Perhaps you remember about a month ago, when the World Health Organization came out with guidelines for tackling what is turning out to be a global obesity epidemic. They said nothing less radical than too much sugar is bad for humans. Representatives of the Bush Administration quickly objected to this (emphasis mine): “The Bush administration, which receives millions in funding from the sugar industry, argues there is little robust evidence to show that drinking sugary drinks or eating too much sugar is a direct cause of obesity. It particularly opposes a recommendation that just 10 per cent of people’s energy intake should come from added sugar. The US has a 25 per cent guideline. Thompson’s representative… will be Bill Steiger, godson of George Bush Sr. He will argue there is no evidence that selling junk food to children increases overweight. [sic]”
The sugar industry has become a political linebacker, set to tackle any politician or scientist that dares speak ill of it, let alone attempt to rein it in. This means they have a two-front war for profits to wage.
The dietary front is only half the story. I have said before that every weight loss diet that works involves drastically if not completely eliminating refined sugars from your life, in the context of reducing total calories. Other experts agree that too much sugar, including too much corn syrup, is not good for you. Even the most rabid of high-carb low-fat proponents must concede this point. However, to listen to this commentator, sugar is great for you: the article is long on out of context quotes such as “Yes, even our “children benefit from eating some sugar,” says Ellyn Satter, a childhood weight specialist and clinical therapist…” and not-cited research by unknown researchers who “have found that added sugars and sodas – like other high-calorie, low-nutrient dense foods – are unrelated to weight. Consumption is high among all kids. In fact, the skinniest teens actually drink the most sodas, and the fattest drink the most sugar-free ones.” Did you notice that even her cited expert said “some” sugar is beneficial? I smell an agenda.
The other battlefront for Big Sugar is world trade, where they are in the process of winning two big skirmishes. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is only going to allow 110,000 additional tons of sugar to be imported tariff free into the United States in return for opening Central American markets to American rice. Doesn’t sound like much of a free trade agreement, does it?
The other Big Win for Big Sugar is in a trade pact with Australia. Now, please keep in mind that Australian sugar producers are not faring as well as their American cousins. Last month the Australians made it clear that if the Americans wanted a Free Trade deal, it would have to include sugar. American Big Sugar made it clear that it had better not. Alas, the article is premium content, but The Economist had this to say in their February 14, 2004 print issue:
The deal has once again underscored the clout of the American sugar lobby — scattered across America from the powerful interests of Florida, a key electoral state for Mr. Bush in November, to the beet growers of North Dakota. The industry and its executives are among the biggest donors to congressmen and to the president. The sugar quotas they favour mean Americans pay around three times the world-market price. The inclusion of tiny concessions to cane growers in five Central American countries, in the recently negotiated Central American Free Trade Agreement, is one reason why that pack is guaranteed a rocky ride through Congress.
Not only does Big Sugar effectively own enough congressmen to possibly scuttle an international trade deal, they are doing everything in their power to suck money out of your wallet.