UN Probes Sugar Industry Claims

[Guest guest]

From Earth Changes TV

http://www.earthchangestv.com/secure/2004/printer_4331.php

 

National News

 

UN Probes Sugar Industry Claims

 

By BBC News

Oct 10, 2004, 07:57

 

 

The consultation was meant to look at whether sugar

was bad for health

A United Nations agency has launched an investigation into

claims that a key consultation into how much sugar we should be eating

was secretly funded by the sugar industry.

 

The BBC's Panorama programme has uncovered documents which

reveal the World Sugar Research Organisation and International Life

Sciences Institute, both funded by the sugar industry, helped pay for

the Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition.

 

 

The programme also reveals that ISLI was given the

opportunity to suggest members of the committee and select the

chairman, as well as review the agenda of the consultation.

 

I believe that it would be impossible to produce an

unbiased report when the source of funding came from groups with

clearly vested interests.

 

Professor Jim Mann

Committee member

 

Since its publication the report of the consultation has

been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between

sugar and health concerns.

 

Now the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has

said it plans to reconvene the research committee " urgently " .

 

'Impartiality doubts'

 

The expert consultation was a joint venture between the

World Health Organisation (WHO) and the FAO and was due to look

impartially at key questions, including whether sugar is detrimental

to human health.

 

But Jim Mann - a highly respected nutritionist from New

Zealand - told the programme he always had doubts about the

consultation's independence.

 

He said: " When we arrived some of us were summoned by one

of the officials who was involved in the organisation of the

consultation and told very clearly that it would be inappropriate us

to say anything bad about sugar in relation to human health. "

 

Another of the team invited to Rome sensed that the

science might not be the only driving force.

 

Professor John Cummings claims that a chairman had already

been chosen before the committee began its work.

 

He also claimed that one official - there as an observer -

obstructed the debate when sugar was being discussed.

 

He added: " I was very surprised when he sort of came

immediately to the defence of sugar during the consultation. I

couldn't really understand why he did because normally these officials

sit and listen and just sort of prod you when they think something

needs doing but this was quite amazing. "

 

Funding documents

 

The experts didn't know that the sugar industry was paying

for them to be in Rome.

 

But Panorama has discovered a series of documents which

show exactly where the money came from.

 

It shows that the World Sugar Research Organisation -

funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.

 

ILSI - the International Life Sciences Institute - an

American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and

Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000.

 

Panorama reveals that ILSI was also invited to suggest who

might sit on the consultation and even nominated the chairman months

before the experts ever came to Rome.

 

This funding deal was agreed with the FAO's then Director

of Food and Nutrition, John Lupien.

 

'Surprise revelation'

 

 

This news came as a surprise to the committee members that

Panorama spoke to, none of whom had any idea that the research had

been funded by the sugar industry.

 

Professor Mann, said: " My guess would be that I certainly

and probably my colleagues would not have been prepared to be involved

with such an activity had it been funded by these organisations.

 

" I believe that it would be impossible to produce an

unbiased report when the source of funding came from groups with

clearly vested interests. "

 

If the funding was accepted together with influence

of the choice of experts or of the wording of the report then it is

unacceptable

 

Hartwig de Haen

FAO assistant director general

 

But another shocking fact was to come out of the committee

discussion.

 

The experts Panorama spoke to claim they had agreed on a

limit of between 55 and 75% on how much carbohydrate we should eat.

But when the report came out the upper limit had gone.

 

Professor Mann complained that a report which failed to

mention a limit on carbohydrate - or on sugar - was open to abuse.

 

He added: " I think it would clearly be to the advantage of

the industry not to have an upper limit, because increasingly the

industry are producing food products which are reduced in fat, and one

way of compensating for fat is to increase the amount of sugar.

 

" So obviously if there's no upper limit of sugar, one can

add sugar with impunity into a whole range of food products. "

 

The FAO's Assistant Director General, Hartwig de Haen, was

also surprised at Panorama's revelations.

 

" If the funding was accepted together with influence of

the choice of experts or of the wording of the report then it is

unacceptable, that is true, " he said.

 

'Misinterpreted recommendations'

 

A statement from the FAO confirmed that the ISLI and the

WSRO were asked to propose names of experts for the consultation but

that the FAO had the final say.

 

It went on to say that the lack of rigid guidelines meant

the consultation was not illegal but " did contravene common sense

norms of transparency and the avoidance of perceived conflict of

interest. "

 

We see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the

consultation or our participation in the process would call into

question the credibility of the consultation

 

ILSI statement

 

The FAO said the sugar lobby had misquoted and

misinterpreted the recommendations of the 1998 study.

 

It added that the WHO has been working on reconvening a

Carbohydrates consultation, and that this matter was now " regarded as

urgent " .

 

ILSI also said it only suggested names of experts to be on

the committee, adding: " We did not suggest a specific person as the

Chair; it is our understanding that decision is made by the experts

themselves.

 

" We see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the

consultation or our participation in the process would call into

question the credibility of the consultation. "

 

John Lupien, contradicted Mr de Haen and said that it was

normal practice to seek outside funding for studies, adding: " The

sources of these funds were not made known to the experts, and were

not acknowledged in the final report since this was routine FAO/WHO

practice. "

 

He added that the experts had approved the draft agenda

and elected Professor David Lineback as their Chairman.