 Just like mosquitoes are the vectors of spread for malaria, a landmark article published last year in one of the most prestigious medical journals described food corporations as the vector of spread for chronic diseases. Unlike infectious disease epidemics, however, these corporate disease vectors implement sophisticated campaigns to undermine public health interventions. You know, most mosquitoes can't afford the top-notch PR firms. A key message was that alcohol and ultra-processed food and drink industries use similar tactics to the tobacco industry to undermine effective public health policies and programs. What they mean by ultra-processed is things like burgers, frozen meals, chicken nuggets, fish sticks, potato chips, donuts, soda pop. Ultra-processed foods and drinks can be thought of as a menace to public health all over the world. The best recommendation on all ultra-processed foods, irrespective of their nutrient profiles, is to avoid them, or at least minimize their consumption. But how is the food industry like the tobacco industry? Well, the first strategy is to bias research findings. For example, Philip Morris implemented the white coat project to hire doctors to publish ghost-written confounder studies purporting to negate links between second-hand smoke and harm. Publishing biased cherry-picked scientific reports to deny harm and suppress health information. This is the actual internal industry memo describing the white coat project, designed to reverse the scientific misconception that second-hand smoke is harmful. Similarly, funding from these large food corporations biases research. Studies show systematic bias from industry funding, so we get the same kind of tactics from the food industry supplying misinformation, use of supposedly conflicting evidence, and hiding negative data. The same scientists for hire that downplayed the risks of second-hand smoke are the same hired by the likes of the National Confectioners Association to say candy cigarettes are A-OK as well. Of course, exponents declared no conflict of interest. The similarities between strategies used by the tobacco alcohol and food and drink corporations are unsurprising in view of the flow of people funds and activities across these industries, which also have histories of joint ownership, like Philip Morris, owned both Kraft and Miller Brewing. So what's their strategy? As a former FDA commissioner described, the tobacco industry strategy was embodied in a script written by the lawyers. Every tobacco company executive in the public eye was told to learn the script backwards and forwards. No deviation was allowed. The basic premise was simple. Smoking had not been proved to cause cancer. Not proven, not proven, not proven. This was stated insistently, repeatedly, inject a thin wedge of doubt. Create controversy, never deviate from the prepared line. It was a simple plan and it worked. Internal industry memos make this explicit. Doubt is our product, since it's the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public. So, see, the general public is convinced that cigarettes are in some way harmful to health. So, objective number one, to set aside in the minds of millions the false conviction that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases, a conviction based on fanatical assumptions, fallacious rumors, unsupported claims, and the unscientific statements and injectures of publicity-seeking opportunists. We need to lift the cigarette from the cancer identification as quickly as possible and to establish once and for all that no scientific evidence has ever been produced, presented, or submitted to prove conclusively that cigarette smoking causes cancer, similar to what's now coming out of the food industry, from the same folks that brought us smoke and candy.