This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
"In 1948, the American Heart Association received $1.7 million, the equivalent of $20 million in 2022, from Proctor & Gamble, the manufacturers of Crisco vegetable shortening".
The source given for this claim is Nina Teicholz[1]. If you read her paper, the source she gives for this claim is Teicholz N. "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat, and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet". So she is citing her own book as a source.
If you search on Google for "American Heart Association" "Proctor & Gamble" "1948" the only websites that pop up are conspiracy theory anti-seed oil websites promoting seed oil misinformation. There are no references that mention this on Google scholar, Hathitrust or JSTOR. If Procter & Gamble did donate $1.7 million to the AHA in 1948 then a good historical source needs to be found for this. Nina Teicholz is not a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that even if a reliable source can back this up, it might not be particularly notable to add to the article given the size of the Association's revenue. I presume this addition is part of an editor's POV push to make the AHA appear biased and captured by industry, but when placed in the context of AHA's nearly billion-dollar revenue stream $20 million isn't too significant (although I don't have easy access to 1948's tax return to see if it's comparable). Thankfully this digging allowed me to add the financials to the infobox for future readers. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]