Can journalists be impartial when their training is being paid for by the very industry they cover?
That’s the question I asked myself when I came across this upcoming journalist training, on the National Press Foundation (NPF) website -- “Exploring the Future of Food and Agriculture.” Here’s a description of the training which will take place July 24-27, 2016, in St. Louis:
It’s an age of abundance, one in which the ability of farmers to produce has never been greater. At the same time, the way that food is grown, marketed, sold and, unfortunately, wasted is filled with controversy – over labels, growing methods, GMOs, pesticide and herbicide use, antibiotics, global trade and government regulation.
Over four days, journalists will dive into a range of topics, taking them from the fields to the dinner table to a peek into the future of agriculture. Included will be field trips to an organic farm and to
Monsanto ’s research facility.The all-expenses-paid fellowship covers airfare, ground transportation, hotel costs and most meals. NPF offers this professional development opportunity for journalists to enhance skills, increase knowledge and recharge their reporting on one of today’s most critical issues. This program is for U.S. based journalists only.
At first, I assumed the reporters receiving the fellowship were having their expenses paid for by the NPF. But scrolling down the page, I learned that wasn’t the case:
Funding for this training is provided by Monsanto, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Pork Board, and the Organic Trade Association.
Uh oh.
Industry funding and the inevitable conflicts of interest have been hotly debated topics in the food and agricultural world over the past several years. Critics say there is ample evidence that food and agricultural industry largesse is actually being used to taint research, silence potential critics, reframe public policy debates more to industry’s liking or control the guiding philosophy and policies of major health and nutrition organizations.
After reading about the training paid for by Monsanto et al. (and please note that one of the funders represents organics), it appears that the food and agriculture industries are hoping to sway journalists through donations as well.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with a journalist visiting a food or agricultural company or trade group for fact-finding, as long as industry isn’t footing the bill. But compensation, such as paying a journalist’s travel, lodging and meal expenses, can alter the balance of power and a journalist’s judgment – not to mention call their impartiality into question. That’s why the Society of Professional Journalists advises reporters to “Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and to “Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment…that may compromise integrity or impartiality or may damage credibility.”
One doesn’t have to look far for evidence of the corrupting effects of industry funding in the food and agriculture arenas.
A 2013 analysis of sugary drink studies found that those with conflicts of interest (e.g. studies funded by
Similarly, Marion Nestle, a prominent New York University food studies professor, collected 168 food and nutrition research studies funded by the food industry over a one year period. 156 of them had results favorable to the sponsor’s interests, while only 12 had results unfavorable to the sponsor.
Last summer, the New York Times broke the story that Coca-Cola was funding physical activity researchers with millions of dollars in order to shift the blame for obesity away from bad diets and onto lack of exercise. In a fit of transparency, Coke released a database of organizations and individuals that it had funded over a five year period, revealing enormous donations to prominent medical groups, hospitals, researchers, disease organizations, civic groups and athletic organizations. The overwhelming majority of those who received Coke funding have been silent on supporting policies that reduce the consumption of sugary drinks.
And finally, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) has been under fire for the funding it accepts from the food and beverage industry, particularly purveyors of junk food. Concerned dietitians believe that AND’s sponsorship agreements with companies like Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Kellogg’s, McDonald’s, the Corn Refiner’s Association and PepsiCo have influenced the Academy’s guiding principles and put the kibosh on science-based nutrition recommendations that would discourage the consumption of unhealthy foods
There’s no question that food and agriculture industry funding can and does influence the policies and practices of organizations and researchers. So to see journalists stepping into the same funding quagmire by accepting an all expenses paid fellowship from the very companies and trade groups they are supposed to cover without bias is distressing.
Journalists are only human and it’s hard to not feel grateful or be influenced by the organizations that put on a show for you and pick up your tab for a four-day trip.
If we want to keep food and agriculture journalism impartial and trustworthy, reporters should never accept any kind of funding or compensation from the industries they cover. If we go down that road, en masse, we'll lose our integrity and the trust of the public we serve.
