| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International | |
| US sugar barons ’block global war on obesity’ | |
| 2004-01-18 | |
| Leading Wonder if the WHO will have any time to deal with the health problems of hunger, starvation, and tribal war? Since 1990, successive US governments have blocked WHO calls for action, claims Norum, professor of medicine at Oslo University. Norum is the most senior scientist involved in an attempt to formulate a worldwide policy to fight heart disease and diabetes resulting from a junk food diet. Common sense would say, allright, don’t eat as much junk food. But I have a feeling that Norum and WHO have a different approach, one devoid of common sense. The letter from Norum will put Bush under And this is a problem for the WHO, how? The President insists fighting fat is a matter for the individual, not the state. But today The Observer reveals how he and fellow senators have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from ’Big Sugar’. One of his main fundraisers is sugar baron Jose ’Pepe’ Fanjul, head of Florida Crystals, who has raised at least $100,000 for November’s presidential re-election campaign. By the same [cough] logic, Howard Dean is in big trouble with the musically intelligent since he took a donation from Barbra Striesand. Norum’s letter is an angry response to the Americans’ decision to submit a 30-page report, criticising the WHO strategy for its lack of sound scientific evidence. It will be discussed at a key meeting of its executive board in Geneva on Tuesday. The Bush administration, which receives millions in funding from the sugar industry, argues there is little robust evidence to show that drinking sugary drinks or eating too much sugar is a direct cause of obesity. It particularly opposes a recommendation that just 10 per cent of people’s energy intake should come from added sugar. The US has a 25 per cent guideline. I’d say that how much sugar we consume is not the WHO’s business, but what do I know? Another leading obesity
But that would put Norum out of business! | |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #22 OP (#20) "...offer a bounty on their heads" No, no, no! Sell hunting licenses. You get rid of them and make money. Might even pay for a trip to Mars. |
| Posted by: lk 2004-1-19 12:16:44 AM |
| #21 Ya gotta love the Internet, guys. AMAZING facts and figures available at the click of a mouse...like the world's top ten sugar produxers at the end of 2002 (the last year for which full figures are available): COUNTRY PRODUCTION (IN MILLIONS OF TONS) Brazil 22,703 India 19,457 EU 18,341 China 9,783 USA 7,425 Thailand 6,895 Australia 5,569 SADC 5,467 Mexico 5,062 Cuba 2,400 I kinda think all those Brazilian, Indian, EU, and Chinese sugar barons got a LOT more to lose than we do. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-18 10:44:12 PM |
| #20 Once more, the rabid idiotarians of the world target the United States. Their agenda has nothing to do with what they say it is, it's all about forcing the United States to kowtow to the United Nations. I think it's time we declare these people "enemies of the people of the United States", and offer a bounty on their heads - say, $500 a pop. Since there's so many idiotarians, we need to set aside a couple of $billion for payouts. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-18 2:59:58 PM |
| #19 Free the Fatty 5 Million! |
| Posted by: anon radical 2004-1-18 1:54:54 PM |
| #18 Raj - well, heavy duty stuff like tree planting, you betcha. Putting in a couple petunias, well, no.....but either way, at least you would be doing something other than parking your butt on the sofa and eating junk food. I just wish they would make up their minds at the UN.....first we're starving Iraqis with sanctions, next, we're plotting to make the world incredibly fat. What is it, guys? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-1-18 1:10:18 PM |
| #17 Without Sugar There Can Be No BBQ. Without BBQ There Can Be No Peace. Free Lunch! Free Lunch! Free Lunch! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-18 12:41:44 PM |
| #16 Paul Wilson? Sure he was Golden Spike award winner at FSU. He's a writer now? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-18 11:59:40 AM |
| #15 I remember when this was a science fiction story by F. Paul Wilson (if you didn't know, "Lipidleggin'"). |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-18 11:55:39 AM |
| #14 Gardening? GARDENING??!?? Is she freakin' serious? Get on your bike and ride! |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-1-18 10:53:07 AM |
| #13 I'm sorry, guys, but I just don't feel confident or competent making decisions for myself. It's a big scary world and I think the government should protect me from it. I would feel much better paying in 80% or more of my income to support a bureaucracy that did all that for me. This is a mantra I use to alleviate stress when faced with personal decisions or personal responsibility. Repeat after me: "It takes a village... It takes a village..." |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-1-18 10:12:45 AM |
| #12 The President insists fighting fat is a matter for the individual, not the state. How dare he believe in individual liberty! God, I wish we could vote to exile people from civilization. Busybodies like Norum deserve to be cast into the wilderness. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-18 9:24:15 AM |
