Sugar giants threaten WHO's funding

Cleopatra · 22nd April 2003, 11:17 PM

What do you think about this?

If the report is accurate ( we don't have to take for granted what journalists say...) who runs modern countries?

What can citizens do? Vote for the persons who won't succumb to the pressures of the Big Companies or to organize themselves and fight back?

Read the article, it's interesting!

Mr.Unique, there is a refference for Australia too. Maybe you wish to take a break of Middle East and talk about POLITICS

Sugar giants threaten WHO's funding

April 22 2003

BITTER WORDS
The WHO guidelines say sugar should account for no more than 10 per cent
of a healthy diet.
The sugar industry claims the limit is scientifically flawed. It insists
that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sugar industry in the United States is threatening to bring the
World Health Organisation to its knees by asking Congress to stop
funding the body unless it scraps guidelines on healthy eating due to be
published tomorrow.

The threat is described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and
worse than any pressure by the tobacco lobby.

In a letter to the WHO director-general, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the
Sugar Association says it will "exercise every avenue available to
expose the dubious nature" of the WHO's report on diet and nutrition.
This includes a challenge to its $US406 million ($660 million) funding
from the US.

"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to support misguided,
non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and wellbeing
of Americans, much less the rest of the world," the letter says. The
association and six other food industry groups have written to the US
Health Secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get
the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for
International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including
Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

The sugar lobby's strong-arm tactics were not new, said Professor
Phillip James, the British chairman of the International Obesity
Taskforce, who wrote a WHO report on diet and nutrition in 1990. The day
after his committee had decided on a 10 per cent limit, the World Sugar
Organisation "went into overdrive", he said. "Forty ambassadors wrote to
the WHO insisting our report should be removed, on the grounds that it
would do irreparable damage to countries in the developing world."

The Sugar Association objects to the new report having been published in
draft on the WHO's website for consultation purposes. In the letter to
Dr Brundtland, it calls for tomorrow's joint launch with the Food and
Agriculture Organisation to be cancelled.

The WHO rejects the sugar lobby's criticisms. An official said a team of
30 independent experts had considered the scientific evidence and its
conclusions were in line with the findings of 23 national reports.

Michael Bradley writes: Martyn Goddard, health spokesman for the
Australian Consumers Association, said the
US sugar industry move was outrageous.

"This is undermining the WHO, it's undermining international health,
it's undermining the health of Americans who are already among the most
obese people on earth, and, if this goes ahead, then the chances of
Australia being pressured to follow suit are immense.

"Australians already have a lot of sugar, fat, and salt in their diets.
Allowing more sugar in food makes it easier to sell to kids, and
childhood obesity is one of the great hidden health problems facing the
Western world."

"The Australian Government is attempting to curb the rate of childhood
obesity here, but if junk food and soft drink manufacturers get their
way, the Government might as well save their money and hold their breath."

The Guardian

This story was found at:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...777214161.html

a_unique_person · 22nd April 2003, 11:35 PM

No, I read this too, and considered starting yet another topic.....

I think you can already guess my reaction. It is disgraceful. With diabetes already a major health risk for many in the West, the need to control the amount of sugar in your diet is vital.

As the article points out, a large part of the use for sugar is to attract children to food.

And what they really care about is the harm done to third world countries if sugar consumption is reduced. HaHaHaHoHoHo.

Yet more reason why we need to keep on eye on those with powerful, vested interests.

to.by · 22nd April 2003, 11:42 PM

According to the Norwegian press the WHO-report is a result of recommendations from some 30 internationally recognized experts, while the sugar industry quotes one report. Furthermore the author of that report says that the conclusion drawn by the sugar industry is quite the opposite of what HE wrote.

Tony · 23rd April 2003, 12:06 AM

The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public. But people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat and drink no matter how much sugar a product may contain. It's a parents job to raise thier kids and feed them responsibly, we don't need nanny government telling us how to live our lives.

a_unique_person · 23rd April 2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public. But people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat and drink no matter how much sugar a product may contain. It's a parents job to raise thier kids and feed them responsibly, we don't need nanny government telling us how to live our lives.

