Sugar Bak

==
<a href="https://www.alternet.org/hunger-games-child-labor-poverty-and-terrible-working-conditions-lie-behind-all-sugar-you-eat">https://www.alternet.org/hunger-games-child-labor-poverty-and-terrible-working-conditions-lie-behind-all-sugar-you-eat</a>Reach for a packet of sugar in the café, browse the shelves at supermarkets, or take a look at the packaging of your favourite sweet treat, and you are likely to see <a href="https://www.fairtrade.org.uk/Buying-Fairtrade/Sugar" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the Fairtrade label</a>. What’s more, the UK’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/modern-slavery-bill" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Modern Slavery Act</a> requires large companies to publicly report on the steps they take to ensure that forced labour is not a part of their products. The EU’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/company-reporting-and-auditing/company-reporting/non-financial-reporting_en" style="text-decoration-line: none;">non-financial reporting requirements</a> broaden out from modern slavery to include many issues related to social responsibility and human rights.Provisions such as these, as well as a multitude of corporate social responsibility programmes and industry specific commitments, have been put in place as measures to correct the longstanding social risks and challenges faced by the people who produce the goods we consume. To deepen our understanding of the status of those risks and challenges, our team has, for the past nine months, taken a close look at the sugarcane consumed in the UK.<div id="TeadsNative" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" />About <a href="https://www.absugar.com/sugar-markets/uk-sugar-sector" style="text-decoration-line: none;">25%</a> of the UK’s sugar comes from sugarcane imported from outside the EU, while the rest comes from sugar beet grown in the UK and other EU nations. Consequently, given the prevalence of the Fairtrade mark and supply chain reporting requirements, most of us are likely to have the impression that sugar is produced in a socially responsible way.But unfortunately, serious problems including forced and child labour, poverty, and dangerous heat-related illnesses persist in today’s sugarcane industry.In 2014, Fairtrade International discovered that <a href="https://www.fairtrade.net/new/latest-news/single-view/article/belize-sugar-cane-farmers-aim-to-be-best-in-class-for-protecting-children-and-young-people.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">children were working during school hours</a> on certified farms in Belize, in direct violation of Fairtrade standards. Fairtrade suspended the certification of the entire Belize programme while the local industry worked to address the problem and the programme has since been reinstated. Belize, a Commonwealth country bordered by Mexico and Honduras, has long been a key provider of sugarcane to the UK market – in 2016 it <a href="https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/gbr/show/170111/2016/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">accounted for 14%</a> of UK imports of raw sugarcane. Yet, that same year, while the <a href="https://foodtank.com/news/2017/06/fairtrade-farmers-spur-big-change-child-labor/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Belize sugar industry was already making considerable efforts</a> to eliminate child labour within sugarcane, <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/belize" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the United States Department of Labor (US DoL) found</a> that the country as a whole had made minimal progress in eradicating the worst forms of child labour, including within sugarcane.Another report by the US DoL <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ilab/reports/child-labor/findings/TVPRA_Report2016.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">also documented child labour in sugarcane in Guatemala and El Salvador</a>, which together provided <a href="https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/gbr/show/170111/2016/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">14%</a> of the 2016 UK supply. This means that child labour was documented in countries that supply nearly one-third of UK sugarcane in 2016. Additionally, the US DoL found forced labour in Brazil (<a href="https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/gbr/show/170111/2016/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">12%</a> of the UK supply). <a href="https://ethicalsugar.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ethical-sugar-violations-of-labour-and-environmental-law-5-0.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Previous research suggests</a>that this is a recurring problem in this nation, even among operations that are certified by the rigorous <a href="https://www.bonsucro.com/production-standard/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bonsucro production standard</a>, which uses six principles to achieve environmental, social and economic sustainability in the production of sugarcane.The hunger cropSugarcane is known as “<a href="https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/the-hunger-crop-poverty-and-the-sugar-industry-121196" style="text-decoration-line: none;">the hunger crop</a>” due to the low prices paid to farmers and low earnings among workers. Because they earn so little, those producing the sugarcane we consume – and their children – are often forced to go without adequate food and nutrition.Our preliminary research indicates that even among Bonsucro-certified sugar mills in Minas Gerais, Brazil, where workers are paid at least a legal minimum wage, their earnings fall considerably short of the <a href="https://www.isealalliance.org/get-involved/resources/living-wage-benchmark-minas-gerais-brazil" style="text-decoration-line: none;">living wage required</a> for a decent standard of living. Agricultural workers earning the lowest entry level wage of, on average, just 1,079 Brazilian reals per month (£223) (exclusive of benefits or overtime earnings) are R$334 (£69) short of the living wage benchmark. This means they are likely to have to choose between necessities such as food, housing and health care, and they are unlikely to have any money in reserve for emergencies. In other words, they are financially precarious in the best of circumstances.Health risksFurther, most of the UK’s sugarcane imports come from places where people living in rural areas <a href="https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">are multidimensionally poor</a>. Multidimensional poverty is an acute experience of poverty in which a person is simultaneously severely deprived in three key areas: health, education and living standard (in terms of sanitation, electricity, etc.).In 2015, public health researcher Jennifer Crowe <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajim.22450" style="text-decoration-line: none;">published a paper</a> outlining findings from a study conducted with sugarcane harvesters in Costa Rica. They found that harvesters were regularly exposed to heat stress because the recommended temperature limit for safe outdoor manual labour was typically reached by 7:30am during the harvest season – yet the working day lasted until 12pm.Exposure to heat stress is a critical issue within the sugarcane industry, and agricultural work in general, because it can have devastating health impacts on the body. Crowe’s study found that workers experienced heat and dehydration symptoms at least once a week, ranging from headaches to elevated heart rates. <a href="https://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2015/07/21/oemed-2014-102799.short" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Other research has found links</a> between long-term exposure to heat stress and deadly chronic kidney disease among sugarcane workers.Using <a href="https://www.climatechip.org/your-area-climate-data" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate data</a> and GIS mapping of sugarcane producing regions among some of the UK’s key import partners, our preliminary research suggests that risk of heat stress is a common problem for sugarcane harvesters. Maximum monthly temperatures during the harvest period regularly exceed the recommended safe limit in the countries that we assessed: Belize, Fiji, Guyana, Mauritius and Jamaica.Using dataOur team, in a project funded by the <a href="https://www.n8agrifood.ac.uk/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">N8 AgriFood Programme</a>, undertook research into the social risks and challenges within the UK’s sugarcane supply chain. Our goal is to add social factors into supply chains models that help agriculture and food companies understand the globalised impacts of their business models (examples include <a href="https://www.sei.org/projects-and-tools/tools/iota/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">IOTA</a> and <a href="https://trase.earth/about?lang=en" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Trase</a>). These models are designed to work as tools for spurring companies to take action when problems in their supply chains are identified.<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicki-lisa-cole-382372" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Nicki Lisa Cole</a>, Researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute and in Social Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-york-1344" style="text-decoration-line: none;">University of York</a>Collaboration with industry and other stakeholders <a href="https://theconversation.com/sustainable-diets-will-remain-a-minefield-until-we-change-the-way-we-approach-food-92386" style="text-decoration-line: none;">is crucial</a> to achieving positive change in the sugarcane industry. But consumer demand and pressure are critical as well. Working together, consumers, academics, civil society and industry can improve social conditions for sugarcane workers and those across the agricultural industry and beyond.This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">The Conversation</a>

