There are altogether far too many people in the world with far too much time on their hands and not nearly enough genuine trauma in their lives to occupy them. That, in a nutshell, is what lies at the root of so many of our problems.
First it was narcotics, then guns, then tobacco, then fast-food and now it looks like we are witnessing the opening salvoes of the War on Sugar:
The World Health Organization has accused big business interests in the United States of trying to influence a new report on the dangers of consuming too much sugar.
Fresh guidelines to be published by the organisation on Wednesday will stress that sugar should form no more than 10% of a person’s diet.
What a perfect set up! The ‘honest’, ‘caring’, ‘selfless’ professionals of the WHO pitted against the obesity-spreading, profit-obsessed vested interests of the corporate suger industry. I can just see the latest anti-globo protest banner now: ‘SUGAR IS WORSE THAN RICIN’.
Well, let me nail my colours to the mast right here and now and say that I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the corporate neo-sugar mongers on this one. Since I am usually to be found agitating vigourously on behalf of the productive profit-seekers of this world, I am hardly in any mood to abandon them now, especially when they’re genuinely fighting a good fight and probably telling the truth.
And let no-one be fooled by the use of the innocuous word ‘guidelines’. As if these things are merely helpful suggestions. We all should know by now that these directives are only ‘advisory’ until such time as they are successfully enacted into state law. The anti-tobacco injunctions used to be just ‘guidelines’ as well.
“I don’t think this is a very wise strategy by the industry, because the evidence is so strong and the great public believes this message,” said Dr Puska.
Methinks Dr.Puska protests too loudly. Does he really expect us to believe that he gets millions of plaintiff letters from people all over the world saying, “Please rescue us from the capricious tyrrany of sugar, Dr.Puska”?
I don’t buy any of it any more than I bought into the ‘global warming’ hoax which, incidentally, appears to have set the methodological template for all future junk science scares. Nor am I the slightest bit interested in entering any debate as to the merits (or otherwise) of consuming sugar because I simply don’t give a damn. I speak as somebody who has a fair shot at getting a job as Danny De Vito’s body-double but I’ll be damned to the deepest pit of perdition if I am going to sit back and allow some otherwise-unemployable tranzi penpusher tell me what I can or can’t sprinkle on my breakfast cereal.
Never mind Saddam, or Al-Qaeda or gangs of shadowy, homicidal Islamofascists, when are we going to start a War on Busybodies?
Get rid of home vids and games and send the kids outside to play.
I AM NOT GIVING UP CHOCOLATE!!!!!
OR DR. PEPPER
And have Scotland stop deep-frying Snickers bars.
Wasn’t this an episode of ‘The Simpsons’?
The irony here is that ‘sugar’ as such isn’t very popular, industrially, in the United States. Since 1981, the government has effectively set the price of sugar in the U.S. at about twice that of world market levels through subsidies, loans, purchases, and import restrictions.
As a result, most sweet products made in factories in the U.S. contain no ‘sugar’ at all, but rather ‘high-fructose corn syrup’. Aside from, in most cases, resulting in a noticeably inferior product, there are indications that this stuff is actually a heck of a lot worse for you than is sucrose, and that it’s possibly a significant cause of the recent apparent surge in obesity and diabetes in the United States.
(The National Soft-Drink Association — probably the U.S.’ largest single use of sweeteners is in fizzy drinks — maintains that consumers prefer their products sweetened with inverted corn starch. Interesting, then, that these companies persist in using good old sugar in their products everywhere else in the world, and that they only switched to corn syrup when the price of sugar doubled in the 1980s. I think what they mean to say is that Americans prefer corn-syrup Coke to twice-as-expensive Coke.)
It’d be great if the WHO report pointed out that distorted markets are a health risk, but somehow I doubt we’ll see that.
Dollars to donuts what they’re really after is a new tax (a UN tax?) on sweetners.
<>
Anytime you like, David. But the sticking point as always is that such a huge proportion of our fellow citizens is wedded to the “easy” State-controlled life – like dogs that are neutered, led around on a lead, but get fed regularly & housed in a cosy kennel – that it ain’t going to happen. How many people know or care about this sort of thing? Damn few. If they did, they might grumble, but would it make them change their voting habits – for, say, a Libertarian Party candidate? Never. Me, I’d repudiate all UK deals with the UN, WHO etc, tomorrow, then break out the arms & ammo to deal with our home-grown bureaucrats, but to expect this to receive general support is (excuse the expression) pissing into the wind. Sorry, feeling depressed again after a doorstep conversation with my Conservative district council candidate, who hadn’t the faintest idea what I was talking about when I suggested it might be a good idea for the “Conservatives” (ho ho) to actually distinguish themselves from Labour/SDP by slashing taxes radically.
