Search results: sugar policy

Here is a summary of another funded study with results the funder must love.

Joint associations between weekday and weekend physical activity or sedentary time and childhood obesity.  Li N, and 19 additional authors for the ISCOLE Research Group. International Journal of Obesity (2019) 43:691–700.

Conclusions: Lower levels of MVPA [moderate to vigorous physical activity] or higher levels of sedentary time on either weekdays or weekend were associated with increased odds of obesity in 9–11 year old children in 12 countries.

Funding: The International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE) was funded by The Coca-Cola Company… With the exception of requiring that the study be global in nature, the funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Comment: This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain.  Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.  Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake.

I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.  In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, “not the other way around.”

He also questions the “no influence” statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of

emails between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in Unsavory Truth, the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.

As I also discuss in that book, Coca-Cola generously funded the ISCOLE study some years ago.  It has since changed its policy on research funding.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have issued a joint statement endorsing soda taxes along with other policies aimed at reducing risks for childhood obesity (the full statement is published in Pediatrics).

The AAP and AHA recommend:

• Local, state and national policymakers should consider raising the price of sugary drinks, such as via an excise tax, along with an accompanying educational campaign. Tax revenues should go in part toward reducing health and socioeconomic disparities.

• Federal and state governments should support efforts to decrease sugary drink marketing to children and teens.

• Healthy drinks such as water and milk should be the default beverages on children’s menus and in vending machines, and federal nutrition assistance programs should ensure access to healthy food and beverages and discourage consumption of sugary drinks.

• Children, adolescents, and their families should have ready access to credible nutrition information, including on nutrition labels, restaurant menus, and advertisements.

• Hospitals should serve as a model and establish policies to limit or discourage purchase of sugary drinks.

Comment:  This action of the AAP is truly remarkable.  In 2015, this Academy was heavily criticized for taking funding from Coca-Cola and, surely not coincidentally, saying little about the need for children to reduce consumption of sugary drinks.  Once exposed, the AAP said it could no longer accept that funding. I did, however, hear an alternative story.  Coca-Cola officials told me that as a result of their transparency initiative, the company would no longer fund the Pediatric, Dietetic, and Family Practice Academies.  It is also hardly a coincidence that now that the AAP no longer takes money from Coke, it is free to promote soda taxes as a useful public health strategy.

In response to my post of last week on Bud Light’s use of corn syrup as a means to attack competing beer companies, I received this note from John Bode, the president and CEO of the Corn Refiners Association.

I met Mr. Bode years ago, when I was working in Washington DC and he was assistant secretary for agriculture under President Reagan, and we continue to correspond occasionally.

Dear Marion,

I realize you disagree with various policy positions the Corn Refiners Association has taken, but your characterization of CRA as promoting corn syrup and HFCS is out of date.  Since shortly after I joined the association five years ago, CRA policy has forbid promotion of increased consumption of corn sweeteners and other nutritive sweeteners.

As noted on our website and in comments we’ve made in comments regarding federal food regulations, we do not promote the increased consumption of sugars – “CRA recognizes that many Americans need to reduce their total intake of calories, including calories from sugars and sweeteners, thus CRA does not promote increased consumption of sugars or other caloric sources.” (see website)

I hope you find this information helpful.

As I discussed in my book, Unsavory Truth, I had some bad experiences with the CRA in its pre-Bode era.  Mr. Bode is trying to do better but it’s tough to represent sugars of any kind these days.  I appreciate his writing to me and granting permission to reproduce his note.

The Lancet has been busy.  Last week, it published a blockbuster report on the need for worldwide dietary changes to improve human health and that of the environment.  I posted about this EAT-Forum report on Friday.

Now, The Lancet releases yet another report, this one taking a unified approach to dealing with the three most important nutrition issues facing the world: Malnutrition (undernutrition), obesity, and the effects of our food production and consumption system on the environment and climate change—for which this report coins a new term: The Global Syndemic.

This report breaks new ground in identifying the food industry as one of three main barriers to ending this “Syndemic.”  I’ve added the numbers for emphasis.