===<a href="https://movetoamend.org/sugar-industry-withheld-possible-evidence-cancer-link-50-years-ago-researchers-say">https://movetoamend.org/sugar-industry-withheld-possible-evidence-cancer-link-50-years-ago-researchers-say</a><div class="field field-name-field-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">November 22, 2017</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Teresa Carey</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-source field-type-link-field field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/sugar-industry-withheld-possible-evidence-of-cancer-link-50-years-ago-researchers-say" target="blank" rel="nofollow" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">PBS</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded">Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, said they have uncovered documents demonstrating that members of the sugar industry called off a study, named Project 259, in the 1960s because it linked sucrose — a common sugar — to heart disease and bladder cancer in preliminary experiments.In 2016, the same researchers discovered a separate, undisclosed document that showed the sugar industry <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/sugar-industry-artificially-sweetened-harvard-research" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">funded a report</a> that downplayed links between sugar and coronary heart disease.But a trade group argues the sugar industry was always transparent about Project 259 and that it supports science-based evidence even if the results are unfavorable. Here’s a breakdown of what UCSF researchers found.How the researchers spotted Project 259UCSF dentist Cristin Kearns started digging into the sugar industry 10 years ago, after representatives at a conference said there is “no scientific consensus” that sugar is linked to chronic illnesses. She combed through library archives across the nation and eventually stumbled across a box containing “confidential” documents on “Project 259.”In 1968, the Sugar Research Foundation launched a rodent study, which measured the nutritional products of gut bacteria after rats consumed sucrose compared to starch. Project 259’s early results showed that sucrose caused gut microbes to throw off the rodents’ metabolisms, increasing their levels of triglycerides. Triglycerides are fatty molecules, which when elevated, can clog arteries and predispose a person for cardiovascular disease. In a preliminary experiment, Project 259 also found a high-sugar diet boosts the activity of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme linked to bladder cancer, when compared to a starch diet. The second half of the study, which would have taken a deeper look at starch, was never finished.After reporting this discovery in August 1970 to the International Sugar Research Foundation, Project 259 scientists requested an additional 12 weeks of funding to continue the research, according to internal documents. One month later, Sugar Research Foundation’s Vice President of Research John Hickson described the value of Project 259 as “nil,” Glantz and Kearns state. The funding request was denied, and the project was abandoned in 1971.Kearns and UCSF cardiologist Stanton Glantz, who revealed the project’s details in an analysis <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003460" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">published Tuesday in PLOS Biology</a>, argue that the sugar industry buried the evidence and stopped funding due to the negative findings.What the sugar industry says: Courtney Gaine, the president and CEO of the Sugar Association, said the researchers’ assessment is nothing more than, “a series of assumptions and speculations.”“They never called us. We would have let them look at the archives. I would let them look tomorrow. The story we have in our archives is a lot better than the story they’ve been telling,” Gaine said.Gaine said her own internal investigation found that Project 259 was cancelled right when the Sugar Research Foundation was dividing into two organizations: the Sugar Association and the International Sugar Research Foundation (which is now World Sugar Research Organization). Adding to the bureaucratic shuffle, the study suffered from long delays and going significantly over budget, Gaine said. (Glantz, in opposition, argued that such delays are inherent to research).Project 259 was ultimately handed over to the British Nutrition Foundation to complete, Gaine said, and added that her documentation ends there. She said the Sugar Association doesn’t know why the British Nutrition Foundation failed to complete the study.Why this matters: “Evidence was emerging in the 1950s and 1960s that linked sugar consumption to heart disease, but the sugar industry was interested in casting doubt on that evidence. In [Project 259] they were proving that to themselves and then saying something different to the public,” University of California’s Kearns said.Gaine countered that the Sugar Association wasn’t trying to hide anything. When it comes to sugar, “there has always been an understanding that there is too much of a good thing,” she said, arguing that the industry looks into any negative health claims because they “want to know if they are accurate.”Gaine added that the Sugar Association supports the dietary guidelines of sugar in moderation based on the FDA recommendation that only 10 percent of daily caloric intake should come from sugar. She also pointed out one of the funders for Glantz and Kearns’ investigation is Gary Taubes, co-founder of Nutrition Science Initiative and author of the book “The Case Against Sugar.” Another funder — the Laura and John Arnold Foundation — once <a href="https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/01/09/arnold-foundation-weighs-sugar-fight/" rel="noopener" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">gave $500,000 to support a lawsuit</a> in favor of taxes on sugary beverages.But, Kearns believes that had the preliminary results been confirmed and published, it would have caused more scrutiny of sugar as a carcinogenic food additive. In the late 1960s, artificial sweeteners were being examined over similar concerns. A 1969 study found cyclamate, an artificial sweetener, increased the risk of bladder cancer in rats, and this sweetener was banned shortly afterward.Both Gaine and Glantz said Project 259 was cutting edge for its time, given its focus on the gut microbiome. Kearns said that completing Project 259 and disclosing its findings could have hastened the onset of “precision medicine” — developing targeted interventions for people with heart disease based on their risk factors. This customized health care considers, for example, looking at the blood profile (cholesterol and triglycerides) to recommend either a low fat or a low sugar and carb diet.“Whether you are talking about the sugar industry, or tobacco, or oil industry and climate change — the basic game they are playing is to try to slow down the development of a strong scientific consensus that could drive policy change,” Glantz said.</div></div></div>

