Sat, Feb-14-04, 11:25
|
|
Registered Member
Posts: 2,276
|
|
Plan: lots of meat
Stats: 00/00/00
BF:goal: 17%
Progress: 41%
Location: Germany (Canadian abroad)
|
|
article title: US gov's sides w/ junk food manufacturers.
US government sides with junk food manufacturers.
By Anthony Colpo, January 28, 2004.
The latest edition of the British Medical Journal reports that the US government has rejected a link between junk food and obesity in a confidential letter to the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr Lee Jong-wook.
The letter, from William Steiger, special assistant at the Department of Health and Human Services, has been leaked and is available on the internet (see below). It is the United States's official response to an April 2003 report by WHO and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) which argued that added sugar should comprise no more than 10% of a healthy diet and that governments should take steps to limit children's exposure to the advertising of junk food. Considering that the ideal level of refined sugar in our diets is much closer to zero, WHO and FAO's ten percent sugar limit could be seen as an exceedingly generous concession to the sugar industry.
Evidently, the US sugar lobby and food manufacturers didn't see it that way.
They began lobbying to prevent the US government from accepting the WHO and FAO proposals. The Sugar Association wrote to Gro Harlem Brundtland, then director general of WHO, threatening to "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the report. Congressmen recruited by the food industry urged the secretary of health, Tommy Thompson, to cut off the $406m annual US contribution to WHO.
Groups such as the National Soft Drink Association, based in Washington, argue that 25% added sugar in the diet is not harmful. Such proclamations, of course, are nothing more than self-serving drivel with no basis in scientific reality.
Sugar Encourages Weight Gain
According to Steiger's letter (page 15): "There is only one study of the relationship of soft drinks and juice to obesity in children, and this is a prospective observational study. No such studies exist in adults."
Not true.
A study from the the October 2002 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported how, for ten weeks, overweight adult men and women were given food and beverages containing either sucrose or artificial sweeteners*, which they consumed in addition to their usual diet. Throughout the study, fat and protein intake was similar between the two groups, but the sucrose group averaged an extra 152-167g of sugar daily. Seventy percent of these sucrose calories came from sodas and fruit-flavored drinks, and 30% came from solid foods. The subjects receiving artificial sweeteners consumed only 4% of their calories from sucrose, compared to 23% in the sucrose group.
Despite the fact that the total weight of food consumed each day was similar between the two groups, the sucrose group averaged over 600 extra calories per day when compared to the sweetener group! This observation reflects the findings of numerous previous studies showing that refined carbohydrates possess far less satiating power than unrefined foods, leading to excessive caloric intake. After ten weeks, this surplus of empty calories was accompanied by an average weight gain of 1.6 kg (3.5lbs), of which 1.3 kg (2.9lbs) was fat! The sweetener group, in contrast, experienced an average weight loss of 1.0 kg. The researchers also measured the subjects' blood pressure; after 10 weeks, blood pressure had increased in the sucrose group but decreased in the sweetener group.
This is not the first time that scientists have shown calorie-containing beverages to promote weight gain. A 1990 study found that drinking artificially-sweetened soda for 3 weeks significantly reduced the calorie intake of both female and male subjects, and decreased body weight in males. However, drinking soda sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (the current refined sugar of choice for US food manufacturers) for 3 weeks increased both the calorie intake and body weight of both sexes.
These negative changes appeared in mere weeks; imagine the cumulative effects on body composition and cardiovascular health after many years on a high-sugar diet! Actually, you don't need to imagine anything ... a quick scan of the patrons at your local shopping mall will readily illustrate the deleterious effects emanating from our conversion to a high-refined carbohydrate diet. So too will a cursory inspection of food intake surveys, FAO food disappearance data, and diabetes and obesity statistics for the last thirty years. As the intake of refined sugars during this period jumped, so too did the prevalence of these two deadly disorders.
Of course, Steiger and the folks at the Department of Health and Human Services aren't about to be swayed by such minor irritations as non-supportive evidence. In reference to high-glycemic foods, Steiger writes that, "Only the most marginal of data suggest that these are associated with obesity, although a clearer relationship exists between these foods and diabetes control." (p.16)Steiger provides no reference to any relevant studies, just repeated assurances that US health bureaucrats have "thoroughly" and "objectively" reviewed all the appropriate literature.In addition to the fact that diabetes and obesity are closely-related entities, numerous studies comparing low-glycemic and high-glycemic diets indeed show that the latter possess poorer satiety value and lead to greater caloric intake (you can click here to view abstracts of these so-called 'marginal' studies).
Perhaps the most laughable sentence of all in Steiger's letter is the one that reads: "[US government] agencies have a long history of using science-based reviews to develop public health policies." He's talking about the very same people who took the American Heart Association's irrational obsession with the nonsensical and repeatedly disproven cholesterol hypothesis, and turned it into a central fixture of modern-day health policy!
Gimme a break!
Fight Back!
If you, like me, resent the attempts by food manufacturers, and their government lackies, to suppress the truth about the true relationship between processed foods and ailments like obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, there is something you can do to fight back; a highly effective form of protest that doesn't involve marching in rowdy street rallies, throwing rocks through shop windows, or getting into running battles with riot police. This form of activism is far more effective because it hits food companies right where it hurts - in their profit statements.
So what is this highly-effective, but under-utilized form of protest? The simple refusal to purchase the sugar-laden, additive-filled, processed and refined garbage that food manufacturers present to us. I'm sure most readers would agree that their bodies and well-being are far more valuable than any low-slung, expensive, and exotic sports car; you wouldn't put low grade fuel in such a car - why put it inside your body? Stop eating nutritionally-inferior pseudo-foods, and stop feeding them to your kids! Support those segments of the food industry that bring us the foods that we need for good health - range-fed meats, poultry, seafood, cultured dairy, and fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables. If we all did this, the political shenanigans taking place right now between the US government, food industry, and the WHO/FAO would quickly become a non-issue.
To view the WHO report, click here.
A link to Steiger's leaked letter can be found here.
Click here to tell President Bush to side with healthy families, not the junk food industry.
* Please note: I do not recommend artificial sweeteners. While they may be the lesser of two evils when compared to refined carbohydrates like sugar, there is simply no need to consume either of these evolutionary-incorrect items. If you need a sweetener, try stevia, a natural herbal product with a long, safe history of use. Powdered and liquid stevia products are available from most health food stores.
Anthony Colpo is a certified fitness consultant with 20 years' experience in the physical conditioning arena. To contact: contact~theomnivore.com
Disclaimer: This article is presented for information purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Persons with medical conditions should institute dietary changes whilst being monitored by a competent medical practitioner.
© Anthony Colpo 2004
|
|
Vote with your wallet and resist expensive, processed LC junk food whenever feasible.
Linear Mode
