E277: Food Fight - from plunder and profit to people and planet

Today we're talking with health and nutrition expert Dr. Stuart Gillespie, author of a new book entitled Food Fight: from Plunder and Profit to People and Planet. Using decades of research and insight gathered from around the world, Dr. Gillespie wants to reimagine our global food system and plot a way forward to a sustainable, equitable, and healthy food future - one where our food system isn't making us sick. Certainly not the case now. Over the course of his career, Dr. Gillespie has worked with the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition in Geneva with UNICEF in India and with the International Food Policy Research Institute, known as IFPRI, where he's led initiatives tackling the double burden of malnutrition and agriculture and health research. He holds a PhD in human nutrition from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Interview Summary

So, you've really had a global view of the agriculture system, and this is captured in your book. And to give some context to our listeners, in your book, you describe the history of the global food system, how it's evolved into this system, sort of warped, if you will, into a mechanism that creates harm and it destroys more than it produces. That's a pretty bold statement. That it destroys more than it produces, given how much the agriculture around the world does produce. Tell us a bit more if you would.

Yes, that statement actually emerged from recent work by the Food Systems Economic Commission. And they costed out the damage or the downstream harms generated by the global food system at around $15 trillion per year, which is 12% of GDP. And that manifests in various ways. Health harms or chronic disease. It also manifests in terms of climate crisis and risks and environmental harms, but also. Poverty of food system workers at the front line, if you like. And it's largely because we have a system that's anachronistic. It's a system that was built in a different time, in a different century for a different purpose. It was really started to come together after the second World War. To mass produce cheap calories to prevent famine, but also through the Green Revolution, as that was picking up with the overproduction of staples to use that strategically through food aid to buffer the West to certain extent from the spread of communism. And over time and over the last 50 years of neoliberal policies we've got a situation where food is less and less viewed as a human right, or a basic need. It's seen as a commodity and the system has become increasingly financialized. And there's a lot of evidence captured by a handful of transnationals, different ones at different points in the system from production to consumption. But in each case, they wield huge amounts of power. And that manifests in various ways. We have, I think a system that's anachronistic The point about it, and the problem we have, is that it's a system revolves around maximizing profit and the most profitable foods and products of those, which are actually the least healthy for us as individuals. And it's not a system that's designed to nourish us. It's a system designed to maximize profit. And we don't have a system that really aims to produce whole foods for people. We have a system that produces raw ingredients for industrial formulations to end up as ultra processed foods. We have a system that produces cattle feed and, and biofuels, and some whole foods. But it, you know, that it's so skewed now, and we see the evidence all around us that it manifests in all sorts of different ways. One in three people on the planet in some way malnourished. We have around 12 million adult deaths a year due to diet related chronic disease. And I followed that from colonial times that, that evolution and the way it operates and the way it moves across the world. And what is especially frightening, I think, is the speed at which this so-called nutrition transition or dietary transition is happening in lower income or middle income countries. We saw this happening over in the US and we saw it happening in the UK where I am. And then in Latin America, and then more Southeast Asia, then South Asia. Now, very much so in Sub-Saharan Africa where there is no regulation really, apart from perhaps South Africa. So that's long answer to your intro question.

Let's dive into a couple of things that you brought up. First, the Green Revolution. So that's a term that many of our listeners will know and they'll understand what the Green Revolution is, but not everybody. Would you explain what that was and how it's had these effects throughout the food systems around the world?

Yes, I mean around the, let's see, about 1950s, Norman Borlag, who was a crop breeder and his colleagues in Mexico discovered through crop breeding trials, a high yielding dwarf variety. But over time and working with different partners, including well in India as well, with the Swaminathan Foundation. And Swaminathan, for example, managed to perfect these new strains. High yielding varieties that doubled yields for a given acreage of land in terms of staples. And over time, this started to work with rice, with wheat, maize and corn. Very dependent on fertilizers, very dependent on pesticides, herbicides, which we now realize had significant downstream effects in terms of environmental harms. But also, diminishing returns in as much as, you know, that went through its trajectory in terms of maximizing productivity. So, all the Malthusian predictions of population growth out running our ability to feed the planet were shown to not to be true. But it also generated inequity that the richest farmers got very rich, very quickly, the poorer farmers got slightly richer, but that there was this large gap. So, inequity was never really properly dealt with through the Green Revolution in its early days. And that overproduction and the various institutions that were set in place, the manner in which governments backed off any form of regulation for overproduction. They continued to subsidize over production with these very large subsidies upstream, meant that we are in the situation we are now with regard to different products are being used to deal with that excess over production.