And I don't need advertising targetting my children.

Tony · 23rd April 2003, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And I don't need advertising targetting my children.

freedom of speech.

You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong.

corplinx · 23rd April 2003, 12:22 AM

Of course we need people to limit their "sugar" intake. Most "sugary" foods have nasty high fructose corn syrup in them. That's why that "coke classic" that supposedly the old formula tastes nasty. It metabolizes poorly compared to real sugar.

Next you will see the corn lobby take on the WHO.

a_unique_person · 23rd April 2003, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony

freedom of speech.

You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong.

That is only part of the problem.

The worst part of this is that they are trying to stop the dissemination of scientifically tested information, so that parents can even make an informed decision for their children.

iain · 23rd April 2003, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
freedom of speech.

You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong.

Come on Tony, that's not quite fair is it. There are many areas where free speech can be restricted and, arguably, should be. This is one of them.

Many countries, including the UK and most other European countries, have restrictions on advertising. For example, the UK now bans all cigarette advertising. Advertising aimed at children is also fairly heavily controlled in the UK and that's a good thing.

Advertisers know that kids are easily influenced by their peers and by what they see on TV - so-called pester power. That's the reality.

I agree that it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children these things, but society can help out by making the parents' job easier rather than harder.

Tony · 23rd April 2003, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That is only part of the problem.

The worst part of this is that they are trying to stop the dissemination of scientifically tested information, so that parents can even make an informed decision for their children.

I know, and I am against that, look where I said.

Quote:

The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public

Tony · 23rd April 2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
Come on Tony, that's not quite fair is it. There are many areas where free speech can be restricted and, arguably, should be. This is one of them.

Many countries, including the UK and most other European countries, have restrictions on advertising. For example, the UK now bans all cigarette advertising. Advertising aimed at children is also fairly heavily controlled in the UK and that's a good thing.

Advertisers know that kids are easily influenced by their peers and by what they see on TV - so-called pester power. That's the reality.

I agree that it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children these things, but society can help out by making the parents' job easier rather than harder.

Mabey you're right, I am kinda biased when it comes to advertising. That is what I do.

iain · 23rd April 2003, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tony
I am kinda biased when it comes to advertising. That is what I do.

Ah, so you reveal yourself as an agent of Satan at last.

Cleopatra · 23rd April 2003, 12:55 PM

Well I am not a parent but as a liberal I can't accept restrictions in general.

Of course medical reports should be published and given the appropriate publication but the last word belongs to the parents and to ourself...

This is why I am against prohibitions on anything even drugs although I don't think that on this planet there is anybody else so much against drugs as me...

But the issue on the article is about lobbies who try to undermine science's work. I find this dangerous and yes I think that people should fight back

Do you think that I would vote for Nader if I was a USA citizen?Or my condition is not THAT critical ?

The question only stands the same though. How to wake-up the masses and remind them that they are citizens.

Bjorn · 23rd April 2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well I am not a parent but as a liberal I can't accept restrictions in general.

Of course medical reports should be published and given the appropriate publication but the last word belongs to the parents and to ourself...

This is why I am against prohibitions on anything even drugs although I don't think that on this planet there is anybody else so much against drugs as me...

But the issue on the article is about lobbies who try to undermine science's work. I find this dangerous and yes I think that people should fight back

The WHO is not suggesting any restrictions on what you or your kids should be allowed to eat, it is just making some guidelines about what is good for you.

The protests reminds me about tobacco companies denying for decades the negative effects of smoking.

