The politics of sugar: why your government lies to you about this disease-promot

[Guest guest]

http://www.newstarget.com/009797.html

 

The politics of sugar: why your government lies to you about this

disease-promoting ingredient

 

Monday, August 29, 2005

The politics of sugar: why your government lies to you about this

disease-promoting ingredient

Most people know about the massive sugar intake in the United States.

Despite the warnings of dental and healthcare professionals, the

average American consumes 150 pounds of sugar per year. However, not

everyone knows about the hand the sugar industry, or " Big Sugar, " has

in nutrition guidelines set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and

the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

Fewer still know of sugar companies' stronghold on U.S. import taxes,

which puts $1 billion in excess profits into the pockets of American

sugar barons. While the white stuff doesn't seem as dangerous as

tobacco, the two industries employ similar political and research

tactics to keep the dangers of their products out of the minds of the

public.

 

Obesity claims more lives and drains more of the healthcare budget

than smoking. Obesity is linked to diabetes, arthritis, heart disease,

stroke and certain cancers. It inflates healthcare costs by 36 percent

and medication costs by 77 percent. Not only are people suffering from

the negative effects of sugar; they're paying big money to be treated

for these debilitating diseases that result from it.

 

Given the obvious stress on hospitals, the U.S. Surgeon General has

urged the nation to cut back on sugar and fats. Dr. Meir Stampfer,

professor of epidemiology and nutrition (see related ebook on

nutrition) at the Harvard School of Public Health insists that " any

plan dealing with obesity has to take on sugar. "

 

What are the major corroborators in America's sugar consumption? Sweet

drinks and sodas. One study noted that soft drink consumption has

risen by 61 percent in adults from 1977 to 1997, while it has more

than doubled in children and adolescents from 1977–1978 to 1994–1998.

As a result, many parents are trying to get soft drink machines taken

out of public and private schools. In fact, New Jersey recently

prohibited snack and soda vendors from all school grounds.

 

What has the sugar industry done in response to the obvious dangers

their product poses? They do what any industry does: Hide the facts,

then fabricate their own. One trick up Big Sugar's sleeve is hiding

nutritional information on food and drink packages. In order to

consume 150 pounds of sugar per year, Americans have to eat a teaspoon

of sugar per hour every 24 hours, seven days a week. Obviously, we

don't actually chew on teaspoons of sugar. Instead, many people

unknowingly consume food and drinks containing ridiculous amounts of

sugar. But don't expect labels to help you determine how much sugar is

added. Sugar has all sorts of names: dextrose, glucose, fructose,

lactose, corn syrup, maple sugar, honey, invert sugar or malt. In

2002, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned

the FDA to require food manufacturers to clearly label the amount of

added sugar. The petition failed. Michael Jacobson, director of CSPI,

attributes this to the powerful sugar lobby.

 

Big Sugar not only hides the real amount of sugar in foods, they also

use their influence to mask the health dangers of sugar in dietary

guidelines. Marion Nestle in Food Politics describes how vulnerable

dietary guidelines are to the sugar industry's political maneuverings.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2005 Guidelines were

recently rephrased from " limit your intake of added sugars " -- a

guideline that has been in place for the past five years -- to

" moderate your intake of sugars. "

 

While this change appears harmless at first, a closer look at the

definitions of the words " limit " and " moderate " explains why Big Sugar

invested so much money into the USDA amendment. " Moderate "

denotatively means " not excessive or extreme " or " of medium quality. "

The revised wording suggests that we should eat some sugar -- that a

medium amount of sugar is good for you -- but beware of

over-indulgence. " Limit, " on the other hand, is a much more decisive

word. To limit sugar intake implies that we're already eating too much

and we need to cut it out of our diet. These slight rhetorical nuances

aren't a mistake. Big Sugar poured big money into masking the dangers

of American sugar intake.

