Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization

Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization
5 (100%) 2 votes

What happened when the World Health Organization had the gall to recommend a diet low in saturated fat, sugar, and salt and high in fruit and vegetables?

Discuss
Republish

The World Health Organization recommends we reduce our consumption of salt, trans fats, saturated fats, and added sugars. Why? Because consumption of such foods is the cause of at least 14 million deaths every year from chronic diseases.

Several decades ago, it was heresy to talk about an impending global pandemic of obesity, but now we’re seeing chronic disease rates skyrocket around the world. We have exported our Western diet to the far reaches of the planet, with white flour, sugar, fat, and animal-sourced foods replacing beans, peas, lentils, other vegetables, and whole grains.

Understanding the reasons underlying this trend toward increased consumption of animal products, oils, and sugar, and the reduced consumption of whole plant foods, begins with understanding the purposeful economic manipulations that have occurred since World War II relating to agricultural policies around the world.

For example, the U.S. government, since early in the last century, has supported food production through subsidies and other policies, resulting in large surpluses of food commodities, meat, and calories. In this artificial market, large food producers and corporations–Big Ag and Big Food–became very profitable. And that may be part of the problem.

Last year, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization gave the opening address at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion. One of the biggest challenges facing health promotion worldwide is that the efforts to prevent our top killers "go against the business interests of powerful economic operators." It is not just Big Tobacco any more. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation, and protect themselves by using the same tactics–front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and industry-funded research–that confuse the evidence and keep the public in doubt.

And they should know. In 2003, the World Health Organization released a draft report outlining a global strategy to address issues of diet, making a series of rather tame recommendations, but six words in that report, “limit the intake of ‘free’ sugars,” stimulated a remarkable series of events (free sugars means added sugars).

The food industry went to work. Within days, the sugar industry, through the Sugar Association, enlisted the support of officials high in the U.S. government, and led a vigorous attack on both the report and the World Health Organization itself, culminating in a threat to get Congress to withdraw U.S. funding to the W.H.O., the organization that deals with AIDS, malnutrition, infectious disease, bioterrorism, and more–threatened because of its stance on sugar, just as the U.S. went to bat for U.S. tobacco companies and led the charge against the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

But the threat from the sugar industry was described by WHO insiders as worse than any pressure they ever got from the tobacco lobby.

As revealed in an internal memo, the U.S. government apparently had a list of demands. Deletion of all references to the science. They had experts compile on the matter, and having dietary guidelines are fine, as long as there are no references to "fat, oils, sugar or salt."

The threats failed to make the WHO withdraw their report. Entitled Diet, Nutrition And The Prevention Of Chronic Disease, it formally launched and concluded that a diet low in saturated fat, sugar, and salt, and high in fruit and vegetables, was required to tackle the epidemic rise in chronic diseases worldwide, though they did end up watering it down. Gone was reference to the comprehensive scientific report, and gone was its call for recommendations to actually be translated into national guidelines.

History has since repeated. At the last high-level UN meeting to address chronic diseases, we helped block a consensus on action after lobbying from the alcohol, food, tobacco, and drug industries. When asked why Michelle Obama’s successful childhood obesity programs in the US should not be modeled around the world, a US official responded that they might harm American exports.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Betsy Weber via Flickr and Daderot via Wikimedia Commons.

The World Health Organization recommends we reduce our consumption of salt, trans fats, saturated fats, and added sugars. Why? Because consumption of such foods is the cause of at least 14 million deaths every year from chronic diseases.

Several decades ago, it was heresy to talk about an impending global pandemic of obesity, but now we’re seeing chronic disease rates skyrocket around the world. We have exported our Western diet to the far reaches of the planet, with white flour, sugar, fat, and animal-sourced foods replacing beans, peas, lentils, other vegetables, and whole grains.

Understanding the reasons underlying this trend toward increased consumption of animal products, oils, and sugar, and the reduced consumption of whole plant foods, begins with understanding the purposeful economic manipulations that have occurred since World War II relating to agricultural policies around the world.

