The China Study (47 page)

309
GOVERNMENT: IS IT FOR THE PEOPLE?
that it was a printing error. But, no, it was correct. I know several of the
people on the panel who wrote this report and decided to give them a
ring. The first panel member, a long-time acquaintance, said this was
the first time he had even heard about the 35% protein limit! He sug-
gested that this protein recommendation might have been drafted in the
last days of preparing the report. He also told me that there was little
discussion of the evidence on protein, for or against a high consump-
tion level, although he recollected there being some pro-Atkins sympa-
thy on the committee. He had not worked in the protein area, so he did
not know the literature. In any event, this important recommendation
slipped through the panel without much notice and made the first sen-
tence of the FNB news release!
The second panel member, a long-time friend and colleague, was a
subcommittee chair during the latter part of the panel's existence. He is
not a nutritional scientist and also was surprised to hear my concerns
about the upper limit for protein. He did not recall much discussion
on the topic either. When I reminded him of some of the evidence
linking high-animal protein diets to chronic disease, he initially was
a little defensive. But with a little more persistence on my part about
the evidence, he finally said, "Colin, you know that I really don't know
anything about nutrition." How, then, was he a member-let alone the
chair-of this important subcommittee? And it gets worse. The chair of
the standing committee on the evaluation of these recommendations
left the panel shortly before its completion for a senior executive posi-
t i o n in a very large food company-a company that will salivate over
these new recommendations.
A SUGARCOATED REPORT
The recommendation on added sugar is as outrageous as the one for
protein. At about the time this FNB report was being released, an expert
panel put together by the WHO (World Health Organization) and the
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) was completing a new report
on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Professor
Phillip James, another friend of mine, was a member of this panel and a
panel spokesperson on the added sugar recommendation. Early rumors
of the report's findings indicated that the WHOIFAO was on the verge
of recommending an upper safe limit of 10% for added sugar, far lower
than the 25% established by the American FNB group.
Politics, however, had early entered the discussion, as it had done in

4
310                          THE CHINA STUDY
earlier reports on added sugars. 7 According to a news release from the
director-general's office at the WHO,s the U.S.-based Sugar Association
and the World Sugar Research Organization, who "represent the inter-
ests of the sugar growers and refiners, had mounted a strong lobbying
campaign in an attempt to discredit the [WHO 1report and suppress its
release." They did not like setting the upper safe limit so low Accord-
ing to the Guardian newspaper of London,? the U.S. sugar industry was
threatening "to bring the World Health Organization to its knees" un-
less it abandoned these gUidelines on added sugar. WHO people were
describing the threat "as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any
pressure exerted by the tobacco industry."7 The U.S.-based group even
publicly threatened to lobby the U.s. Congress to reduce the $406 mil-
lion u.s. funding of the WHO if it persisted in keeping the upper limit
so low at 100.10! There were reports, after a letter was sent by the industry
to Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, that the
Bush administration was inclined to side with the sugar industry. I, and
many other scientists, were being encouraged at that time to contact
our congressional representatives to stop this outrageous strong-armed
tactic by the U.S. sugar companies.
So, for added sugars, we now have two different upper "safe" lim-
its: a 10% limit for the international community and a 25% limit for
the U.S. Why such a huge difference? Did the sugar industry succeed
in controlling the U.S.-based FNB report but fail with the WHOIFAO
report? What does this say about the FNB scientists who also devised
the new protein recommendation? These wildly different estimates are
not a matter of scientific interpretation. This is nothing more than na-
ked political muscle. Professor James and his colleagues at the WHO
stood up to the pressure; the FNB group appears to have caved in. The
U.S. panel received funding from the M&:M Mars candy company and
a consortium of soft drink companies. Is it possible that the U.s. group,
felt an obligation to these sugar companies? Incidentally, the sugar in-
dustry, in their fight against the WHO conclusion, has relied heavily? on
the FNB report with its 25% limit. In other words, the FNB committee
produces a friendly recommendation for the sugar industry which then
turns around and uses this finding to support its claim against the WHO
report.

