Talk:International Food Information Council

What are some effects

What are some effects food have on your health?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevon23 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2007

The IFIC is obviously a propaganda website/organization sponsored by the food and aggro industry. This article is simply a snippet from their website and doesn't belong on Wikipedia without opposing opinion. The website is typical in that it defends many controversial food ingredients like MSG and High Fructose Corn Syrup at the same time blaming childhood obesity on everything but. But the best line on the website has to be this one: "According to the American Cancer Society, pesticides play a valuable role in sustaining our food supply." Hardly an actual "scientific" organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.176.93 (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Who were they founded by and where do they get their funding? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.22.141.200 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a single sentence reflecting it's status as a communication organization funded by industry, which was previously lacking. SubcomandanteOvashinsky (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's something from a book

Here's something from a book I've been reading: "In the 1970s, largely as a response to reformational grumblings stirred up by concern over an unsubstantiated link between caffeine and pancreatic cancer, Coca-Cola and other purveyors of dietary caffeine set up and funded the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and its public relations arm, the International Food Information Council (IFIC), both based in Washington, D.C., to help forestall any efforts to regulate or ban caffeine. The heart of these groups was their Caffeine Committee. In the last twenty years ILSI has sponsored and IFIC has publicized dozens of reputable research projects and international conferences of scientists to evaluate the role of caffeine in human health. Naturally, the Caffeine Committee is careful to search out and support those researchers who see caffeine as a relatively harmless coumpound and to avoid supporting those who would like to see it removed from the market." The World of Caffeine by Bennett Alan Weinberg and Bonnie K Bealer. New York: Routledge, 2001. 189-190

Obviously the website covers lots more than caffeine. I'm leaving the edits to someone more experienced, but the above quotation should provide some good info, and I've flagged the article as biased. --Ahalterman (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is fair to add to the article, providing information on the beginnings of this organization, which is otherwise unclear/unknown. I suggest adding it in it's entirety. https://books.google.com/books?id=AGaTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT271&ots=TYcgpi4gnf&dq=Naturally%2C%20the%20Caffeine%20Committee%20is%20careful%20to%20search%20out%20and%20support%20those%20researchers%20who%20see%20caffeine%20as%20a%20relatively%20harmless&pg=PT271#v=onepage&q=Naturally,%20the%20Caffeine%20Committee%20is%20careful%20to%20search%20out%20and%20support%20those%20researchers%20who%20see%20caffeine%20as%20a%20relatively%20harmless&f=false is a place where you can review the source of the quote. SubcomandanteOvashinsky (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

In the interest of disclosure, as of this writing I am an employee of IFIC and the IFIC Foundation (or IFICF, IFIC's 501(c)3 educational arm).

I would like to propose deleting the section in this article titled "Criticism," in addition to reference citation 3. While IFICF is certainly not immune from criticism, the passage citing a report by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) that has been included is superfluous, inflammatory, self-contradictory, tendentious and non-neutral.

First of all, it is superfluous in that the previous version of the article contained the passages, "The people that fund this council are companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Coca Cola, to name a few," and "IFIC is supported by the broad-based food, beverage, and agricultural industries." It also includes a much longer list of companies, along with a link to the complete list on IFIC’s websites. Therefore, the CFS passage is merely "piling on." It is also inflammatory, in that such piling on and according of undue weight to these passages have the overall effect of demonizing an important and legitimate sector of corporate America. People are free to criticize this sector, but the extent to which it occurs in this article is editorial, rather than strictly factual, and it has no place in such an important venue as Wikipedia.

Second, it is inherently self-contradictory of other information in the article. The article clearly states IFICF's supporters, as well as provides a link to our website detailing those same supporters. (I would also note that while the majority of IFICF's funding comes from the broad-based food, beverage and agriculture sector, other funding sources include government agencies such as USDA, other non-profits, and additional non-corporate sources. A more neutral article would point that out and not give such undue weight to other supporters.) Given that, it is incorrect to call a group a "front group" if it regularly and prominently makes known its funders. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines a front group as "a person, group, or thing used to mask the identity or true character or activity of the actual controlling agent." Masks conceal, but IFICF's admirable level of transparency reveals. Applying the label "front group" to IFICF is quite simply an oxymoron.

Third, it is tendentious and non-neutral because it cites a study by a self-interested and non-neutral group and accords it undue weight. While IFIC supports the freedom of those who choose an organic lifestyle, some organic proponents have been among IFICF's most vociferous critics. CFS's website admits that its mission includes "promoting organic" agriculture, which speaks to an agenda rather than an altruistic desire to ensure the authoritative and neutral nature of Wikipedia. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, CFS does not reveal its donors either on its website or on its IRS Form 990s. The hypocrisy and unfairness alone should argue for the deletion of this particular passage. In addition, the author of the report is similarly opaque, writing on her own website (Eat Drink Politics), "Some of our clients and funders prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons and we respect those wishes." Among the "partial list" of clients she DOES disclose, several of them have self-interested motives to oppose conventional food production and biotechnology. IFICF chooses to pursue a dialogue about food issues based on facts, not name-calling, and Wikipedia is the wrong forum for such ad hominem.

I would submit that deletion of the previously referenced section and footnote is the only rational and logical course of action.

As a post script, I would point out that one of the users above makes an entirely factually incorrect statement. IFIC's origins do not date back to the 1970s, and they have nothing to do with caffeine. IFIC was formed in 1985 when there was a lot of public interest surrounding the low-calorie sweetener aspartame.

Mattraymond (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have returned the criticism section as it is quite common to include one in similar articles. It should be obvious that every organization, no matter how lofty be their stated purpose, is going to have those who see things otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly feel that employees of an organization are highly biased and unreliable and have no business editing pages to delete criticisms. Just stating that you are biased doesn't make it go away. SubcomandanteOvashinsky (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Food Information Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120904130328/http://www.ific.us/About/FAQ.aspx to http://www.ific.us/About/FAQ.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

IFIC employees broke this page; guide them to be helpful

Hello!

I've spent some time reviewing what's going on with this page - it's almost a candidate for semi-protected status. Maybe at the least requiring users to be logged in before editing - I see that some of the unlogged in edits added pro-IFIC type information to the article. I was looking for information on Wikipedia about the IFIC and instead of getting an attempt at a neutral POV article that offers info on both sides, the article is a single sentence and even that sentence wasn't neutral.

It looks like there have been several edits by the logins used only to edit this page; User:TheIFIC User:Mattraymond User:IFIC Those edits have been focused on both doing things that could be helpful, and some things that are clearly not. It would be nice to get a good statement about the organization and what it does, along with updates as the mission/name etc change over time. However, it's very unhelpful for them to delete critical statements. We need to work with them to encourage them to be helpful to this article. They need to engage with the page from a point of view of supporting a neutral POV. They don't seem to have done that in the past. If they are uncomfortable with criticisms being a part of this page, then their edits need to be reversed, and escalating protections from there.

The irony is that because all criticism was deleted, the pro-IFIC stuff was also later eliminated because of the obvious lack of neutral POV. Maybe the IFIC is OK with a lack of info if it means no public criticism, but I don't think the Wikipedia community is. SubcomandanteOvashinsky (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)