So, that idea of using petroleum-based inputs to create the foods in the first place. And the large production of single crops has a lot to do with that Green Revolution that goes way back to the 1950s. It's interesting to see what it's become today. It's sort of that original vision multiplied by a billion. And boy, it really does continue to have impacts. You know, it probably was the forerunner to genetically modified foods as well, which I'd like to ask you about in a little bit. But before I do that, you said that much of the world's food supply is governed by a pretty small number of players. So who are these players?

If you look at the downstream retail side, you have Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Unilever. Collectively around 70% of retail is governed by those companies. If you look upstream in terms of agricultural and agribusiness, you have Cargill, ADM, Louis Dreyfus, and Bunge. These change to a certain extent. What doesn't change very much are the numbers involved that are very, very small and that the size of these corporations is so large that they have immense power. And, so those are the companies that we could talk about what that power looks like and why it's problematic. But the other side of it's here where I am in the UK, we have a similar thing playing out with regard to store bought. Food or products, supermarkets that control 80% as Tesco in the UK, Asta, Sainsbury's, and Morrisons just control. You have Walmart, you have others, and that gives them immense power to drive down the costs that they will pay to producers and also potentially increase the cost that they charge as prices of the products that are sold in these supermarkets. So that profit markup, profit margins are in increased in their favor. They can also move around their tax liabilities around the world because they're transnational. And that's just the economic market and financial side on top of that. And as you know, there's a whole raft of political ways in which they use this power to infiltrate policy, influence policy through what I've called in Chapter 13, the Dark Arts of Policy Interference. Your previous speaker, Murray Carpenter, talked about that with regard to Coca-Cola and that was a very, yeah, great example. But there are many others.

In many ways these companies have been brilliant at adapting to the regulatory landscape, to the financial incentives, to the way the agriculture system has become warped. I mean, in some ways they've done the warping, but in a lot of ways, they're adapting to the conditions that allow warping to occur. And because they've invested so heavily, like in manufacturing plants to make high fructose corn syrup or to make biofuels or things like that. It'd be pretty hard for them to undo things, and that's why they lobby so strongly in favor of keeping the status quo. Let me ask you about the issue of power because you write about this in a very compelling way. And you talk about power imbalances in the food system. What does that look like in your mind, and why is it such a big part of the problem?

Well, yes. And power manifests in different ways. It operates sometimes covertly, sometimes overtly. It manifests at different levels from, you know, grassroots level, right up to national and international in terms of international trade. But what I've described is the way markets are captured or hyper concentrated. That power that comes with these companies operating almost like a cartel, can be used to affect political or to dampen down, block governments from regulating them through what I call a five deadly Ds: dispute or dispute or doubt, distort, distract, disguise, and dodge. And you've written very well Kelly, with I think Kenneth Warner about the links between big food and big tobacco and the playbook and the realization on the part of Big Tobacco back in the '50s, I think, that they couldn't compete with the emerging evidence of the harms of smoking. They had to secure the science. And that involved effectively buying research or paying for researchers to generate a raft of study shown that smoking wasn't a big deal or problem. And also, public relations committees, et cetera, et cetera. And we see the same happening with big food. Conflicts of interest is a big deal. It needs to be avoided. It can't be managed. And I think a lot of people think it is just a question of disclosure. Disclosure is never enough of conflict of interest, almost never enough. We have, in the UK, we have nine regulatory bodies. Every one of them has been significantly infiltrated by big food, including the most recent one, which has just been designated to help develop a national food stretch in the UK. We've had a new government here and we thought things were changing, beginning to wonder now because big food is on that board or on that committee. And it shouldn't be, you know. It shouldn't be anywhere near the policy table anyway. That's so it's one side is conflict of interest.

Distraction: I talk about corporate social responsibility initiatives and the way that they're designed to distract. On the one hand, if you think of a person on a left hand is doing these wonderful small-scale projects, which are high visibility and they're doing good. In and off themselves they're doing good. But they're small scale. Whereas the right hand is a core business, which is generating harm at a much larger scale. And the left hand is designed to distract you from the right hand. So that distraction, those sort of corporate CSR initiatives are a big part of the problem.