• Powerful opposition by [1] commercial vested interests, [2] lack of political leadership, and [3] insufficient societal demand for change are preventing action on The Global Syndemic, with rising rates of obesity and greenhouse gas emissions, and stagnating rates of undernutrition.
• New social movement for change and radical rethink of the relationship between policymakers, business, governance and civil society is urgently needed.
• The Commission calls for a global treaty to limit the political influence of Big Food (a proposed Framework Convention on Food Systems – modelled on global conventions on tobacco and climate change); redirection of US$5 trillion in government subsidies away from harmful products and towards sustainable alternatives; and advocacy from civil society to break decades of policy inertia.

Wow.  This is telling it like it is—at long last.  From the press release:

• A key recommendation from the Commission is the call to establish a new global treaty on food systems to limit the political influence of Big Food.
• The food industry’s obstructive power is further enhanced by governance arrangements that legitimise industry participation in public policy development, and the power that big corporations have to punish or reward governments by relocating investment and jobs.
• Regulatory approaches to product reformulation (eg. salt and sugar reduction), labelling and marketing to children are needed because industry-led, voluntary approaches have not been effective.

Yes!

The documents

• The Press Release
• The Policy Brief
• The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report – Boyd A Swinburn et al. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32822-8/fulltext
• Obesity needs to be put into a much wider context – Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)33192-1/fulltext
• Rethinking systems to reverse the global syndemic – Rachel Nugent, RTI International https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)33243-4/fulltext
• Transforming food systems for better health – José Graziano da Silva, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)33249-5/fulltext

The press

▪ The Guardian
▪ The Times (London)
▪ Irish Farmers Journal

Additional press, posted January 30

Newswires (syndicated in international outlets):

• ‘Radical rethink’ needed to tackle obesity, hunger, climate: report – Agence France-Presse
• To fix climate change, fix the obesity and starvation epidemics, reports say – CNN
• Obesity, bad nutrition, climate change pose triple danger, commission says – Reuters
• Also covered by Xinhua, IANS.

UK:

• Public health experts call for global food treaty – Financial Times
• Take on food industry to beat malnutrition and obesity, says report – The Guardian
• Tackling obesity ‘needs treaty like climate change’ – The Times
• Also covered by BBC Radio 4, BBC 1 Breakfast, BBC News 24, The Economist (Espresso), The Guardian (Op-ed), The Telegraph, The Independent, Daily Mail.

US:

• Report: ‘Radical Rethink’ Needed to Tackle Obesity, Hunger, Climate – Voice of America
• Big Food Blamed for Ills Far Beyond Flab in Sweeping Report – Bloomberg
• Want to fix obesity and climate change at the same time? Make Big Food companies pay. – Vox
• Also covered by Thomas Reuters Foundation, Devdiscourse.

Rest of world:

• Vested interests, misplaced economic incentive major drivers: Lancet report – Indian Express
• Obesity, malnutrition 2 sides of climate change – Hindustan Times
• Eat right to save the planet – Deccan Chronicle
• Also covered by El Pais, O Globo, The Wire, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Japan Times, New Zealand Herald, The Australian, El Confidential, Algemeen Dagblad, Nouvel Observateur.

I was fascinated to see this FoodNavigator account of the recent United Nations’ call for action on nutrition.

The lengthy new UN resolution on “a healthier world through better nutrition” begins with pages of preliminary comments before getting to bland admonitions that member states should improve nutrition, health conditions, and living standards; address hunger and malnutrition; and promote food security, food safety, and sustainable, resilient, and diverse food systems.

The resolution encourages member states to strengthen nutrition policies that promote breastfeeding and control the marketing of breast-milk substitutes.

It also promotes physical activity. It

Calls upon Member States to develop actions to promote physical activity in the entire population and for all ages, through the provision of safe public environments and recreational spaces, the promotion of sports, physical education programmes in schools and urban planning which encourages active transport.

What got FoodNavigator’s—and my—attention, however, was its encouragement of member nations to:

develop health- and nutrition-promoting environments, including through nutrition education in schools and other education institutions, as appropriate.

Nutrition education?  That’s it on improving the nutrition environment?

Nothing about curbs on food industry marketing practices, front-of-package food labels, soda or sugar taxes, or other policies established to be effective in improving nutritional health (see, for example, the policies listed on the World Health Organization’s database, or the NOURISHING database of The World Cancer Research Fund).

The UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report on the value of education in improving the food environment.  Its author, Corinna Hawkes, makes it clear that education is useful, but is far more effective when it thoroughly involves policies to change the food environment.

nutrition education actions are more likely to yield positive results…when actions are implemented as part of large, multi-component interventions, rather than information provision or direct education alone. It is notable that governments have been taking an increasing number of actions involving multiple components, such as combining policies on nutrition labels with education campaigns, public awareness campaigns with food product reformulation, and school food standards with educational initiatives in schools.