This reminds me of the old “Not the Nine O’Clock News” sketch about being “Proud to be Stout”. I’m not proud to be stout (though I could perhaps be a lot slimmer), but what the hell business is it of these WHO fascists to tell me what I can, or cannot have, in my food?
The problem with the “developing” world (aka. that part of the world dominated by corrupt nationalist, socialist, and national socialist governments) is that they have too few calories in their diet. Try telling a man on 1000 calories a day, that he’s eating too much sugar.
So, there are too many of us in the West who the do-gooders think are too fat (that nauseous Ian McCartney springs to mind, living proof that Blair is running out of good liars). So what? The beauty of the West, is that it’s supposed to be free, isn’t it? If I’m stupid enough to eat too many Mars Bars, that’s my problem. WHO should stick to people dying of malnutrition, from a lack of energy-filled foods. And why does starvation happen? Because too many of the world’s dictators are propped up by UN aid, coerced out of western populations through taxes, and all the Mugabes of the world are thus allowed to keep their people under the jackboot indefinitely, their weapons of war and Swiss bank accounts propped up from my cheques to the Inland Revenue, taken from me against my will, on threat of prison. Great.
I’ve changed my mind, I am proud to be stout. Let’s leave the UN, right now. Sod them. Where’s the nearest Mars Bar emporium? Better grab one while I can.
“We all should know by now that these directives are only ‘advisory’ until such time as they are successfully enacted into state law. The anti-tobacco injunctions used to be just ‘guidelines’ as well.”
This is wrong. The progression from guideline to law is far from inevitable: often it doesn’t happen at all.
For instance, the WHO has been recommending that mothers breastfeed for at least one to two years per child, for as long as I can recall. Nobody ever took any notice of that.
Let’s take an objective approach rather than going completely over the top. Nobody is trying to stop us putting sugar on our cereal. Not every bad busybody idea inevitably turns into a human-rights issue.
Alice,
The difference could lie in the fact that to make something like breast-feeding compulsory requires a mandamus which is difficult to enact and even more difficult to enforce.
Contrast prohibitions which are much easier to enact and enforce as in the case of drugs, firearms, tobacco tec.
Given the various precedents that have been set, I feel duty bound to hit these ‘health campaigns’ hard from the outset and before they begin to gather any steam.
I must admit I am not as worried as DC,
This is the latest report offering the opinion of a bunch of people. It has been a long running debate and the reply from the sugar industry was predictable. Who knows in longevity terms which side is right or wrong, if any. I suspect it depends on the circumstances prevailing at the time of any test.
If you want sugar buy it. If you support the industry buy a lot of it and eat it. No one, even the WHO will stop you. The WHO will only recommend that you dont exceed 10% of your diet in “normal circumstances”. They are not recommending legislation. You are still free to die of sucrose poisoning should that be possible and your final wish.
I don’t think this counts as an attack on free trade, libertarians or any other aspect of our democratic lifestyle.
“…when are we going to start a War on Busybodies?”
In your case, my friend, I would recommend getting a XXL flak jacket before hostilities break out. I would hate to see another victim of “Friendly Fire”…
And have Scotland stop deep-frying Snickers bars..
No No No!! We deep fry Mars bars in Scotland!
And a fine dish it is too!
It’s sad that they can come out with this kind of nonsense (which is thinly diguised anti-Americanism anyway) when they have so many more important things they could spend their money on. Cholera, Diarrhoea and Tuberculosis are all curable diseases yet many thousands of people die from them each year. The WHO predicted they could wipe out Malaria – oops, still around. Perhaps they were too ambitious in their aims, perhaps more money could solve things. Ah yes, money. The WHO criticises and blames big business interests in the “great sugar scandal” – but didn’t an external auditor complain that the WHO had failed to fully cooperate in an investigation of fraud and financial mismanagement a few years back? Tossers.
A War on Busybodies? Where do I sign up?
“A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business…The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice the utmost humility, is boundless.” — Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
Some of the reactions to this article seem way over the top. Its a report, it offers guidelines which you can either take note of or ignore, depending on your point of view, (or how sweet a tooth you may have). To claim that a WHO report represent unfair bullying or control over the industry is simply a ludicrous overreaction.
I’m more concerned with the pressure being exerted by the sugar companies on the WHO to alter their findings. I don’t care what your particular view of the WHO as an organisation, the sugar companies are NOT best placed to offer objective dietary advice. They’re entitled to make their case but they shouldn’t seek to suppress the other sides point of view. Let’s hear the arguments on either side and make up our own minds.
The sugar industry is big enough to look after itself, and more than capable of promoting its interests. Watch an hour of kids tv if you need proof. The growing numbers of obese children that we see around us everyday are subjected to repeated advertisments pushing products crammed with sugar. Its money well spent by the advertisers as they are inculcating dietary habits which last for years.
