s and Coca – Cola.  In 2013, Michelle Simon wrote a scathing expose on the AND’s corporate sponsorship policy called “And Now a Word from Our Sponsors: Are America’s Health Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?”   After reading it, one will probably come to the conclusion that the answer is “yes”. However, it’s important to know that the AND does not represent the views of all of its individual members or all registered dietitians (not all RDs are academy members). In fact, there is an organization called Dietitians For Professional Integrity (DFPI) that’s been trying to get the AND leadership to listen to dietitians who are not happy with the AND sponsorship policies.

I am against any acceptance of corporate sponsorship by the AND and I always have been. It’s at worst a conflict of interest and at best a perceived conflict of interest. In the latest controversy, I think it’s likely that many people will perceive the “Kids Eat Right” logo on Kraft Singles as an endorsement by the AND.

Anyone not new to this site knows that I do not promote dairy and I do not believe that it is essential for human health. However, my thoughts on dairy are irrelevant to my thoughts on this issue. I would be opposed to the logo appearing on bags of kale or boxes of oatmeal. The logo on any food would be perceived as an endorsement. The public would ask “does the selected food item truly deserve the logo or did it receive the logo because the manufacturer or trade group is an AND sponsor?” The perceived conflict of interest would still exist and could not be tolerated.

The ABC News article is also another example of how a reductionist view of nutrition keeps people confused about what defines a food, and more importantly, what defines a diet as healthy.

Ever since reading T. Colin Campbell’s book entitled “Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition”, I no longer take a reductionist view of nutrition. I don’t think of nutrition as the summation of the activity of single nutrients. I separate foods known to promote long term human health from those that don’t. I’ve written in greater detail about these views in an earlier article called “Why Are We So Confused About Nutrition?”

In the ABC article, a dietitian speaks against using the “Kids Eat Right” logo on Kraft Singles. She states,”it can be confusing for a consumer. It can be taken for a healthy product”.   So it appears she believes that Kraft Singles are not healthy, yet she follows up with:

“Still, the product is fine. It’s high in calcium. There is a protein component”. In moderation, it’s perfectly fine, especially if you have a kid who doesn’t drink milk or doesn’t like to eat broccoli or other green vegetables.”

Apparently Kraft Singles are both not healthy, but perfectly fine. What?

I submit that most dietitians are as confused as anyone else on what constitutes a healthy food and a healthy diet.   It’s the reductionist mindset towards nutrition that is to blame. Until dietitians stop ignoring the amazing complexity of how food interacts with human biology (digestion, absorption, storage, excretion, immune response, etc…) confusion will continue to reign.

Later in the article, the author reminds readers that although Kraft Singles contain calcium and vitamin D, they also contain 200 mg. of sodium per slice. So the reader is told that calcium and vitamin D is good, but the amount of sodium is bad.

What is not mentioned is that Kraft Singles are high in fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol. What’s also not mentioned is that they contain no health promoting dietary fiber and phytonutrients. These are all obvious strikes against Kraft Singles. But even if this information was included in the article, the reader would still have to weigh the supposed positive aspects (vitamin D, calcium and protein) with the negative aspects of the food.   Confusion would still be the result.

There was also no mention of The 2015 National Dietary Guideline’s Advisory Committee’s recommendation that Americans should strive to eat more plant based diets. The bigger dietary picture is ignored.

If we take a more holistic approach to nutrition, it’s clear that dairy, meat, fish and poultry should be limited in American diets, so foods like Kraft Singles, should be limited or avoided altogether. No confusion here.

I’d like to think that dietitians are angry about the AND’s decision because they don’t consider cheese to be a healthy food. However, based on some comments I’ve read from more than a few dietitians, I get the impression that some are upset because Kraft Singles is a cheese product, but they’d be ok if the logo was placed on the label of a “real” cheese item.  This is disturbing to me.

If the “Kids Eat Right” logo was placed on Cabot’s Seriously Sharp Cheddar Cheese, I don’t think the uproar from many dietitians would be nearly so strong.

This bugs me for two reasons:

1. I’m against all sponsorship and
2. Dietitians perceive cheese to be much healthier than cheese product.

All of the strikes against Kraft Singles cheese product also apply to “real” cheese. It’s not a plant food, so it’s clearly a food that should be limited or avoided.

But if a dietitian can’t escape her/his reductionist mindset, and can only compare calorie density and a few nutrients, then the table below shows that it’s hard to support a claim that “real” cheese is much healthier than cheese product.

In conclusion, the AND sponsorship policy, cheese product and cheese all stink.

By the way, vegan cheeses stink too, but that deserves a separate article.