The resolution says none of this.  Even so, it did not pass unanimously.  The vote:

• Yes:       157 countries
• No:           2 (Libya and the United States)
• Abstain:    1 (Hungary)

And why did the United States vote no?  The US mission to the UN explains its position on the grounds—and I am not making this up—that the resolution:

• Favors abortion:  “We do not recognize abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”​
• Promotes free trade in medicines: “This could lead to misinterpretation of international trade obligations in a manner which may negatively affect countries’ abilities to incentivise new drug development and expand access to medicines.”​
• Promotes migration: “we believe [the resolution represents]…an effort by the United Nations to advance global governance at the expense of the sovereign rights of States to manage their immigration systems in accordance with their national laws and interests.”​

To be clear: UN resolutions are non-binding.  The UN cannot tell member countries what to do.  All it can do is exert leadership and moral force.

When it comes to the food environment these days, we need all the moral force we can get.  We didn’t get it here.

FoodNavigator-USA has collected its recent articles on food industry lawsuits.  As it puts it,

There have been hundreds of class action lawsuits directed against food and beverage companies in the past five years, spanning everything from added sugar, ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ claims, to glyphosate residues, and alkaline water claims. We take a look at some high profile cases, some emerging hot topics from Non GMO claims to a new wave of kombucha lawsuits, and what’s coming up from the FDA, from plant-based ‘milk’ labeling guidance to a fresh look at ‘healthy’ and ‘natural’ labeling.

I’ve organized these into categories.

GMOs

• And now the food lawsuits… General Mills sued over glyphosate residue post Monsanto $289m verdict: Monsanto has just been ordered to pay $289m in damages to a man who alleged its glyphosate-based herbicide caused his cancer (a ruling it is appealing). But what, if anything, does this verdict mean for food companies manufacturing products containing trace levels of glyphosate?.. Read
• Nestlé USA lawsuit highlights confusion over Non-GMO claims, say attorneys: A lawsuit alleging that Nestlé USA is misleading shoppers with its ‘No GMO Ingredients’ seal is unlikely to make much progress, predict legal experts, but it does highlight the confusion surrounding Non-GMO claims given that the standards underpinning them can differ from one product to another… Read
• The Non-GMO Project may emerge as the big winner from federal GMO labeling legislation: The Non-GMO Project will “only become more relevant” as mandatory GMO labeling kicks in, in part because its scope could be so narrow that consumers will not simply be able to assume that anything without a bioengineered label is automatically Non-GMO, says executive director Megan Westgate… Read

Warnings about chemicals in foods

• ‘Significant increase’ in Prop 65 notices over lead, acrylamide, and cadmium in 2017/18, says Perkins Coie: There has been a significant increase in food and beverage Prop 65 actions in the past five years, with particularly strong growth in notices relating to lead, acrylamide and cadmium, according to new data compiled by attorneys at Perkins Coie… Read
• Amended Prop 65 regulations likely to prompt a significant uptick in litigation, predict attorneys: Amendments to Prop 65 – which requires firms selling products in California to provide warnings if their products expose consumers to 900+ chemicals linked to cancer or reproductive toxicity – will likely trigger a sharp rise in litigation as manufacturers struggle to get to grips with the new rules, predict attorneys… Read

