The Independent Women’s Forum and The Independent Women’s Voice:
Not Independent, Not Neutral on Health and Nutrition Issues

The Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) says it’s a “non-partisan research and education
institution.” The Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) claims to represent the views of
independent women voters and to “ensure that mainstream women’s voices are heard.”
But these organizations are most definitely not independent, mainstream, or neutral.
IWF and IWV are deeply imbedded in the right-wing political infrastructure, have long
connections to the Koch Brothers, and promote right-wing, often anti-women, policies, and
politicians.
“Independent” branding is calculated and misleading
Passing themselves as “independent” and “neutral” has allowed IWF and IWV to garner media
opportunities to promote right-wing causes and candidates without scrutiny of their true agenda
or allegiances.
“Being branded as neutral, but actually having people who know know that you’re actually
conservative puts us in a unique position,” Heather Richardson Higgins, IWV President and IWF
Board Chair has admitted.
The IWF and IWV have taken advantage of their “neutral brand” and free pass from the media
to speak out against equal pay, paid family leave, the “Violence Against Women Act,” Title IX,
the Republican “War on Women,” rape on campus, regulated childcare, and provide false
equivalence on other women’s economic and social issues. They are also frequently asked to
weigh-in on a wide variety of public issues from guns to gay marriage, from education to the
environment.
Here is a snapshot of positions taken and quotes from IWF and IWV’s issue “experts” on
health and nutrition issues:
•

IWF fiercely attacks regulation, especially by the Food and Drug Administration and
government-based educational programs on nutrition policy. IWF Senior Fellow Julie
Gunlock called the FDA “food nannies” who are “completely out of control. They are
going crazy and I think we’re seeing that in last few months of the Obama Administration
they’re really working hard to control how Americans eat. We’ve seen bans on trans-fat.
We’ve seen some efforts to ban e-cigarettes, which in Europe they consider a smoking
cessation strategy. Here in the United States they’re doing everything to make it harder
for Americans to actually get access to these products.”

•

When the FDA recommended cutting the salt content in prepared foods, Gunlock called
the agency “Food Marxists,” and wrote “the FDA’s authoritarian behavior isn’t just an
assault on freedom of choice; these policies are also medically questionable.” She also
said the government has no business regulating what Americans eat and drink and that
restricting salt intake was “quite dangerous.”

 •

After Philadelphia adopted a soda tax in June, Gunlock said it was “nonsense” to pick
any one thing –including sugar – as a cause of obesity. “If the Mayor of Philadelphia was
really concerned with obesity, he should levy a tax on cheesesteaks.”

•

IWF has used industry-friendly data to claim that “when soda is taxed, people simply
substitute non-taxed beverages that are just as high in sugar and calories -- such as fruit
juices, alcohol, dairy based beverages or coffee drinks.” Thus, in IWF’s view, soda
should not be taxed because people would drink more fruit juice and alcohol.

•

In arguing against community-supported bans on fast food chains, IWF has claimed that
such bans are ineffective because they ignore “gender, age, genes, and other lifestyle
choices,” and because “unhealthy food can also be obtained outside of fast food
restaurants, including at home.”

•

Similarly, pushes to label organic foods “do nothing to improve Americans’ health,”
because, in IWF’s view, there is no nutritional difference between the two – despite
studies that show organics contain fewer pesticides and greater anti-oxidant levels.
Meanwhile, efforts to regulate diabetes-producing sugar additives in cereal are futile,
because according to IWF, “it is just as likely (and perhaps more likely) that children will
end up consuming less healthy breakfast options (or not breakfast at all) absent the
option of cereal containing sugar.”

•

Since 2014, IWF has advocated to “Bring Back BPA,” in response to findings that BPAplastic substitutes can also be dangerous to human health. The organization has also
labeled public concern over endocrine disruptors as “activist-generated media hype.”

•

Lisa Gable, a senior vice president with Pepsi and the former director of the Pepsifunded industry front group, the “Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation,” serves on
IWF’s board of directors.