Hi,
Just saw this article (heard this from other sources too) saying that US sugar producers are "unhappy" with tomorrow's WHO report suggesting that 10% sugar would be a healthy limit for personal intake in your diet. US sugar companies prefer 25% and are petitioning congress to withdraw $600 million WHO funding in response.
I have also heard that other country's sugar producers are lobbying against the recommendations of this report, though as yet I have been unable to acertain to what extent (links anyone?)
Let us be clear - this is a recommendation and not some sort of law - but it seeks to water down the professional advice given by the WHO for the benefit of everyone's health. This debate has been raging for decades - and having personally reviewed some of the literature surrounding it I can see no way in which 25% intake of sugar could be considered remotely healthy. More so, with the increase in type 2 diabetes becoming an increasing concern throughout the developed world we need to take the "company funded" science or the questioning/belittling of independant science by those with a financial interest in sugar consumption with a huge pinch of salt. I'm already reminded how tobacco companies employed the same tactics to counter claims of the health implications of smoking.
Comments?
Cheers,
Andy
Just saw this article (heard this from other sources too) saying that US sugar producers are "unhappy" with tomorrow's WHO report suggesting that 10% sugar would be a healthy limit for personal intake in your diet. US sugar companies prefer 25% and are petitioning congress to withdraw $600 million WHO funding in response.
SUGAR ASSOCIATION CONTINUES DISAPPROVAL OF RELEASE OF MISGUIDED WHO DIET AND NUTRITION REPORT
Washington, DC - April 21, 2003 - The Sugar Association continues to voice its strong opposition to the release of the World Health Organization's Diet and Nutrition Report on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, in Rome. According to President and CEO Andrew Briscoe, "We remain adamant that any scientific report that affects world health policies and global implementation strategies must be based on the preponderance of scientific evidence." The response to date from Director General Gro Harlem Brundtland has not been acceptable. She continues to assert that the report considers "the best available evidence on the relationship between sugar and several health outcomes, particularly obesity and dental disease, in developing the recommendations for total added sugars." The WHO report is based on 11 scientific references - one of which is almost 30 years old. The blatant absences of the September 2002 release of the National Academy of Sciences' Dietary Reference Intakes Report and the 2001 publication of the USDA's Current Knowledge of the Health Effects of Sugar Intake causes WHO's credibility to be called into question when she continues to assert that the "best available science" was considered.
I have also heard that other country's sugar producers are lobbying against the recommendations of this report, though as yet I have been unable to acertain to what extent (links anyone?)
Groups that have lobbied the WHO include the American Association of Sugar Producers, the U.K.-based World Sugar Research Organisation and the Brussels-based European Committee of Sugar Manufacturers, he said.
Let us be clear - this is a recommendation and not some sort of law - but it seeks to water down the professional advice given by the WHO for the benefit of everyone's health. This debate has been raging for decades - and having personally reviewed some of the literature surrounding it I can see no way in which 25% intake of sugar could be considered remotely healthy. More so, with the increase in type 2 diabetes becoming an increasing concern throughout the developed world we need to take the "company funded" science or the questioning/belittling of independant science by those with a financial interest in sugar consumption with a huge pinch of salt. I'm already reminded how tobacco companies employed the same tactics to counter claims of the health implications of smoking.
Comments?
Cheers,
Andy