And then 'Disguise' is, as you know, with the various trade associations and front groups, which acted almost like Trojan horses, in many ways. Because the big food companies are paying up as members of these committees, but they don't get on the program of these international conferences. But the front groups do and the front groups act on in their interests. So that's former disguise or camouflage. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development is in the last few years, has been very active in the space. And they have Philip Morris on there as members, McDonald's and Nestle, Coke, everybody, you know. And they deliberately actually say It's all fine. That we have an open door, which I, I just can't. I don't buy it. And there are others. So, you know, I think these can be really problematic. The other thing I should mention about power and as what we've learned more about, if you go even upstream from the big food companies, and you look at the hedge funds and the asset management firms like Vanguard, state Capital, BlackRock, and the way they've been buying up shares of big food companies and blocking any moves in annual general meetings to increase or improve the healthiness of portfolios. Because they're so powerful in terms of the number of shares they hold to maximize profit for pension funds. So, we started to see the pressure that is being put on big food upstream by the nature of the system, that being financialized, even beyond the companies themselves, you know?

You were mentioning that these companies, either directly themselves or through their front organizations or the trade association block important things that might be done in agriculture. Can you think of an example of that?

Yes, well actually I did, with some colleagues here in the UK, the Food Foundation, an investigation into corporate lobbying during the previous conservative government. And basically, in the five years after the pandemic, we logged around 1,400 meetings between government ministers and big food. Then we looked at the public interest NGOs and the number of meetings they had over that same period, and it was 35, so it was a 40-fold difference.

Oh goodness.

Which I was actually surprised because I thought they didn't have to do much because the Tory government was never going to really regulate them anyway. And you look in the register, there is meant to be transparency. There are rules about disclosure of what these lobbying meetings were meant to be for, with whom, for what purpose, what outcome. That's just simply not followed. You get these crazy things being written into the those logs like, 'oh, we had a meeting to discuss business, and that's it.' And we know that at least what happened in the UK, which I'm more familiar with. We had a situation where constantly any small piecemeal attempt to regulate, for example, having a watershed at 9:00 PM so that kids could not see junk food advertised on their screens before 9:00 PM. That simple regulation was delayed, delayed. So, delay is actually another D you know. It is part of it. And that's an example of that.

That's a really good example. And you've reminded me of an example where Marian Nestle and I wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, many years ago, on an effort by the WHO, the World Health Organization to establish a quite reasonable guideline for how much added sugar people should have in their diet. And the sugar industry stepped in in the biggest way possible. And there was a congressional caucus on sugar or something like that in our US Congress and the sugar industry and the other players in the food industry started interacting with them. They put big pressure on the highest levels of the US government to pressure the WHO away from this really quite moderate reasonable sugar standard. And the US ultimately threatened the World Health Organization with taking away its funding just on one thing - sugar. Now, thankfully the WHO didn't back down and ultimately came out with some pretty good guidelines on sugar that have been even stronger over the years. But it was pretty disgraceful.

That's in the book that, that story is in the book. I think it was 2004 with the strategy on diet, physical activity. And Tommy Thompson was a health secretary and there were all sorts of shenanigans and stories around that. Yes, that is a very powerful example.

It was a crazy power play and disgraceful how our government acted and how the companies acted and all the sort of deceitful ways they did things. And of course, that's happened a million times. And you gave the example of all the discussions in the UK between the food industry and the government people. So, let's get on to something more positive. What can be done? You can see these massive corporate influences, revolving doors in government, a lot of things that would argue for keeping the status quo. So how in the world do you turn things around?

Yeah, good question. I really believe, I've talked about a lot of people. I've looked a lot of the evidence. I really believe that we need a systemic sort of structural change and understanding that's not going to happen overnight. But ultimately, I think there's a role for a government, citizens civil society, media, academics, food industry, obviously. And again, it's different between the UK and US and elsewhere in terms of the ability and the potential for change. But governments have to step in and govern. They have to set the guardrails and the parameters. And I talk in the book about four key INs. So, the first one is institutions in which, for example, there's a power to procure healthy food for schools, for hospitals, clinics that is being underutilized. And there's some great stories of individuals. One woman from Kenya who did this on her own and managed to get the government to back it and to scale it up, which is an incredible story. That's institutions.

The second IN is incentives, and that's whereby sugar taxes, or even potentially junk food taxes as they have in Columbia now. And reforming the upstream subsidies on production is basically downregulating the harmful side, if you like, of the food system, but also using the potential tax dividend from that side to upregulate benefits via subsidies for low-income families. Rebalancing the system. That's the incentive side.

