in April of last year it came to light that some
Republicans were demanding that Congress cut funding
for the World Health Organization, because the
WHO was issuing a report that suggested that people
should restrict their average sugar intake to
10% of their daily caloric intake (presently in
America it is an amazing 20-25%). There isn't
a nutritionist in the world who won't tell you
that people inhale far too much refined sugar
for their own good, and need to cut back. They've
been saying this for 50 years and more. Sugar
is empty calories that promote obesity, tooth
decay and diabetes, and a host of other medical
wrote an essay on it ("Sugar, Sugar -- But profits
are sweeter" http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/sugar.htm
) noting that the American sugar industry was
the force trying to get WHO to back off on the
report and pressuring Congress to defund WHO if
they continued to threaten profits for the sugar
months later, not much has changed. WHO did go
ahead and issue the report over the wails of corrupt
sugar barons and their pet monkeys on a stick
in Congress, but Congress didn't dare attack WHO,
since it was enjoying favorable publicity world-wide
for its efforts in containing SARS, Mad Cow Disease,
Avian flu and a host of other threats that have
emerged in recent years.
WHO is issuing dietary guidelines to restrict
sugar intake. You don't have to read it to have
a good idea what it says. Cut back or eliminate
soft drinks, candy, and cut back on processed
foods, which often have sugar added during processing.
Stay away from junk food (McDonalds' restaurants
used to add extra sugar to their buns so they
would brown more quickly when toasting).
other words, it's all common sense dietary advice,
and there's probably nobody out there over the
age of 40 who hasn't heard identical suggestions
from their family doctor as a means to either
get or stay healthy. Americans have been hearing
-- and largely ignoring -- such advice for many
that low-carb diet plans have gotten big enough
to have an economic impact (I see some good things
coming from this, such as bread that is four grams
of carbohydrates a slice and that has eliminated
sugar from its recipe, to the ridiculous, such
as "low-carb" vodka. Folks, the only way to significantly
reduce the carbs in liquor is by taking the alcohol
out!) the sugar industry is cranking up the pressure
are saying the same crap that the oil companies
say about climate change, or what the tobacco
industry used to say about health concerns regarding
smoking: "junk science," "flawed investigations,"
and "politically motivated."
took a special kind of whore to state that claims
that tobacco caused lung cancer were "junk science."
It was pretty much limited to the pathetic pseudo-scientists
who worked for the tobacco companies, and Rush
Limbaugh and his brain-dead followers. Maybe Rush
took pain pills before uttering such claims for
the same reason a streetwalker snorts some coke
before heading down the stairs: it makes an unpalatable
job more bearable.
getting harder and harder to claim there is no
global warming. The case that it's natural, as
opposed to man-made, is getting weaker as more
and more evidence turns up. People who claim that
global warming is a result of solar fluctuation,
or melting CO2 ice on the ocean floor, or from
volcanos aren't subject to widespread derision
and contempt like the ones trying to claim there
is no global warming, but things are moving in
that direction as more and more measurements and
data pour in.
saying that sugar is fattening is one of those
statements that is so commonplace that a refutation
would seemingly defy reason. What kind of whore
would stand there and say that suggestions that
sugar is bad for you, that it's fattening and
will rot your teeth, and that you should cut back
on it, are "junk science."
meet the Bush administration. They are doing what
even Congress wouldn't do, and they are going
to bat for the sugar industry to fight the good
fight against warning people that sugar is not
good for them and they should cut back.
nothing else shows what a pathetic captive of
special interests this administration is, this
will. They stand four-square against the American
public and the general welfare of the people on
issues such as medical care, the environment,
social spending and accountability. They are entirely
the creatures of the plutocrats and interests
that see the American people as a source of income
and nothing more.
administration is trying to get WHO to back down
from issuing guidelines regarding the amount of
sugar people should limit themselves to.
this end, the usual assortment of lies is being
issued by the usual assortment of liars at Fox
News and AM radio and from GOP fax machines. The
claim is being made that the UN is trying to compel
people to cut back on sugar, that the guidelines
are meant to be law, and usurp the sovereignty
of individual nations. (It's always a bit disconcerting
to see the same people who attacked Afghanistan
and Iraq start prattling about "national sovereignty,"
of course, it is a pack of lies. The UN is issuing
guidelines. Nothing mandatory. Nothing compulsory.
