The Impact and Influence of Agribusiness in Canada's New Food Guide
Photo credit/Mention de source: Tina Mokhtarnejad
Dana Dallal
(FR) Le texte suivant porte sur le nouveau guide alimentaire canadien paru en 2019. Plus précisément, l’article détermine le lobbying du secteur agroalimentaire comme étant responsable du délai de publication du nouveau guide. De plus, ces lobbyistes ont eu une influence sur ce nouveau guide alimentaire puisqu’ils ont réduit les connotations négatives associées à leur produit en ce qui concerne la santé. Ces changements par rapport au guide de l’année précédente se concentrent principalement sur une réduction de produits animaliers. Ainsi, ce nouveau guide remplace les quatre groupes alimentaires traditionnels — que sont les fruits et légumes, les céréales, les viandes et substituts et les produits laitiers et substituts — par trois groupes : fruits et légumes, amidons et protéines. Il est évident que la consommation de produits animaliers est une question problématique, mais comment cela se fait-il ? De plus, pourquoi est ce guide illustré d’images de produits animaliers ?
My grade four physical education class consisted of studying what took the shape of a colourful rainbow, but really was the Canada Food Guide (CFG). Along with my classmates, I was taught to consume 3-4 servings of dairy and alternative products, and 1-2 servings of meat and alternative products daily in accordance with the 2007 CFG. At the time, the food guide was a popular resource to consult; 80% of Canadians had heard of it and just under a third had a hard-copy of it in their home.[1] Thus, the CFG caught the eye of agribusiness industries and uncovered a correlation between consumption of the industry’s products and the recommendations of the CFG. In 2019, a revision of the food guide was released, promoting a plant-based diet and omitting the four food group visual.[2] In order to ensure a spot in the revision, the agribusiness sector has funded studies to prove their products to be part of a nutritious diet, as well as has lobbied officials in order to ensure more favourable outcomes.
As a result, the 2019 revision of the CFG uses purposefully vague terminology. In identifying this, I argue that agribusiness and its industries are responsible for delaying the promotion of a plant-based diet in the CFG. Furthermore, the agribusiness sector has and continues to pressure the federal government into making its discouragement of animal products hidden through neutral messaging.
With many nutritional scientists warning against the consumption of animal products, the agribusiness industry has responded by funding research that promotes animal products as being a necessary part of a healthy diet. T. Colin Campbell, a retired professor in nutritional biochemistry at Cornell University, claims that “there are many ‘frightening facts’ about milk” and believes that the consumption of dairy protein is a cause of cancer.[3] In addition, Sylvain Charlebois, a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, argues that promotions for consuming milk in the 2007 CFG were “commodity-driven” and “supported by weak science” in order to meet the interests of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.[4] As Dr. Karl Michaëlsson, a professor in surgical sciences at Uppsala University, once said: “a ‘good’ scientific result is worth a lot for the industry,”[5] even if it is costly. Funding studies to produce desirable outcomes is what well-known food studies scholar, Marion Nestle calls “explicit corporate strategy.”[6]
However, funding was not just coming from the agribusiness industries, but from the Canadian government. Between the 2007 and 2019 revision of the CFG, Canadian dairy organizations and the Canadian federal government contributed a total of over $13 million to fund studies meant to “promote the efficiency and sustainability of Canadian dairy farms, grow markets and supply high-quality, safe and nutritious dairy products to Canadians.”[7] This suggests that these studies were designed for marketing purposes rather than for nutritional value, producing non-reliable outcomes. Unlike the food industry, the federal government has a dual role in providing reliable nutritional information to the public, which is why the 2019 revision of the CFG curbed efforts from lobbyists—in order to remain as transparent as possible.
Unlike the process of creating the 2007 food guide, meetings between lobbyists and officials working on the guide were prohibited during the 2019 CFG’s creation.[8] This prohibition was done to minimize lobbying, which occurs when a group's interest is designed to influence the government’s decision-making processes. Nonetheless, with profit at risk, industries still pressured officials indirectly. Consequently, Luc Berthold, a Member of Parliament, said to officials responsible in forming the 2019 CFG that the committee should “hear more from industry” and that Health Canada should analyze “all scientific data,” even that which came from industry-funded studies.[9]
Unfortunately, lobbying is no stranger to federal decision-making in relation to nutritional public policy, as seen in The United States. The American “Eat Right Pyramid” was scheduled for release in 1991. However, due to this model providing animal food products with a low suggested serving, the National Cattlemen’s Association—a group that protects the interests of American beef producers—and the National Milk Producers Federation spearheaded its revision.[10] As a result, the model was changed to and released as the “Food Guide Pyramid” with more neutral messaging.[11]
Similarly, Agriculture Canada pushed for more vague terminology to be used regarding protein, stressing that a positive attitude towards plant-based protein would foster a negative attitude towards protein from meat and dairy consumption.[12] The preliminary outlines for the 2019 CFG that were released in 2018 included a push to reduce meat consumption and swap foods that are high in saturated fat (such as cheese) with plant-based foods that contain mostly unsaturated fat.[13] Given the 2007 CFG’s “brand recognition,”16 the agribusiness sector could not risk losing profits from a decrease in demand. In fact, the Canadian meat industry is Canada’s largest sector in the food-processing industry, constituting “more than $28 billion in registered annual sales.”[14] Therefore, it was a must to make any discouragement of animal products as indirect as possible.
The publication of the 2019 CFG promoted a plant-based diet, but still portrayed animal products as necessary to a nutritious diet. The food guide suggests “eat[ing] protein foods” including both a wide variety of plant-based and animal-based protein sources, dismissing preliminary outlines that explicitly discouraged the consumption of animal products. Moreover, a suggested tip of the revision is to “limit foods high in sodium, sugars, or saturated fat” [15] which indirectly suggests limiting the consumption of processed meats, sweets, and dairy products.[16] While the involvement of the agribusiness industry was reduced in the 2019 CFG in comparison to the 2007 CFG, it was still prevalent due to the neutral messaging that prevailed in the publication of the 2019 revision.
Ultimately, the agribusiness sector is to blame for delaying the promotion of a plant-based diet in the CFG. The sector continues to pressure the federal government into ensuring that it does not release explicit statements discouraging the consumption of animal products. The efforts of the agribusiness sector are evident through notions of industry funded studies, lobbying, and neutral messaging. This begs the question: will the CFG ever be revised so that it only represents the truths of nutritional science, rather than the interests of the agribusiness industry?