For example, the U.S. government, since early in the last century, has supported food production through subsidies and other policies, resulting in large surpluses of food commodities, meat, and calories. In this artificial market, large food producers and corporations–Big Ag and Big Food–became very profitable. And that may be part of the problem.

Last year, Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization gave the opening address at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion. One of the biggest challenges facing health promotion worldwide is that the efforts to prevent our top killers "go against the business interests of powerful economic operators." It is not just Big Tobacco any more. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation, and protect themselves by using the same tactics–front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and industry-funded research–that confuse the evidence and keep the public in doubt.

And they should know. In 2003, the World Health Organization released a draft report outlining a global strategy to address issues of diet, making a series of rather tame recommendations, but six words in that report, “limit the intake of ‘free’ sugars,” stimulated a remarkable series of events (free sugars means added sugars).

The food industry went to work. Within days, the sugar industry, through the Sugar Association, enlisted the support of officials high in the U.S. government, and led a vigorous attack on both the report and the World Health Organization itself, culminating in a threat to get Congress to withdraw U.S. funding to the W.H.O., the organization that deals with AIDS, malnutrition, infectious disease, bioterrorism, and more–threatened because of its stance on sugar, just as the U.S. went to bat for U.S. tobacco companies and led the charge against the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

But the threat from the sugar industry was described by WHO insiders as worse than any pressure they ever got from the tobacco lobby.

As revealed in an internal memo, the U.S. government apparently had a list of demands. Deletion of all references to the science. They had experts compile on the matter, and having dietary guidelines are fine, as long as there are no references to "fat, oils, sugar or salt."

The threats failed to make the WHO withdraw their report. Entitled Diet, Nutrition And The Prevention Of Chronic Disease, it formally launched and concluded that a diet low in saturated fat, sugar, and salt, and high in fruit and vegetables, was required to tackle the epidemic rise in chronic diseases worldwide, though they did end up watering it down. Gone was reference to the comprehensive scientific report, and gone was its call for recommendations to actually be translated into national guidelines.

History has since repeated. At the last high-level UN meeting to address chronic diseases, we helped block a consensus on action after lobbying from the alcohol, food, tobacco, and drug industries. When asked why Michelle Obama’s successful childhood obesity programs in the US should not be modeled around the world, a US official responded that they might harm American exports.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Betsy Weber via Flickr and Daderot via Wikimedia Commons.

Doctor's Note

This is a follow-up to my video How Much Added Sugar Is Too Much?

If sugar is bad, then what about all the sugar in fruit? See If Fructose is Bad, What About Fruit? and How Much Fruit is Too Much?

For more on the corrupting political and economic influences in nutrition, see videos such as:

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

63 responses to “Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Check out ‘Globesity: Fat’s New Frontier.’ Regarding ‘American’ exports, one may only wonder what lies ahead for the world’s food environment when the Trans-Pacific Partnership becomes law. My guess is it will contain some Big Hammers to put a stop to all this back-and-forth wrangling once and for all and give Multinational Corporate Capitalism the ability to transcend national sovereignty with impunity that it so desperately seeks. But then again, I may be completely off-base here (but I suspect that I am not).




    0



    0
    1. I must disagree with your use of the word “Capitalism” in your comment. Multinational
      Corporations can exist and even thrive better under Socialism than
      they do under true capitalism. Do you think the Multinational
      Corporations in China are “capitalistic”? The word “capitalism”
      means to me free-markets of small family-owned businesses where true
      competition exists. And here in the US today, there seems to be a
      concerted effort to discourage true free-market capitalism (small
      family owned businesses, including private doctor practices) and
      replace them with large Corporations. It appears to me we’re moving
      away from capitalism and more toward socialism. Just my opinion. Now let’s get back
      to discussing Nutrition :-)