The other side is information, and that involves labeling, maybe following the examples from Latin America with regard to black octagons in Chile and Mexico and Brazil. And dietary guidelines not being conflicted, in terms of conflicts of interest. And actually, that's the fourth IN: interests. So ridding government advisory bodies, guideline committees, of conflicts of interests. Cleaning up lobbying. Great examples in a way that can be done are from Canada and Ireland that we found. That's government. Citizens, and civil society, they can be involved in various ways exposing, opposing malpractice if you like, or harmful action on the part of industry or whoever else, or the non-action on the part of the government. Informing, advocating, building social movements. Lots I think can be learned through activist group in other domains or in other disciplines like HIV, climate. I think we need to make those connections much more. Media. I mean, the other thought is that the media have great, I mean in this country at least, you know, politicians tend to follow the media, or they're frightened of the media. And if the media turned and started doing deep dive stories of corporate shenanigans and you know, stuff that is under the radar, that would make a difference, I think. And then ultimately, I think then our industry starts to respond to different signals or should do or would do. So that in innovation is not just purely technological aimed at maximizing profit. It may be actually social. We need social innovation as well.

There's a handful of things. But ultimately, I actually don't think the food system is broken because it is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. I think we need to change the system, and I'll say that will take time. It needs a real transformation. One, one last thing to say about that word transformation. Where in meetings I've been in over the last 10 years, so many people invoke food system transformation when they're not really talking about it. They're just talking about tweaking the margins or small, piecemeal ad hoc changes or interventions when we need to kind of press all the buttons or pull all the levers to get the kind of change that we need. And again, as I say, it was going to take some time, but we have to start moving that direction.

Do you think there's reason to be hopeful and are there success stories you can point to, to make us feel a little bit better?

Yeah, and I like that word, hope. I've just been reading a lot of essays from, actually, Rebecca Solnit has been writing a lot about hope as a warrior emotion. Radical hope, which it's different to optimism. Optimism went, oh, you know, things probably will be okay, but hope you make it. It's like a springboard for action. So I, yes, I'm hopeful and I think there are plenty of examples. Actually, a lot of examples from Latin America of things changing, and I think that's because they've been hit so fast, so hard. And I write in the book about what's happened in the US and UK it's happened over a period of, I don't know, 50, 60 years. But what's happened and is happening in Latin America has happened in just like 15 years. You know, it's so rapid that they've had to respond fast or get their act together quickly. And that's an interesting breed of activist scholars. You know, I think there's an interesting group, and again, if we connect across national boundaries across the world, we can learn a lot from that. There are great success stories coming out Chile from the past that we've seen what's happening in Mexico. Mexico was in a terrible situation after Vicente Fox came in, in the early 2000s when he brought all his Coca-Cola pals in, you know, the classic revolving door. And Mexico's obesity and diabetes went off to scale very quickly. But they're the first country with the sugar tax in 2014. And you see the pressure that was used to build the momentum behind that. Chile, Guido Girardi and the Black Octagon labels with other interventions. Rarely is it just one thing. It has to be a comprehensive across the board as far as possible. So, in Brazil, I think we will see things happening more in, in Thailand and Southeast Asia. We see things beginning to happen in India, South Africa. The obesity in Ghana, for example, changed so rapidly. There are some good people working in Ghana. So, you know, I think a good part of this is actually documenting those kind of stories as, and when they happen and publicizing them, you know.

The way you portrayed the concept of hope, I think is a really good one. And when I asked you for some examples of success, what I was expecting you, you might say, well, there was this program and this part of a one country in Africa where they did something. But you're talking about entire countries making changes like Chile and Brazil and Mexico. That makes me very hopeful about the future when you get governments casting aside the influence of industry. At least long enough to enact some of these things that are definitely not in the best interest of industry, these traditional food companies. And that's all, I think, a very positive sign about big scale change. And hopefully what happens in these countries will become contagious in other countries will adopt them and then, you know, eventually they'll find their way to countries like yours and mine.

Yes, I agree. That's how I see it. I used to do a lot of work on single, small interventions and do their work do they not work in this small environment. The problem we have is large scale, so we have to be large scale as well.

BIO

Dr. Stuart Gillespie has been fighting to transform our broken food system for the past 40 years. Stuart is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow in Nutrition, Diets and Health at theInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). He has been at the helm of the IFPRI’s Regional Network on AIDs, Livelihoods and Food Security, has led the flagship Agriculture for Nutrition and Health research program, was director of the Transform Nutrition program, and founded the Stories of Change initiative, amongst a host of other interventions into public food policy. His work – the ‘food fight’ he has been waging – has driven change across all frontiers, from the grassroots (mothers in markets, village revolutionaries) to the political (corporate behemoths, governance). He holds a PhD in Human Nutrition from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.