22nd April 2003, 11:17 PM	#1
Cleopatra Diva Caissa Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens-Greece Posts: 9,272	Sugar giants threaten WHO's funding What do you think about this? If the report is accurate ( we don't have to take for granted what journalists say...) who runs modern countries? What can citizens do? Vote for the persons who won't succumb to the pressures of the Big Companies or to organize themselves and fight back? Read the article, it's interesting! Mr.Unique, there is a refference for Australia too. Maybe you wish to take a break of Middle East and talk about POLITICS Sugar giants threaten WHO's funding April 22 2003 BITTER WORDS The WHO guidelines say sugar should account for no more than 10 per cent of a healthy diet. The sugar industry claims the limit is scientifically flawed. It insists that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The sugar industry in the United States is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by asking Congress to stop funding the body unless it scraps guidelines on healthy eating due to be published tomorrow. The threat is described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure by the tobacco lobby. In a letter to the WHO director-general, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Sugar Association says it will "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the WHO's report on diet and nutrition. This includes a challenge to its $US406 million ($660 million) funding from the US. "Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to support misguided, non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and wellbeing of Americans, much less the rest of the world," the letter says. The association and six other food industry groups have written to the US Health Secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico. The sugar lobby's strong-arm tactics were not new, said Professor Phillip James, the British chairman of the International Obesity Taskforce, who wrote a WHO report on diet and nutrition in 1990. The day after his committee had decided on a 10 per cent limit, the World Sugar Organisation "went into overdrive", he said. "Forty ambassadors wrote to the WHO insisting our report should be removed, on the grounds that it would do irreparable damage to countries in the developing world." The Sugar Association objects to the new report having been published in draft on the WHO's website for consultation purposes. In the letter to Dr Brundtland, it calls for tomorrow's joint launch with the Food and Agriculture Organisation to be cancelled. The WHO rejects the sugar lobby's criticisms. An official said a team of 30 independent experts had considered the scientific evidence and its conclusions were in line with the findings of 23 national reports. Michael Bradley writes: Martyn Goddard, health spokesman for the Australian Consumers Association, said the US sugar industry move was outrageous. "This is undermining the WHO, it's undermining international health, it's undermining the health of Americans who are already among the most obese people on earth, and, if this goes ahead, then the chances of Australia being pressured to follow suit are immense. "Australians already have a lot of sugar, fat, and salt in their diets. Allowing more sugar in food makes it easier to sell to kids, and childhood obesity is one of the great hidden health problems facing the Western world." "The Australian Government is attempting to curb the rate of childhood obesity here, but if junk food and soft drink manufacturers get their way, the Government might as well save their money and hold their breath." The Guardian This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...777214161.html
	__________________ Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.~ Mark Twain.

22nd April 2003, 11:35 PM	#2
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,311	No, I read this too, and considered starting yet another topic..... I think you can already guess my reaction. It is disgraceful. With diabetes already a major health risk for many in the West, the need to control the amount of sugar in your diet is vital. As the article points out, a large part of the use for sugar is to attract children to food. And what they really care about is the harm done to third world countries if sugar consumption is reduced. HaHaHaHoHoHo. Yet more reason why we need to keep on eye on those with powerful, vested interests.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

22nd April 2003, 11:42 PM	#3
to.by Scholar Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 101	According to the Norwegian press the WHO-report is a result of recommendations from some 30 internationally recognized experts, while the sugar industry quotes one report. Furthermore the author of that report says that the conclusion drawn by the sugar industry is quite the opposite of what HE wrote.
to.by Scholar Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 101

23rd April 2003, 12:06 AM	#4
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public. But people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat and drink no matter how much sugar a product may contain. It's a parents job to raise thier kids and feed them responsibly, we don't need nanny government telling us how to live our lives.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

23rd April 2003, 12:09 AM	#5
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,311	Quote: Originally posted by Tony The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public. But people should have the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat and drink no matter how much sugar a product may contain. It's a parents job to raise thier kids and feed them responsibly, we don't need nanny government telling us how to live our lives. And I don't need advertising targetting my children.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

23rd April 2003, 12:13 AM	#6
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person And I don't need advertising targetting my children. freedom of speech. You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