      0



      0
      1. Capitalism is not about small family-owned businesses. That’s what the large corporations want you to think. Adam Smith is widely known as the father of capitalism. Capitalist was a common job title. That means you have all the wealth. The idea is that the very wealthy (capitalists) invest that money and everyone will benefit and the market will correct itself with no depressions (hello 2009). I have a degree in economics. The problem is that in a capitalistic society like ours, all that money controls the power and therefore the culture. The information is not allowed to come out about ways of being healthy that don’t make the rich wealthy and more powerful. As has been predicted for centuries, the culture is controlled by the wealthy capitalists and they don’t play fair. Science is destroyed, as in this video. We can’t find out about GMO’s because they won’t let us use the seeds to do experiments, unless you’re on their payroll, so what kind of results are the “Scientists” allowed to have?
        John S




        0



        0
        1. I think we both agree that the wealthy in either economic system
          ends up controlling the system, no argument there. My point is that
          large wealthy corporations occur in both Socialistic and Capitalistic
          systems! So I think it’s misleading to tack on the word
          “Capitalistic” in association with large wealthy Multinational
          Corporations. Do you really think that there are no wealthy people
          in the many socialist dictatorships around the world? (That’s what
          the socialists want you to think!) And do you think these wealthy
          people don’t influence their governments and what information is fed
          to the masses there? At least in the USA we still have freedom of
          the Internet where benevalent people like Dr Greger can distribute
          valuable nutritional information even though it may be counter to the
          mainstream media. I don’t imagine that would be tolerated in the
          Socialist dictatorships around the world.




          0



          0
          1. I agree that communist dictatorships feature completely unfair distribution of power, wealth, and information. I don’t agree that democratic socialist countries like those in other first world countries do that. They are less controlled by wealthy corporations because unlike us, they have limits on how much money can be used to control elections. A poor person in Europe has a better chance of having a prosperous life than we do because they help poor people get health care and education, which our country doesn’t. The FDA stops doctors here from using natural medicine from plants, so doctors and Wealthy people here go to Europe for cancer treatment that the corporations won’t allow here. They are more healthy than we are for many of these reasons
            John S.




            0



            0
          2. Try reading some Karl Marx and you’ll get a clear understanding of what ‘capital’ means. Multinational corporations are the epitomy of capitalism whatever political system they operate under as their sole interest is the rate of return they can make on the capital they invest. And to promote that they operate across national boundaries, avoiding taxes through transfer pricing, ignoring national safety regulations – all to the detriment of their workers and the global environment. It has nothing to do with family outfits until they start to borrow capital to expand and then they become part of the system – putting investors first above all else in order to pay the right rate of return to them. If they fail and the investors can move their money elsewhere for greater profit, collapse and takeover usually follow
            .




            0



            0
        2. I don’t have time now for a long reply. Just a reminder, the term capitalism, was coined by Marx, not Adam Smith.

          What you denounce there is what is being called corporativism, and you only get that with the unholy marriage between the government and business. One will feed the other, in an endless cycle. And they end up being big government and big business, a runaway train.

          You only can get that outcome if you have goverment who will regulate to eliminate real free trade, put all sort of barriers to entry, and control everything — as dictated by their friends, the ones who fund their campaigns and parties, the lobbies.

          Solution, make lobbies unlawful, as they are in many countries. To have that in place, is to beg for corruption.

          Also, keep government small and powerless, unable to legislate in favour of any corporations. Without that “help” we wouldn’t get the monstrous corporations.




          0



          0
          1. I didn’t say that Adam Smith coined the term. I don’t know who you are correcting.

            How do you get there from here? The corporations are controlling the government. If the government was smaller, there would be nothing with the possibility of slowing down the corporations. There are places where they have limited lobbies. They are not in right wing capitalist countries like USA. They are in left democratic socialist countries like Europe with union movements to balance the power of corporations. Big business didn’t give you the weekend, the unions did. Who is going to make lobbies unlawful-the corporations? There is no countervailing power to fight against them. I like small family owned businesses. They don’t force me to take carcinogens and high fructose corn syrup in my food and GMO’s. Do you think that corporations are fighting to limit those things? Corporations are the only ones powerful enough to limit what can be bought in grocery stores.
            John




