• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Aug 05, 2016 Leave a Comment

World Health Organization Calls Out Sugar Industry’s Sneaky Tactics

A research article published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization provides a textual analysis of sugar industry influence on WHO’s 2015 sugars intake guideline.

Spoiler: “there was little change between draft and final version of the WHO sugars intake guidelines following industry consultation.” Kudos to WHO on being resistant to industry influence.

The article has many interesting tidbits about common industry tactics to actively fight science.

Highlights:

  • “In 2003, WHO released a joint report which, for the first time, called for a reduction in sugar intake to under 10% of total dietary energy consumption. The Sugar Association wrote that it would “exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature” of WHO’s report on diet and nutrition and would challenge WHO’s funding from the United States of America, which was $406 million in 2003. The Sugar Association erroneously claimed that the report was written by selected experts and was not peer-reviewed and that industry did not have an opportunity to comment.”
  • “To identify the tactics used by the sugar industry, we carried out a qualitative analysis of its submissions. Several methods were employed.”
  • “One tactic involved direct attacks on the implications of the evidence.”
  • “Another was to set unrealistic expectations for scientific research. The results of observational studies were discounted by arguing that confounding was “certain”. For example, the tobacco industry contributed to guidance on what was termed “good epidemiology practice”, which involved rejecting observational research that found a relative risk less than 2 — thereby excluding all research on passive smoking.”
  • “A third tactic was to divert attention to other risk factors, such as lack of physical activity, which excused the sugar industry from responsibility.”
  • “A fourth method, which is widely used by the alcohol industry, was to shift attention from measures to reduce sugar consumption towards measures to avoid harm: for example, the prevention of dental caries by water fluoridation and the use of fluoride toothpaste.”
  • “Some aspects of WHO’s policy-making process may protect it against industry influence. WHO commissions independent systemic reviews of the evidence, which are more carefully scrutinized for conflicts of interest than reviews commissioned by peer-reviewed journals.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Academic Research, Industry Spin, Recommended Reads Tags: Big Tobacco, sugar, World Health Organization

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2022 Dietitians for Professional Integrity