GOVERNMENT: IS IT FOR THE PEOPLE?                       311
THE INFLUENCE OF INDUSTRY
This discussion still leaves unanswered the question of how industry
develops such extraordinary influence. Mostly, industry develops con-
sultancies with a few publicly visible figures in academia, who then take
leadership in policy positions outside of academia. However, these in-
d u s t r y consultants continue to wear their academic hats. They organize
symposia and workshops, write commissioned reviews, chair expert
policy groups and/or become officers of key professional societies. They
gravitate toward the leadership positions in science-based organizations
that develop Significant policy and publicity.
Once in these positions, these people then have the opportunity
to assemble teams to their liking, by choosing committee members,
symposia speakers, management staff, etc. The kinds of people most
helpful to the team are either colleagues with similar prejudices and/or
colleagues who are oblivious to who is "calling the shots." It's called
"stacking the deck," and it really works.
In the case of the FNB, its panel was organized while under the chair-
m a n s h i p of an academic who had strong personal ties with the dairy
industry. He helped in selecting the "right" people and helped in setting
the agenda for the report, the most Significant roles that anyone could
have played. Is it surprising that the dairy industry, which must be ec-
static with the panel's findings, also helped to finance the report?
You might be surprised to learn that academic scientists can receive
personal compensation from industry while Simultaneously undertak-
i n g government-sponsored activities of considerable public importance.
Ironically, they can even help set the agenda for the same government
authorities who have long been restricted from such corporate associa-
tions. It is a huge "conflict-of-interest" loophole allowing industries to
exercise their influence through the side door of academia. In effect, the
entire system is essentially under the control of industry. The govern-
m e n t and academic communities, playing their respective roles, mostly
do as they are expected to do.
In addition to M&M Mars company, the corporate sponsors of the
FNB report also included major food and drug companies that would
benefit from higher protein and sugar allowances. 2 The Dannon Insti-
tute, a leading dairy-based consortium promoting its own brand of nu-
t r i t i o n information, and the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI),
which is a front group for about fifty food, supplement and drug compa-

THE CHINA STUDY
312
nies, both contributed funding for the FNB report. Corporate members
include Coca-Cola, Taco Bell, Burger King, Nestle, Pfizer and Roche
Vitamins. 9 Some drug companies sponsored the report directly, in addi-
tion to their support through the International Life Sciences Institute. I
don't recall private corporations providing financial support for the NAS
expert panels that I served on.
It seems as if there is no end to this story. The chair of the FNB has
been an important consultant to several major dairy-related companies
(e.g., National Dairy Council, Mead Johnson Nutritionals, which is
a major seller of dairy-based products, Nestle Company and a Dan-
n o n yogurt affiliate) .10 Simultaneously, he was chair of the Dietary
Guidelines Committee that establishes the Food Guide Pyramid and
sets national nutrition policy affecting the National School Lunch and
Breakfast programs, the Food Stamp Program and the Women, Infants
and Children Supplemental Feeding Program (WIC).I, 10 As chair of this
latter committee, his personal financial associations with the food in-
d u s t r y were not publicly revealed as required by federallaw. l l Eventual-
ly a court order, initiated by the Physician's Committee for Responsible
Medicine, 12 was required to force him and his fellow colleagues to reveal
their relationships with the food industry. Although the chair's industry
associations were more substantial, six of the eleven committee members
also were shown to have ties to the dairy industry. 10, II
The entire system of developing public nutrition information, as I
originally saw with the Public Nutrition Information Committee that
I once chaired (see chapter eleven), has been invaded and co-opted by
industry sources that have the interest and resources to do so. They run
the show. They buy a few academic hacks who have gained positions of
power and who exercise considerable influence, both within academia
and government.
It seems curious that while government scientists are not allowed
to receive personal compensation from the private sector, their col-
leagues in academia can receive all that they can get. In turn, these
conflicted individuals then run the show in collaboration with their
government counterparts. However, restricting academics from receiv-
i n g corporate consultancies is not the answer. That would only drive
it underground. Rather, the situation would be best handled by mak-
ing one's industry connections a matter of public disclosure. Everyone
needs to know the full extent of each academic's associations with
the private sector. Disclosure and full transparency is in everyone's