Compliance with labeling and health claims requirements

• RXBAR sued over minimalist labels, ingredients declaration; but case is a stretch, say legal experts: ‘We tell you what’s on the inside on the outside’ protein bar brand RXBAR has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit* by the same law firms challenging the minimalist ingredients declarations of fellow bar brand That’s It.**.. Read
• Halo Top routinely under-fills its pints, alleges lawsuit, ‘dramatically so, at times…’: A month after being hit with a lawsuit alleging it made false and misleading representations about its light ice cream, Halo Top has been targeted again, this time with a proposed class action alleging it routinely under-fills its pints, “and has been doing this for years.”.. Read
• ‘No reliable scientific evidence’ supports Trader Joe’s alkaline water claims, alleges lawsuit: “There is no greater benefit to ingesting Trader Joe’s alkaline water than ingesting an equivalent bottled water or tap water,” argues a lawsuit alleging Trader Joe’s is duping shoppers into paying over the odds for the water, although legal experts predict that proving Trader Joe’s is making false implied health benefit claims will be “close to impossible.”.. Read
• Plant-based ‘milk’ row heats up as FDA commissioner says ‘public health concerns’ inform the agency’s renewed interest in dairy standards of identity: The war of words over labeling conventions for plant-based ‘milk’ intensified this week as FDA commissioner Dr Scott Gottlieb indicated that a “a new compliance policy” may be on the cards as the agency hosted a public meeting on its nutrition innovation strategy… Read
• Do consumers expect kombucha to contain live organisms? Court gives green light to lawsuit: Do consumers expect products labeled as ‘kombucha’ to contain live organisms, even if they don’t make any claims to this effect? Maybe, according to a court filing in a case that could have broader ramifications for the burgeoning category going forward, say attorneys… Read
• How much sugar do consumers expect in a ‘lightly sweetened’ cereal? Judge certifies classes in Kellogg added sugar case:  If up to 40% of the calories in breakfast cereals are from added sugar, and brands describe them as ‘lightly sweetened,’ are they misleading shoppers? Perhaps, says a federal judge who has just certified three classes of consumers in a false advertising lawsuit vs Kellogg, which is now heading into mediation… Read
• Tofurky CEO: It’s not the role of lawmakers to choose winners or losers in any given industry: As long as protein products are safe and shoppers are not being misled, it’s not the role of lawmakers to write new labeling laws favoring one production method over another, says the CEO of plant-based meat brand Tofurky, which is challenging a Missouri law* limiting the term ‘meat’ to slaughtered livestock or poultry… Read
• Clif Bar fires back at ‘absurd’ lawsuit: Consumers expect energy bars to contain sugar: Clif Bar has hit back at allegations made in a recent lawsuit* that it is duping consumers by presenting bars that are “loaded with sugar” as wholesome and nutritious, and urged the judge to toss the “absurd” and “implausible” case… Read

And here’s a more recent one from CBS News:

• LaCroix ingredients: Lawsuit alleges “all natural” claim is false: LaCroix sparkling water is facing a lawsuit alleging its claims of “all natural” and “100 percent natural” are misleading because…”Testing reveals that LaCroix contains a number of artificial ingredients, including linalool, which is used in cockroach insecticide.”

And here’s one more from CSPI (an October 24 addition):

• CSPI sues Jamba Juice: its juices, CSPI charges, are made from cheap concentrates as well as fresh fruit.

Addition, December 11

• Article about the five most active lawsuits

Coming October 30:  My new book about food company sponsorship of nutrition research and its effects on public health.

The Kirkus review (August 1)

A leading nutritionist asks whether consumers can trust highly publicized research into whether food and beverages are healthy and safely produced.

Nestle (Emerita, Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health/New York Univ.; Big Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), 2015, etc.), who has a doctorate in molecular biology and a master’s degree in public health nutrition and has conducted decades of research into food producers, is perfectly positioned for this topic. She makes the convincing case that because so much of the research is paid for by industries that benefit from the results, buyers should interpret the results skeptically. Many of Nestle’s previous books, articles, and academic studies focused on specific types of food. Here, the author turns her attention to large corporations, investigating why they pay for supposedly independent researchers, why the quality of the research might be compromised by conflicts of interests, how consumers can separate reliable science from compromised science, and why consumers should lobby legislators, government regulatory agencies, and universities for reforms regarding the disclosure of conflicts. Nestle emphasizes research paid for and disseminated by the sugar/candy industry, producers of dairy foods, marketers of meat, and—in its own chapter, “A Case Study in Itself”—the soda giant Coca-Cola. Since the author is a prolific nutrition researcher who has accepted funding that could involve conflicts of interest, she admirably scrutinizes her own policies of funding and how she discloses it. Ultimately, researchers must act as ethicists as well as scientists. When her own studies and those of fellow researchers become marketing tools for multinational conglomerates, the author admits that she feels queasy about how consumers might be misled by the marketing. On the other hand, she writes, some studies paid for by industry can be trusted scientifically—and be marketed and advertised responsibly.

Nestle proves yet again that she is a unique, valuable voice for engaged food consumers.

Other early reviews & interviews based on the bound galley proofs

Sept 25 La Stampa (Italy): “I cibi di lunga vita sono illusori e troppi sponsor li promuovono.”