===

see also soda

also includes artif sweetners

webodec stare harvard acsh whelan<a href="https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45#-2478">https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/E212D5AA-EEF5-535C-9D0D-27920B094E45#-2478</a>

http://www.alternet.org/print/personal-health/how-coca-colas-obesity-pr-stunt-blew-companys-face

astroturf

==

coca-Cola and PepsiCo Agree to Curb Animal Tests

By BRENDA GOODMAN

Published: May 31, 2007

ATLANTA, May 30 — Under pressure from animal rights advocates, two soft drink giants, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, have agreed to stop directly financing research that uses animals to test or develop their products, except where such testing is required by law.

Researchers at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sought the assurances after discovering studies financed by the companies that used animals like rats and chimpanzees to test taste perception and, in some cases, to bolster support for promotional health claims.

PepsiCo said that it would stop directly financing animal experiments, including some it had financed through grants given to graduate students through its Gatorade Sports Science Institute.

Elaine Palmer, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo, said that while the company had never supported the idea of animal testing, “We had not been policing it, so that part is new.”

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are the largest largest manufacturers to agree to the ban.

Coca-Cola also said that it would discontinue a grant given to a researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University who has been studying taste perception in rats, which share certain taste pathways with humans.

Representatives of Coca-Cola and the university declined to say how much financing the company was providing or to elaborate on what the ultimate application of the research might be.

A research associate at PETA, Shalin G. Gala, said, “We see these statements from Coke and Pepsi, massive global conglomerates, as the beginning of the end of all animal tests on food.”

Scientists conducting basic research in animal models have cautioned against PETA’s hard line, saying their work, which may have medical benefits, would not be possible in many cases without help from corporate sponsors.

“It’s very easy to characterize scientific research like this in a bad light,” said Dr. John A. DeSimone, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who had been working under the Coca-Cola grant. “To do medical research, you sometimes need an animal model.”

Not everyone agrees with Dr. DeSimone’s thinking, particularly when it involves tests on highly intelligent animals, as did a study involving a Coca-Cola scientist, financed by Nutrasweet, that cut open the faces of chimpanzees to study nerve impulses used in the perception of sweet tastes.

“I have never found chimpanzee work justifiable,” said Dr. Alan Goldberg, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. Goldberg said that over the last 30 years, advances in alternatives to animal models, many of which are usually more scientifically precise, have already reduced the number of lab animals in use by 50 percent.

“The bottom line for me is that I’d love to see animal studies disappear entirely,” Dr. Goldberg said. “In vitro models are cleaner.”

The two soft drink giants are the latest companies to respond to scrutiny by PETA, which has mounted a campaign to denounce animal testing practices in the beverage industry, an industry that, unlike cosmetics or pharmaceuticals, had largely been unpublicized in the animal testing arena.

In January, Roll International, the company that makes Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice, agreed to cease tests on animals after PETA disclosed a 2005 study financed by the company that tested the juice to see if it might relieve artificially induced erectile dysfunction in rabbits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/business/31testing.html?_r=0

==

<div>

</div>

==

dominican rep?

===

astroturf:

The Palm Beach Post‘s Christine Stapleton <a href="http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/actors-hired-to-protest-at-water-district-know-lit/nkkkb/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">reports</a> that the “Tea Party” protesters outside of the South Florida Water Management District on Thursday were, by and large, actors hired by the <a href="http://www.teaparty-miami.org/about-1.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Tea Party of Miami</a> and U.S. Sugar.

The district is currently considering buying land owned by U.S. Sugar, which it would use for the treatment and storage of lake flood water. Environmentalist <a href="http://florida.newszap.com/clewiston/138821-113/can-purchasing-us-sugars-land-fix-south-floridas-water-problems" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">believe</a> that using the land in this way will allow them to divert more water into the Everglades without harming coastal estuaries. The water would not only help replenish the Everglades, it would also provide an emergency reserve drinking supply for South Florida.

But U.S. Sugar wants to keep the land, arguing that as one of the area’s largest employers, it is in the district’s best interests not to exercise the $350 million buy-out option in its contract. Tea Party Miami:

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/tea-party-protesters-opposed-florida-land-deal-were-mostly-actors-hired-big-sugar">http://www.alternet.org/environment/tea-party-protesters-opposed-florida-land-deal-were-mostly-actors-hired-big-sugar</a>