            0



            0
            1. The point that Thule and I are trying to make is that
              corporativism (Government and Corporations working hand in hand) has
              nothing to do with whether the government is capitalistic or
              socialistic. Maybe eliminating lobbies is a good thing, I don’t
              really know. But that would mean the Unions would have to eliminate
              their lobbies, too! And no one is forcing me to eat junk food, I just
              don’t buy the stuff. For any free society to work, there has to be
              some individual responsibility. Amazingly, fresh fruit and
              vegetables are available in almost every large grocery store, and in
              fact, it’s the first thing I see when I walk into them, they’re right
              up front. And even organic is now readily available, because that is
              what people now want to buy. Maybe the real solution is education,
              like Dr Greger is doing on this website. I have learned so much here.
              And I share the info and web link with many of my friends. With
              freedom of speech and a free Internet, eventually people will get the
              word and stop buying junk food and the stores will stop carrying so
              much of it.




              0



              0
              1. Corporations sneak GMOs and carcinogens into our foods and they spend millions of dollars to make sure you can’t find out what is in your food. Every year they introduce thousands of new toxic chemicals and they aren’t checked. We aren’t getting healthier. This generation will be the first with shorter, sicker lives. That isn’t free information.
                John




                0



                0
            2. Let’s try to put things into context first:

              “Yes, there’s an alternative system that does entail the government unjustly ruling business and government, in turn, improperly controlled by business for business’s exclusive benefit (whether by subsidies, special favors, monopolies and franchises, tax breaks, or bailouts), even as it nominally still permits private property holdings: it’s called “corporatism” (sometimes, synonymously, “cronyism” or “fascism”).

              Corporatism was the system originated almost a century ago by the American “Progressives,” and later by Mussolini in Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Roosevelt in the U.S. (see his 1933 National Recovery Act, struck down by the Supreme Court in 1935 as unconstitutional because it was so corporatist). Corporatism goes hand-in-hand with statism, with abandonment of the fully free economy and adoption of the welfare-warfare state. Yet while many oppose cronyism, corporate welfare, and bailouts, they also endorse handouts to almost everyone else, including to the politically-valuable cronies so easily found among today’s labor union leaders, “green” companies, under-water homeowners, over-indebted college students, and war-happy munitions makers..

              Those who speak of “crony capitalism” use a smear, to blur distinctions and blame innocents. But let’s keep facts (and terms) perfectly straight. Let’s not equivocate. Above all let’s acknowledge that the real culprits in corporatism are precisely those people who pretend to rail against it: the likes of Ralph Nader, Robert Reich, Barack Obama, and their friends in “Occupy Wall Street.”

              They all want bigger, more intrusive government in our lives; they are all full-throated pushers of the welfare state and “social democracy” (socialism by vote). Yet they whine against the undue influence of big business and corporations (and their cash) on political campaigns, lobbying, and policy-making. If government is going to intervene to redirect literally trillions of dollars of income and wealth from natural flows into artificial ones, it’s positively inviting and fostering cronyism. The closet corporatists claim to want to get money out of politics, but they won’t dare get politics out of money-making; they claim that capitalists and bankers are to blame for our many woes, but they won’t dare advocate capitalism,the only system that specifically precludes favors to capitalists (or any other sub-group). They deride influence-peddling but demand ever-more intense forms of government influence.

              In the world today (and for most of the past century) we haven’t had capitalism per se but instead the welfare state and corporatism; we’ve had what are commonly called “mixed economies,” those with some remaining vestiges of capitalist freedom but also many (and fast-proliferating) controls and taxes. Obfuscations about capitalism’s real nature and the blurring of distinctions between the terms capitalism and corporatism make it difficult for most people to discern cause and effect whenever some disaster or corruption arises, and thus it’s difficult to assign proper blame or achieve a lasting remedy. Yet people should always remind themselves that freedom breeds peace, justice, and prosperity, while coercion breeds violence, exploitation and poverty. When a mixed economy fails, it’s not its capitalist aspect that fails – unless you believe freedom itself fails.”

