Eating Disorders
November 29, 2024
As both an eating disorder clinician and public health advocate, I've observed how well-intentioned eating disorder prevention efforts can inadvertently serve corporate interests. This complex dynamic requires careful examination and honest dialogue.
The Corporate Co-optation
How Industry Exploits Prevention Messages
"All Foods Fit" Manipulation
Using recovery language such as “food police” in public relations campaigns
Exploiting anti-diet messaging to induce shame among individuals interested in dietary improvement
Normalizing ultra-processed foods since they are already ubiquitous in the food supply
Deflecting health concerns to non-food social factors that stimulate empathy for disadvantaged groups
Strategic Partnerships
Funding nutrition organizations and sponsoring events
Sponsoring recovery influencers to promote sugar and candy consumption
Creating "educational" materials used to train nutrition professionals
Supporting specific research directions, such as the role of exercise in health to deflect concerns about the food supply
The False Dichotomy
Breaking Down the Binary
Current discourse often forces a choice between:
Supporting eating disorder recovery
Addressing food quality concerns
This creates artificial divisions that:
Silence critical discussions about the food environment
Protect corporate interests
Confuse consumers about nutrition and health
Limit professional dialogue
Professional Tensions
Field Divisions
The nutrition field faces conflicts around:
Clinical approaches to eating disorder recovery
Professional identity that stimulates in-group vs. out-group dynamics
Treatment philosophies that take strong stances against alternative approaches
Corporate relationships that make it difficult to oppose specific ideas
A More Nuanced Approach
Bridging the Gap
We can simultaneously:
Support recovery
Challenge corporate harm
Promote food justice
Encourage weight-neutral approaches
Address systemic food issues
Key Principles
Individual Support
Honor personal choice
Support mental health recovery
Address trauma (including diet trauma)
Promote biological and emotional healing
System Change
Challenge corporate norm-shaping
Demand transparency of conflicts of interest
Support regulation of the food supply
Protect vulnerable populations
Moving Forward Together
United Action
We must:
Recognize shared goals
Challenge false dichotomies
Support multiple truths
Address systemic issues of food security and food safety
Professional Evolution
The field needs to:
Bridge philosophical divides
Challenge corporate influence
Support diverse approaches
Prioritize patient outcomes
Call to Action
For Professionals
Examine Biases
Question assumptions
Challenge binary thinking
Consider multiple perspectives
Recognize the complexity of these issues
Take Action
Speak up against “groupthink”
Challenge corporate media influence that is often disguised
Support system change in healthcare (new incentive structures)
Advocate for patients' mental health
For Organizations
Policy Changes
Examine funding sources and hidden partnerships
Update guidelines to reflect diverse approaches
Support patient autonomy
Education
Train staff about the neuroscience of eating behavior
Update materials to not force a single “food philosophy”
Support research on ultra-processed food addiction
Share knowledge across disciplines
Conclusion
The path forward requires:
Honesty about intellectual conflicts of interest (group allegiance)
Willingness to change long-held belief systems
Professional courage to challenge the status quo
United action that puts patient outcomes before clinician belief systems
We can support both eating disorder recovery and food system reform. The real enemy isn't dietary choices or recovery approaches–it's a system that profits from both illness and recovery while oppressing marginalized communities.
