Enter Big Sugar. According to a new report from the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, industry groups representing companies that sell sweeteners, like the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association (for makers of high fructose corn syrup) have poured millions of dollars into countering science that indicates negative health consequences of eating their products.
For example, when a University of Southern California study from 2013 found that the actual high fructose corn syrup content in sodas “varied significantly” from the sugar content disclosed on soda labels, the Corn Refiners Association considered paying for its own counter research. A consultant suggested that the counter research should only be published if the results aligned with their goal of disputing the USC study:
“If for any reason the results confirm [the University of Southern California study], we can just bury the data,” the consultant wrote, according to the report.
In another case, the report cites a letter from 2003 from the president of the Sugar Association to the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), which had just released a report that recommended a 10 percent intake limit on added sugars and showed that they "threaten the nutritional quality of diets." The letter suggests that the Sugar Association would persuade the U.S. Congress to deny federal funding to the WHO if they didn’t pull the report.
The Sugar Association and other trade groups also wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, asking for his “personal intervention” on the matter. The threat and lobbying appeared to have worked: When WHO issued its global health strategy on diet and health the following year, there was no mention of the sugar study, according to the report.
Their efforts at downplaying scientific studies has been so effective that there is no consensus among regulating bodies as to the dangers of sugar, according to an extensive investigation of sugar PR published by Mother Jones in 2012. The trends in obesity and diabetes following the start of their major PR push appear stark:
For example, when a University of Southern California study from 2013 found that the actual high fructose corn syrup content in sodas “varied significantly” from the sugar content disclosed on soda labels, the Corn Refiners Association considered paying for its own counter research. A consultant suggested that the counter research should only be published if the results aligned with their goal of disputing the USC study:
“If for any reason the results confirm [the University of Southern California study], we can just bury the data,” the consultant wrote, according to the report.
In another case, the report cites a letter from 2003 from the president of the Sugar Association to the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), which had just released a report that recommended a 10 percent intake limit on added sugars and showed that they "threaten the nutritional quality of diets." The letter suggests that the Sugar Association would persuade the U.S. Congress to deny federal funding to the WHO if they didn’t pull the report.
The Sugar Association and other trade groups also wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, asking for his “personal intervention” on the matter. The threat and lobbying appeared to have worked: When WHO issued its global health strategy on diet and health the following year, there was no mention of the sugar study, according to the report.
"The industry's PR campaign corresponded roughly with a significant rise in Americans' consumption of "caloric sweeteners," including table sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This increase was accompanied, in turn, by a surge in the chronic diseases increasingly linked to sugar. Since 1970, obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled, while theincidence of diabetes has more than tripled."
In the U.K., a draft report released Friday by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition urged people to cut their sugar intake by half the recommended limit, from 10 percent to 5 percent, to avoid obesity and type 2 diabetes. Added sugar was responsible for roughly 13 percent of the average American's diet between 2005 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Perhaps in a few decades Americans will look back on the nation’s casual overconsumption of sugar much the same way we look back on the glory days of the cigarette, when everyone smoked without a care in the world, and Big Tobacco worked in the background.
3 comments:
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) in the UK is currently having a consultation on its draft Carbohydrates and Health report. I've skimmed through the 200+ page document and i'm afraid to say, it looks like nothing is changing with regards to dietary carbohydrate recommendations. I hope that some professional voices of reason will wade in with their findings but i'm not holding my breath. Here's a couple of excerpts from the summary:
Total Carbohydrate
11.2. The carbohydrate dietary reference value was previously set to facilitate the recommended reduction in the average contribution of total fat to dietary energy in the population to about 35% with protein intake comprising 15% of dietary energy (COMA, 1994). At that time it was recommended that ‘complex carbohydrates’ and sugars in fruits and vegetables should replace some dietary fat, to achieve approximately 50% the proportion of dietary energy derived from total carbohydrates (COMA, 1994).
11.3. Concern has been raised that high intakes of total carbohydrate may be deleterious to health, but this report concludes that total carbohydrate intakes, at levels generally recommended in the UK diet, are not associated with the health outcomes examined. Specifically, total carbohydrate intake shows no association with the incidence of cardiovascular disease endpoints, type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycaemia or colo-rectal cancer. In children and adolescents, limited evidence indicates that there is no association between total carbohydrate intake and body mass index or body fatness. Overall, there is no evidence to warrant a change to the total carbohydrate dietary reference value previously set by COMA of 50% dietary energy.
11.4. It is recommended that: The dietary reference value for total carbohydrate should be maintained at a population average of approximately 50% of dietary energy.
12.32. The evidence considered in this report endorses a dietary pattern concerning carbohydrates that is based on whole grains, pulses (e.g. kidney beans, haricot beans, lentils), potatoes, vegetables and fruits, but limiting the amounts consumed of table sugar and rich sources of free sugars, such as preserves and sweet spreads, fruit juice, confectionery, biscuits, buns and cakes. The report also provides evidence that sugars sweetened beverages should be consumed in minimal (i.e. infrequently and in small) amounts.
And who's making these decisions? Vested interests and conflict of interests, much?
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, overseen by the Food Standards Agency has been influential in deciding food policy. Here, Hannah Sutter investigates and finds that the committee is packed with vested interests, doesn’t have the experts that are vital to making any sort of assessment of how many carbs we need and are prone to the most basic errors suggesting its members aren’t even up to speed on the basics of carbohydrate metabolism. (Julie)
http://healthinsightuk.org/2013/11/28/sacn-or-sack-em-the-committee-thats-confused-about-carbs/
Thanks for the comment Julie:
Another part of the draft would have us believe carbs have no effect on A1c.
5.109. No significant effect is demonstrated for diets differing in the proportion of carbohydrate on haemoglobin A1c concentration (0.01%, 95% CI -0.06, 0.05; p=0.82). The largest trial contributed 87% to the pooled estimate (Frisch et al., 2009). The trial identified in the update search reports no significant effect of diets differing in the proportion of carbohydrate in relation to haemoglobin A1c concentration.
PDF of sacn draft
Graham
Yeah right - tell that to my A1c that dropped from 11.3 in October 2013 to 7.7 in March, and if my averages are anything to go by it's still dropping! That's the lowest reading I've had in 28 years of being a type 1 diabetic and all it took was changing my approach to food and limiting my dietary carbohydrate intake. It's not rocket science! ;-) Julie
Post a Comment