HOW much free (added) sugar should form part of man’s daily healthy diet has led to a bitter strife between the sugar industry of America and the World Health Organization. And indications are that it may turn into a long-drawn battle.
The Who has recommended a maximum of ten per cent limit in its new report on diet and nutrition launched on April 23, in collaboration with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). This limit it thinks is essential to head off the epidemic of obesity now rampant more in developed countries, thanks to junk food explosion. But in the developing countries, it is equally on the rise, ironically, along with malnutrition. Diabetes and cardio-vascular ailments are the other outcomes of increased sugar consumption worldwide.
The industry wants a 25 per cent limit which it says has also been recommended by the Food Nutrition Board of America’s National Academy of Sciences — a pro-industry institution. At stake are huge profits and survival of food chains if ten per cent limit is observed or becomes a law.
The US Sugar Association, also known as Big Sugar (like Big Tobacco), together with other six food industry groups and giants such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, General Foods, McDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger king and Kraft, used all “bully-boy tactics” to prevent the launching of the new diet report. But the Who chief, Gro Harlem Brundtland remained undeterred and went ahead. The coalition also includes the US Council for International Business comprising of more than 300 companies. Now they are urging the US health secretary Tommy Thompson to use his influence to get the Who report withdrawn.
The food multinationals fear to lose much in terms of public image, apart from profits, for it is now more than obvious that they are contributing in a big way to obesity epidemic by promoting among youth addiction of food products which are high in fats and sugar. However, health-conscious consumers’ growing reservations about fast food and the parents’ concerns about their children’s health lend great weight to the Who prescription. Besides, the 10 per cent limit is hardly a controversy as it is already recommended in several countries such as Britain and the Netherlands.
One of the bully tactics to suppress the report was a harsh letter written to the Who chief on April 14 by the Association president Andrew Briscoe in which he threatened to “bring the World Health Organisation to its knees” (to quote The Guardian) by demanding that Congress end its yearly funding of $460 million (which constitutes nearly a quarter of the organization’s budget) unless the Who scraps its new guidelines on healthy eating. The threat was seen as “blackmail” by Who insiders and described as “worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.”
Meanwhile, Philip Bowring, a syndicated columnist of The New York Times foresees a long-drawn battle over healthy diet and similar to the one fought over tobacco. He observes: “This may seem a small matter. But it looks like an early skirmish in a long war between those concerned with global public health and a wide range of processed food industries. Given what has happened to tobacco, the food industry now looks to face tougher opposition. But many of its members seem as much in denial of the truth about causes of chronic diseases as China’s former health minister fired after Who’s criticism of Beijing’s commitment to dealing with Sars.”
The Association, in its letter to Who chief, warned it would exercise “every avenue available to expose the dubious nature” of the Who report. “If necessary me will promote and encourage new laws which require future Who funding to be provided only if the organization accepts that all reports must be supported by the preponderance of science.”
But Brundtland in an interview said the report contains “the best currently available scientific evidence on the relationship of diet, nutrition and physical activity to chronic diseases.” The member states, she says, had specifically asked the Who to develop the Global Strategy in consultation and collaboration with all major stakeholders involved in food, diet, physical activity and chronic disease. The new report will serve as the basis for developing this strategy. She intends to meet senior executives of major food companies and consumer NGOs in the next few weeks and that their views will be considered before finalizing the Global Strategy for presentation before the Who Executive Board in January 2004.
The Who-FAO report on diet, nutrition and prevention of chronic diseases has been prepared by a group of 30 independent experts after holding consultations with another 30 scientists and is in line with findings of 23 national reports. Its specific recommendations on diet include (1) limiting fat to 15-30 per cent of total daily energy intake, saturated fats to less than 10 per cent; (2) carbohydrates should provide the bulk of energy needs — 55-75 per cent; (3) free (added) sugars less than 10 per cent; (4) daily intake of salt (iodized) less than five grams a day; (5)intake of fruit and vegetables at least 400 grams and protein intake 10-15 per cent.
The report has also angered the soft drinks industry whose members operate everywhere in the world. That their beverages contain high amount of sugar is widely known. The industry does not accept the report’s claim that sweetened soft drinks contribute to obesity. Americans’ consumption of sweeteners has risen significantly in the past 40 years from 113 pounds per person in 1966 to 147 pounds in 2001. Added sugars — which are distinguished from naturally occurring sugars in fruit and many other foods — account for just over 15 per cent of Americans’ daily caloric intake.
The sugar industry is a major player in US lobbying and politics, doling out more than three million dollars in donations in last year’s federal elections. It also represents a major agricultural constituency, with sugar cane and corn farmers in many states.
According to The Washington Post, the sugar lobby donates campaign funds to Democrats and Republicans alike, and it enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. Last month the co-chairs of the Senate Sweetener Caucus — Larry Craig and John Breaux — wrote to health secretary Thompson and agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, asking them to call on Who and the FAO to “cease further promotion” of the diet report. Craig was the fourth-largest recipient of campaign contributions from the sugar industry in the last election which was more than $36,000.
Several other associations, including the National Corn Growers Association and the Snack Food Association also want Thompson to demand that Who withdraw the report until it is submitted for an external peer review.