If the WHO report encouraging that they eat less sugar will improve their chances of avoiding heart disease and cancer and leading a more productive life then I welcome it. It’ll have to compete with the marketing budgets of Coke, Mars and the rest of course so its unlikely to make a huge difference. Of course, the alternative is that we allow the sugar industry and similar vested interests to write our health guidelines for us. Then we, as a society, pick up the tab for the productivity decline, increased sickness and disability charges and related obesity costs incurred as a result. That doesn’t sound so sweet…
well said matt.
& Alan, how is saying sugar’s bad for you ” thinly diguised anti-Americanism anyway”? How exactly did you reach that conclusion?
As far as I understand it, the report just says “eating too much sugar’s bad for you”, which isn’t very contentious really. Of *course* the sugar industry’s going to question the findings, & doubtless it can pay ‘scientists’ to disprove whatever the WHO claims.
At the end of the day though, despite all your paranoid pronouncements above, I don’t believe the WHO has any particular vested interest in this matter (I certainly don’t subscribe to the view that all those who work for the WHO are engaged in some global conspiracy to regulate us all to death, or at least boredom), whereas the sugar industry clearly has a major vested interest. Excuse me therefore if I take the WHO’s report/opinion as somewhat more reputable and authoritative than the sugar industry’s. And no, i don’t think they’ll be regulating sugar out of food any time soon; tobacco would’ve been a lot harder to ban/severely regulate if it had been a basic ingredient in thousands of products. All they’re trying to do is make sure people can make an *informed* choice, something the sugar companies don’t seem very keen on. Despite any knee-jerk ‘big companies/free enterprise good’ reaction you may have, surely you can’t disagree with that?
Is this the same WHO which recently published dire predictions that, now more people are surviving to adulthood and living relatively long lives, cancer deaths are going to SOAR? Shock. Horror. Disbelief. Run for the hills. Better to die at 2 from malnutrition, right?
That said, the real surprise from this brouhaha is that those maggots in the US sugar industry (the most abusive eco-force in the southeast, destroyer of the Everglades, and ham-fisted underminers of democracy–get the picture?) are willing to crawl out from under their rocks to oppose THIS! This powerless nothing of a guideline. Quick, pour salt on them while they’re exposed. Watch them writhe and die. Die. Die. Die.
A_t
The World Health Organization has accused big business interests in the United States…
That is how I concluded that the report was also a sideswipe at America. Why didn’t they mention for example the large sugar companies operating in Africa and the Indian sub-continent hmm? Perhaps they don’t count in the wider picture – or perhaps they’re just subsidiaries of large American companies anyway… yes that must be it.
Suppose for example that the Nigerian government decides to privatise the sugar companies operating in Nigeria and goes on to capture a large share of the market (okay, I know – very unlikely), would the WHO criticise it in quite the same way as it does “big American companies”?
“All they’re trying to do is make sure people can make an *informed* choice, something the sugar companies don’t seem very keen on…” well maybe, but this is hardly ground breaking news is it? We’ve had several “food scares” over the past few decades. Why should we listen to the WHO when we can listen to our own health authorities advice?
“The growing numbers of obese children that we see around us everyday are subjected to repeated advertisments pushing products crammed with sugar.” Very true. The same obese children (and increasing numbers of obese adults) never do any real exercise. Where are the WHO initiatives and programs on encouraging exercise?
Coming back to David Carr’s original point: “The anti-tobacco injunctions used to be just ‘guidelines’ as well.” What’s to stop (for example) the EU from passing legislation that prohibits manufacured foods from having more than a 5% sugar content say? The point is, what business is it of theirs (even if there is an excellent health reason behind it)?
Alan, if you’d read on… ” has accused big business interests in the United States of trying to influence a new report on the dangers of consuming too much sugar.”
The reason only US sugar companies are mentioned is only they, as far as I know, are exerting political pressure to stop the publication of the report. That’s why. It’s not anti-americanism; just that only American companies have the gall to think their commercial interests will considered more important than the right of those who elected the politicians to be honestly informed about the consequences of their actions.
I’m not in any way for restricting what we should be allowed to consume; what you do to yourself is entirely your own business. However, i do think we should be informed, as honestly as possible, about possible consequences of said actions. In the same way that cigarette companies covering up/denying their cigarettes’ carcinogenic properties was bad, so this is.
If, knowing that you know they may give you cancer, you wish to smoke cigarettes, that’s fine. Similarly, if you don’t mind growing fat, or acquiring a number of other health complaints, then you’re free to eat as much sugar as you want.
