Philippic
Sun, Oct-03-04, 06:15
Sugar's secret sweetener offer to health chiefs
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1318-
635,00.html
Industry hopes cash will influence anti-obesity drive
Jo Revill, health editor Sunday October 3, 2004 The Observer
The sugar industry is planning to offer substantial sums of
sponsorship money to the World Health Organisation as part of
a secret attempt to influence the body's attempts to combat
obesity worldwide. The Observer has obtained a confidential
briefing document outlining the sugar producers' new strategy
for getting into the key meetings held in the WHO's Geneva
headquarters.
The document was written by the British head of the World
Sugar Research Organisation, which is wholly funded by
sugar producers. It reveals the body's intention to offer a
large amount of funding in order to be granted
non-governmental organisation (NGO) status - something it
has so far been denied.
But the document also shows how the organisation has analysed
whether the key WHO officials are hostile to its interests,
highlighting its desire to win over policymakers who will have
a big influence on countries that are trying to improve their
national diet.
The document has dismayed officials at WHO and food
campaigners, who believe the industry is trying to subvert
attempts to introduce policies aimed at reducing sugar levels.
After being shown the document, Professor Philip James - a
world authority on food who drafted the first report warning
of the threat of obesity back in 1990 and is now chair of the
International Obesity Taskforce - said: 'This is a ruthless
and vicious strategy to undermine the work being done around
the world to enable people to have healthier diets.
'Does the sugar industry really believe it can bribe the WHO?
Has it come to this?'
Evidence is mounting that sugar is not only the cause of tooth
decay, but also one of the major causes of obesity and heart
disease. Nutritionists believe governments should be doing far
more to warn the public of the dangers of foods which contain
high sugar levels.
Earlier this year, the WHO produced its Global Strategy on
Diet, Physical Activity and Health, in the face of lobbying
from food manufacturers and, in particular, countries with
strong sugar interests. The industry managed to ensure that
the strategy did not refer to an expert report, known as 916,
which recommended that no more than 10 per cent of an adult's
daily calorific intake should come from added sugar.
But, at the same time, Britain and France were instrumental
in preventing the sugar lobby from being granted NGO status
at the meetings, despite intense pressure from the United
States and elsewhere. However, such opposition has not
stopped its attempts.
A report prepared by Dr Richard Cottrell, director general of
the WSRO and head of the Sugar Bureau in London, was written
after an informal meeting this summer with Andre Prost, a WHO
director with reponsibility for liaising between his
organisation and private industry.
'It is clear that WSRO will need to offer some form of
collaboration with WHO, involving substantial sponsorship, to
be considered for NGO status,' Cottrell writes. He adds: 'What
is not clear is the extent of sponsorship expected and whether
it will be possible to identify a project that would be
acceptable to WHO but of direct value to the sugar industry.'
The document also names officials whom they believe to be
blocking their way. 'It is also clear that certain individuals
connected with Report 916 remain implacably hostile to the
sugar industry, including [Derek] Yach.' Yach, a key figure in
formulating the 916 report, has since left.
'Fortunately,' Cottrell continues, ' there does not now seem
to be a defined group of anti-sugar staff within WHO.'
However, Cottrell also suggests that the head of WHO, Lee
Jong-Wook, may not be in place for too long. 'Dr Lee is
apparently not inclined to allow WHO to become heavily
involved in implementing any diet and health activities. He is
himself under pressure, however, as a result of the poor
performance of several of his senior appointees.'
The report illustrates the measures the industry is prepared
to adopt to circumvent an international attempt to improve
public health. The US Sugar Association questioned the
validity of the 916 report at every stage, and even suggested
to President Bush that he withdraw funding from WHO unless the
10 per cent recommendation was withdrawn.
It also emerged earlier this year that the US had submitted a
30-page report criticising the WHO for its lack of scientific
evidence. 'Big sugar' gives millions of dollars to the
Republican party, and to the the Bush campaign, and the
President's administration argued that there was little robust
evidence to show that eating too much sugar was a direct cause
of obesity.
Leading scientists took up the cause shortly before the
crucial World Health Assembly meeting in May, accusing the US
of making the health of millions of young Americans 'a hostage
to fortune' because they had failed to combat their own
epidemic of a diet laden with fat and sugar.
But today's new document shows that the sugar battle is far
from over and that the industry is intent on entering into the
discussions.
Cottrell was yesterday determined to defend his position,
despite the leaking of his own report. He said: 'We are not
expecting [to have] undue influence; we simply want an
opportunity to make our expertise available.'
But the report was met with astonishment at the WHO, which
countered any suggestion that sponsorship money would win the
industry a place at the discussion table.
Dr Catherine le Galles-Camus, assistant director of the
department dealing with the global strategy, said: 'They know
we are not keen to see some trade association being recognised
as an NGO.
'From the beginning, they [the sugar industry] have used these
tactics. We do work with the private sector but only as far as
it is committed to preventing disease.'
