The Academy is largely dismissive of the report, claiming it’s misleading, and categorically denies that corporate funding has any influence on its policies or positions.

“The Academy’s procedures and formal agreements with external organizations are designed to prevent any undue corporate influence,” it states.

“As the report itself notes: ‘This study does not include interviews with key actors, which would have provided a detailed narrative of actions and decisions in the AND [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics] and ANDF [Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Foundation] and would have helped contextualize our findings.’”

The documents show that the AND had an ongoing relationship with ultra-processed food, beverage, pesticide, and pharmaceutical corporations that included accepting contributions as well as the AND and its foundation investing in some of the companies who gave them money.

The AND counters that its investments are managed at arm’s length by an independent investment company “that has sole authority to make decisions to invest or sell equities on the merits of the stocks themselves.”

“There is no reference in the report to the Academy’s stringent guidelines and principles that prohibit external influence from sponsors or any other group or individual,” notes the Academy’s response.

“Nor does the report cite the fact that less than 3 percent of the Academy’s and its Foundation’s investments are in food companies; or that less than 9 percent of the Academy’s funding comes from sponsorship.”

In AND’s statement, it claims that there were key factors not included in the report in regards to its corporate sponsor guidelines and principles: “The Academy’s programs, leadership, decisions, policies and positions are not influenced by sponsors.”

The first item is Abbott Nutrition’s product Pediasure, a “nutritional supplement” for children. Abbott is an Academy sponsor. The email says both the AND and its foundation would form a collaboration with Pediasure around the FNPA, or Family Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment tool, and its usage in pediatrician’s offices with a tie to registered dietary nutritionists (RDNs, the title given to those credentialed by the AND to give nutrition advice) as well as participation in a retailer program which would include stores like Walmart and Target with RDN support.

This seems to imply that Abbott’s sponsorship indeed came with “rights and benefits.”

Abbott Nutrition had a two-year sponsorship deal with the AND, for $150,000 a year between 2015 and 2017.

Another item on the list is Subway, which apparently approached the AND looking for an organization that would endorse the company’s “healthier product offerings.”

These examples certainly seem to suggest that companies sponsoring the AND gain commercial benefits.

Six AND members will also serve on the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) which provides “independent, science-based” advice and recommendations to be considered by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the USDA, as they develop the dietary guidelines for Americans for 2025–2030.

Perhaps most notably, RDNs work in universities and medical centers, teaching physicians, nurses, dietetics students, and others “the sophisticated science of foods and nutrition.”

“This report is a calculated attack against the more than 112,000 credentialed nutrition and dietetics practitioners whom the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics proudly represents. The report contains numerous factual and methodology errors, omissions and information taken out of context.

“As a result, the report contains a great deal of opinion and unsupported assertions, coupled with many factual inaccuracies that mislead the public.”

On the same statement page, the AND states that “Academy/Foundation financial investments are managed by an independent investment company that has sole authority to make decisions to invest or sell equities on the merits of the stocks themselves.”

While the statement does detail the relatively minor amounts of its overall funding and investments linked to food companies, it doesn’t deal with the ethical issue raised by taking money from the producers of foods generally considered unhealthy and disease-causing.

The AND’s statements don’t deny taking millions from junk-food makers or investing in those companies.

“Industry is pushing their products, but our government does not say the obvious. It does not say ‘eat as little ultra-processed foods as possible, eat as little added sugar as you can, eat as little vegetable and seed oil as you can, eat as little refined grains and corn as you can,’ and of course, they subsidize those. It’s definitely industry, but it’s our federal government too, their silence is purchased,” Ruskin told The Epoch Times.

Those subsidies come in many forms, including significant subsidies for crops that are key to the processed food industry, like genetically-modified corn.

“One of the things that’s sad to see is how little talk there is and reporting there is about corruption in our health institutions,” Ruskin said.

The wide reach and influence of the AND and its ties to food makers producing foods widely linked to common chronic conditions raise troubling questions about the integrity of nutrition guidelines in the United States, the new report suggests.

“This is one of the health tragedies that is happening in our country right now,“ the report states. ”If we’re ever going to solve the problems of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, we are going to have to tackle the corruption in our health institutions, and that means our public health organizations and also our health agencies.”