Sept 24  Publishers Weekly: ” a groundbreaking look at how food corporations influence nutrition research and public
policy.”

Aug 13 Booklist review: “This well-documented, accessible venture makes a compelling argument.”

Aug 1  Kirkus review: “Nestle proves yet again that she is a unique, valuable voice for engaged food consumers.”

July 17  Phil Lempert’s Lempert Report: Get ready for a new era of transparency (video)

July 9  David Wineberg, “Nutrition: conflict of interest as a career,” Medium.com.

Feb 12 Finnish Public Radio interview about Unsavory Truth (Google Translate, English)

Jan 31 Profile in New Scientist: The Unpalatable Truth about Your Favorite foods

My email inbox was flooded last week with The Obesity Society’s call for more research on the value of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.

“Although taxing SSBs might generate revenue that can be used to promote other healthy food items, the net outcome may not necessarily decrease overweight and obesity rates in the United States or worldwide,” said Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, FTOS, President-Elect of The Obesity Society (TOS) and professor and director of the Body Composition-Metabolism Laboratory at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

Why would a professional society that represents people who ostensibly care about obesity science, treatment, and prevention issue a statement aimed at casting doubt on a demonstrably effective public health measure?  (Soda companies know the taxes are effective; that’s why they fight them so hard).

The Obesity Society (TOS), alas, often appears far more favorable to the interests of food and beverage companies than those of public health.  Could funding of the society and its members have anything to do with this?

Here is the TOS position on corporate funding:

TOS recognizes the value in providing any donor that wishes to support our mission to find solutions to the obesity epidemic the opportunity to provide financial support.

The current TOS policy expressly eliminates all forms of evaluation or judgment of the funding source (other than the stipulation that funding is reasonably assumed not to be derived from activities deemed ‘illegal’).

TOS chooses instead to focus its ethical mission on transparency in disclosing the sources of funding, clear stipulations outlining our commitment to the ethical use of funds, and a commitment to non-influence of the funding sources over the scientific aspects of funded projects and TOS as a whole.

Translation: We will take money from any company, regardless of the effects of its products on public health.

The TOS rationale is that disclosure takes care of the problem and that funding won’t influence the science.  Unfortunately for this view, research demonstrates that disclosure does not eliminate the influence of funding, and the influence of funding is considerable—though often unrecognized, as is apparent in this case.

TOS has a disclosure policy, and discloses its officers’ conflicts of interest.  These are considerable.

• The TOS president’s university, Louisiana State, has received more funding from Coca-Cola than any other in recent years.  Researchers there have been funded generously by Coca-Cola.
• An elected president of TOS had to resign over charges that he had been paid by the restaurant industry to file an affidavit opposing New York City’s calorie-labeling proposal.

In 2013, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff resigned his TOS membership over the society’s sponsorship policies.  In his comment on the current TOS statement, Freedhoff points out that “sugar-sweetened beverage taxes decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and increase healthier beverage consumption while providing the greatest potential health benefits to low income consumers.”

TOS members who care about creating a healthier food environment should consider joining Dr. Freedhoff.  lf not, they should insist that TOS leadership take vigorous pro-public health stances on matters affecting their patients’ health.

Additional comments, October 31, 2018

Yesterday I received a message from Liz Szabo, a reporter for Kaiser Health News, who is writing a piece on TOS’s relationships with food companies.  She questioned Steve Heymsfield, the group’s current president, who responded at length with a message that included this paragraph:

Marion Nestle, on the other hand, is professor “emeritus” and our understanding is that she no longer reports directly to a dean at New York University. That created a hurdle for us when trying to manage Dr. Nestle’se false and misleading blog related to this matter on her website. Even after learning her comments were misleading from Dr. Popkin, and unlike Popkin who has a high ethical standard, she failed to take down that post.

This surprised me, because nobody from TOS or anywhere else had written me to correct the post, Dr. Popkin’s corrections were to something he—not I—had written, and my ongoing relationship with NYU is readily evident from the information posted under About on this site.

I pointed this out to Dr. Heymsfield, who replied with annotations to my post.  Most of these deal with opinion and interpretation rather than fact.  The one thing I got “completely false” is my interpretation that TOS lacks standards for deciding which donors are acceptable.  Dr. Heymsfield says it does.  I am happy to hear that and stand corrected on that point.