              I know well how things are in Europe, I am from there, tho I lived in US for a number of years. The welfare state is collapsing and will drag everything with it.

              What will control corporations in a free society? Competency.
              When there aren’t laws making impossible to compete, to entry a market then you have a problem.

              Meanwhile in a free market, for as long as there is demand, companies will see the opportunity and cover it.

              “Hey there is an opportunity here, see how much demand exist for this product, that company is making money, we should enter too… with better prices, diversification of product, another offer”

              But so does another third, four etc companies, for as long as there is demand different companies will fight for it, they will earn their money based on how well they serve you, the customer.

              Free competency is what stop mega corporations, they only can exist with the direct help from the state.




              0



              0
              1. You are making me laugh. The progressives were with John D. ROckefeller and cronyism? You are just as fair and balanced as Fox “news”.
                John S




                0



                0
                1. Okay, this was government policies for the so called affordable housing act, government backed the loans, sub prime market. I hope the Big Short doesn’t gloss over the government’s involvement. Thanks




                  0



                  0
      2. …and in many respects we are “Hyper Capitalist” nation in that the USA Government subsidizes animal torture factories, large banks (2008 crisis), the health industry (Obama care), private prisons, and the military industry by starting wars.- Bush’s Iraq war and the coming Iranian war.




        0



        0
    2. Yeah, Globesity explains the situation very well.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGL3iT5MMdQ

      As the fat, salt and sugar levels in the US leveled off the corporations have made the rest of the world their new growth market.
      2 thirds of the Mexican people are already obese with China, India and the rest of the world on the same path.

      TPP will allow the corporations to sue anyone that causes them to “lose profits”. Get those profits back.
      Kinda like the cattle industry did suing Oprah Winfrey for speaking negatively about beef. They had her in court for 6 yrs and cost her a million to defend herself. She won in the end, but with new TPP laws she probably won’t.




      0



      0
      1. If this is true … Woe.

        One major aim of TPP is to punish countries that attempt to mandate the labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) or ban them outright. Key provisions in the international decree would allow corporations like Monsanto to actually sue governments for trying to protect their people against GMOs, all in the name of fostering “free trade.”

        Farmers would also be prohibited from saving seeds under the plan as countries are forcibly grafted into a regulatory paradigm governed by patent monopolies. Although not every country attending the TPP meetings is on board with this agenda, the stated goal is to force all negotiating parties to make patents on plants available as well as to protect plant varieties under the 1991 Protection of New Varieties of Plants Act (UPOV 1991).

        “The TPP will eliminate all nation states as the ruling authority and it will be supplanted by corporate authority,” adds Hodges. “This will be made possible because of an obscure provision of the TPP known as the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).”

        Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/050151_farmers_TPP_biotech_patents.html#ixzz3eVNN3Pbe




        0



        0
    1. Thanks, Jerry! It seems a few links are not hyperlinking properly let me fix that right now! If you ever see anything off shoot me a note (jgonzales@nutritionfacts.org) and we’ll fix it asap.

      Best,
      Joseph




      0



      0
  2. I don’t understand why, as long as there is the science to prove the link between fat, sugar, white flour, and salt, to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and related diseases, there can’t be law suits similar to what happened in the tobacco industry. If Big Sugar, and Big Fat, and Big Flour were made to stop marketing, stop suppressing the studies, and pay restitution for the health-care costs of those afflicted with diseases related to their products, then that would help cut down on the addition to these foods. Once the law suits start, I’m sure tons of internal communication will be revealed that confirms that these companies knew their products were both addictive and harmful.




    0



    0
    1. With tobacco, they had an inside man who would spill the beans. Why do you think the corporations are fighting so hard to limit law suit liability? It’s the only form of government they can’t control. Senators and congresspeople spend nearly all their time raising money. If you want to win, you’ve got to suck up to rich people. That’s the way our culture works. Washington and Jefferson are rolling over in their graves.
      John S




      0



      0
    2. Got your point, but this situation is far more difficult than Big Tobacco. Unlike smoking, food is a necessity for life. Furthermore (and for example), many healthy products have just a bit of added sugar, less healthy ones have more, and very unhealthy ones have quite a lot. And sugar and saturated fats are also naturally occurring in many of the healthiest foods. This would be the mother of all suits for lawyers on both sides of the issue.




