Corporate Norm-Shaping: How Big Food Controls the Health Narrative

In my years working at the intersection of nutrition and mental health, I’ve observed how elites skillfully shape what society considers normal, acceptable, or desirable–a process known as “corporate norm-shaping.” This isn’t random or accidental; it’s a deliberate strategy that merits close examination, particularly in the food industry.

The Architecture of Influence

Manufacturing Doubt

The food industry has mastered several sophisticated techniques to create uncertainty around health impacts:

1. Strategic Research Funding
   • Supporting studies that create uncertainty about health impacts
   • Cherry-picking favorable results
   • Creating competing narratives to established science
   • Funding researchers who reliably produce industry-friendly results 
2. Language Manipulation
   • Using phrases like “more research is needed” to delay action
   • Promoting terms like “enjoyed in moderation” to normalize harmful products
   • Creating confusion about basic nutrition concepts
   • Emphasizing individual choice over systemic issues
3. Expert Management
   • Attacking scientists who produce unfavorable research
   • Discrediting health advocates who speak out
   • Creating “expert” panels dominated by industry allies
   • Infiltrating scientific conferences and professional organizations

The Front Group Strategy

Perhaps the most sophisticated tactic is the creation of front groups and astroturf organizations that appear independent but serve industry interests. For example:

• Calorie Control Council (Beverage industry 1966) 
• International Life Sciences Institute (“non-profit” started by Coca-Cola 1978) 
• International Food Information Council (“non-profit” funded by Big Food 1985)
• Center for Consumer Freedom (originally funded by Phillip Morris 1996)

These organizations typically:

1. Present themselves as independent research organizations
2. Claim to protect consumer choice
3. Frame public health measures as government overreach
4. Produce industry-friendly “scientific” reports
5. Have excellent SEO on the web 

Controlling the Narrative

The industry employs multiple strategies to maintain message control:

1. Media Management

• Placing industry-friendly experts in media interviews
• Creating “news” that promotes industry positions
• Developing relationships with key journalists
• Sponsoring content that normalizes ultra-processed foods

2. Social Media Manipulation

• Using influencers to promote products
• Creating viral content that undermines health concerns
• Targeting specific demographic groups
• Leveraging platform algorithms for message amplification

3. Professional Organization Capture

• Funding professional associations
• Sponsoring continuing education
• Creating educational materials for schools
• Influencing dietary guidelines through various channels

The Power of Public Relation (PR) Firms in Norm-Shaping

Industry employs sophisticated PR firms (e.g., Berman & Company) that:

1. Monitor public sentiment
2. Develop crisis management strategies
3. Create compelling counter-narratives
4. Target specific demographic groups
5. Manage reputation through strategic philanthropy

Marginalizing Dissent

The industry has developed clever ways to silence critics:

1. Language Weaponization
   • “Food police” to discredit health advocates
   • “Nanny state” to fight regulation
   • “Personal responsibility” to deflect corporate accountability 
2. Strategic Labeling
   • Dismissing concerns as “fear-mongering”
   • Labeling critics as “extremists” and “orthorexic” 
   • Using “junk science” to describe research that is unfavorable to their bottom line

The Impact on Public Health

This norm-shaping has serious consequences:

• Delayed public health actions
• Confused consumers
• Undermined scientific consensus
• Weakened regulatory efforts
• Normalized harmful products

Moving Forward: Recognizing and Resisting

To counter these influences, we need:

1. Better Awareness
   • Understanding corporate tactics
   • Recognizing front groups
   • Identifying industry-funded research
   • Tracking influence networks
2. Stronger Safeguards
   • Independent research funding
   • Stricter conflict of interest policies
   • Better transparency requirements
   • Protected channels for whistleblowers
3. United Response
   • Professional organization reform
   • Independent media platforms
   • Coordinated advocacy efforts
   • Public health coalition building

Learn more about corporate norm-shaping by understanding the commercial determinants of health.

References

1. Gilmore, A. B., Fabbri, A., Baum, F., Bertscher, A., Bondy, K., Chang, H.-J., Demaio, S.,
   Erzse, A., Freudenberg, N., Friel, S., Hofman, K. J., Johns, P., Karim, S. A., Lacy-Nichols, J.,
   Carvalho, C. M. P. de, Marten, R., McKee, M., Petticrew, M., Robertson, L., … Thow, A. M.
   (2023). Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. The Lancet,
   401(Milbank Q 98 2020), 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00013-2
2. Friel, S., Collin, J., Daube, M., Depoux, A., Freudenberg, N., Gilmore, A. B., Johns, P., Laar,
   A., Marten, R., McKee, M., & Mialon, M. (2023). Commercial determinants of health: future
   directions. The Lancet, 401(10383), 1229–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-
   6736(23)00011-9
3. Lacy-Nichols, J., Nandi, S., Mialon, M., McCambridge, J., Lee, K., Jones, A., Gilmore, A. B.,
   Galea, S., Lacy-Vawdon, C. de, Carvalho, C. M. P. de, Baum, F., & Moodie, R. (2023).
   Conceptualising commercial entities in public health: beyond unhealthy commodities and
   transnational corporations. The Lancet, 401(10383), 1214–1228.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00012-0