Taking sides in war against sugary beverages.
Q: Is it true that some of our national health organizations are accepting money from the sugar industry? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
JoAnn F., Columbus, Mo.
A: It’s well-documented that health organizations are taking money from the sugar industry. Is it a conflict of interest? You’d think so, since we know how much damage added sugar does to the body and brain.
According to a study done by researchers at Boston University School of Public Health, between 2011 and 2014 the CocaCola Co. spent, on average, more than $6 million per year, PepsiCo spent more than $3 million annually and the American Beverage Association spent more than $1 million per year on lobbying efforts that included 96 national public health organizations. At the same time, these companies were lobbying against 29 public health bills that would have imposed a tax on sodas and mandated advertising restrictions. (Those companies spent a lot more in 2009, when they successfully fought the 2009 federal soda tax; in that year, Coca-Cola spent $9.4 million, PepsiCo $9.5 million and the American Beverage Association $18.9 million!)
The American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and Save the Children are among those organizations that stand out as having taken sugar money. The researchers conclude: “By accepting funding from these companies, health organizations are inadvertently participating in their (beverage industry) marketing plans.”
The AHA offers the explanation that they still support a tax on sugary soda but that the soda companies also sell water, fruits and vegetables, which are good for you.
What about that soda tax? The idea of tax on sugary beverages is again gaining ground in the U.S. since Great Britain passed a levy on sugarsweetened beverages beginning in 2018. Would a U.S. national SSB tax reduce sugar consumption (it’s an astounding 66 pounds per year per person!), save lives and be a fountain of tax dollars for national health care? What do you think?
Supplements debate
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” The phrase is often credited to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan in a 1994 radio interview, but Senate records indicate that it was said earlier by James R. Schlesinger, possibly during his 1973 Congressional testimony. Whatever its origin, for herbal supplements it’s clear that facts on many of their labels are “alternative” enough to send you to the hospital or worse.
Research published in the Journal of the Association of Public Analysts reveals that many natural and herbal supplements contain “permitted food additives in excess of their limits, contaminants, unauthorized novel food ingredients, unauthorized nutritionally related compounds, excess vitamins, controlled drugs and one instance of the poison strychnine.”
For example, herbal weight-loss supplements may pack the nowbanned drug sibutramine. Researchers say that it’s associated with panic attacks, memory impairments and psychotic episodes, as well as cardiovascular events. Also beware of erectile dysfunction supplements — they often contain active ingredients in prescription ED meds, but in risky doses. And at any dose, guys who take nitrate-containing meds (for angina, for example) can find the combo truly dangerous!
So don’t be fooled by claims on herbal supplements’ labels. If you’re concerned about ED or your weight, go see your doctor! And before using an herbal supplement for any other reason, ask your doc. Also, go to FDA.gov to see if there’s been action taken against that supplement or similar products. Most manufacturers are honest, but the bad apples tend to keep using bad apples.