Eating Away at Science

The sugar industry is fighting findings that link its product to obesity. And U.S. officials are echoing the companies’ line.

Illustration: Jonathan Carlson

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The Bush administration took an extraordinary step early this year to defend the interests of
U.S. sugar producers and the packaged-food industry, both of which count top executives among
the president’s biggest fundraisers.

In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent a letter
to the World Health Organization with dozens of objections to the scientific findings that underlie
the WHO’s effort to issue anti-obesity guidelines. Only eight months earlier, U.S. sugar manufacturers
and other food industry groups had called for “the personal intervention” of HHS Secretary Tommy
Thompson and urged him to challenge the WHO’s scientific findings about obesity—most notably
a dietary recommendation to limit consumption of sugar.

Sugar producers and the packaged-food industry have a big economic
stake and liability risk in the outcome of this debate. Obesity-related medical costs totaled
$75 billion in 2003 in the United States alone, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), and obesity is closing in on tobacco as the nation’s leading cause of preventable
death. Meanwhile, diet-related chronic conditions like heart disease and type II diabetes have
overtaken infectious diseases as the leading cause of death worldwide. If obesity is deemed as
merely the result of an individual’s lifestyle choices, then companies involved in producing
unhealthy foods are off the hook. But if such products are seen as causing obesity, then the sugar
and packaged-food industries could be in trouble. The draft version of the WHO’s anti-obesity
strategy, for instance, recommended taxing junk food and providing government subsidies for
healthier products.

The final WHO guidelines are scheduled to be approved this summer, and
before drafting them the WHO produced a summary of the scientific research, which finds a connection
between obesity and unhealthy diets, including too much consumption of sugar and fatty foods.
In April 2003, after this report was released, the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association
(which makes high-fructose corn syrup, the leading soft-drink sweetener) mobilized to have the
findings revised. Not only did they call on HHS to take action, but the Sugar Association also wrote
to the WHO threatening to have its allies in Congress eliminate the organization’s U.S. funding
if the WHO didn’t rethink its anti-obesity work.   

The industry’s leaders and representatives are certainly well positioned
to make their views known in Washington, particularly to the president and his top advisers. The
Bush campaign acknowledges, for instance, that its “Rangers”—fundraisers who bundle
at least $200,000 in donations—include the sugar magnate Jose “Pepe” Fanjul Jr.; Richard
F. Hohlt, a 2003 lobbyist for Altria, which owns Kraft Foods; and Robert Leebern Jr., a lobbyist
who last year represented Coca-Cola. And in the campaign’s class of “Pioneers”–bundlers
of a minimum of $100,000; there’s Robert A. Coker, a United States Sugar Corp. senior vice
president; Barclay Resler, Coca-Cola’s vice president of Government Relations; and Joe Weller,
the chairman and CEO of Nestlé USA.

The sugar and food industry associations contend that the WHO’s global
strategy fails to recognize that personal lifestyle choices are as much a cause of obesity as diet.
And in January, when the Bush administration sent its comments to the WHO, it raised exactly those
objections, echoing the industry’s mantra of individuals taking “personal responsibility.”
In a 28-page letter, the HHS Office of Global Health Affairs director William R. Steiger, who happens
to be George H.W. Bush’s godson, notes that the administration “supports personal responsibility
to choose a diet conducive to individual energy balance, weight control, and health.” The letter
goes on to criticize the WHO scientific report’s “linking of fruit and vegetable consumption
to decreased risk of obesity,” along with many of its other scientific findings. In response to
these and other objections, the WHO decided to revise its guidelines.

HHS spokesman Bill Pierce denies that industry groups helped in drafting
the department’s criticisms. But, nonetheless, its January letter to the WHO discusses the value
of industry input. “HHS would encourage the WHO to add more language on the role of industry and/or
trade groups in addressing diet and nutrition,” the critique says, “especially those representing
the food and beverage industries.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate