May 31, 2023 • 29 mins
- An old episode from the Red to Green Podcast on Food Tech & Bio Tech. Listen if you are interested in the future of food, but this isn’t Scaling Nerds.
Red to Green was a podcast that investigated how to transition the food industry from harmful to healthy, from polluting to sustainable, from Red to Green. Each season had a different topic
- Season: Cultivated Meat
- Season: Plastic Alternatives
- Season: Food History
- Season: Food Waste
- Season: Biotech in Food
- Season: Book Reviews on the future of food
So how are the politics of the food system rigged? This is the second part of our book talk on "Food Politics- How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, " Find out how lobbying is different in the US vus Europe; you will learn about a bunch of concepts like soft and hard balling, the revolving door and commerciogenic malnutrition and Frank also shares an insider story of working or maybe more fitting - not working - with food safety authorities.
LINK
The book Food Politics by Marion Nestle https://www.foodpolitics.com/
Connect with the host, Marina https://www.linkedin.com/in/schmidt-marina/
Connect with the host, Frank https://www.linkedin.com/in/frankkuehne/
Please rate the podcast on Spotify and iTunes! <3
Hashtags
Nanotechnology in Food, Food Safety regulation, food safety Europe, EFSA, European food safety, food regulation, food legislation, food security, food additives, food industry, future of food, food innovation, food technology
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Historically, the food industry has been pretty close with
politics because of course, foodis essential.
It's essential for survival, it makes total sense.
So in this episode, we look at the tools that the food industry
uses to influence politics and we look at of course lobbying
but also into the other ways of doing it.
(00:24):
This is the second part of our book talks on food politics, how
the food industry influences. Nutrition and health by Mario
nessler. Find out how lobbying is
different in the u.s. versus Europe.
What a bunch of Concepts, like, soft and hard, boiling the
revolving door and Commercial genic malnutrition mean.
(00:44):
And also an Insider story of Frank working with food safety
authorities or should I rather say trying to work with them?
You're listening to season seven.
That is that true? Is that already season 7?
My God. Listening to season 7 of red to
Green where Frank and I my co-host are reading books, and,
(01:09):
and chatting about our questionsand answers and conspiracy
theories regarding them. If you didn't listen to the
first part of this episode, you can jump right in any way.
My wonderful co-host is Frank Alexander cunha the managing
director of the adult bird wrapsFoundation.
A foundation. In funding, applied scientific
(01:31):
research, for example, with grants for food science,
focused, on sustainability, and impact more on that in a bit.
Let's Jump Right In Red to Greenis the most in-depth podcast on
food sustainability. And in this season 7 we discuss
key takeaways from books on the food system, I'm your host
(01:54):
Marina Schmidt and I'm joined bymy co-host Frank Keenan before
we get all wrapped up in the actual talking about lobbying,
let's maybe clarify what lobbying is?
And here's a quote from the booklobbying is any legal attempt by
individuals or groups to influence.
And policy or action. The definition that explicitly
(02:17):
excludes bribery, historically lobbying has always involved.
Three elements promoting the views of special interest
groups, second attempting to influence government laws rules,
or policies that might affect those groups and third.
Communicating with government officials about laws rules or
(02:38):
policies of interest in the book.
She doesn't really talk about you.
Europe much but I do find it's important that we have a bit of
a comparison talk between the USand Europe.
I also find that very interesting because the issues
that come up with lobbying, are much more severe in the US than
(02:59):
they are in Europe. And that's not because Nestle
and Unilever, and Europe, or less interested in changing the
political system. But because the system itself,
it's less inviting less prone toMassive influence.
And one of the main ones is thatin the u.s. so important for
(03:19):
politicians to raise funds for the next election.
But in Europe, most places that's not a main criteria.
Do you actually know, like, in Europe, it's funded by the
government, right? Like the whole, the whole
process of doing PR and I think so, there's quite a lot of
money. There's a budget for your
(03:42):
marketing spending. In an election and that is
somehow related to the what kindof share you already have in the
parliament, or in the voting system would be interesting to
see if because I know that there's being a lot of money
being collected to support certain people in the elections.
I was wondering if there's a similar system than you in the
(04:02):
European Union, where there's a quota that they definitely will
get very similar to the EuropeanUnion where the government or
the European Union is paying a share of the pr and marketing
expenses. For an action.
Thus they have the same system in the United States.
Meaning is the US government, orthe state government, giving you
a certain amount of money. So you're being able to actually
(04:24):
Market yourself and then action process or is it always being
funded by third party money? I guess the main thing is that
it's, it wouldn't be enough, wouldn't surely enough to have
any friends, that's the key criteria, it's more binary,
whereas in Europe, it's all compromises compromised.
And so on T system. Yeah, so different discussions.
(04:48):
Yeah, exactly. You have to meet on the common
ground so you can slightly influence policy changes but
it's not as severe like there was a there's a really
interesting part in book on Monsanto that we're reading and
there was a story of George w-- Bush, where he was visiting
(05:09):
Monsanto Factory and it was recorded and the Tonto
Executives were saying, oh, it'slike going through an approval
process with the FDA and that's taking a bit of time.
It's okay. If it takes a bit of time it's
actually quite funny like that once I'm so Executives were
pretty reasonable like ya know it's part of the process and
then George w-- Bush. Here's like I'm in the business
(05:32):
of deregulation. Just call me and she just
grabbed literally like the policy was fast-tracked and I
was just approved really fast and I was like wow that's wild
But, of course, if you have a two-party system is also, of
course, it's not that simple, right?
But it becomes a bit more simple.
(05:52):
You don't have to manage dozens and dozens that can be voted.
I think the, you're referring now to this whole like, what
Mario and does she explains? How does the food industry
influence the policy making? And it's with the example of
George w-- Bush. It's by money, like days.
They give money for the election.
(06:12):
They give money. Gifts for certain things.
So the petition is influencing government in a certain way, in
a certain direction. That's I think most of the first
like typical to or out of the toolbox.
Typical tool being used the other one which I found.
I like to turn the revolving door.
Yeah, it's a great term. Basically saying people
(06:34):
switching sides continuously from the industry into the
United States Department of Agriculture USDA and being in a
circle. Position there.
And then going back again into the industry which is a bizarre
system understandable somehow. But on the other side, I find
that very corrupt and it reminded me of a different area.
(06:57):
Most of you will remember the opioid crisis in the United
States with the movement of the company Purdue, Purdue when I've
read about it, that they had a similar issue.
They had the revolving door likemanagement people of Purdue was
part suddenly of the USDA of FTAand then returning in the
industry back again, in the timeof the verification process of
(07:20):
their products. So that seems to be a repeating
pattern in the United States. The revolving door, here's a
little shout-out for an excitingopportunity.
The adelbert, raps Foundation, funds, research on sustainable
food. This can be on Old proteins
connected to spices and herbs orsoil.
And I asked Frank, the hot question.
How much funding research projects can receive a typical?
(07:43):
Research project starts at the couple of hundred euros, where
Bachelor student wants to write something about, I don't know,
insects and the food system and then it goes up to three year
project with a PhD, a budget of 200,000 Euros, anything in
between. So really depends on what people
bring to our table and we get excited about this is a
(08:05):
seriously, great opportunity forfood scientists and startups.
So check out the adelbert wraps Foundation by typing it into
Google. Or follow the links in the
comments to the adult bird wraps, Foundation.
Back to the episode. I also think in Europe, like the
European Food Safety Authority, the efsa, they all are all the
(08:30):
same. It's just have acronyms Marion,
Nestle also has that in her book.
Fifty percent of their experts having ties to Monsanto led to
questioning and a re-evaluation of their It's and we will see
that in our later chat on Monsanto, and the other side,
50% are not tied to Monsanto, which is always quite a good
(08:51):
balance to have a democratic discussion about from Santo
Rhonda, but he has. Yeah, we've got 60 percent are
not tied to Monsanto, great refrained. 50% are not tied to a
single major company which influence its 90% of all GMOs,
and the world, actually, always looking at the glass.
(09:14):
Half filled with pet Ford's moderate and all these things,
you know, positively framing, the 50% of the experts are not
tied to the industry. So then just to pick up on the
u.s. versus European Union in the u.s. it's seen as a
legitimate tradition to use lobbying, whereas in the you
(09:36):
it's considered more questionable and a bit Shady
actually. Like I used to be interested in
becoming A lobbyist when I was like 15, really, I was actually
reading a book on headhunting and one on lobbying, there was a
modern assassin style like like badass, but I want to become a
(09:58):
Headhunter crime headhunting. I was actually reading enticed
by lobbying and in Europe, it seems to be much more of a
people business. An important side, note
political party, funding. Lobbying regulations actually,
varies across, European countries, some countries, allow
(10:19):
companies to financially supportpolitical parties, through
donations or sponsorships with varying levels of transparency
and accountability. Many European countries have
regulations in place to ensure transparency and to prevent
excessive influence including limits on donations disclosure
(10:39):
requirements or restrictions on contributions for Ample in
Germany, you're allowed to individually.
So as an individual person donate to a political party but
it's limited to 10 K companies are not allowed to directly
fund. A political party in the u.s.
(10:59):
money has more leverage because in the u.s. goes from
corporations directly to politics.
Whereas in Germany, that's not allowed.
It can only work indirectly likemost Fades from corporations to
Civil Society. Katie, I don't know what Civil
Society, like it's got its kind of the bandage being, you would
say, in Germany, it's indirect what you do is you fund a
(11:21):
foundation or an interest group being interested in the use of
new technologies, to grow products in the field of
farmers, Tara, and monsanto's, putting money into that.
And obviously, they're going to promote Monsanto Roundup as an
interest group. You create some kind of group
that is interested in lobbying. For spices being natural
(11:45):
products and they would then tryto influence the policy making
in direct. There's not a direct link cash
is not flowing directly to the politician.
It is going through an interest group, creating some kind of
knowledge influence to into the policy-making process studies
are being financed through that.An interesting story.
(12:06):
I just experienced last year, we're funding research and it's
not research where we say peoplehave to find the following
results. Anything that Basically assigned
to the screening test that I've got this question.
I need funding for that. Would you be funding our
research? And you won't believe it.
But there's an institution, their task is to Define how to
analyze our food. Like they Define, how do we find
(12:30):
pesticides on a product basically and it's a state
organization, they're linked to the European Union are linked to
the German government and I sat down with the head of that
organization and like her issues.
They don't have any kind of insight into the Industry, like,
how are you actually working? Where is it coming from?
Like they really lack expertise and I said, more than happy
(12:50):
coming to our Factory, sit down with our experts to explain you
anything and everything you asked and if you interested
we're happy to fund any kind of research.
If there's an overlap of a certain process, we are
interested in and you are interested in and it's
immediately said I can't do that.
I said, why can't you do that? And she said, because you're
linked to Industry. Frank, your foundation is linked
(13:11):
to your company and Because thatkind of close, interest doesn't
allow me to work with you. I can choose you as an interview
partner and ask you questions. I can visit you, but I always
have to be independent in regardof any study.
I'm doing any work, I'm doing and I was quite interesting that
she's very to pushed me really back.
That can't do that. Sorry Frank.
(13:35):
Interesting, what did you think about that same opportunity?
Miss not created. Yeah, that could have been now.
I think it shows the again the it's not black and white, it
shows this kind of grayish area between if we want to have a
defending food safety system, like processes that understand
(13:57):
what's happening in the industry.
And then by that Define standardprocesses, how to analyze our
food, they need to understand the food is being processed.
The food is being treated on. So on, so on.
And like, how do you manage to give people that kind of
knowledge? When you don't allow them to
work with industry and we comingback to the revolving door,
(14:18):
obviously, somebody who has beenworking in this tree is an
expert. Could be able to actually find
the process of how, to analyze our products, how to analyze our
food, in the best possible way, because he fully understands how
it works, how the system works? So I think that's again like 50%
of Monsanto people being linked to Monsanto.
(14:41):
They do understand how Monsanto is working.
You mean, it's 50% of Monsanto, people be linked to Monsanto
shark outside talking with, you know what I meant. 50% off the
episode, people have links to one satyrs on the other side
positively, they understand how Monsanto is working and how the
system are not products reviewedas we will see soon.
(15:05):
I grilled some research on that.You got a great mother.
But the first thing I wanted to point out is the one thing I
want to point out as those representative of the European
Union or the German, government are very cautious.
Very careful, at least, in my experience, with this kind of
close cooperation to create studies together.
Even if we are a civil organization like a foundation
(15:28):
that has not an immediate link to any industry interest and on
the other side that discussion with her showed me where she's
lacking the insights and The expertise to actually Define
something. That makes sense which then
brings back the question. How do you involve the experts
in that if the experts come fromthe industry and how to make
sure that the experts are only experts and not driven by our
(15:52):
certain interest to shape this kind of process say to a finding
in a way that it's benefiting for the industry and not for the
society as a long phrase. Sorry, that was super
interesting though. Personally, I think yes.
So it has its downsides, right? So both extremes have their
downsides but in general, I am actually positively surprised
about how clear she was not. She was yeah because that is of
(16:16):
course something that heightens my trust overall still she
doesn't work with white sheep but she also doesn't work with
the black sheep then actually yeah that's true no sheep at all
and I know she's sitting in her chamber and thinking about how
do they analyze spices and what Meaning of something, I don't
(16:38):
know. So, we went through most of
these topics that we didn't get to that.
We can just very briefly touch upon our checkoff programs in
the u.s. they were very complicated.
It's a u.s. I'm very complicated.
Thank you, yes. Oh you are very complicated.
I have for most people that's a compliment.
(16:59):
Okay. Okay the checkoff program
description was I found a bit too complicated but it's just
been much. They take Take is certain cuts
of any kind of profits of a foodcategory, right?
And then that's pulled to promote this food category in
general, which is so funny. Because like, why do you need to
(17:20):
promote a certain food category?That brings me back to the
double standard of the USDA? Something that she keeps noting.
So, I quote, because usda's dualmandates to protect agricultural
producers. And to advise the public about
diet, created increasing levels of conflict, of course, doesn't
(17:44):
it doesn't like, is the line is the, of course, there is a
deeply conflicted if they, they're mandated.
So weirdly setup, he is really interesting part from the book,
which talks about the differencebetween the FDA and the USDA and
their budgets. I quote food.
Safety. Oversight is largely but not
(18:05):
exclusively divided between two.A Agencies the FDA and USDA
USDA, mostly overseas meat and poultry the FDA mostly handles
everything else, including pet food and animal feed, although
this division of responsibility means that the FDA is
responsible for 80% of the food supply, it only gets twenty
(18:28):
percent of the federal budget for its purpose.
In contrast, the USDA gets 80% of the budget for 20% of the
Boots. This uneven distribution is the
result of a little history and alot of politics Mario nessler
toxin her book about how hard itis, to ensure food, safety and
(18:50):
food quality with such a restricted budget and that's
especially apparent. When you look at the regulation
of imports, I quote by one assessment, the FDA has become.
So short-staffed that it would take the agency. 1,900 years to
inspect every foreign plant thatexports food to the United
(19:14):
States. And she also mentions that the
FDA was able to inspect only about 1% of the shipments coming
into the u.s. compared to 8% in 1992 in another softball
strategy. So softball, meaning, softer,
influencer strategy, and Hardball meaning something
that's a little bit. Like harsh slightly illegal,
(19:36):
even Another strategy was a public relations, so for
example, promoting infant formula nessler was very
criticized for it because especially in poor economies,
it's called Commerce. So genic malnutrition meaning
that you, you promote something that people can actually not
afford, therefore they are suffering malnutrition, they
(19:59):
have breast milk, which is all-inclusive, hi no.
Now, they're spending extra money to get packaged.
Infant formula, which is Never As Good As the original thing,
and we just accept that and thenNesta created, the infant
formula audit commission. The nif, a see, whose job was it
to check any violations that nested would do.
(20:22):
And literally this commission was funded by nessler to check
on nessler, which, of course, doesn't find anything.
But still was enough to appease individuals and groups
criticizing Nestle has efforts And to just create the
appearance of being more independent and more ethical.
(20:44):
Yeah, I actually experienced that firsthand.
I was working in a favela, in Brazil, for three months, as a
student have a s at the slums inthe north of Brazil and years.
And this issue was in the slums.Actually a Hot Topic.
So because babies were starving because the parents couldn't
(21:05):
afford the product from nest. Oh the milk powder and they
actually had to re-educate people on breastfeeding and
Australian people being told that because if you breastfeed,
and you might poison your child,it's not as good and you have to
have to safety overproduce product.
Whoa, really bad impact and shockingly, real.
(21:26):
Suddenly, I wasn't just an article or a capsule and a book,
but I experienced it firsthand so crazy.
It just find it. So fascinating, there's a
chapter on techno food. And there she describes just how
we are trying to reinvent these superfoods and create all kinds
of additions. Some kind of make something
(21:47):
that's not healthy into something healthy by adding some
kind of enzymes and probiotics and everything.
But in the end, it's just laughable because it will never
get to the point of being, as good as just very good fresh
produce, most of the time and Hardball He's suing individuals
(22:08):
or groups that have expressed negative opinions.
We have that in the food Historyseason, the final episode was on
a pink slime Scandal. And then another Hardball
technique is crossing a legal line by fixing prices.
Yeah. So then what to do, uh, We've
stuffed and starved. You were criticizing the book
(22:29):
that it was so -, but it doesn'thave much of an action plan that
he did have advice working. But did you have that feeling
for this book as well? Very similar?
Yeah, like she's pointing out where the system is not working
properly and how it's being influence, but she's not
actually suggesting anything in a white how they should re at
(22:50):
least. I can't remember that.
She's actually saying something about the USDA.
They need to split it up into two entities.
The Oneness interests of the agricultural system.
The other one is interest of theconsumers so he's not doing
that. She's basically pointing back
the finger on the consumer. You saying you have to Make sure
that you're eating healthy. No, no T.
(23:10):
So Shakespeare describes, that one of the issues is that the
food industry is using similar techniques.
Like the tobacco Lobby and fun fact.
Several tobacco companies got involved in food to diversify
their portfolio and the notion of everybody should be free to
choose whatever they want and therefore every kind of
(23:32):
marketing should be allowed sounds nice at first, but at the
same time, It also just makes itreally hard.
Because if every company is allowed to Market their candies,
to children with unlimited air time, no, children do not have
that ability to influence their choices.
And there's a whole section of the book where she talks about
(23:52):
children and marketing to children and even adults who is
so influenced by the kind of food that is in our nearby
supermarket. I literally notice whenever I
switch around, like I go to different Airbnb, like ice.
Which the area that I live in Lisbon, then I'm eating
different stuff because beforehand, I was next to a
(24:13):
Portuguese, a supermarket. And now I'm next to Aldi, I'm
doing the whole German shpiel again.
Yeah, she says, actually, it's necessary to have more
guidelines and have more regulation of what is promoting
it, how much it is promoted and to balance out corporate power.
(24:33):
So in conclusion, the author explains that the emphasis on
individual choice and responsibility benefits the food
industry. I quote, if diet, as a matter of
individual, Free Will than the only appropriate remedy for poor
diets is education and nutritionist.
Should be off, teaching people to take personal responsibility
(24:55):
for their own diet and health. Not how to Institute societal
changes, that might make it easier for everyone to do.
So so she's criticizing that diet should actually be
political and politics should beinvolved in helping people to
make healthy diet choices for their own good.
(25:18):
I think then she says, the policy has to be different and
needs to protect the consumer more strongly, but she's not
changing the system in a way. Yeah.
It is a bit of a, you can sort of conclude from the criticisms
that she had. So one of the things that
Mariana Wrestler pointed out, isthat communities?
Who are engaged in improving School meals?
Reducing childhood obesity or aligning agricultural production
(25:43):
with health goals, actually havea significant impact.
So she's a big fan of a Grassroots movement.
Exactly, cool efforts that counter industry public
relations, and she describes it as the best expression of
democracy in action of the People, by the people for the
people. Yeah, now you up block and you
(26:07):
are published blocks. She basically said there's a
great opportunity with all theseinfluencers and health conscious
people talking on Instagram and on.
There's a different understanding of food.
But on the same time, when I read that, I said, what does the
food industry stops them from buying some influencers and ask
them to promote, red meat? Yeah, actually I'm pretty sure
(26:29):
that is the case for the ketogenic diet.
Yeah, yeah. Well, the ketogenic.
Make diets, literally red meat, animal fat, you eat a lot of
animal fat, overall fat meat anddairy.
It's like the dream diet of the animal agriculture industry,
lots of fatty meat. You'd actually limit certain
types of vegetable consumption because they are too high in
(26:51):
carbs and you completely cut outsugar and carbohydrates.
The second example where I thought it wouldn't be hard to
imagine influencers, like Dave asprey with his bulletproof diet
somehow secretly. It by interest groups who want
people to eat more of these loads.
Thank you. At least that would be the risk
in the way she pointed out so isit a must read?
(27:14):
And if he has for whom I said atthe beginning of our podcast
it's definitely a must read specifically for people who are
in the food industry and really want to understand how the game
is being played to create policymaking.
Yeah yeah I would recommend it for people who are interested in
nutrition science or nutrition advice and how nutrition advice
(27:38):
is formed. That's the first group.
The second group would be peoplewho are just interested in
general policy shaping and general lobbying work because
I've looked into Lobby work alsotobacco industry, the automotive
industry. If you look at different
Industries, it's the same mechanics that are applied to
(28:03):
the same. System Cheryl from different
angles with different aims. I would say that it does help to
have the contrast. It may be worth the country that
you are actually based in because it is very u.s.
Centric. So to summarize, Mario nessler
has an egalitarian approach similar to Raj, Patel, whose
(28:25):
book stuffed and starved we've covered in the first two
episodes. Here's a quote to round it off
at the moment world. Hunger and starvation have
everything to do with politics and quote.
It's a good reminder, that Innovation is important but not
the only thing. If you enjoyed this topic, check
out episode 5.12 of red to Greenon pink slime.
(28:49):
To learn about defamation laws and how food corporations can
silence critics and the media. In episode 5.11, you can learn
how the Chinese government was instrumental in making China.
The second Rgeous Terry nation of the world.
You can connect with Frank kuna,my wonderful co-host and me
(29:09):
Marina Schmidt on LinkedIn. You can find Frank by typing in
Frank, Alexander kuna, kuna withKU e, hn e or by following the
links in the show notes. We would love to hear from you.
Let's move the food industry from harmful to healthy from
polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
Historically, the food industry has been pretty close with
politics because of course, foodis essential.
It's essential for survival, it makes total sense.
So in this episode, we look at the tools that the food industry
uses to influence politics and we look at of course lobbying
but also into the other ways of doing it.
(00:24):
This is the second part of our book talks on food politics, how
the food industry influences. Nutrition and health by Mario
nessler. Find out how lobbying is
different in the u.s. versus Europe.
What a bunch of Concepts, like, soft and hard, boiling the
revolving door and Commercial genic malnutrition mean.
(00:44):
And also an Insider story of Frank working with food safety
authorities or should I rather say trying to work with them?
You're listening to season seven.
That is that true? Is that already season 7?
My God. Listening to season 7 of red to
Green where Frank and I my co-host are reading books, and,
(01:09):
and chatting about our questionsand answers and conspiracy
theories regarding them. If you didn't listen to the
first part of this episode, you can jump right in any way.
My wonderful co-host is Frank Alexander cunha the managing
director of the adult bird wrapsFoundation.
A foundation. In funding, applied scientific
(01:31):
research, for example, with grants for food science,
focused, on sustainability, and impact more on that in a bit.
Let's Jump Right In Red to Greenis the most in-depth podcast on
food sustainability. And in this season 7 we discuss
key takeaways from books on the food system, I'm your host
(01:54):
Marina Schmidt and I'm joined bymy co-host Frank Keenan before
we get all wrapped up in the actual talking about lobbying,
let's maybe clarify what lobbying is?
And here's a quote from the booklobbying is any legal attempt by
individuals or groups to influence.
And policy or action. The definition that explicitly
(02:17):
excludes bribery, historically lobbying has always involved.
Three elements promoting the views of special interest
groups, second attempting to influence government laws rules,
or policies that might affect those groups and third.
Communicating with government officials about laws rules or
(02:38):
policies of interest in the book.
She doesn't really talk about you.
Europe much but I do find it's important that we have a bit of
a comparison talk between the USand Europe.
I also find that very interesting because the issues
that come up with lobbying, are much more severe in the US than
(02:59):
they are in Europe. And that's not because Nestle
and Unilever, and Europe, or less interested in changing the
political system. But because the system itself,
it's less inviting less prone toMassive influence.
And one of the main ones is thatin the u.s. so important for
(03:19):
politicians to raise funds for the next election.
But in Europe, most places that's not a main criteria.
Do you actually know, like, in Europe, it's funded by the
government, right? Like the whole, the whole
process of doing PR and I think so, there's quite a lot of
money. There's a budget for your
(03:42):
marketing spending. In an election and that is
somehow related to the what kindof share you already have in the
parliament, or in the voting system would be interesting to
see if because I know that there's being a lot of money
being collected to support certain people in the elections.
I was wondering if there's a similar system than you in the
(04:02):
European Union, where there's a quota that they definitely will
get very similar to the EuropeanUnion where the government or
the European Union is paying a share of the pr and marketing
expenses. For an action.
Thus they have the same system in the United States.
Meaning is the US government, orthe state government, giving you
a certain amount of money. So you're being able to actually
(04:24):
Market yourself and then action process or is it always being
funded by third party money? I guess the main thing is that
it's, it wouldn't be enough, wouldn't surely enough to have
any friends, that's the key criteria, it's more binary,
whereas in Europe, it's all compromises compromised.
And so on T system. Yeah, so different discussions.
(04:48):
Yeah, exactly. You have to meet on the common
ground so you can slightly influence policy changes but
it's not as severe like there was a there's a really
interesting part in book on Monsanto that we're reading and
there was a story of George w-- Bush, where he was visiting
(05:09):
Monsanto Factory and it was recorded and the Tonto
Executives were saying, oh, it'slike going through an approval
process with the FDA and that's taking a bit of time.
It's okay. If it takes a bit of time it's
actually quite funny like that once I'm so Executives were
pretty reasonable like ya know it's part of the process and
then George w-- Bush. Here's like I'm in the business
(05:32):
of deregulation. Just call me and she just
grabbed literally like the policy was fast-tracked and I
was just approved really fast and I was like wow that's wild
But, of course, if you have a two-party system is also, of
course, it's not that simple, right?
But it becomes a bit more simple.
(05:52):
You don't have to manage dozens and dozens that can be voted.
I think the, you're referring now to this whole like, what
Mario and does she explains? How does the food industry
influence the policy making? And it's with the example of
George w-- Bush. It's by money, like days.
They give money for the election.
(06:12):
They give money. Gifts for certain things.
So the petition is influencing government in a certain way, in
a certain direction. That's I think most of the first
like typical to or out of the toolbox.
Typical tool being used the other one which I found.
I like to turn the revolving door.
Yeah, it's a great term. Basically saying people
(06:34):
switching sides continuously from the industry into the
United States Department of Agriculture USDA and being in a
circle. Position there.
And then going back again into the industry which is a bizarre
system understandable somehow. But on the other side, I find
that very corrupt and it reminded me of a different area.
(06:57):
Most of you will remember the opioid crisis in the United
States with the movement of the company Purdue, Purdue when I've
read about it, that they had a similar issue.
They had the revolving door likemanagement people of Purdue was
part suddenly of the USDA of FTAand then returning in the
industry back again, in the timeof the verification process of
(07:20):
their products. So that seems to be a repeating
pattern in the United States. The revolving door, here's a
little shout-out for an excitingopportunity.
The adelbert, raps Foundation, funds, research on sustainable
food. This can be on Old proteins
connected to spices and herbs orsoil.
And I asked Frank, the hot question.
How much funding research projects can receive a typical?
(07:43):
Research project starts at the couple of hundred euros, where
Bachelor student wants to write something about, I don't know,
insects and the food system and then it goes up to three year
project with a PhD, a budget of 200,000 Euros, anything in
between. So really depends on what people
bring to our table and we get excited about this is a
(08:05):
seriously, great opportunity forfood scientists and startups.
So check out the adelbert wraps Foundation by typing it into
Google. Or follow the links in the
comments to the adult bird wraps, Foundation.
Back to the episode. I also think in Europe, like the
European Food Safety Authority, the efsa, they all are all the
(08:30):
same. It's just have acronyms Marion,
Nestle also has that in her book.
Fifty percent of their experts having ties to Monsanto led to
questioning and a re-evaluation of their It's and we will see
that in our later chat on Monsanto, and the other side,
50% are not tied to Monsanto, which is always quite a good
(08:51):
balance to have a democratic discussion about from Santo
Rhonda, but he has. Yeah, we've got 60 percent are
not tied to Monsanto, great refrained. 50% are not tied to a
single major company which influence its 90% of all GMOs,
and the world, actually, always looking at the glass.
(09:14):
Half filled with pet Ford's moderate and all these things,
you know, positively framing, the 50% of the experts are not
tied to the industry. So then just to pick up on the
u.s. versus European Union in the u.s. it's seen as a
legitimate tradition to use lobbying, whereas in the you
(09:36):
it's considered more questionable and a bit Shady
actually. Like I used to be interested in
becoming A lobbyist when I was like 15, really, I was actually
reading a book on headhunting and one on lobbying, there was a
modern assassin style like like badass, but I want to become a
(09:58):
Headhunter crime headhunting. I was actually reading enticed
by lobbying and in Europe, it seems to be much more of a
people business. An important side, note
political party, funding. Lobbying regulations actually,
varies across, European countries, some countries, allow
(10:19):
companies to financially supportpolitical parties, through
donations or sponsorships with varying levels of transparency
and accountability. Many European countries have
regulations in place to ensure transparency and to prevent
excessive influence including limits on donations disclosure
(10:39):
requirements or restrictions on contributions for Ample in
Germany, you're allowed to individually.
So as an individual person donate to a political party but
it's limited to 10 K companies are not allowed to directly
fund. A political party in the u.s.
(10:59):
money has more leverage because in the u.s. goes from
corporations directly to politics.
Whereas in Germany, that's not allowed.
It can only work indirectly likemost Fades from corporations to
Civil Society. Katie, I don't know what Civil
Society, like it's got its kind of the bandage being, you would
say, in Germany, it's indirect what you do is you fund a
(11:21):
foundation or an interest group being interested in the use of
new technologies, to grow products in the field of
farmers, Tara, and monsanto's, putting money into that.
And obviously, they're going to promote Monsanto Roundup as an
interest group. You create some kind of group
that is interested in lobbying. For spices being natural
(11:45):
products and they would then tryto influence the policy making
in direct. There's not a direct link cash
is not flowing directly to the politician.
It is going through an interest group, creating some kind of
knowledge influence to into the policy-making process studies
are being financed through that.An interesting story.
(12:06):
I just experienced last year, we're funding research and it's
not research where we say peoplehave to find the following
results. Anything that Basically assigned
to the screening test that I've got this question.
I need funding for that. Would you be funding our
research? And you won't believe it.
But there's an institution, their task is to Define how to
analyze our food. Like they Define, how do we find
(12:30):
pesticides on a product basically and it's a state
organization, they're linked to the European Union are linked to
the German government and I sat down with the head of that
organization and like her issues.
They don't have any kind of insight into the Industry, like,
how are you actually working? Where is it coming from?
Like they really lack expertise and I said, more than happy
(12:50):
coming to our Factory, sit down with our experts to explain you
anything and everything you asked and if you interested
we're happy to fund any kind of research.
If there's an overlap of a certain process, we are
interested in and you are interested in and it's
immediately said I can't do that.
I said, why can't you do that? And she said, because you're
linked to Industry. Frank, your foundation is linked
(13:11):
to your company and Because thatkind of close, interest doesn't
allow me to work with you. I can choose you as an interview
partner and ask you questions. I can visit you, but I always
have to be independent in regardof any study.
I'm doing any work, I'm doing and I was quite interesting that
she's very to pushed me really back.
That can't do that. Sorry Frank.
(13:35):
Interesting, what did you think about that same opportunity?
Miss not created. Yeah, that could have been now.
I think it shows the again the it's not black and white, it
shows this kind of grayish area between if we want to have a
defending food safety system, like processes that understand
(13:57):
what's happening in the industry.
And then by that Define standardprocesses, how to analyze our
food, they need to understand the food is being processed.
The food is being treated on. So on, so on.