==

<div>

<div>Time magazine has called them the "First Family of Corporate Welfare"</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>John Ellis Bush (JEB), Rick Scott, and other GOP politicians kowtow to this family like no other.  They were a top donor for W. And they are almost singlehandedly destroying our Everglades.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Welcome to Keeping up with the Fanjul family of Palm Beach.  The Fanjul family is synonymous with the term "Big Sugar" here in Florida.  They control 1/3 of our nation's raw sugar.  </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>This family collects over 60 million a year in Federal subsidies.  As a result, you pay an artificially high price for raw sugar, but of course that's not all.  You not only support their hedonistic lifestyle (such as Casa De Campo, their 7000 acre multimillion resort), horrible labor practices, and right-wing politics: you support the killing of our Everglades National Park.  </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>I am not being hyperbolic.  The Park is actually going to die, along with Miami's fresh water supply.  </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>One of their subsidiaries is Florida Crystals (among other sugar affiliates).  You can see how much of the Everglades that is by itself on the map below.  (See the orange and yellow)</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>That huge lake is Lake Okeechobee, one of the biggest freshwater lakes in the Continental United States.  You can pick it out on any map because it is so large. The Fanjul's use this lake to irrigate their crops.  The discharge is toxic.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>The irrigated water should be recycled in a reservoir, but it isn't. The family dumps it in the coastal estuaries.  </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Before Tallahassee was taken over by teabags, our state was making an effort to clean up the Everglades. The one crucial piece was a binding contract that the sugar industry signed that would sell land to the state to create a reservoir.  Not only that, Florida passed Amendment 1 last year.  The whole purpose of that amendment was to guarantee a source of funding for land acquisition to protect Florida's Everglades and our very fragile estuaries.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Despite the GOP's election wave last year, Amendment 1 received 78% of the vote.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Our state has an opportunity to buy the land we need from Big Sugar (the land is shown in the article here), at fair market value.  The University of Florida issued a report yesterday to say it's desperately needed.  The contract ends on October 15, 2015.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Our GOP legislature and, as always, Gov. Sick Scott, are steadfastly refusing to purchase the land we were promised.  You see, one big reason the rightwing interests didn't pour money into fighting Amendment 1 is they knew they could just ignore it.  Just look at Amendments 5 and 6 back in 2010:  they were supposed to end gerrymandering.  Didn't happen. They completely ignored those as well, which is why every black neighborhood from Jacksonville to Orlando is crammed into District 5.  Because f* you.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>In fact, the only amendment that Pam Bondi and Rick Scott ever fought for was the only one declared illegal by the courts:  banning gay marriage.  </div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Rick Scott cares nothing about the Everglades. Heck, he made money allowing fracking in the Everglades before he was caught (and still won re-election).  Of course he's not going to care about toxic water.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>By the way, if all of this is new to you, I don't blame you.  As always, our local media is silent. Also, our state party hasn't said anything.  Even though this critical issue is next to our DNC chair's home, Debbie-Wasserman, she hasn't said one word. She is too wrapped up in a failed Senate run.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Please go to SavingFLwater.com and add your name.  At the very least, we can let our politicians know that we were watching.</div>

</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/everglades-be-killed-october-floridas-own-koch-brothers</div>

<div>

==

According to a new report, many scientific studies about nutrition, as well as the trusted experts who disseminate this information to the public, are being funded by the very entities that should be scrutinized. The <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/ASNReportFinal.pdf" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">report</a>, "Nutrition Scientists on the Take from Big Food," details the ways that the world’s largest food corporations—aka Big Food—exert their influence on nutrition research and the people who conduct it.

The report’s author, attorney and food advocate Michele Simon, has previously studied the influence of Big Food on the nation’s largest organization of registered dietitians. Together, these reports paint a scary picture of how food corporations collude to manipulate information in order to increase their profits at the public’s expense. The coyote isn’t just guarding the chicken coop here, it built the coop and kept the only copy of the key.

The new report details how the likes of Coca Cola, Nestle, Hershey’s, Monsanto, Cargill, and many other food giants control what studies get funded and published, steering researchers toward projects that benefit the industry, while silencing research that doesn’t. It focuses on the American Society of Nutrition, which Simon characterized as a trade organization for nutrition scientists when we spoke by phone, though casual readers of the ASN’s<a href="http://www.nutrition.org/about-asn/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">mission statement</a> might not glean this.

“The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing together the world's top researchers, clinical nutritionists and industry to advance our knowledge and application of nutrition for the sake of humans and animals.”

The researchers, nutritionists and industries in question are brought together twice a year for ASN’s conventions, where industry sponsors pay big money to get access to nutrition researchers, and even host sessions. While most of the sponsored sessions disclose the corporate funder, the report notes, industry ties are not always so obvious. A recent session, “Sweeteners and Health: Current Understandings, Recent Research Findings and Directions for Future,” was sponsored by the <a href="http://www.rippehealth.com/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Rippe Lifestyle Institute</a>. The Institute’s founder James Rippe, according to the report, has been paid a $41,000 a month retainer by the Corn Refiners Association, which represents the makers of high fructose corn syrup.

One of the session’s ‘learning objectives” was to “Understand whether or not there is a linkage between sugar consumption and obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease as well as other metabolic diseases.” The sugar lobby, “has more than a passing interest” in this matter, the report notes. Rippe has consulted for many other members of the junk food industry as well, including Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, General Mills, and Kellogg.

Meanwhile, ASN publishes the one of the most respected scientific journals dedicated to nutrition, the <a href="http://ajcn.nutrition.org/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</a>(AJCN). Several ASN executives with close ties to industry sit on AJCN’s editorial board, where they help decide what gets published and what doesn’t, Simon told me.

“It’s hard for good nutrition researchers to get funding and published, she said. "That’s why people turn to industry sources. But the ones with too much integrity to take money from industry are facing difficulty and hostility in getting published, because the gatekeepers are on the take from industry. So a lot of good science isn’t getting published. That puts a chill on the research climate in general.”

“People need to understand when they see the latest nutrition science story being reported, it’s always good to question where the funding comes from.”

And when the evidence against a mainstay of Big Food grows to the point where it can’t be contained, the food industry uses platforms like AJCN to confuse the issue, or kick the can down the road a little further with claims that “more research is needed.”

The AJCN has repeatedly propagated the notion that processed foods are being unfairly vilified, and that any time a piece of food is cut, frozen or cooked, it’s by definition processed.

Many processed foods contain added sugars, which have frequently been in the news since the FDA recommended they be noted on the nutrition label as distinct from naturally occurring sugars, which are usually associated with fiber and other nutrients that partially counteract the effects of sugar. Not surprisingly, the <a href="http://www.sugar.org/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">American Sugar Association</a>, an ASN sponsor, has come out strongly against the FDA’s recommendation. The ASN has too, couching its true motives behind wording that inaccurately suggests its concern is for consumers’ health.

“This topic is controversial and a lack of consensus remains in the scientific evidence on the health effects of added sugars alone versus sugars as a whole. There is also lack of evidence on the usefulness of a declaration of added sugars on the label to improve food choices and the health of consumers.”

...

http://www.alternet.org/food/whoa-huge-number-nutritional-experts-may-be-bought-big-junk-food-companies

==

</div>

==

rumy aspertane: <a href="http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/rtk092806b.htm">http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/rtk092806b.htm</a>

==

<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">It’s important to further note that, before ACSH stopped revealing donors in 1991, this<span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> <a href="http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_council_on_science_and_health.html" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: underline; transition: all 150ms ease-out; background: transparent;">online source reports</a><span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> <span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">that the “Monsanto Fund”was a corporate donor of $25,000 and above. Another donor was “The NutriSweet Company,”which was owned by G.D. Searle & Co.,<span class="Apple-converted-space" style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"> <b style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold;">which in turn also funded Enzine-linked STATS<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 300; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.5px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">. Pfizer, which held the NutriSweet brand, was also a donor to ACSH. This source is called the “Integrity in Science Project.”...