Just an advisory that people should restrict sugar
to 10% of their diet.
according to Open Secrets, PepsiCo gave $540,913,
81% of it to Republicans. American Crystal Sugar
gave $520,000, 39% of it to Republicans. US Sugar
Corp gave $503,580, 58% to Republicans. ConAgra
Inc gave $452,369, 77% to Republicans. Florida
Crystals Inc gave $418,740, 40% to Republicans.
And Ocean Spray Cranberries gave $374,550, 43%
days, being a member of the Administration is
a bit like being a streetwalker.
job leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
the pay is sweet.
Sugar But profits are sweeter by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
a rather nasty epidemic affecting Asia and Canada
that is threatening to become a very nasty pandemic
threatening the entire world. Unfortunately, it
got its start in a country governed by a dishonest,
paranoid, and secretive regime. For once, I'm
not talking about the Putsch junta: this is China.
entity most responsible for fighting the spread
of this virus, and for forcing the paranoid bureaucrats
of the Beijing regime to give an honest accounting
of the course of SARS in their country, has been
the World Health Organization (WHO), the health
branch of the UN. WHO is the international version
of the Centers for Disease Control in America,
and like the CDC, WHO tracks contagious diseases,
coordinates research to find ways of preventing
the spread, and proposes measures to prevent such
contagions in the first place. It's impossible
to guess how many lives they've saved over the
past 55 years, but tens of millions is probably
a conservative guess. vWhen China lied to the
world about SARS, it was WHO that called them
on it -- had the knowledge to be ABLE to call them
on it -- and has gradually been getting a more
accurate picture to help the rest of the world
prepare for what might be a very serious problem.
coordinated research efforts among the French,
Canadians, and Germans, and identified the coronavirus
that caused the disease and mapped its genome
in the amazing period of just a few weeks. WHO
has been exemplary in raising concern while assuaging
panic. They have been real heroes over the past
three months, from the time they first became
aware that there was something going on in China.
the sugar industry. Lobbyists for American sugar
and soft drink manufacturers are approaching Congress
with a request.
want Congress to cut funding for WHO, thus destroying
doesn't matter how many times you blink at that
sentence -- it's not going to change. They want
to destroy WHO.
reason for this is that WHO, which has to do,
as part of its mission, studies on nutritional
health, is issuing a new report containing guidelines
for good diet today, and in the report, they recommend
that a healthy diet consist of no more than 10%
folks who make lots of money selling you sugared
foods and soft drinks beg to differ. They think
a rich and satisfying diet should consist of about,
ohhh, twenty five percent sugar. They probably
also think that any mouth with more than ten teeth
in it is just a waste of enamel, too.
already launched a barrage of propaganda against
the report, of a viciousness and dishonesty that
the tobacco industry could only dream of. Defying
nearly every legitimate nutritionist in the world,
they condemned WHO for "misguided, non-science-based
reports which do not add to the health and well-being
of Americans, much less the rest of the world"
and swore to "exercise every avenue available
to expose the dubious nature" of this report.
The sugar salesmen wish to avoid the effort of
such intense lobbying in the future by requiring
"future WHO funding to be provided only if the
organization accepts that all reports must be
supported by the preponderance of science." If
that noise sounds vaguely familiar, it's the same
demands that the tobacco, timber, and anti-science
religious whack industries have been screeching
sugar industry claims that a report by the Institute
of Medicine backs their claim that healthy diets
should consist of 25% sugar. But Harvey Fineberg,
Institute president of the Institute, warned that
the report was being misinterpreted. He says it
does not make a recommendation on sugar intake.
