Politico has a piece about a new poll suggesting that there is broadening support among Americans for “restrictions on ultraprocessed foods, pesticides, seed oils, and junk food advertising, among other things.” In fact, more Republicans, despite being members of a political party traditionally seen as being pro-business, than Democrats support such regulation.
The reason?
According to Politico, “The party of business is now chock-full of voters who distrust food and pharmaceutical companies and want to regulate them. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of them and the health secretary’s drive to spread that message in Washington is proving costly for industry.”
“For the GOP, the poll results underscore the deepening fractures within the party as its embrace of the MAHA movement and growing populist base clash with its longstanding identity as a defender of business and small government,” Politico writes. “For America’s CEOs, the poll indicates they have good reason to hunker down, and to reconsider their PR strategies. Not only do Americans of both parties now support regulation, they also see corporate America as corrupt. Two-thirds of respondents of both parties said they believe food companies are sickening Americans to make money. Majorities of both parties say industry has captured the drug regulators.”
Some context from the piece:
“Under pressure from Kennedy, companies like Kraft Heinz, Nestlé, and PepsiCo have pledged to remove artificial dyes. Coke is now selling in America a version of its signature cola made with cane sugar, rather than high-fructose corn syrup. Restaurants such as Sweetgreen and Steak ‘n Shake have promised to phase out the seed oils that Kennedy contends are unhealthy.
“One big rule change is on the table. Kennedy has proposed eliminating the Food and Drug Administration’s ‘generally recognized as safe’ regulation that has allowed food makers to introduce new ingredients to their products without formal government review. The food industry has argued eliminating the regulation would stifle innovation.
“Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said the poll results highlight the bipartisan support behind Kennedy’s priorities. ‘Americans are united on the need to urgently address chronic disease, improve nutrition, strengthen food quality, and lower health care costs.’
“When asked whether the government should increase regulation on business to protect consumers even at the expense of economic growth, Trump voters were evenly split in The Politico Poll. A majority of Trump voters, however, supported a multitude of health-related interventions, including banning food aid recipients from using benefits to buy junk food, prohibiting children from using social media and making GLP-1 weight loss drugs more affordable. Almost three-quarters of Trump voters supported taking on big pharmaceutical companies.”
KC’s View:
The thing is, the story also says that “on vaccines, most Republicans shared Kennedy’s view that vaccines should be optional.” Which, in my view, is nuts – vaccines represent one of the science’s great contributions over the past century, and the undermining of confidence in vaccines will someday be viewed by historians as one of this country’s great public policy follies.
But let’s put that aside for a moment.
This poll clearly reflects the fact that food companies – manufacturers and retailers – have lost the plot. They have no control of the narrative, and the competing plot lines – yes, people should eat more fresh food, but the simple reality is that fresh food costs more and little is being done to educate people about why value is more important than price, a really hard argument to make these days – are only making things worse.
Here’s part of the problem.
The Washington Post the other day had an op-ed piece by Alexander Sundermann, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, (which is to say, an expert, which these days makes him suspect) in which he considered two different infectious-disease outbreaks from the same company, and how they have been handled differently:
“In late 2023, eight infections of salmonella appeared in California — all linked to raw milk from the company Raw Farm. After investigators connected the dots, the company recalled its milk. The outbreak grew to 171 cases, 70 percent of them children and adolescents, making it one of the largest outbreaks associated with raw milk in recent U.S. history. The company complied, the outbreak ended, and the system worked. Another win for PulseNet.”
(PulseNet is “food-agnostic, science-driven and has no political agenda,” Sundermann writes, adding that it is a three-decade old program from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that annually, estimate suggests, “prevents over 270,000 illnesses and $500 million in costs.”)
“Now, there is a new outbreak: Nine E. coli infections, mostly in young children, three hospitalized, and epidemiological evidence points to Raw Farm’s raw cheddar cheese and raw milk as the likely sources. Genome sequencing shows the bacterial infections are genetically identical, meaning these children almost certainly got sick from the same source. The FDA, which is investigating, asked the company on March 15 and March 30 to voluntarily recall its product. Raw Farm said no. Twice. On March 17, it posted across social media that the company is being targeted, claiming that the outbreak is not connected to its products, and reshared posts from customers who continue to buy and feed Raw Farm milk and cheese to children. Finally, on April 2, the company issued a voluntary recall, initially ‘under protest.’ It later rescinded that protest statement while still denying the investigation findings.
“The science has not changed between these two outbreaks. The regulatory process has not changed. What has changed is the political environment in which a company chooses to comply.”
This is the world in which we are living. And let’s be clear – in the long run, retailers and manufacturers could be at risk – legislatively, financially, reputationally, ethically and morally. They need to retake the narrative and push for a more nuanced and comprehensive public policy approach to food consumption.
The post Why American Food Companies Are Viewed With Skepticism By Citizens appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