23rd April 2003, 12:22 AM	#7
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Of course we need people to limit their "sugar" intake. Most "sugary" foods have nasty high fructose corn syrup in them. That's why that "coke classic" that supposedly the old formula tastes nasty. It metabolizes poorly compared to real sugar. Next you will see the corn lobby take on the WHO.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

23rd April 2003, 02:20 AM	#8
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,311	Quote: Originally posted by Tony freedom of speech. You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong. That is only part of the problem. The worst part of this is that they are trying to stop the dissemination of scientifically tested information, so that parents can even make an informed decision for their children.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

23rd April 2003, 02:25 AM	#9
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	Quote: Originally posted by Tony freedom of speech. You're the parent, it's your job to teach your kid, good, healthy manners. If an ad has more influence over your children than you, then something is seriously wrong. Come on Tony, that's not quite fair is it. There are many areas where free speech can be restricted and, arguably, should be. This is one of them. Many countries, including the UK and most other European countries, have restrictions on advertising. For example, the UK now bans all cigarette advertising. Advertising aimed at children is also fairly heavily controlled in the UK and that's a good thing. Advertisers know that kids are easily influenced by their peers and by what they see on TV - so-called pester power. That's the reality. I agree that it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children these things, but society can help out by making the parents' job easier rather than harder.
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	__________________ "Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28." - On the Hour

23rd April 2003, 02:26 AM	#10
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person That is only part of the problem. The worst part of this is that they are trying to stop the dissemination of scientifically tested information, so that parents can even make an informed decision for their children. I know, and I am against that, look where I said. Quote: The report seems valid and the correct information needs to be available to the public
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

23rd April 2003, 02:29 AM	#11
Tony Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 13,752	Quote: Originally posted by iain Come on Tony, that's not quite fair is it. There are many areas where free speech can be restricted and, arguably, should be. This is one of them. Many countries, including the UK and most other European countries, have restrictions on advertising. For example, the UK now bans all cigarette advertising. Advertising aimed at children is also fairly heavily controlled in the UK and that's a good thing. Advertisers know that kids are easily influenced by their peers and by what they see on TV - so-called pester power. That's the reality. I agree that it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children these things, but society can help out by making the parents' job easier rather than harder. Mabey you're right, I am kinda biased when it comes to advertising. That is what I do.
	__________________ It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain

23rd April 2003, 02:30 AM	#12
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	Quote: Originally posted by Tony I am kinda biased when it comes to advertising. That is what I do. Ah, so you reveal yourself as an agent of Satan at last.
iain Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,293	__________________ "Mathematicians have discovered a new whole number between 27 and 28." - On the Hour

23rd April 2003, 12:55 PM	#13
Cleopatra Diva Caissa Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Athens-Greece Posts: 9,272	Well I am not a parent but as a liberal I can't accept restrictions in general. Of course medical reports should be published and given the appropriate publication but the last word belongs to the parents and to ourself... This is why I am against prohibitions on anything even drugs although I don't think that on this planet there is anybody else so much against drugs as me... But the issue on the article is about lobbies who try to undermine science's work. I find this dangerous and yes I think that people should fight back Do you think that I would vote for Nader if I was a USA citizen?Or my condition is not THAT critical ? The question only stands the same though. How to wake-up the masses and remind them that they are citizens.
	__________________ Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting.~ Mark Twain.

23rd April 2003, 05:54 PM	#14
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by Cleopatra Well I am not a parent but as a liberal I can't accept restrictions in general. Of course medical reports should be published and given the appropriate publication but the last word belongs to the parents and to ourself... This is why I am against prohibitions on anything even drugs although I don't think that on this planet there is anybody else so much against drugs as me... But the issue on the article is about lobbies who try to undermine science's work. I find this dangerous and yes I think that people should fight back The WHO is not suggesting any restrictions on what you or your kids should be allowed to eat, it is just making some guidelines about what is good for you. The protests reminds me about tobacco companies denying for decades the negative effects of smoking.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....