      0



      0
  3. Yes I agree with Lawrence, that we are being treated as fodder for the large corporations to do with as they please under the TPPA. Anyone else notice how difficult it is to ‘share’, posts like this on face book? Am unable to post this on my time line???




    0



    0
    1. Hi, Jill. You should be able to just click the little FB button in the top right under the video title. Or, simply copy and paste into your FB feed. Thanks for sharing this important video!




      0



      0
      1. When I cliick the post page to fb, it comes up with the blue share box out off site below the bottom of the screen. Have tried various things but keep being blocked from sharing.




        0



        0
    2. I cut/paste share to FB all the time. I cut the “preview” most times though. Dr. G uses some disturbing graphics/images often and I don’t care to re-distribute those as it looks “newsy” to me. My friends probably hate it (and nip me from their feeds)-rarely get any responses. We are brainwashed to think restricting calories and exercise can overcome eating all the junk we are used to and folks hold STRONGLY onto those “norms”.

      WFPB is just SO EASY! (and beneficial). I’ve had exactly one person say, I think I’ll try that for a couple of days (from personal contact, not “social media”). Anxious to hear how she made out. Cheers.




      0



      0
      1. I share your frustration at more people not being willing to TRY WFPB. DH and I have hosted ‘dinner and a movie’ evenings (WFPB + Forks Over Knives) reaching about 5 dozen people over the last 4 years and most don’t make changes, but a few do – to greatly improved health. Recently we were surprised to hear about 2 new ‘converts’ just from talking about our experience: one couple said overhearing us talk about our new way of eating two years ago motivated them to change (I didn’t remember them or the conversation) and another was a pair of travelers with whom we shared a meal of leftovers who were ready to make a change for health reasons and were motivated by our experience to go ahead and do it. You never know what ripples will ensue when you toss pebbles in a pond!




        0



        0
        1. I suppose that part of the problem is that I’ve always been a bit “healthier” than others, mostly because of cycling. I haven’t had hypertension, or obesity, or cardio event, or a cancer, so my experience isn’t a “BIG” one. “Two days” feeling better and then easy, no exercise weight loss is the “best” I can tell them–until I get some blood work and report my new cholesterol numbers.

          It’s just so easy to get so excited about feeling better and being healthier, allowing your body to repair the damage you’ve done to it over the years, AND to eat until you are FULL with ABSOLUTELY NO GUILT or REGRET or WEIGHT gain. But they just look at you…

          Weird is good. Maybe I should move to Portland. 8-p




          0



          0
      2. Wade, I know just what you mean. People will respond to any fluff that gets posted…silly, inane, nonsense, but will not take a few minutes to show some concern for their own welfare…too real I guess! Society is so deep in “de Nile”, they are drowning!




        0



        0
  4. Guys really only asking you to watch this video. Realize this film is not about capitalism! This film about a healthy life. To live happily ever after and not get sick




    0



    0
    1. It is, however, about corporatism. Corporatism and capitalism are not one and the same. In fact they can be diametrically opposed.




      0



      0
  5. When problems are posed to the human mind that are very specific, we are able to think about, apply techniques and solve them. The problem of how to make more money, increase profits, cut costs, motivates most of our society, instead of how to produce things that are good, harmless or even helpful to the environment, and beneficial to jobs and society.

    When put in terms of profit we have seen some really disturbing things, a lot of them revealed on this website. I am still seeing things in the supermarkets that continue this trend. Just the other day I was grocery shopping and I saw a new product from whoever Hostess ( the Twinkie makers ) is now … chocolate covered Twinkies. In other words we are still moving strongly in the direction of unhealthy and disgusting food.

