HFCS, the Little Man and Big Business

HFCS, the Little Man and Big Business (Part 1)
HFCS, the Little Man and Big Business Part 2 - Making a Difference
High Fructose, Low Budget: The Alternative Advertisement

The recent release in the US of adverts sponsored by the corn industry to promote high fructose corn syrup as being ‘not that bad’ has sparked much discussion about the ethics of marketing unhealthy products to the public.

These adverts were deeply misleading and obviously designed to capitalise upon the ignorance of consumers. Yet to anyone who knows the facts they were so wide of the mark they could almost have been a joke. When I watched them I nearly spat my breakfast onto the laptop.

Weasel Tactics

The levels of indignation are reflected by the breadth of coverage it has received in our community, where it was roundly condemned in the following places, to name just some: Ross Training, Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb, Modern Forager, The IF Life. To see the original videos, go to any of these articles.

This is, of course, nothing new - although the weasel tactics employed here do mark a new milestone in treating the consumer with contempt. Big business has been lobbying for, and marketing products which are patently bad for us for years. Slick advertising and well-groomed, plausible front-men have become the modus operandi for companies peddling ostensibly unacceptable products to somehow acquire for them a veneer of acceptability.

Big Business

The sugar lobby are amongst the worst offenders. In this article we witness the absurd spectacle of an industry trying to promote a product on the basis that used in a different way (i.e. not eaten!) it's not harmful; and, as this news story illustrates, they are equally at home with straightforward bullying. When you see the roll-call of garbage-peddlers who were in league with the Sugar Association as they tried in 2003 to strong-arm the World Health Organisation into withdrawing healthy eating guidelines, it’s not hard to see their angle.

As for the tobacco industry, where do I start? After all these years they still wheel out wheezing spokespeople in times of crisis to advocate ‘freedom of choice’. One can’t help feeling as if these self-confessed smokers and advocates of choice are in some way being exploited, in spite of their clear complicity.

Pharmaceutical companies are the toughest bunch of all because their products are ostensibly acceptable. Perhaps this is how they managed to ease themselves into a position of almost unassailable power. For so long everyone just assumed they were the good guys – we took our eye of the ball. Now, when find that they are manipulating data to suit their marketing needs and funding lavish trips for doctors to acquire influence, we have become aware of their true might.

The bigger the business, the greater the power and the slicker the machine. Provided someone in a well-cut suit with a good haircut can keep a straight face whilst saying...

…blah blah blah moderation blah blah …

- then continue to keep a straight face whilst countering damning evidence with...

...the evidence we have seen does not support this...

... then somehow, by sleight of hand and sheer chutzpah they get away with it. We are hypnotised by the gibberish, mesmerised by the gloss.

Not Fundamentally Evil

Naturally, it is tempting to brand these people and the companies they work for as bad, or even evil; but the uncomfortable truth is that these people are probably no more or less evil than you or me. They are just doing their job and too lazy, broke or ignorant to confront the fact that their job indirectly causes suffering.

In my line of work I am indirectly involved in the promotion of some of the products I rail against in this blog. Shame on me, you might say. Why don’t I quit my job and get new job planting trees? Money. Security. Ambition. Hypocrisy, perhaps. But I promise I am not a bad person.

Likewise, the companies cannot, by definition, be evil. They are simply a collection of people, policies and processes that have evolved under the system we know as capitalism. The company is owned by the shareholders but run by the employees. The shareholders want the company to continue making profits because this pays their bills. To keep the shareholders happy the employees must take whatever actions are most likely to keep the company making profits so that their wages continue to be paid and they can pay their own bills.

Even the shareholders are arguably no worse than the employees themselves. You could question the ethics of their investments but I am guessing that for the most part they are not bad people.

The Corporation as a Sociopath

In the film The Corporation, the way companies behave was examined in the context of psychiatry. The conclusion was that when examined in these terms, companies exhibit the traits of a sociopath. In other words, someone

…who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience (dictionary.com)

I believe this is fundamentally at the root of many of our problems with big business pushing products that are bad for us. A collection of people with no particular desire to harm others, when assembled into a group under the corporate system, end up conspiring to do so. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

The majority of the time, this is not a problem. Most companies are making products that people want to buy. We have regulations that ensure those products meet certain standards and laws to enforce those regulations; and even in the worst companies (such as tobacco manufacturers) there will be a presumption to favour the consumer’s wellbeing when there is more than one choice but no effect on profit.

Painting themselves into a Corner

The problem comes when two circumstances align.

First, product development accelerates faster than research and regulation. HFCS is a good example – if we had known about its effects when it was first being introduced into foods, would it have got this far? Banning something on which few profits depend is easy because there are no lobbies. Maybe the research was there but the regulators we slow. Either way, the problem is that very often, the organisations developing the products have more money to spend than the researchers and regulators.

Second – and this is the key one - a company gets itself into a position where its financial wellbeing depends on continuing to sell a product that turns out to be bad. It paints itself into a corner.

In the case of tobacco companies, there really was nowhere for it them go with their products when it started to become clear that tobacco was a killer. You may ask why the CEO doesn’t stand up at the board meeting and say “I think we should fold the company because we sell poison.” I guess he could, but the board would oust him; and even if the board all agreed with him, they could not get it past the shareholders, who, after all, own the company; and the shareholders are not going to throw away their investment. If they were that way inclined, their money would be invested elsewhere.

The corn industry, at some point, decided that HFCS was the way forward. They invested in infrastructure and supply chains and developed a healthy customer base. Evidently they have got themselves to the point where a lot of their revenue depends on HFCS and for them it’s a no-brainer: they must find a way to preserve that revenue stream using whatever means necessary. When someone’s back is against the wall, they act unreasonably – this appears to apply to sociopaths too.

Are we Doomed?

Don’t get me wrong – there are some shits out there. I made some assumptions and simplifications to allow me to develop my point. Clearly there have been and continue to be individuals in companies who themselves behave psychopathically and could reasonably be called bad; but stick with me here – what I am saying is that for the most part this is not the case. For the most part, people are just doing what they must to live their life. They have constructed a view of the world to allow them to live their lives without daily fretting.

“Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.”
~Demosthenes, prominent Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens.

So are we doomed? I don’t believe so. In Part 2 I will tell you how I think the little man can make a difference.

See Also:
HFCS, the Little Man and Big Business Part 2 - Making a Difference
High Fructose, Low Budget: The Alternative Advertisement