To my mind, if you fancy taking heroin, or any other currently illegal drug, provided you’re well informed about the known dangers of doing so, I have no problem with that at all. What I *would* strongly object to would be the heroin dealers of the UK clubbing together to try & use some of their hefty heroin-selling profits to suppress independent research into the effects of their product, or saying that health officials who wished to warn the public about possible risks were damaging their business, and ‘unscientific’ (unless they genuinely were). I’m not saying sugar wreaks ravages like heroin does (which in itself is quite debatable… try making sugar illegal & see how chaotic things get… how many people burgle for their sugar fix.), but you can presumably see the parallel.
Oh no!!! The EU better strengthen trade restrictions on any evil sugar that Third World producers may try to import! I heard that people in the UK currently pay three times the global market price for sugar thanks to quotas and tariffs at the EU level. When teaching at the University of East Anglia in Norwich I also read that Norfolk sugar beat farmers were protesting plans in the EU to reduce quotas and tariffs, and thereby threaten their monopoly. The farmers’ campaign was represented by no less the Conservative MP Gilian Shephard!
One of the ways that these “guidelines” turn into mandates, at least in the US, is through mass tort lawsuits. In a nutshell, the “guidelines” are sold to the courts/juries as scientific standards, such that anyone involved in activities not in accord with the standards is either negligent or engaged in willful wrongdoing. Once juries start to buy this garbage, they start handing out damage awards intended to bankrupt the industry. Industry falls into compliance with the guidelines to avoid these awards.
Not sure exactly how this might play out in the case of “Big Sugar,” but you can be sure there are buildings full of smart lawyers coming up with an answer to that question right now.
Alan,
Where are the WHO initiatives and programs on encouraging exercise?
They’re part of the same report. Go to their site and check it out before concluding that they’re engaged in corporate bashing.
What’s to stop (for example) the EU from passing legislation that prohibits manufacured foods from having more than a 5% sugar content
You, me, the sugar manufacturers, soft drink manufacturers, the list goes on. No one is proposing such a law, indeed it exists only in your imagination. Why are you overreacting to something so innocuous?
Why should we listen to the WHO when we can listen to our own health authorities advice?
You are free to listen to whomever you wish. You may take nutrition advice from Tate and Lyle if you choose; it’s a free country. You will understand that some parents prefer a less compromised source. We’re lucky to have excellent, well-funded health authorities that can provide good, independent advice. However, many nations, particularly in the Third World, have too many immediate pressing health problems to devote the resources to this research, vital though it is. The WHO report provides them with a template to introduce preventative health care and thus get the most from their limited resources.
It may be easy to rail against supra national bodies such as the WHO but in this case you’re way off the mark. This is an excellent report, based on solid science, giving sound, sensible advice to parents and others who care about their health. For the sugar companies to abuse their lobbying power to try to suppress it is shameful, and for you to wilfully misconstrue the efforts of food scientists as being in some way part of an anti-American exercise in corporate bashing is, with respect, ridiculous.
Now give me twenty press ups Alan and lose that Mars Bar!
One press up…
Two press ups…
Three press ups…
When can I have that Mars Bar?
Four press ups… puff…
David, now where can I get a cocaine sprinkled whisky and chocolate bar in easy to smoke wrapping?
Now that would be a good marketting ploy…
Alan,
After your stirling effort I’ve relented. By all means enjoy your Mars Bar, but remember, you are only allowed to eat %10!
And that doesn’t mean skimming the caramel off the top, there’s a WHOLE separate EU directive forbidding that… 😉
The fact I think the WHO is a pointless organisation should not hide the fact Big Biz just loooooves to use the state to defend its interests and finance its R&D at taxpayers expense, and Big Sugar is in fact a splendid example of this.
For reasons I regrettably cannot elaborate on, I have personal knowledge of the manner in which large sugar companies use legal threats and out and out bribery to silence people who endanger their interests. Big Biz can often be capitalism’s worst enemy. The two are not synonymous.
WHO report is an example of junk science.
From FoxNews.com
World Health Baloney
“The guidelines call for limiting fat intake to 15-30 percent of daily calories consumed. Carbohydrates should provide the bulk of energy requirements (55-75 percent of daily intake), but added sugars should be limited to 10 percent — about a pack of M&Ms or a soda per day. The recommended protein intake should be 10-15 percent of daily calories consumed. Salt intake should be limited to 5 grams per day.”
[…]
“First, the guidelines’ recommendations were pulled out of thin air and are devoid of science. Not a single scientific study demonstrates they will prevent even a single case of chronic disease or make you healthier.”
[…]
“Last fall, WHO panel member Shiriki Kumnayika oversaw a U.S. Institute of Medicine (search) panel concluding that diet quality was unaffected until added sugars exceeded 25 percent of daily calories. Now months later, Kumanyika’s WHO panel recommends a 10 percent limit. No new science supports such a drastic change — it’s simply arbitrary and capricious.”
———————————