313
GOVERNMENT: IS IT FOR THE PEOPLE?
interest. These associations should not be something we have to go to
court to discover.
SEnlNG US BACK FOR YEARS
Lest you think that this Food and Nutrition Board report is merely a
five-second news bite that then gets filed into a dusty old cabinet some-
where in Washington, let me assure you that tens of millions of people
are directly affected by this panel's findings. According to the summary
of the report itself,13 the recommended levels of nutrient consumption
that are set by this panel are
the basis for nutrition labeling of foods, for the Food Guide Pyra-
m i d and for other nutrition education programs ... [They are]
used to determine the types and amounts of food:
• provided in the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Supple-
m e n t a l Feeding Program and the Child Nutrition Programs
such as School Lunch,
• served in hospitals and nursing homes for Medicare reim-
bursement,
• found in the food supply that should be fortified with specific
nutrients,
• used in a host of other important federal and state programs
and activities [such as establishing reference values used in
food labeling] 13
The School Lunch Program feeds 28 million children every day. With
officially recommended consumption patterns like these, we are at liberty
to put any agricultural commodity we want into the hungry mouths of
children already suffering from unprecedented levels of obeSity and dia-
betes. By the way, the 2002 FNB report does make one special exception
for children: it says that they can consume up to 40% of calories as fat, up
from 35% for the rest of us, while minimizing the risk of chronic disease.
The Women, Infants and Children Program affects the diets of another 7
million Americans, and the Medicare hospital programs feed millions of
people every year. It is safe to say that the food provided by these govern-
m e n t programs directly feeds at least 35 million Americans a month.
For people who are not directly fed by the government, this nutri-
e n t information still has Significant consequences. From September
2002 onwards, nutrition education programs around the country

314                          THE CHINA STUDY
have incorporated these new gUidelines. This includes education in
primary schools, universities, health professional programs and other
community-based programs. Food labels also will be affected by these
changes, as will the nutrition information that seeps into our lives via
advertising.
Almost all of the wide-ranging effects of this 2002 FNB report will be
profoundly harmful. In school, our children can be fed more fat, more
meat, more milk, more animal protein and more sugar. They will also
learn that this food is consistent with good health. The ramifications
of this are serious, as a whole generation will walk the path of obesity,
diabetes and other chronic illnesses, all the while believing that they
are doing the right thing. Meanwhile, our government and its academic
hacks can feel free to unload more meat, more fat, more animal protein
and more sugar onto the neediest among us (e.g., the Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) participants) . I consider this to be an irresponsible
and callous disregard for American citizens. Of course, these women
and infants are not in a position to pay for research, donate to politi-
cians, give academics special favors or fund government panels! For
others concerned about nutrition, every time they see a dietitian, every
time they see their doctor, every time they see a nutritionist and every
time they go to a community health center, they may be told that a
diet high in fat, animal protein, meat and dairy is consistent with good
health, and they needn't worry about eating too many sweets. Posters
that deck the bulletin boards of public institutions will now feature
these new government guidelines as well.
In short, this 2002 FNB report, which represents the most sweeping,
regressive nutrition policy statement I have ever seen , will either indi-
rectly or directly promote sickness among Americans for many years to
come. Having been a member of several diet and health policy-making
expert panels over a twenty-year period I harbored the view that these
panels were dedicated to the promotion of consumer health. I no longer
believe this to be true.
UNFUNDED NUTRITION
Not only is the government failing to promote health through its recom-
m e n d a t i o n s and reports, it is squandering an opportunity to promote
public health through scientific research. The U.s. National Institutes
of Health (NIH) is responsible for funding at least 80-90% of all bio-
medical and nutrition-related research that is published in the scientific