    I like to think about how we can reframe the mission for corporations. For example, if we got rid of the anti-social health insurance companies and had single payer health care how long would it be before each and every one of us started looking around and seeing all the fat kids and adults that are all costing us tons of money? How long before we would be employing our human genius to cut down on medical costs in ways that are doable and helpful?

    If the incentives are right people will do the right thing, at least most of them will.

    Another thing is the “front group” comment in this video, about how people, governments and corporations all indulge in trying to manipulate reality. For example if you go on to any website that discusses climate change as soon as you mention it, global warming, you get a swarm of what appear to be real people with the real opinion that climate change is fiction. Just from the numbers one has to guess that at least some of these people are being employed to do this. We need a way to detect this, and we need some kind of law, maybe similar to the Fairness Doctrine ( another subject that gets quick responses on the Internet ) that makes it a crime to try to manipulate reality. Maybe money in elections could be considered another form of this.




    0



    0
    1. The countries with single payer have effective low cost health care. We have expensive ineffective pharmaceutical run health care. Figure it out.
      John S




      0



      0
  6. Big biz will not be controlled by big Gov, because they sleep together.

    We must educate ourselves and act accordingly, so long as we are allowed to do such.




    0



    0
  7. And it continues as we speak… The bill to defund the
    Dietary Guidelines was passed in the House Labor HHS Appropriations
    Committee. The good news is that the House Agriculture Appropriations
    have deferred their vote until next week. Two spending bills in the House would set a new threshold for the science that can be used in setting the guidelines, saying the government only can make recommendations based on the strongest science. The recommendation that a more plant-based diet is better for the environment is based on science rated “moderate” in the report. The moderate threshold means there’s a strong body of scientific evidence to support the recommendation, but it’s not as conclusive and won’t be used in the Dietary Guidelines. We need your help Joseph and Dr. Gregor!…Call your Representative and ask they support the Dietary Guidelines and plant based nutrition! It only takes a minute to help the fight against Big Ag, Big Soda, Big Disease!




    0



    0
    1. Dr. Greger is fighting the good fight.
      Specifically:
      http://nutritionfacts.org/2014/01/16/2015-dietary-guidelines-committee/:
      And more broadly:
      http://nutritionfacts.org/?s=dietary+guidelines
      Regarding environmental concerns, have a look at the documentary ‘A River of Waste’ in which Dr. Greger is featured prominently. Also, check out PBS FRONTLINE ‘The Trouble with Antibiotics’ and ‘The Trouble with Chicken.’
      P.S. nutritionmuse, my reply isn’t directed specifically at you, but rather to the community at large. You have provided an opportunity for me to share and I ‘capitalized’ on it ;-)




      0



      0
    2. Second that! We have been trying to do our part :-) Dr. Greger and I went to the white house and in 2011 before the USDA released their new “plate” diagram, based on the 2010 DGFA. Dr. Greger gave his testimony before the DGFA committee and if anyone wants to hear the actual communication it can be found here. I think he is at 2:06:00. Another speaker is Dr. Barnard who addresses the issue at hand. He is probably like 15 min before Dr. Greger, addressing the AHA/ACC report directly, which addresses cholesterol. Thanks for mentioning this important information, nutritionmuse!




      0



      0
      1. Thank you, Joseph, for the link to the AHA/ACC report. An amazing body of work. Extremely informative and self-empowering. I love NF,org and the vast majority of posters. Thank you all. I have learned so much from your contributions!




        0



        0
    3. I don’t live in the USA but if I did I would certainly comply with your plea. I do live in a kinda free-ish country and I have contacted my rep but they sorta laughed and said it was not really “in their brief to lecture people on which diet to follow.”

      Whos brief is it in? Fruit of the loom? ick




      0



      0
  8. Thanks Doc!
    The USA contains one of the most beautiful lands in the world. This country could reliably export a very diverse range of the most amazing real pure foods across the globe if it decided to. Other countries would become highly dependant on these exports. China, for example, is willing to buy just about any real food that comes out of Australia for example. Clinging to the export of franken foods is another ‘Lehman Brothers’ collapse waiting to happen – people will realise in the end they are dead assets. We all know what happened after that little number…




    0



    0
  9. Only vaguely on topic, but I grow a lot of my own food and sprouts and stuff, and get most of the rest from a local resource that isn’t a supermarket. I happened to look at a flyer from one in the mail today, and I was flabbergasted that I couldn’t find a single thing that I would purchase in their entire 8 page ad, besides maybe produce! It was all processed garbage loaded with sugar, fat and flour! Really pathetic what passes as “food”!!!




