Sugar, sugar, sugar

Republican disses sweeter than whine

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson

01/28/04

http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Sociology/sugarsugar.htm

Back 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 problems.

I wrote an essay on it ("Sugar, Sugar – But profits are sweeter") 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 cartels.

Nine 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.

Now 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).

In 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 years.

Now 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 on Congress.

They 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."

It 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.

It’s 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.

But 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."

Folks, 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.

If 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.

The administration is trying to get WHO to back down from issuing guidelines regarding the amount of sugar people should limit themselves to.

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," isn’t it?)

And 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.

That’s all.

Incidently, 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% to Republicans.

These days, being a member of the Administration is a bit like being a streetwalker.

The job leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

But the pay is sweet.