ACSH claims it does not seek donations from corporations or trade groups that are earmarked for specific research projects –in short, there is no quid pro quo. But at Mother Jones reported:

[I]n a March 1992 internal memo obtained by Consumer Reports, Whelan wrote that ACSH staffers would ask the Calorie Control Council, a trade group backed by diet food and drink companies, and McNeil Specialty Products, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that owned the US marketing rights to Splenda (an artificial sweetener), for contributions to underwrite the dissemination of a research paper touting artificial sweeteners. (Splenda was then seeking approval for sale in the United States.)  [propagandists]

===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_cyclamate

--

1985 Adequate data on the carcinogenicity of saccharin and cyclamate to humans are available only for the urinary bladder. In the studies available, exposure to saccharin and to cyclamate cannot be distinguished readily. Descriptive studies have shown no evidence of time trends in bladder cancer that can be related to use of saccharin or cyclamate. Likewise, studies of diabetics, who have used more saccharin and cyclamate than other people, have shown no evidence of an increased risk of bladder cancer. This association, however, is probably confounded negatively by cigarette smoking. Thirteen case-control studies have addressed the relationship of saccharin and cyclamate intake to bladder cancer in individuals. While statistically significant positive associations have been observed, a similar number of significant negative associations has also been observed. Studies of the dose-response relationships have also shown no consistent pattern. Studies of saccharin and cyclamate use with smoking habits have shown no consistent interaction with heavy smoking, as might be expected from a promotional effect. In some studies, however, an increased risk with saccharin and cyclamate use has been observed in female non-smokers--a group otherwise at low risk for bladder cancer.

===

Michael Sveda, the Inventor Of Cyclamates, Dies at 87

By LESLIE KAUFMAN

Published: August 21, 1999

Dr. Michael Sveda, a chemist who invented cyclamates, a noncaloric sweetener that became widely popular and then was banned by the Government as a possible carcinogen, died on Aug. 10 at his home in Stamford, Conn. He was 87.

The cause was complications from Parkinson's disease, said his wife, Martha Gaeth Sveda.

Dr. Sveda (SVAY-dah) was born on Feb. 3, 1912, in West Ashford, Conn., the son of immigrants from Czechoslovakia.

Dr. Sveda, who once told The New York Times in an interview that ''God looks after damn fools, children and chemists,'' credited providence for his discovery of cyclamates. In 1937, while doing lab work for his doctorate at the University of Illinois, he brushed his lips without having washed his hands and found that his fingers tasted sweet. Intrigued, he tasted chemicals from all the beakers in front of him and discovered the compound that he eventually refined into the sweetener.

By the time Dr. Sveda completed that process, he was an employee of the DuPont Company. He received the patent in 1939, but it was not until 1951 that the Federal Government approved cyclamates as a food additive. Previously, only saccharin had been available as an artificial sweetener, and soon a huge market developed for the alternative product.

By the 1960's cyclamates had become the basis of a $1 billion business in diet soft drinks and desserts. It was an ingredient of the one-calorie soda Tab, for example. Many diabetics wrote Dr. Sveda to thank him for the growth of options in sweets available to them.

In his 20 years at DuPont, Dr. Sveda worked on several other patents, making contributions to such diverse compounds as the pesticide DDT, nylon and mustard gas, but it was the sweetener that held the broadest public interest.

In 1969, however, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare banned cyclamates from the market on the risk that the substance caused cancer. The decision was based on experiments that showed that some rats that were fed large quantities over their life spans developed bladder tumors. Although Dr. Sveda said he was not embittered by the Government's decision, he contended that the experiments had not been rigorous enough to warrant the ban. In subsequent interviews, he even suggested that the sugar industry had used its political muscle to squelch a competitor.

''My father would have been the first person to say, 'If this is harmful don't use it,' '' said his daughter, Sally Sveda, of Newton Falls, Mass. ''But he felt that it was important to be accurate in the science since there were many people who might benefit from it, especially diabetics.''

After the Government acted, Dr. Sveda received phone calls from people worried that they had been poisoned by the cyclamates, a development he found frightening.

In fact, further Government studies contradicted the findings behind the ban. In one, by the National Cancer Institute, a group of monkeys were fed doses of the chemical equivalent to drinking 30 cans of artificially sweetened soda a day for 17 years, with no unusual sign of illness.

To this day, however, the Food and Drug Administration has not cleared the substance for consumption in this country again, even though it is used in products in other nations.

In 1981, the Government classified saccharin as a suspected carcinogen but did not ban it. An advisory group recommended last year that it be given a clean bill of health.

After he left DuPont, Dr. Sveda worked as a consultant on management techniques. In addition to his wife and daughter, he is survived by a son, Michael, of Washington, and a granddaughter.

===

<a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/sugar-plant-removed-safety-device-13-days-before-temp-workers-death">http://www.propublica.org/article/sugar-plant-removed-safety-device-13-days-before-temp-workers-death</a>

==

tom scanlon in spy PR of damned

<a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=qnVC8yS4N_AC&lpg=PP1&rview=1&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false">http://books.google.ca/books?id=qnVC8yS4N_AC&lpg=PP1&rview=1&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>

===

he <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/can-you-believe-coke-and-pepsi-are-desperate-enough-to-stoop-so-low" style="text-decoration: none;">latest Oxfam video campaign</a> has taken aim at the biggest giants in the sugar industry, accusing them of massive land grabs and the displacement of poor farmers across the world.

“The companies that supply your favorite food brands with sugar may be kicking poor farmers off their lands and out of their homes...Tell Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co and Associated British Foods to make sure their sugar doesn’t lead to land grabs," demands Oxfam in the new video.

The culprits  -- Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co. and Associated British Foods -- are combined known as "the Big Three." At least one member of the trio has taken notice of the viral video campaign: Coke recently declared that it would make sure its sugar production doesn't lead to land grabs.

