All over the world, the food and beverage industry enjoys influence in spaces where one might expect public health to be the sole guiding principle. Internationally, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Associa tion, ADA) presents itself as a body “devoted to improving the nation’s health,” yet investigative reports have repeatedly revealed deep conflicts of interest with powerful corporate sponsors. Nutrition “Fact Sheets” distributed under its banner are often drafted with the direct involvement of the very industries whose products are under scrutiny.
In the United States, companies have historically paid up to $20,000 per fact sheet for both authorship input and promotional placement in the Academy’s publications and website. These have included documents such as “Healthy Eating Tips for Families” sponsored by a fast-food chain, “Cocoa and Chocolate: Sweet News” sponsored by the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition, and “Eggs: A Good Choice” sponsored by the American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center.
Corporate entanglement has gone further: in 2008, the ADA proudly announced that The Coca-Cola Company had become an “ADA Partner” through its corporate sponsorship programme, granting the company a national platform to reach dietitians through conferences, publications, and official events. The Academy’s public communications highlighted that Coca-Cola would share its own “research findings” with members—an arrangement disturbingly similar to letting the tobacco industry educate doctors about cigarettes.
Such alliances have been defended on the grounds that “there are no good or bad foods,” a position that the food industry has enthusiastically amplified to neutralise criticism of products linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. This mirrors the early rhetoric of cigarette manufacturers, who argued that smoking was not inherently bad—only “excess” smoking.
This dynamic is not confined to the West. In India, public health advocates have raised alarms over similar corporate relationships. The Indian Dietetic Association and other professional nutrition bodies have collaborated on campaigns or events sponsored by processed food, dairy, and beverage corporations—sometimes under the guise of “nutrition awareness” or “balanced diet” education. For instance, sugary drink companies have partnered with schools to promote “hydration awareness,” while simultaneously marketing high-sugar beverages to children. According to a 2022 WHO South-East Asia Region report, such corporate sponsorships pose a serious risk of shaping dietary guidelines, influencing public perception, and delaying much-needed regulation on sugar, salt, and trans-fat levels in processed foods.
India’s burden of diet-related disease makes this issue especially urgent. The National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) shows that overweight and obesity among Indian adults have doubled in the last decade, while type-2 diabetes is rising even among rural populations. Research published in The Lancet in 2023 warns that India is on track to have the largest number of diabetes cases globally by 2045 if preventive action is not taken. Allowing companies whose profits depend on processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and ultra-processed snacks to sponsor or influence nutrition education is a direct conflict with the public health mandate.
An investigation by U.S. watchdog group Corporate Accountability (2022) concluded that such partnerships allow food and beverage corporations to “buy the halo of health” by associating with respected professional bodies, while subtly shaping messaging to protect sales.
Similar patterns emerge when food industry representatives are invited to policy meetings, school health programmes, or government-supported nutrition events. The danger is that the public receives advice diluted by commercial interests, making it harder to implement the kinds of dietary changes—such as reducing sugary drink consumption or increasing plant-based whole foods—that evidence consistently shows are critical for preventing obesity, heart disease, and cancer.
If nutrition professionals and family physicians are to retain credibility, they must set clear boundaries on corporate sponsorships from industries whose products contribute to the very diseases they aim to prevent. Otherwise, as critics have noted, “we risk teaching the public about health with one hand, while selling them sickness with the other.”
The entanglement between the food industry and nutrition professionals has quietly taken root—not just through formal endorsements but through subtler means of influence. Take, for instance, the rise of social media nutrition influencers—many of whom are credentialled dietitians—whose messaging is steered, at least in part, by corporate sponsorships. A growing exposé reveals that some dietitians partner with trade groups sponsored by sugar producers or beverage lobbies to promote products ranging from candy to artificially sweetened drinks, while downplaying their health risks. Even when disclaimers like “paid partnership” are attached, the line between advice and marketing often blurs, reaching millions of followers with industry-friendly narratives.
A remarkable countercurrent is embodied in the work of Revant Himatsingka—better known as FoodPharmer. After going viral by exposing the high sugar content in Bournvita, he instigated regulatory scrutiny and product reformulation. His campaigns, such as creating “Sugar Boards” and “Oil Boards” in schools, have become powerful grassroots tools for food literacy and transparency—and stand in sharp contrast to influencer-driven industry messaging.
Behind the scenes, commercial agendas also shape professional platforms. The Nutrition India Summit, a high-profile gathering of nutritionists, researchers, and policymakers, is heavily sponsored by manufacturers of nutraceuticals, health foods, and dietary supplements. Exhibitors include major industry players connecting directly with academic and clinical experts under the banner of “compliance” or “innovation”.
Yet, institutions like Hyderabad’s National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) remain pillars of independence. NIN, as the country’s counter-litational nutrition research authority, leads comprehensive dietary surveys and academic programmes free of overt corporate framing—training hundreds of researchers and health professionals in evidence-based public nutrition .
There is, nonetheless, concern about subtle industry input in policy formation. For instance, the Access to Nutrition Initiative’s 2023 India Index highlights the influence that large F&B manufacturers can wield—through marketing, partnerships, and CSR efforts—over public health discourse and regulatory agendas
References
• WHO South-East Asia Region. Health and nutrition in the context of non-communicable diseases. 2022.
• NFHS-5, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2021.
• Corporate Accountability. Partnerships for Profit: How Big Food Shapes Professional Nutrition Advice. 2022.
• Bommer C. et al. “Global trends in diabetes prevalence and projections.” The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2023.
Give a Reply