| #11 "The President insists fighting fat is a matter for the individual, not the state." The President doesn't have to "insist" any such thing: to most Americans, it is a matter for the individual, and the government should mind its own damned business and stay the hell out of our lives. I don't fault Bush for opposing the UN and its multitude of meddlesome nanny-state busybody agencies- I fault him for not telling the UN to go to hell, outright. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-1-18 8:38:41 AM |
| #10 Latest dispatch from the front lines of the "global war on obesity:" The 342nd Mechanized Liposuction Brigade launched a major offensive near the city of Bellybutton today. "We see a lot of big, fat targets," said a spokesman. . . . |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-1-18 8:27:06 AM |
| #9 The sugar subsidy is all about the Cuban-American anti-Castro movement. Any donations Bush gets in that light is political and not about shoving sugar down our throats. I agree the subsidy should go but this is a foolish distortion. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-18 7:52:12 AM |
| #8 sounds like the first drumbeat for a int'l sugar/obesity tax |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-18 7:41:49 AM |
| #7 DIY? Wonder what WHO has to say about France having wine at every meal,And Germany having beer with every meal? |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-1-18 6:23:43 AM |
| #6 "You! Yes, you! Smith7162543! You're not trying, brother! I want to see you touch those toes!" -- 1984 |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-1-18 2:35:16 AM |
| #5 Steve: "Refined, simple carbs like glucose and fructose (e.g., candy, etc) generally cause spikes in your insulin levels. That's appropriate to handle the sugar, but in the long run it promotes fat formation." That contention is the basis of various low-carb high-protein diets. The Canadian Sugar Institute naturally disagrees and has a number of scientifically authoritative and well-referenced rebuttals on its website. Most notable is Carbohydrate Intake and Obesity – An Epidemiological Perspective By Alison Stephen Ph.D CANTOX Health Sciences International, ON "In an era of enthusiasm for low carbohydrate diets as the answer for weight control, it is worthwhile to note that most observational studies do not support such a conclusion. Large dietary surveys conducted on different age groups in numerous countries show inverse relationships between obesity and carbohydrate intake, both in grams per day and as percentage of energy, in contrast to positive relationships with dietary fat (1,2). Research with adult American males, using skin fold to assess body fat, found the fattest subjects ate more fat and less carbohydrate than lean subjects (3). Similarly, a recent survey in Spain showed lower carbohydrate intakes were found in overweight adolescents compared to those of normal weight (4).[Excerpted] We can infer from the fate of the US candy industry that any influence the sugar lobby does buy is directed much more at maintaining high prices than at undermining any kind of anti-obesity campaign. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-1-18 2:21:37 AM |
| #4 AC, carb's are actually as big a problem as fat. Refined, simple carbs like glucose and fructose (e.g., candy, etc) generally cause spikes in your insulin levels. That's appropriate to handle the sugar, but in the long run it promotes fat formation. That surge also causes blood sugar levels to dive, and then you get hungry as hell, and eat some more. A2U: sugar lobby really does have to go. Chicago (my home town) has no candy industry to speak of anymore. The sugar tariffs are just as bad as the steel tariffs. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-1-18 1:15:44 AM |
| #3 And now Fannie May's gone, too!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have any idea how many jobs? We've lost Brach's, Frangos, FM, and other specialty companies. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-1-18 1:12:28 AM |
| #2 The sugar lobby must go. Chicago was the candy capital, we've lost a hell of a lot of jobs because we pay 15 cents more a pound domestically. It was 15c when I read the article about 2 years ago which made the point the American candy Life Savers moved to Canada. And I have no doubt in my mind that if Hershey's was able to spin off, they'd be outta Hershey, PA. Just like steel tariffs, losing more good paying jobs than gaining. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-1-18 1:11:19 AM |
| #1 What a giant steaming crock of conspiracist junk-science. It is well-documented that dietary fat is a significantly more important factor in obesity than is refined sugar. The same is true to a lesser degree for carbohydrates other than refined sugar. The latter of course is the main product is the main product of "big sugar." If sugar is such a big risk factor, why aren't the people of Britain, the world's largest consumers of sweets, all as fat as the Hindenburg? Yet again, we have a conspiracy theory based on clairvoyant and therefore unverifiable claims about intent and motivation. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-1-18 1:01:48 AM |