And like, how do you manage to give people that kind of
knowledge? When you don't allow them to
work with industry and we comingback to the revolving door,
(14:18):
obviously, somebody who has beenworking in this tree is an
expert. Could be able to actually find
the process of how, to analyze our products, how to analyze our
food, in the best possible way, because he fully understands how
it works, how the system works? So I think that's again like 50%
of Monsanto people being linked to Monsanto.
(14:41):
They do understand how Monsanto is working.
You mean, it's 50% of Monsanto, people be linked to Monsanto
shark outside talking with, you know what I meant. 50% off the
episode, people have links to one satyrs on the other side
positively, they understand how Monsanto is working and how the
system are not products reviewedas we will see soon.
(15:05):
I grilled some research on that.You got a great mother.
But the first thing I wanted to point out is the one thing I
want to point out as those representative of the European
Union or the German, government are very cautious.
Very careful, at least, in my experience, with this kind of
close cooperation to create studies together.
Even if we are a civil organization like a foundation
(15:28):
that has not an immediate link to any industry interest and on
the other side that discussion with her showed me where she's
lacking the insights and The expertise to actually Define
something. That makes sense which then
brings back the question. How do you involve the experts
in that if the experts come fromthe industry and how to make
sure that the experts are only experts and not driven by our
(15:52):
certain interest to shape this kind of process say to a finding
in a way that it's benefiting for the industry and not for the
society as a long phrase. Sorry, that was super
interesting though. Personally, I think yes.
So it has its downsides, right? So both extremes have their
downsides but in general, I am actually positively surprised
about how clear she was not. She was yeah because that is of
(16:16):
course something that heightens my trust overall still she
doesn't work with white sheep but she also doesn't work with
the black sheep then actually yeah that's true no sheep at all
and I know she's sitting in her chamber and thinking about how
do they analyze spices and what Meaning of something, I don't
(16:38):
know. So, we went through most of
these topics that we didn't get to that.
We can just very briefly touch upon our checkoff programs in
the u.s. they were very complicated.
It's a u.s. I'm very complicated.
Thank you, yes. Oh you are very complicated.
I have for most people that's a compliment.
(16:59):
Okay. Okay the checkoff program
description was I found a bit too complicated but it's just
been much. They take Take is certain cuts
of any kind of profits of a foodcategory, right?
And then that's pulled to promote this food category in
general, which is so funny. Because like, why do you need to
(17:20):
promote a certain food category?That brings me back to the
double standard of the USDA? Something that she keeps noting.
So, I quote, because usda's dualmandates to protect agricultural
producers. And to advise the public about
diet, created increasing levels of conflict, of course, doesn't
(17:44):
it doesn't like, is the line is the, of course, there is a
deeply conflicted if they, they're mandated.
So weirdly setup, he is really interesting part from the book,
which talks about the differencebetween the FDA and the USDA and
their budgets. I quote food.
Safety. Oversight is largely but not
(18:05):
exclusively divided between two.A Agencies the FDA and USDA
USDA, mostly overseas meat and poultry the FDA mostly handles
everything else, including pet food and animal feed, although
this division of responsibility means that the FDA is
responsible for 80% of the food supply, it only gets twenty
(18:28):
percent of the federal budget for its purpose.
In contrast, the USDA gets 80% of the budget for 20% of the
Boots. This uneven distribution is the
result of a little history and alot of politics Mario nessler
toxin her book about how hard itis, to ensure food, safety and
(18:50):
food quality with such a restricted budget and that's
especially apparent. When you look at the regulation
of imports, I quote by one assessment, the FDA has become.
So short-staffed that it would take the agency. 1,900 years to
inspect every foreign plant thatexports food to the United
(19:14):
States. And she also mentions that the
FDA was able to inspect only about 1% of the shipments coming
into the u.s. compared to 8% in 1992 in another softball
strategy. So softball, meaning, softer,
influencer strategy, and Hardball meaning something
that's a little bit. Like harsh slightly illegal,
(19:36):
even Another strategy was a public relations, so for
example, promoting infant formula nessler was very
criticized for it because especially in poor economies,
it's called Commerce. So genic malnutrition meaning
that you, you promote something that people can actually not
afford, therefore they are suffering malnutrition, they
(19:59):
have breast milk, which is all-inclusive, hi no.
Now, they're spending extra money to get packaged.
Infant formula, which is Never As Good As the original thing,
and we just accept that and thenNesta created, the infant
formula audit commission. The nif, a see, whose job was it
to check any violations that nested would do.
(20:22):
And literally this commission was funded by nessler to check
on nessler, which, of course, doesn't find anything.
But still was enough to appease individuals and groups
criticizing Nestle has efforts And to just create the
appearance of being more independent and more ethical.
(20:44):
Yeah, I actually experienced that firsthand.
I was working in a favela, in Brazil, for three months, as a
student have a s at the slums inthe north of Brazil and years.
And this issue was in the slums.Actually a Hot Topic.
So because babies were starving because the parents couldn't
(21:05):
afford the product from nest. Oh the milk powder and they
actually had to re-educate people on breastfeeding and
Australian people being told that because if you breastfeed,
and you might poison your child,it's not as good and you have to
have to safety overproduce product.
Whoa, really bad impact and shockingly, real.
(21:26):
Suddenly, I wasn't just an article or a capsule and a book,
but I experienced it firsthand so crazy.
It just find it. So fascinating, there's a
chapter on techno food. And there she describes just how
we are trying to reinvent these superfoods and create all kinds
of additions. Some kind of make something
(21:47):
that's not healthy into something healthy by adding some
kind of enzymes and probiotics and everything.
But in the end, it's just laughable because it will never
get to the point of being, as good as just very good fresh
produce, most of the time and Hardball He's suing individuals
(22:08):
or groups that have expressed negative opinions.