 

How did Big Sugar engineer this change? The rich sugar barons

certainly weren't knocking on the doors of USDA scientists. They

accomplished all of this with sizable political donations. Between

1997 and 1999, The Flo-Sun sugar company made 21 donations ranging

from $2,500 to $25,000 to congressional campaign committees. That's a

total of $202,500 to Democrats and $147,500 to Republicans. Those

numbers have only gone up in the last five years. During the 2004

election cycle, two Florida sugar companies gave a total of $925,000

to election coffers. With so much money pouring into the hands of

lawmakers, it's no wonder they're willing to overlook a little word

change in USDA regulations.

 

Another powerful tool wielded by Big Sugar: Skewed science. The World

Sugar Research Organization and the International Life Sciences

Institute (ILSI) are just two sugar-funded science institutes that

stand by their claim that sugar is good for you. Last year these

organizations were charged with paying off the Expert Consultation on

Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition, effectively botching the World

Health Organization's research on sugar and its health effects.

 

It seems the sugar lobby has much more political clout than most are

willing to admit. But how exactly did they become so powerful? Their

pervasive influence could be explained by the inflated prices

Americans pay for sugar. The government restricts cheap sugar imports

into the United States, thereby tripling the price of sugar to US

consumers. As a result, Big Sugar earns $1 billion a year in excess

profits they otherwise would not have. Where does that money go? I can

assure you that it's not paying for America's growing healthcare burden.

 

The experts speak on the politics of sugar

Dietary guidelines necessarily are political compromises between what

science tells us about nutrition and health and what is good for the

food industry.

Food Politics by Marion Nestle, page 441

 

More recently, a study of the connection between PAC contributions and

congressional votes on sugar subsidies indicated that the largest

contributions from sugar PACs had gone to members who voted for the

subsidies and that the larger the PAC contribution, the more likely

the members were to support industry positions. Month-by-month

analyses of the history of legislation on sugar and peanut subsidies

demonstrate an increase in contributions to both parties just prior to

votes. Because PACs give more money to legislators who are more likely

to vote for their interests, researchers conclude that PAC…

Food Politics by Marion Nestle, page 105

 

Even consumers who read food labels may not realize when sugar is

added to products because it comes in forms like high-fructose corn

syrup, dextrose, and maltose. Three years ago, the Center for Science

in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the FDA to require food

manufacturers to clearly label the amount of added sugar, but no

action has been taken. Michael Jacobson, director of CSPI, attributes

the delay to lobbying by the powerful sugar and sweetener industries.

The sugar Association lobbied the USDA to change the wording of the

current dietary guidelines on sugar, hence consumers are asked to use

" moderation " rather than " limit " their sugar intake.

Food Fight by Kelly Brownell and Katherine Battle Horgen, page 31

 

The 1996 law attempted to bar elected officials and their staff from

accepting vacations paid for by special-interest groups, but loopholes

remained: members of Congress could take trips paid for by corporate

lobbyists if the event was sponsored by a political party, was a

fact-finding mission, or was a conference at which the member was an

invited speaker. In 1996-1997, 87 senators, 356 representatives, and

2,020 of their staff employees took paid trips worth about $8.6

million. The leading recipient of trips paid for by the meat industry,

for example, had gone on 26 of them worth $18,550. Two agriculture

concerns—the Florida sugar Cane League and the sugar Cane Growers

Cooperative of Florida—were ranked 9th (44 trips) and 12th (39 trips),

respectively, among the 20 leading sponsors of congressional travel

that year.

Food Politics by Marion Nestle, page 108

 

In these two instances, financial contributions bought access to

government officials and resulted in policies favorable to donors.

Given that level of connection, it is understandable that agency

officials would not want to do battle over a matter so seemingly

trivial as the use of the verb moderate rather than limit in

guidelines about sugar consumption. The job of food lobbyists is to

make sure that the government (1) does nothing to impede clients from

selling more of their products and (2) does as much as possible to

create a supportive sales environment. We have seen that they

accomplish this goal most effectively through personal contacts

established through the revolving door, as well as through financial

contributions. In the next chapter, we will see how food companies

engage food and nutrition professionals in marketing campaigns by

encouraging them to emphasize the health benefits of products or to

minimize potentially adverse effects.

Food Politics by Marion Nestle, page 435

 

Overview:

 

* The politics of sugar: why your government lies to you about

this disease-promoting ingredient

 

Source: http://www.newstarget.com/009797.html