Porter Novelli's Pyramid Schemes

Submitted by Diane Farsetta on

"Missions that might be considered conflicting are not new for Porter Novelli," a PR firm that "has worked for both the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and for Guinness stout and Johnnie Walker Scotch." But Porter Novelli's $2.5 million contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to update the food guide pyramid concerns some. "You have a company on one hand pushing McDonald's or almonds or whatever, and on the other providing objective advice on government nutrition programs," said the director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The New York Times reported that "several former or current Porter Novelli clients," including Campbell Soup and Dole, "offered formal comment on the guidelines and the new icon." Co-founder William Novelli said the firm's combination of private and government accounts "benefits both clients. Consumers are not purists."

Main Source: 
New York Times, April 10, 2005
Topics: 
Health
Public Relations
U.S. Government

Comments

usfoodpolicy replied on

[http://www.usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/|I have high hopes now] for the quality of the color scheme on that new Pyramid.

Pani113 replied on

The Center for Science int the Public Interest is hardly objective when it comes to food either. As a sociologist who believes we are experiencing a moral panic around food and weight, I see it as a fight between greed and ignorance on one side and fundamentalism and ignorance on the other. I truly believe that some at the CPI are Nutritional McCarthists and no corporations are paying me to say that. As a matter of fact, I think the insurance industry are as pleased as punch with CSPI advocating allowing them to charge more for "overweight" people in group policies. Anyone who had any insight into the issue whatsoever would know it will only lead to more weight obsession = more risky weight loss practice = more obesity. But that is just the point. They are not interested in learning about the complex dynamics of this phenomena. IMO they are interested in forcing their beliefs about what is healthy down the publics throat. Not that they havent done some good in getting the major food companies to stop putting poison in our food. But that they are willing to support measures to coerce the public into buying their agenda is scary. I see no difference between this and any religious group with a sincere believe in its doctrine trying to impose it on everyone else. (Other than the former is allegedly "science" and the later faith.) If the government must stick its nose in my dinner plate, than they should have gotten a broader range of "experts" on the committee.