Cola and Coca Cola have been vigorously fighting
another report that indicates that in developing
countries where the soft drinks are getting widespread
acceptance, nutritionists are seeing more and
more kids who suffer simultaneously from malnutrition
and obesity. What swell guys they are!
a chance of course that our once-proud Congress,
now a motley collection of begging whores sleazing
from corporation to corporation for the next campaign
donation and a fat corporate job after they leave
public office, will go along with this.
that happens, it will mark yet a further low point
in America's rapid descent.
people have little use for sugar. It's empty calories
that don't benefit the body at all. Further, it
destroys teeth, and yanks blood sugar levels all
over the place, thus promoting diabetes. Most
doctors will recommend eliminating sucrose from
the diet altogether, and the late Doctor Atkins
took it a step further, recommending elimination
of all fruit in the first stages of his diet,
thus eliminating fructose as well as sucrose,
and only reintroducing small amounts of fructose
in later stages of the diet. He saw no reason
for a person to ever eat any refined sugar ever
the soft drink people have been trying to get
away from sugar. Aspartame (Nutrasweet) was supposed
to be the saving replacement, but aspartame comes
with a wide variety of side effects, including
obesity (it somehow spikes blood sugar, increasing
appetite, which sorta defeats the purpose), liver
and kidney problems, migraines, depression, and
even neurological problems.
were associated with bladder cancer in laboratory
rats, but skeptics outside the sugar industry
noted that had the rats been fed equivalent amounts
of sugar, they would have all died from obesity
and diabetes. Incidently, after thirty years of
use in Canada, no elevated instance of bladder
cancer has been found in humans, not even in Quebec.
latest artificial sweetener is sucralose, which
is sugar molecules with a chlorine molecule added.
While, like its predecessors, it's not perfect
(there are reports of lab animal subjects getting
shrunken thymus glands (up to 40%) and enlarged
liver and kidneys), it has zero calories, doesn't
rot the teeth, and doesn't jigger the blood sugar
levels. Conditionally, it looks a lot more promising
than aspartame at this point.
has been authorized for sale in the US, and is
available on the shelves under the brand name
of "Splenda." It has a huge advantage over cyclamates
or aspartame in that it is stable in heat and
oxygen, and is thus ideal for cooking and can
mix with acidic and carbonated beverages quite
sweetener is Stevia, which a Canadian nutritional
page describes as follows: "This is a non-caloric,
zero-carb natural sweetener, derived from a South
American plant stevia rebaudiana, and has been
in wide use in Asia for some years now. It's becoming
more readily available in North America; look
for it in health food and natural food stores.
So far, it appears to be well-tolerated, with
no reports of negative effects. It is available
as a liquid extract - either concentrated or dilute,
a white crystalline powder made from the extract
or simply the powdered green herb leaf. It provides
an intense sweet taste, which has the potential
to be bitter. Some people find it has a slight
anise/licorice flavor which may or may not be
objectionable. Also, some studies suggest that
it may possibly stimulate the release of insulin;
in Protein Power Lifeplan, the Eades' recommend
using stevia with caution. It is stable in heat,
so is fine to use in cooking.." [Source: http://www.lowcarb.ca/tips/tips006.html]
same entities that are trying to punish the World
Health Organization for merely suggesting that
people limit their intake of sugar are the very
same ones who are frantically seeking replacements
for sugar. Pepsico and Coke are in a race to get
sucralose-sweetened sodas on the market first.
know the destructive effect sugar is having on
people, and like the tobacco industry before them,
they are trying to do everything they can to prevent
it all from caving in on them.
trying to destroy WHO as a punishment for saying
the same thing that most family doctors said for
years is insane. If they press this, they should
be held criminally and civilly liable, and any
Congressman who supports such a vicious, hare-brained
destructive notion should be targeted for defeat
for deliberately attempting to injure the American
has saved tens of millions of lives. Sugar has
destroyed tens of millions of lives.
to figure out what the right move is, Congress.
And for once, don't let psychotic thieves like
the sugar companies own your consciences.
Posted: January 28, 2004