312 THE CHINA STUDYnies, both contributed funding for the FNB report. Corporate members
include Coca-Cola, Taco Bell, Burger King, Nestle, Pfizer and Roche
Vitamins.^9 Some drug companies sponsored the report directly, in addi-
tion to their support through the International Life Sciences Institute. I
don't recall private corporations providing financial support for the NAS
expert panels that I served on.
It seems as if there is no end to this story. The chair of the FNB has
been an important consultant to several major dairy-related companies
(e.g., National Dairy Council, Mead Johnson Nutritionals, which is
a major seller of dairy-based products, Nestle Company and a Dan-
non yogurt affiliate). 10 Simultaneously, he was chair of the Dietary
Guidelines Committee that establishes the Food Guide Pyramid and
sets national nutrition policy affecting the National School Lunch and
Breakfast programs, the Food Stamp Program and the Women, Infants
and Children Supplemental Feeding Program (WIC).I, 10 As chair of this
latter committee, his personal financial associations with the food in-
dustry were not publicly revealed as required by federallaw.ll Eventual-
ly a court order, initiated by the Physician's Committee for Responsible
Medicine, 12 was required to force him and his fellow colleagues to reveal
their relationships with the food industry. Although the chair's industry
associations were more substantial, six of the eleven committee members
also were shown to have ties to the dairy industry. 10 , II
The entire system of developing public nutrition information, as I
originally saw with the Public Nutrition Information Committee that
I once chaired (see chapter eleven), has been invaded and co-opted by
industry sources that have the interest and resources to do so. They run
the show. They buy a few academic hacks who have gained positions of
power and who exercise considerable influence, both within academia
and government.
It seems curious that while government scientists are not allowed
to receive personal compensation from the private sector, their col-
leagues in academia can receive all that they can get. In turn, these
conflicted individuals then run the show in collaboration with their
government counterparts. However, restricting academics from receiv-
ing corporate consultancies is not the answer. That would only drive
it underground. Rather, the situation would be best handled by mak-
ing one's industry connections a matter of public disclosure. Everyone
needs to know the full extent of each academic's associations with
the private sector. Disclosure and full transparency is in everyone's