The sugar lobby, in a letter to the health secretary Thompson who does not appear much enthusiastic about its demands, referred to a recent report of the Institute of Medicine in which it says 25 per cent sugar intake is acceptable. But last month, the president of the Institute, Harvey Fineberg, wrote to Thompson to warn that the report was being misinterpreted. He says his report does not make a recommendation on sugar intake.
On May 8, Thompson said the junk food explosion was costing the US government about $117 billion each year in obesity-related health care expenditure and thought public pressure could curb this menacing trend. He warned fast food joints against feeding the country’s obesity problem and asked them to shape up before they were singled out by his department. He specifically mentioned Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Taco Bell as companies that could offer consumers healthier options and promote more sensible diets.
As Thompson made these remarks, lawyers were preparing to file new lawsuits that accuse McDonald’s, Burger king and other fast food chains for being responsible for the rising obesity rate in the United Sates. And a famous lawyer, John Banzhaf, whose 1970s’ crusades against the tobacco industry had helped get cigarette commercials off the air, has now presented National Restaurants Association with a notice of possible legal action against the industry. Lawyers say the food companies, like cigarette companies in the past, are not warning consumers about side-effects of their products and also that these may be addictive. The restaurants association represents 870,000 fast food companies and restaurants. According to Health Secretary Thompson, nearly two out of every three adult Americans and 15 per cent of children are suffering from obesity.
The sugar industry’s threat to the Who comes at a time when it is embroiled in a cash-for-favours row over the pollution of the Florida Everglades. Governor Jeb Bush, younger brother of President Bush, has been accused of being “badly misled” over a bill by Big Sugar that, if passed, would push back cleaning of America’s second largest national park by another 20 years. The governor had made an election promise to environmental campaigners to mount a large clean-up operation as harmful levels of phosphorous run into the park from nearby sugarcane farms. Now sugar industry is demanding a return on their donations ($800,000) in the 2002 Florida elections by seeking support in their battle with the Who.
The sugar lobby’s strong-arm tactics are nothing now. In 1990, a Who report on healthy eating had made the same recommendation of 10 per cent limit on sugar intake. The industry, it is interesting to note, hired one of Washington’s top lobbying companies to exert political pressure. As a result, 40 ambassadors wrote to the Who arguing the report should be removed because it would do “irreparable damage” to the developing countries.
It failed in its bid at that time. But Professor Philip James, who wrote the 1990 document, fears they could be successful this time. He told The Guardian, “We are getting a replay, but much more powerfully based, because the food industry seems to have a much greater influence on the Bush government.” Besides, the industry’s power has been bolstered also by the accreditation of International Life Sciences Institute to the Who and FAO. This institute was founded by Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, General Foods, Kraft, and Procter and Gamble, to protect industry’s interests. The accreditation was a skillful tactic meant to weaken the UN agencies.
Aubrey Sheihan, professor of dental health at University College, London, also experienced the power of the sugar lobby when he wrote sugar part of Eurodiet. The sugar lobby representatives met him at a conference at Crete in June 2000 and warned him if the 10 per cent (limit) recommendation was still in the guidelines, the whole report would be blocked. In the end, he said, they worked out a recommendation that nobody should eat sugar more than four times a day and claimed this was equivalent to a 10 per cent limit.
Big Sugar is using the same strategy that was pioneered long ago by the tobacco industry and will probably lose the argument in the long run. But twenty extra years of profits, according to columnist Gwynne Dyer, are worth fighting for. The only odd thing is this: it is not the poor countries where people live from the sugar that are leading the fight. It is the sugar industry in the rich countries where people are dying of it.
Taking care of the calorie count
WHILE the controversy over sugar continues to rage, it is time to have a look at what should constitute the right daily dietary plan for a person looking to live a healthy life. And when it comes to healthy life, avoiding obesity happens to be one of the cardinal principles, for it alone leads to a huge number of complications, like, for instance, arthritis, heart problems, diabetes and so on.
Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Diabetes in Pakistan, Professor Abdus Samad Shera, says the diet plan for a regular person, should not exceed 1,800 calories per day. “This is perfectly manageable if you are in the habit of depending on normal home-cooked meals,” he says, stressing that this is probably “the only way to avoid obesity”.
He continues: “It is difficult to avoid or control obesity unless simple, rapidly-absorbed sugars are eliminated from the diet. All aerated drinks, tinned fruits and fruit juices should be avoided. Fast foods are rich in fat and calories, and their consumption should be minimized as much as possible.”
Prof Shera highly recommends avoiding the consumption of soft drinks (about 130 calories per glass) and fast food, like burgers (320-610 calories), fries (240-360 calories) and pizza (900-1,100 calories) as the disturb the whole balance of the daily diet. “If you take the standard burger-fries-drink meal, you consume more almost 1,100 calories of the standard 1,800 that you should be taking,” he explains.
“Other things that should be avoided include the so-called diabetic foods and various fruit juices that carry the tag ‘no added sugar’. Such products are expensive and high in calorie content, and the juices also contain high intrinsic sugar contents,” he warns.
Prof Shera regrets that in Pakistan not much attention is paid to the problems of the obese. “Food policies in Pakistan remain focused only on under-nutrition, and are not addressing the prevention of obesity, which, in real terms, is now a chronic diseases for many,” he says.