We have that in the food Historyseason, the final episode was on
a pink slime Scandal. And then another Hardball
technique is crossing a legal line by fixing prices.
Yeah. So then what to do, uh, We've
stuffed and starved. You were criticizing the book
(22:29):
that it was so -, but it doesn'thave much of an action plan that
he did have advice working. But did you have that feeling
for this book as well? Very similar?
Yeah, like she's pointing out where the system is not working
properly and how it's being influence, but she's not
actually suggesting anything in a white how they should re at
(22:50):
least. I can't remember that.
She's actually saying something about the USDA.
They need to split it up into two entities.
The Oneness interests of the agricultural system.
The other one is interest of theconsumers so he's not doing
that. She's basically pointing back
the finger on the consumer. You saying you have to Make sure
that you're eating healthy. No, no T.
(23:10):
So Shakespeare describes, that one of the issues is that the
food industry is using similar techniques.
Like the tobacco Lobby and fun fact.
Several tobacco companies got involved in food to diversify
their portfolio and the notion of everybody should be free to
choose whatever they want and therefore every kind of
(23:32):
marketing should be allowed sounds nice at first, but at the
same time, It also just makes itreally hard.
Because if every company is allowed to Market their candies,
to children with unlimited air time, no, children do not have
that ability to influence their choices.
And there's a whole section of the book where she talks about
(23:52):
children and marketing to children and even adults who is
so influenced by the kind of food that is in our nearby
supermarket. I literally notice whenever I
switch around, like I go to different Airbnb, like ice.
Which the area that I live in Lisbon, then I'm eating
different stuff because beforehand, I was next to a
(24:13):
Portuguese, a supermarket. And now I'm next to Aldi, I'm
doing the whole German shpiel again.
Yeah, she says, actually, it's necessary to have more
guidelines and have more regulation of what is promoting
it, how much it is promoted and to balance out corporate power.
(24:33):
So in conclusion, the author explains that the emphasis on
individual choice and responsibility benefits the food
industry. I quote, if diet, as a matter of
individual, Free Will than the only appropriate remedy for poor
diets is education and nutritionist.
Should be off, teaching people to take personal responsibility
(24:55):
for their own diet and health. Not how to Institute societal
changes, that might make it easier for everyone to do.
So so she's criticizing that diet should actually be
political and politics should beinvolved in helping people to
make healthy diet choices for their own good.
(25:18):
I think then she says, the policy has to be different and
needs to protect the consumer more strongly, but she's not
changing the system in a way. Yeah.
It is a bit of a, you can sort of conclude from the criticisms
that she had. So one of the things that
Mariana Wrestler pointed out, isthat communities?
Who are engaged in improving School meals?
Reducing childhood obesity or aligning agricultural production
(25:43):
with health goals, actually havea significant impact.
So she's a big fan of a Grassroots movement.
Exactly, cool efforts that counter industry public
relations, and she describes it as the best expression of
democracy in action of the People, by the people for the
people. Yeah, now you up block and you
(26:07):
are published blocks. She basically said there's a
great opportunity with all theseinfluencers and health conscious
people talking on Instagram and on.
There's a different understanding of food.
But on the same time, when I read that, I said, what does the
food industry stops them from buying some influencers and ask
them to promote, red meat? Yeah, actually I'm pretty sure
(26:29):
that is the case for the ketogenic diet.
Yeah, yeah. Well, the ketogenic.
Make diets, literally red meat, animal fat, you eat a lot of
animal fat, overall fat meat anddairy.
It's like the dream diet of the animal agriculture industry,
lots of fatty meat. You'd actually limit certain
types of vegetable consumption because they are too high in
(26:51):
carbs and you completely cut outsugar and carbohydrates.
The second example where I thought it wouldn't be hard to
imagine influencers, like Dave asprey with his bulletproof diet
somehow secretly. It by interest groups who want
people to eat more of these loads.
Thank you. At least that would be the risk
in the way she pointed out so isit a must read?
(27:14):
And if he has for whom I said atthe beginning of our podcast
it's definitely a must read specifically for people who are
in the food industry and really want to understand how the game
is being played to create policymaking.
Yeah yeah I would recommend it for people who are interested in
nutrition science or nutrition advice and how nutrition advice
(27:38):
is formed. That's the first group.
The second group would be peoplewho are just interested in
general policy shaping and general lobbying work because
I've looked into Lobby work alsotobacco industry, the automotive
industry. If you look at different
Industries, it's the same mechanics that are applied to
(28:03):
the same. System Cheryl from different
angles with different aims. I would say that it does help to
have the contrast. It may be worth the country that
you are actually based in because it is very u.s.
Centric. So to summarize, Mario nessler
has an egalitarian approach similar to Raj, Patel, whose
(28:25):
book stuffed and starved we've covered in the first two
episodes. Here's a quote to round it off
at the moment world. Hunger and starvation have
everything to do with politics and quote.
It's a good reminder, that Innovation is important but not
the only thing. If you enjoyed this topic, check
out episode 5.12 of red to Greenon pink slime.
(28:49):
To learn about defamation laws and how food corporations can
silence critics and the media. In episode 5.11, you can learn
how the Chinese government was instrumental in making China.
The second Rgeous Terry nation of the world.
You can connect with Frank kuna,my wonderful co-host and me
(29:09):
Marina Schmidt on LinkedIn. You can find Frank by typing in
Frank, Alexander kuna, kuna withKU e, hn e or by following the
links in the show notes. We would love to hear from you.
Let's move the food industry from harmful to healthy from
polluting to sustainable from red to Green.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.