Now that Coke has taken action, the focus has shifted to rival Pepsi with campaigners urging the giant corporation to commit to zero tolerance for land grabs ahead of their shareholder-filing deadline.

<nitf><a href="http://grist.org/news/u-s-government-is-buying-up-300-million-sugar-glut/">http://grist.org/news/u-s-government-is-buying-up-300-million-sugar-glut/</a></nitf>

ATF high price sugar elininating bootlegging (NRA did not want elim or go to secret service)

<nitf>===

</nitf>

b2 farm bill? : green drink water pgm hijacked to expand feedlots; helped sugar too? jeb everglade plans shifted cleanup burden to us 112

<nitf>==

</nitf>

The Sugar Association, headquartered in Washington, D.C., states that its mission "is to promote the consumption of sugar as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle through the use of sound science and research."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-0">[1]</a> It engages in public relations on behalf of its member companies, encouraging the use of sugar. Member companies consist of sugar producers in the U.S.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Nutritional_issues">1 Nutritional issues</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Member_companies">2 Member companies</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Advertising">4 Advertising</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Personnel">5 Personnel</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Contact_details">6 Contact details</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#Resources">7 Resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#SourceWatch_resources">8 SourceWatch resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#References">8.1 References</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Nutritional issues</h2>

The Sugar Association maintains that sugar is an essential and healthy part of the diet and says that sugars are not "uniquely fattening." The Association's website says, "Nutrition experts consistently recommend increasing carbohydrates to achieve a healthful diet."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h2>Member companies</h2>

<ul>

<li>The Amalgamated Sugar Company</li>

<li>American Crystal Sugar Company</li>

<li>American Sugar Cane League</li>

<li>American Sugar Refining, Inc.</li>

<li>C&H Sugar Company, Inc.</li>

<li>Hawaiian Sugar & Transportation Cooperative</li>

<li>Michigan Sugar Company</li>

<li>Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative</li>

<li>Okeelanta Corporation</li>

<li>Osceola Farms Company</li>

<li>Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.</li>

<li>Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative</li>

<li>Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida</li>

<li>United States Sugar Corporation<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-3">[4]</a></li>

</ul>

In 2003, the sugar industry in the U.S. was threatening to have U.S. government funding of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/World_Health_Organization" title="World Health Organization">World Health Organization</a> (WHO) cut off because WHO was saying that no more than 10% of a person's daily calories should come from sugar. CBS News wrote, "An effort to get an increasingly flabby world to stop eating so much sugar ran head-on into the U.S. sugar lobby, which claims the dangers of the sweet stuff are being overstated. People should get no more than 10 percent of their daily calories from sugar and other high-calorie sweeteners, the World Health Organization will recommend in a report on Wednesday.

"That guideline is among several in WHO's attempt at a global strategy on health aimed at preventing such threats as heart disease, obesity, cancer and diabetes. It was immediately attacked by the Sugar Association, which represents U.S. growers and refiners." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-4">[5]</a>

Sarah Boseley of the Guardian wrote about the threat to cut off funding, "The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby. The association, together with six other big food industry groups, has also written to the US health secretary, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tommy_Thompson" title="Tommy Thompson">Tommy Thompson</a>, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/United_States_Council_for_International_Business" title="United States Council for International Business">US Council for International Business</a>, comprising more than 300 companies, including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coca-Cola" title="Coca-Cola" class="mw-redirect">Coca-Cola</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PepsiCo" title="PepsiCo">Pepsico</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-5">[6]</a>

<h2>Advertising</h2>

As an example of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Advertising" title="Advertising">advertising</a> to increase sales, AG Weekly (Agricultural Weekly) of Twin Falls, Idaho wrote, "The Sugar Association is just finishing a $4 million advertising campaign in nine major urban areas to promote sugar, said <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Briscoe&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Andrew Briscoe (page does not exist)">Andrew Briscoe</a>, association president and chief executive. The campaign, which received voluntary funding from Amalgamated Sugar Co. in Boise and five other sugar companies, started in September. The effort will run through January in one remaining city." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-6">[7]</a>

The sugar industry's image has been tarnished because of concerns in the U.S. about obesity. On March 20, 2005, the U.S. News & World Report wrote about another $3 million to $4 million ad campaign funded by sugar beet growers, "After several decades of declining sales--much of it lost to cheaper high-fructose corn syrup--the industry felt it needed to "reintroduce the consumer to sugar," says Melanie Miller, a spokeswoman for the Sugar Association."

The magazine article talked about the effects of sugar, "A study published last year in the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association" title="Journal of the American Medical Association">Journal of the American Medical Association</a> found that women who drank soda pop or other sweet drinks were more likely to gain weight and had a higher risk for diabetes than other women. Another study, in the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that children who ate some types of sweet foods--candy, soda pop, and sweet bakery goods--were less likely to get all their recommended vitamins than other children. Last year, for the first time, a government committee linked sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity. Then in January, guidelines from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Department_of_Agriculture" title="Department of Agriculture" class="mw-redirect">Departments of Agriculture</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services" title="Department of Health and Human Services">Health and Human Services</a> made recommendations for sugar consumption stricter than ever before." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-7">[8]</a>

<h2>Personnel</h2>

Staff: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-8">[9]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Briscoe&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Andrew Briscoe (page does not exist)">Andrew Briscoe</a>, Chief Executive Officer</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Baker&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Charles Baker (page does not exist)">Charles Baker</a>, Chief Science Officer</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheryl_Digges&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cheryl Digges (page does not exist)">Cheryl Digges</a>, Vice President of Public Policy and Education</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Melanie_Miller&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Melanie Miller (page does not exist)">Melanie Miller</a>, Vice President of Public Relations</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eric_Wheeler&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Eric Wheeler (page does not exist)">Eric Wheeler</a>, Vice President, Finance and Administration</li>

