Consumer Freedom Websites Intentionally Misleading Consumers?

0 Comments
Join the Conversation
Consumers are getting distorted nutritional information. - puffer703 / Flickr
Consumers are getting distorted nutritional information. - puffer703 / Flickr
Disputable claims made by the non-profit organization with a secret list of corporate backers raise serious concerns.

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is, perhaps, a non-profit organization that many consumers haven't heard of. Yet they are responsible for nearly a dozen informational websites on the Internet, as well as many TV and Internet ads. Their websites have fairly provoking names, too: ObesityMyths.com, PetaKillsAnimals.com, and MercuryFacts.org. The organization claims to promote consumer choice and fight government regulations that seek to limit that in any way, and one of their stated priorities is to provide consumers with information that will lead to making more informed and responsible purchasing decisions.

The CCF's backers, however, are restaurants, food companies and other for-profit businesses that have a vested interest in keeping such regulations off the market. As a result, some of the information that lands on their websites is questionable and misleading. For instance, take the claims made on their website SweetScam.com, which provides information on sugar.

Claim: "[S]weet foods do not produce physical or psychological dependency."

The CCF says that sugar addiction is an outright myth, and they link to an Illinois Department of Human Services website on addiction to prove their point. The website, however, reads thus:

  • People who are addicted cannot control their need for alcohol or other drugs, even in the face of negative health, social or legal consequences.

A 2007 study conducted at Princeton University shows that, at least in rats, overindulging in sugary foods can in fact lead to all four signs of dependency: binging, withdrawal, craving and sensitization toward similar substances. Rats that were allowed to binge on sugar and then kept from it acquired "the shakes" and had chattering teeth - symptoms associated with drug withdrawal. Researchers say this is because sugar releases dopamine in the brain like many illicit drugs do, and travels along many of the same neural pathways as well. Therefore, the study concludes, it is very probable that humans could suffer from sugar dependence. And one only has to watch an episode of NBC's The Biggest Loser to know that many people continue to consume high-calorie foods even as their health and social lives suffer due to massive weight gain. Yet the CCF openly rejects the idea that obesity could be a "physical symptom" of a food or sugar addiction.

Claim: It is a myth that "sugary sweeteners are 'empty calories.'"

The 'empty calorie' position on added sugars in the diet is a long-standing one held by many reputable nutritionists. The American Heart Association, for one, states that added sugars simply contribute extra calories to food with no dietary benefits whatsoever aside from making food sweeter and more palatable. Yet along with pointing out that consuming sugar provides energy for the body, the CCF says that "[s]ugar itself generally has trace amounts of nutrients," subtly suggesting that people might benefit from eating "spoonfuls of sugar." The CCF's claim must be a well-guarded secret, because an extensive Internet search on the subject yielded no satisfactory results. In fact, if trace amounts of nutrients do exist in sugar, they aren't in quantities large enough to register on the nutritional label of a three-gram packet of sugar. Four grams equal a teaspoon.

Claim: "Sugar is sugar is sugar."

The CCF would have consumers believe that the human body breaks down all carbohydrates, or sugar, into energy-rich glucose, a natural sugar found in nearly all foods. However, the body does not turn fructose (i.e., fruit sugar) into glucose. The two sugars are chemically distinctive and are processed differently by the body. While glucose can be metabolized by nearly every cell in the body, fructose is primarily metabolized by the liver, and only properly so when enough glucose is present to stimulate an adequate amount of insulin production to process the fructose. Fructose cannot trigger insulin production. If enough insulin is not produced to deal with the fructose, a condition known as 'fructose malabsorption' can result--wherein fructose is not fully absorbed by the intestines, leading to diarrhea and intestinal discomfort. Not to mention that fructose is much more likely and more quickly to be converted to fat than glucose due to the way it's metabolized. A substantial article in the New York Times agrees:

  • [W]e can eat 100 calories of glucose (from a potato or bread or other starch) or 100 calories of sugar (half glucose and half fructose), and they will be metabolized differently and have a different effect on the body. The calories are the same, but the metabolic consequences are quite different.

