The Sweet and Lowdown on Sugar

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/opinion/23NEST.html?th

 

January 23, 2004OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR The Sweet and Lowdown on SugarBy KELLY D.

BROWNELL and MARION NESTLE

 

To lose weight, people must eat less, be more active, or both. The first part of

that prescription, of course, raises the question, " Eat less of what? " For the

World Health Organization and most nutritionists, one obvious answer is sugars.

But the United States and American food companies seem to have a different idea.

 

Last spring, the W.H.O. and another United Nations group, the Food and

Agriculture Organization, issued a report called " The Expert Consultation on

Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. " It suggested a strategy

of dietary changes for individuals, including limits on sugar consumption, as

well as policies that might make it easier for people to eat more healthfully.

 

The United States Department of Health and Human Services should have applauded,

but instead it produced a 28-page, line-by-line critique centered on, of all

things, what it called the report's lack of transparency in the scientific and

peer-review process. Although the department framed the critique as a principled

defense of scientific integrity, much evidence argues for another interpretation

— blatant pandering to American food companies that produce much of the world's

high-calorie, high-profit sodas and snacks, especially the makers of sugars, the

main ingredients in many of these products.

 

The critique was sent to the W.H.O. in the hope that its executive board would

reject its report when it met this week. Instead, the board decided to send the

strategy to its full membership for a vote in May, but, under pressure from some

member states, it gave dissenters an extra month to comment before a final draft

is issued. If accepted in May, the strategy won't be binding, but it would

provide guidelines to countries seeking to reduce obesity.

 

To understand the significance of this battle, it is crucial to know that

Americans are not alone in gaining weight. Obesity is now a global epidemic,

with the International Obesity Task Force estimating that one billion people are

overweight or obese. In all but the poorest countries, obesity and its

consequences — rising rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and so on — are

overtaking malnutrition as major health problems. Modern society, with its

overabundance of high-calorie food, makes healthful eating difficult.

 

That the food industry is disputing the W.H.O.'s science is all the more

astonishing because the report is notable for the stunning banality of its

dietary recommendations: eat more fruits and vegetables, and limit intake of

foods high in fats and sugars. Such recommendations are no different from those

issued by governments and health organizations since the late 1950's and are

thoroughly supported by both science and common sense.

 

One recommendation in the report raised particular ire — that people should

limit " free " sugars. " Free " refers to sugars added to foods that aren't thought

of as sweet — mayonnaise and peanut butter, for example — as well as the more

obvious soft drinks, snack foods, pastries and candy. The report suggests an

upper limit of 10 percent of calories from added sugars — about the amount

recommended by our own Department of Agriculture's food pyramid. According to

the Agriculture Department, if you eat 2,200 calories a day, you should limit

added sugars to 12 teaspoons. The typical American consumes 20. Added sugars

made up 11 percent of calories in American diets in the late 1970's; they now

are 16 percent overall and 20 percent for teenagers. By itself, that 20-ounce

Coke or Pepsi in a school vending machine provides 15 teaspoons of sugars.

 

Understandably, industry lobbyists are uneasy about calls to cut consumption of

sugars. One trade group, the Sugar Association, demanded that the W.H.O. remove

an early draft of the report from its Web site and conduct another scientific

review. It also vowed to use " every avenue available to expose the dubious

nature " of the report, including asking members of Congress to challenge the

United States' $406 million in contributions to the W.H.O.

 

When food industry executives or government officials complain about the lack of

sound science, self-interest is generally at work. Internationally known

scientists drafted the W.H.O. report. The report comes to obvious conclusions.

Threatened by such conclusions, food companies and their friends in government

try to pick apart the science, ridicule the process, and delay action, just as

the cigarette industry did for so many years. Senators Larry Craig and John

Breaux, co-chairmen of the Senate Sweetener Caucus, asked Health and Human

Services Secretary Tommy Thompson to call on the W.H.O. to " cease further

promotion " of the report, while trade associations for the sugar, corn refining

and snack food industries questioned the report's legitimacy and asked for Mr.

Thompson's personal intervention. They got it.

 

By making its position on the W.H.O. indistinguishable from that of the food

industry, the Bush administration undermines the efforts of more

forward-thinking food companies and threatens public health. Its action

underscores the need for government to create a wall between itself and the food

industry when establishing nutrition and public health policy. Recommendations

to cut back on sugars may not please food companies, but it's time to stop

trading calories for dollars.

 

 

 

Kelly D. Brownell, professor of psychology at Yale, is author of " Food Fight:

The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can

Do About It. " Marion Nestle, professor of public health at New York University,

is author of " Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and

Health. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!