</ul>

Board members: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_note-9">[10]</a>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Bauer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Charles Bauer (page does not exist)">Charles Bauer</a>, American Sugarbeet Growers Association</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Bearden&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Steve Bearden (page does not exist)">Steve Bearden</a>, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Berg&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Berg (page does not exist)">David Berg</a>, American Crystal Sugar Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Carson&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Don Carson (page does not exist)">Don Carson</a>, Atlantic Sugar Association</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Coker&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Robert Coker (page does not exist)">Robert Coker</a>, United States Sugar Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Duffin&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mark Duffin (page does not exist)">Mark Duffin</a>, American Sugarbeet Growers Association</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pepe_Fanjul,_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Pepe Fanjul, Jr. (page does not exist)">Pepe Fanjul, Jr.</a>, American Sugar Refining, Inc., C&H Sugar Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Flegenheimer&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Mark Flegenheimer (page does not exist)">Mark Flegenheimer</a>, Michigan Sugar Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Goodlett&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Goodlett (page does not exist)">David Goodlett</a>, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Kennett&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Alan Kennett (page does not exist)">Alan Kennett</a>, Hawaiian Sugar & Transportation Cooperative</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Darren_Luft&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Darren Luft (page does not exist)">Darren Luft</a>, American Sugarbeet Growers Association</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greg_Nolan&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Greg Nolan (page does not exist)">Greg Nolan</a>, American Sugar Cane League</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Richmond&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="John Richmond (page does not exist)">John Richmond</a>, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Roche&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David Roche (page does not exist)">David Roche</a>, Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Parks_Shackelford&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Parks Shackelford (page does not exist)">Parks Shackelford</a>, Okeelanta Corporation</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Simon&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="James Simon (page does not exist)">James Simon</a>, American Sugar Cane League</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Smith&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Bill Smith (page does not exist)">Bill Smith</a>, The Amalgamated Sugar Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kelvin_Thompsen&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Kelvin Thompsen (page does not exist)">Kelvin Thompsen</a>, Spreckels Sugar Company</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steve_Williams" title="Steve Williams">Steve Williams</a>, American Sugarbeet Growers Association</li>

</ul>

<h2>Contact details</h2>

1300 L Street, NW, Suite 1001

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: (202) 785-1122

Fax: (202) 785-5019

Email: sugar AT sugar.org

Web: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.sugar.org">http://www.sugar.org</a>

<h2>Resources</h2>

<h2>SourceWatch resources</h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Research_Foundation,_Inc." title="Sugar Research Foundation, Inc.">Sugar Research Foundation, Inc.</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alliance_for_Better_Foods" title="Alliance for Better Foods">Alliance for Better Foods</a> (affiliated with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Front_groups" title="Front groups">front group</a>)</li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Council_for_Fitness_and_Nutrition" title="American Council for Fitness and Nutrition">American Council for Fitness and Nutrition</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Life_Sciences_Institute" title="International Life Sciences Institute">International Life Sciences Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Obesity_Task_Force" title="International Obesity Task Force">International Obesity Task Force</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Obesity_PR" title="Obesity PR">Obesity PR</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Obesity_Working_Group" title="Obesity Working Group">Obesity Working Group</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_industry" title="Sugar industry">Sugar industry</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-0">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/">About page</a>, Sugar Association, accessed May 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-1">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/media/press_releases.asp">Press releases</a>, Sugar Association, accessed May 2008</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-2">↑</a> Sugar Association <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/sugar-and-your-diet/balanced-diet.html">Balanced Diet</a>, organizational website, accessed December 14, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-3">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=65">Member companies</a>, Sugar Association, accessed May 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-4">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/23/health/main550727.shtml">Sugar Lobbyists Sour On Study</a>", CBS News, April 23, 2003.</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-5">↑</a> Sarah Boseley, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0421-06.htm">Sugar Industry Threatens to Scupper WHO</a>", CommonDreams.org/Guardian, April 21, 2003.</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-6">↑</a> Scott Kraus, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/ag_news/news91.txt">Sugar Association to wrap up ad campaign</a>", AG Weekly, February 8, 2007.</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-7">↑</a> Elizabeth Querna, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050328/28sugar.htm">No, it's not just your sweet tooth</a>", U.S. News & World Report, March 20, 2005.</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-8">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=84">Staff</a>, Sugar Association, accessed May 2008.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association#cite_ref-9">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=66">Board members</a>, Sugar Association, accessed May 2008.</li>

</ol>

</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Food_industry" title="Category:Food industry">Food industry</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Lobby_group" title="Category:Lobby group">Lobby group</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Trade_associations" title="Category:Trade associations">Trade associations</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Sugar_industry" title="Category:Sugar industry">Sugar industry</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

<nitf>===

</nitf>

<nitf><a href="http://grist.org/news/big-sugar-could-get-a-big-government-bailout/">http://grist.org/news/big-sugar-could-get-a-big-government-bailout/</a>

</nitf>

<div class="headline">UN probes sugar industry claims</div>

<div class="bo">A United Nations agency has launched an investigation into claims that a key consultation into how much sugar we should be eating was secretly funded by the sugar industry.

The BBC's Panorama programme has uncovered documents which reveal the World Sugar Research Organisation and International Life Sciences Institute, both funded by the sugar industry, helped pay for the Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition.

The programme also reveals that ISLI was given the opportunity to suggest members of the committee and select the chairman, as well as review the agenda of the consultation.

</div>

<div class="ibox">“ I believe that it would be impossible to produce an unbiased report when the source of funding came from groups with clearly vested interests. ”

Professor Jim Mann

Committee member</div>

Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns.

Now the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has said it plans to reconvene the research committee "urgently".

'Impartiality doubts'

The expert consultation was a joint venture between the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the FAO and was due to look impartially at key questions, including whether sugar is detrimental to human health.

But Jim Mann - a highly respected nutritionist from New Zealand - told the programme he always had doubts about the consultation's independence.

He said: "When we arrived some of us were summoned by one of the officials who was involved in the organisation of the consultation and told very clearly that it would be inappropriate us to say anything bad about sugar in relation to human health."

Another of the team invited to Rome sensed that the science might not be the only driving force.

Professor John Cummings claims that a chairman had already been chosen before the committee began its work.

He also claimed that one official - there as an observer - obstructed the debate when sugar was being discussed.

He added: "I was very surprised when he sort of came immediately to the defence of sugar during the consultation. I couldn't really understand why he did because normally these officials sit and listen and just sort of prod you when they think something needs doing but this was quite amazing."

Funding documents

The experts didn't know that the sugar industry was paying for them to be in Rome.

