SUGAR & SPITE
The health advocates claiming vindication after their defamation lawsuits were settled out of court (see previous story) were no shrinking violets themselves. Some of their own accusations over the years have been eye-wateringly harsh: calling supermarkets “drug-pushers” and the alcohol industry “white-collar sociopaths” and, in one case, retweeting a post that called the food industry “21st-century paedophiles violating the rights of children”.
The nearly five-year legal wrangle follows a torrid war of words between the food, alcohol and tobacco industries and a community of academics who advocate a more regulated approach to public health and nutrition, of which the two professors at the centre of the legal drama, Doug Sellman and Boyd Swinburn, are hugely respected leaders.
In more than 20 years of dispute, this has never been an arena for the faint-hearted, but few would dispute that the ad hominem style of the blogosphere and social media have cranked up the animus.
Although the academics are claiming victory, having reached a settlement with the Food and Grocery Council (FGC) and received an apology from its former public-relations agent Carrick Graham and a “no defence” concession from Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater, the outcome is more complex than a simple win-lose.
Firstly, the third plaintiff, anti-smoking activist Shane Bradbrook, whose complaints comprised nearly half of the trio’s action, conceded his case against the FGC last