--
Philippic
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1318-
635,00.html
Industry hopes cash will influence anti-obesity drive
Jo Revill, health editor Sunday October 3, 2004 The Observer
The sugar industry is planning to offer substantial sums of
sponsorship money to the World Health Organisation as part of
a secret attempt to influence the body's attempts to combat
obesity worldwide. The Observer has obtained a confidential
briefing document outlining the sugar producers' new strategy
for getting into the key meetings held in the WHO's Geneva
headquarters.
The document was written by the British head of the World
Sugar Research Organisation, which is wholly funded by
sugar producers. It reveals the body's intention to offer a
large amount of funding in order to be granted
non-governmental organisation (NGO) status - something it
has so far been denied.
But the document also shows how the organisation has analysed
whether the key WHO officials are hostile to its interests,
highlighting its desire to win over policymakers who will have
a big influence on countries that are trying to improve their
national diet.
The document has dismayed officials at WHO and food
campaigners, who believe the industry is trying to subvert
attempts to introduce policies aimed at reducing sugar levels.
After being shown the document, Professor Philip James - a
world authority on food who drafted the first report warning
of the threat of obesity back in 1990 and is now chair of the
International Obesity Taskforce - said: 'This is a ruthless
and vicious strategy to undermine the work being done around
the world to enable people to have healthier diets.
'Does the sugar industry really believe it can bribe the WHO?
Has it come to this?'
Evidence is mounting that sugar is not only the cause of tooth
decay, but also one of the major causes of obesity and heart
disease. Nutritionists believe governments should be doing far
more to warn the public of the dangers of foods which contain
high sugar levels.
Earlier this year, the WHO produced its Global Strategy on
Diet, Physical Activity and Health, in the face of lobbying
from food manufacturers and, in particular, countries with
strong sugar interests. The industry managed to ensure that
the strategy did not refer to an expert report, known as 916,
which recommended that no more than 10 per cent of an adult's
daily calorific intake should come from added sugar.
But, at the same time, Britain and France were instrumental
in preventing the sugar lobby from being granted NGO status
at the meetings, despite intense pressure from the United
States and elsewhere. However, such opposition has not
stopped its attempts.
A report prepared by Dr Richard Cottrell, director general of
the WSRO and head of the Sugar Bureau in London, was written
after an informal meeting this summer with Andre Prost, a WHO
director with reponsibility for liaising between his
organisation and private industry.
'It is clear that WSRO will need to offer some form of
collaboration with WHO, involving substantial sponsorship, to
be considered for NGO status,' Cottrell writes. He adds: 'What
is not clear is the extent of sponsorship expected and whether
it will be possible to identify a project that would be
acceptable to WHO but of direct value to the sugar industry.'
The document also names officials whom they believe to be
blocking their way. 'It is also clear that certain individuals
connected with Report 916 remain implacably hostile to the
sugar industry, including [Derek] Yach.' Yach, a key figure in
formulating the 916 report, has since left.
'Fortunately,' Cottrell continues, ' there does not now seem
to be a defined group of anti-sugar staff within WHO.'
However, Cottrell also suggests that the head of WHO, Lee
Jong-Wook, may not be in place for too long. 'Dr Lee is
apparently not inclined to allow WHO to become heavily
involved in implementing any diet and health activities. He is
himself under pressure, however, as a result of the poor
performance of several of his senior appointees.'
The report illustrates the measures the industry is prepared
to adopt to circumvent an international attempt to improve
public health. The US Sugar Association questioned the
validity of the 916 report at every stage, and even suggested
to President Bush that he withdraw funding from WHO unless the
10 per cent recommendation was withdrawn.
It also emerged earlier this year that the US had submitted a
30-page report criticising the WHO for its lack of scientific
evidence. 'Big sugar' gives millions of dollars to the
Republican party, and to the the Bush campaign, and the
President's administration argued that there was little robust
evidence to show that eating too much sugar was a direct cause
of obesity.
Leading scientists took up the cause shortly before the
crucial World Health Assembly meeting in May, accusing the US
of making the health of millions of young Americans 'a hostage
to fortune' because they had failed to combat their own
epidemic of a diet laden with fat and sugar.
But today's new document shows that the sugar battle is far
from over and that the industry is intent on entering into the
discussions.
Cottrell was yesterday determined to defend his position,
despite the leaking of his own report. He said: 'We are not
expecting [to have] undue influence; we simply want an
opportunity to make our expertise available.'
But the report was met with astonishment at the WHO, which
countered any suggestion that sponsorship money would win the
industry a place at the discussion table.
Dr Catherine le Galles-Camus, assistant director of the
department dealing with the global strategy, said: 'They know
we are not keen to see some trade association being recognised
as an NGO.
'From the beginning, they [the sugar industry] have used these
tactics. We do work with the private sector but only as far as
it is committed to preventing disease.'
--
Philippic