But Panorama has discovered a series of documents which show exactly where the money came from.

It shows that the World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.

ILSI - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000.

Panorama reveals that ILSI was also invited to suggest who might sit on the consultation and even nominated the chairman months before the experts ever came to Rome.

This funding deal was agreed with the FAO's then Director of Food and Nutrition, John Lupien.

'Surprise revelation'

This news came as a surprise to the committee members that Panorama spoke to, none of whom had any idea that the research had been funded by the sugar industry.

Professor Mann, said: "My guess would be that I certainly and probably my colleagues would not have been prepared to be involved with such an activity had it been funded by these organisations.

"I believe that it would be impossible to produce an unbiased report when the source of funding came from groups with clearly vested interests."

</div>

<div class="ibox">“ If the funding was accepted together with influence of the choice of experts or of the wording of the report then it is unacceptable ”

Hartwig de Haen

FAO assistant director general</div>

But another shocking fact was to come out of the committee discussion.

The experts Panorama spoke to claim they had agreed on a limit of between 55 and 75% on how much carbohydrate we should eat. But when the report came out the upper limit had gone.

Professor Mann complained that a report which failed to mention a limit on carbohydrate - or on sugar - was open to abuse.

He added: "I think it would clearly be to the advantage of the industry not to have an upper limit, because increasingly the industry are producing food products which are reduced in fat, and one way of compensating for fat is to increase the amount of sugar.

"So obviously if there's no upper limit of sugar, one can add sugar with impunity into a whole range of food products."

The FAO's Assistant Director General, Hartwig de Haen, was also surprised at Panorama's revelations.

"If the funding was accepted together with influence of the choice of experts or of the wording of the report then it is unacceptable, that is true," he said.

'Misinterpreted recommendations'

A statement from the FAO confirmed that the ISLI and the WSRO were asked to propose names of experts for the consultation but that the FAO had the final say.

It went on to say that the lack of rigid guidelines meant the consultation was not illegal but "did contravene common sense norms of transparency and the avoidance of perceived conflict of interest."

</div>

<div class="ibox">“ We see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the consultation or our participation in the process would call into question the credibility of the consultation ”

ILSI statement</div>

The FAO said the sugar lobby had misquoted and misinterpreted the recommendations of the 1998 study.

It added that the WHO has been working on reconvening a Carbohydrates consultation, and that this matter was now "regarded as urgent".

ILSI also said it only suggested names of experts to be on the committee, adding: "We did not suggest a specific person as the Chair; it is our understanding that decision is made by the experts themselves.

"We see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the consultation or our participation in the process would call into question the credibility of the consultation."

John Lupien, contradicted Mr de Haen and said that it was normal practice to seek outside funding for studies, adding: "The sources of these funds were not made known to the experts, and were not acknowledged in the final report since this was routine FAO/WHO practice."

He added that the experts had approved the draft agenda and elected Professor David Lineback as their Chairman.

Panorama: The Trouble With Sugar was broadcast on BBC One on Sunday, 10 October at 22:15 BST

</div>

<nitf>CSE's Florida operations exemplify its activism.</nitf>

<nitf> CSE took in the sugar industry contributions--$280,000 each from U.S. Sugar Corp. and Florida Crystals Corp., and $140,000 from the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida--from October to December 1998. That November, CSE Foundation issued a news release asserting that the Everglades project would cost $120 per household in Florida and could result in the loss of 2,879 jobs. The foundation also released a poll concluding that the vast majority of Floridians did not support tax hikes to finance the project.</nitf>

<nitf> Describing CSE as the "voice of consumers for free enterprise," CSE representatives in polo shirts with the CSE logo showed up at a series of local hearings on the plan. And in early 1999, CSE Foundation unveiled a study charging that a peer review panel appointed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt lacked objectivity.</nitf>

<nitf> Meanwhile, sugar industry representatives kept a low profile, asserting publicly that, in principle, they supported the restoration plan. The Florida legislature approved a revised version of it last year, but hurdles remain, including congressional funding. The companies said they did not renew their contributions to CSE in 1999 because CSE's outspoken criticism no longer reflected their position.</nitf>

<nitf> CSE officials, emphasizing their group's independence, noted that, on a separate issue, CSE's opposition to sugar import quotas is sharply at odds with the domestic sugar industry. But U.S. Sugar Corp. spokesman Robert Buker noted that CSE "has not been in the front row of the debate" over import quotas since it received industry funding. "We had a good dialogue with them," he added.</nitf>

<nitf> The Everglades has been just one of CSE's Florida projects. Jon L. Shebel, president and chief executive of Associated Industries of Florida, representing 10,000 businesses, credits CSE with helping enact the broad tort reform last year that was business's top priority in the state.</nitf>

<nitf> "They've made a difference in Florida," said Shebel. "We had a major war going on with the trial lawyers. At times [CSE] would take the TV, and we would take the radio. They have access to big dollars that we don't have access to. . . . It's added a new dimension."</nitf>

<h1>Think Tanks: Corporations' Quiet Weapon</h1>

<div id="byline">By Dan Morgan</div>

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, January 29, 2000; Page A1

=

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom" title="Center for Consumer Freedom" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Center for Consumer Freedom</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corn_Sugar" title="Corn Sugar" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Corn Sugar</a></li>

</ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Enterprise_Freedom_Action_Committee" title="Enterprise Freedom Action Committee" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Enterprise Freedom Action Committee</a></li>

</ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frederick_J._Stare" title="Frederick J. Stare" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Frederick J. Stare</a></li>

</ul>

</td><td style=" width: 258px;">

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fructose" title="Fructose" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Fructose</a></li>

</ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Food_Information_Council" title="International Food Information Council" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">International Food Information Council</a></li>

</ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Robert_Casad_Hockett" title="Robert Casad Hockett" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Robert Casad Hockett</a></li>

</ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sucrose" title="Sucrose" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sucrose</a></li>

</ul>

</td><td style=" width: 259px;">

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar" title="Sugar" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sugar</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Association" title="Sugar Association" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sugar Association</a></li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sugar_Research_Foundation,_Inc." title="Sugar Research Foundation, Inc." style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Sugar Rese</a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

===

===

sugar1015