    0



    0
  10. What do you expect from the same country that declared a corporation has the rights of a human being but some actual human beings until recently couldn’t marry? Corporations rule the US, and it is up to us to be educated to see through their lies and deceit.




    0



    0
    1. The unfortunate face of the ugly multinational corporation and the pandering politician. These are not limited to one particular country.




      0



      0
      1. I was mostly alluding to the 1950’s novel titled The Ugly American.

        You’re right, this isn’t limited to any particular country, but it was our government, as noted in the above video, that attempted to bully the WHO by threatening to withhold funding. America presents lots of faces to the world often compassionate and generous, but there’s little doubt that we’re seeing an ugly one here. And I’m afraid that we’re responsible for our own pandering politicians..




        0



        0
  11. From M. Chan’s speech, mentioned above:

    Efforts to prevent noncommunicable diseases go against the business interests of powerful economic operators. In my view, this is
    one of the biggest challenges facing health promotion.As the new publication makes clear, it is not just Big Tobacco anymore. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation, and protect themselves by using the same tactics. Research has documented these tactics well. They include front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits, and
    industry-funded research that confuses the evidence and keeps the public in doubt. Tactics also include gifts, grants, and contributions to
    worthy causes that cast these industries as respectable corporate citizens in the eyes of politicians and the public. They include
    arguments that place the responsibility for harm to health on individuals, and portray government actions as interference in personal
    liberties and free choice.This is formidable opposition. Market power readily translates into political power. Few governments prioritize health over big business. As we learned from experience with the tobacco industry, a powerful corporation can sell the public just about anything.
    Let me remind you. Not one single country has managed to turn around its obesity epidemic in all age groups. This is not a failure of
    individual will-power. This is a failure of political will to take on big business.

    To read the entire text of this remarkable speech, go to http://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2013/health_promotion_20130610/en/




    0



    0
  12. Since today we are concerned with food politics, a luminary in this field from a legal perspective is Michele Simon, JD, MPH. To my eyes, her website represents the entire geography of food politics, and is an invaluable resource of information to understand what is going on ‘out there,’ and the efforts being made to protect us from ‘profits before people’ industries and government.
    http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/about/




    0



    0
      1. You’re welcome. We are literally on the same page here. Folks can check out my earlier reply to John way up top to link to Ms. Lappe’s (et.al.) pdf report. As has been said here by others, we may not be able to do much about all of this, but we can at least be aware of it and choose how to respond. In my case, it is by making a commitment to an optimal plant-based lifestyle and promoting the efforts of those who expose the Big Lies and make the effort to push back responsibly.




        0



        0
  13. Thank you for this enlightening facts that greed is the main culprit behind the death and debilitating illnesses of millions of people; greediness from the Pharmaceutical Industries, their lobbyists in the congress, their cronies in the FDA, the media they owned, their puppet hospital administrators with their spineless medical doctors and many more who dips their fingers in it.




    0



    0
  14. Hmmm. When I think of this topic Ethenol fuels comes to mind for some reason. Lobbyists push to add alcohol to gasoline to supposedly help the environment and reduce gas dependency… Yet it’s highly subsidized to make it possible and popular. Then oppps. Well the chemicals they add to keep blended gas at a proper octane seeps into the ground and water supplies. It’s terrible for the environment, it’s terrible for our pocket books and health.

    Clearly agriculture has a huge lobbying arm with great influence in the world markets. This will remain a fact of life and it seems to me the best way to combat bad products is for science to continue to expose the flaws in their products to our health Or to educate us on how to avoid falling prey to products thst may be harmful to our lives…




    0



    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This