Of course, all added sugars contain some combination of fructose and glucose, although some with higher percentages of fructose than others.

Popular topics

Claim: "[A]ll sugars are equally processed."

As the CCF correctly states, "Sugar cubes don't grow on trees." Something must occur to turn nectar and plants into usable sugar. But that certainly doesn't mean all sugars undergo the same amount of processing as the CCF seems to claim. Honey, for example, is 'processed' from nectar by bees. Humans then collect the honey in jars--no boiling or chemical additives required. Similarly, maple syrup is tapped from maple trees and then boiled to the desired consistency. Table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), however, undergo rigorous factory processing involving multiple steps and added enzymes and chemicals. In fact, at least one of the chemicals used in the production of refined white sugar is considered poisonous to humans: calcium hydroxide.

Claim: "[T]he government does not control or support the price of high fructose corn syrup."

This is only technically true. While the U.S. government may not directly control the price of HFCS, it is a generally well-known fact that U.S. corn subsidies have made HFCS cheap to produce. Of course, the CCF conveniently fails to mention these corn subsides, vaguely attributing the low cost of HFCS instead to "a variety of factors."

How the CCF Justifies Their Claims

These aren't the only dubious statements made on the SweetScam website, nor is it the first time the CCF has come under scrutiny for misleading the public on matters of health and nutrition. An ABC affiliate in San Francisco, California, for example, found misleading information regarding mercury in fish on a CCF website called FishScam. When asked why the information on the website clearly contradicted the findings of a respected research scientist and medical doctor, CCF director David Martosko called the doctor "three parts activist and one part scientist" - suggesting that the doctor's research resulted from a personal bias against the fishing industry.

This appears to be a common tactic with the CCF. Publicly funded research groups who publish information contrary to the CCF's message - or who push for product labeling or regulations that might affect food manufacturer's profits - are accused of being "food police," meddling in consumer affairs, and attempting to restrict consumer choice. Likewise, private consumers who advocate for industry changes are regarded as either activists (for which the CCF expresses great disdain) or victims of biased "pseudoscience" studies.

The CCF also seems to take great pleasure in taking small quotes from certain scientists to support their claims, as if these scientists endorse CCF's message. However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to stating that "sugar is sugar," the CCF often quotes Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, the primary author of the Food Politics blog and a critic of the Princeton University study on the affects of HFCS. However, Dr. Nestle has ardently and repeatedly criticized both the Corn Refiners Association and the CCF for their misleading ad campaigns. In fact, the CCF threatened Dr. Nestle with a defamation lawsuit in 2008 for suggesting on her blog that the CCF was acting as "a mouthpiece for the tuna industry" in its defense of high-mercury fish. Of course, one would have a difficult time proving that were true since CCF refuses to disclose the names of its corporate donors for "safety" reasons.

What the CCF Gets Right

It doesn't appear on the surface that the CCF is guilty of any outright lying. In fact, some of their statements are both agreeable and truthful. Consumers shouldn't be forced to purchase certain products or pay outrageous taxes on the foods they love. Restaurants shouldn't be made to relocate outside of town or forced to stop selling certain products in the name of combating obesity. And almost any nutritionist would agree that small amounts of sugar can be enjoyed as part of a healthy, 2,000-calorie diet.

However, that this non-profit organization functions as the front group for unknown powerful food companies and their D.C. lobbies should give consumers pause when evaluating its claims, especially since the CCF has come under fire several times from distinguished members of the scientific community. As Alfred Lord Tennyson once said, "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."

Sources

April Kelsey, A. K.

April Kelsey - April Kelsey is a freelance writer specializing in politics, academic writing, and nutrition.

Follow 784945 on Twitter
rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment
NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 6+9?
Advertisement

Popular topics

more in nutrition »
Advertisement