Why the Government "just said no" to Less Sugar
CategoriesAre the WHO and FAO so dim-witted and forgetful that they don't realize they're the ones who endorsed the present calamitous diet they are now bashing? They, along with organized medicine (AMA, AHA, ADA), and those lackeys to the food industry-the university experts-have been the major forces in creating the diabetes epidemic, the hypertension crisis, and arthritis.
Putting aside the fact that the United Nations has no business telling us, or any nation, what to eat or how to treat our children, the concept of reducing sugar intake is a good one-even our detractors among the dietary elite grudgingly admit that excess sugar intake among Americans is a serious problem.
But the U.S. rejected the idea, not because the concept, i.e., reducing sugar in the American diet, is invalid, and not because what we eat is none of the UN's business, but because the sugar industry will not hear of it. The Sugar Association wrote a letter to the WHO, threatening them by asking they show proof that sugar is linked to obesity, while a congressmen recruited by the food industry insisted that the secretary of health cut off the $406 million yearly contribution to the WHO.
So, once again, the government proves that it's only interested in its own welfare and wallet, not the well-being of its citizens. Sure sounds like an enemy to me.
Actions to take:
If you really want to improve your health, you need only do a few easy things and the rest will follow.
(1) Ignore the food pyramid. It's not even worth turning upside down, as some of the high-protein, low-carb plans suggest. The whole thing is bogus and should be tossed into the garbage heap of disproven health theories.
(2) Stay away from sugar and carbohydrates and base your diet on animal protein and fat. Fruits and vegetables are OK in moderation, if you like the taste of them.
(3) Read the classic nutrition book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Weston A. Price (available from the Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, 800-366-3748, or www.ppnf.org).
References:
"US government sides with junk food manufacturers," The Omnivore (www.omnivore.com), 1/28/04
"US government rejects WHO's attempts to improve diet" BMJ 2004; 328(7,433): 185
June 30, 2004
http://www.realhealthnews.com/hnote.htmlOlder out of print edition of "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" is also available free from my favourite Soil and Health Library
"Stale Food vs Fresh Food - a banned book!" is a must read if want to improve your health.
See also: Fibiger's Work on Cancer & Sugar
Chris Gupta
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday June 30 2004
updated on Saturday September 24 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/06/30/why_the_government_just_said_no_to_less_sugar.htm
Related ArticlesCourt Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination
Finally, a judge rules with some integrity and ethics! CB ----- Original Message ----- From: NVICNews To: news@nvic.org Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 9:34 AM Subject: [NVIC] Court Rules-No Forced Anthrax Vaccination E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org "Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982." ===================== BL Fisher Note: After reviewing all the evidence, ths U.S. District Court judge concluded that "Congress... [read more]
October 29, 2004 - Chris GuptaElectro Medicine and Lyme Disease
While the self righteous medical Mafia and bigoted sceptics continue to debunk electromedicine and other alternatives - time and time we see lay people do what the multi billion dollar industry does not want to do. Yet they will clamor all this is anecdotal, not been peer reviewed, trialed etc. etc. Not realizing how 'el stupid o' they look in the face of the fact that some of these results... [read more]
September 02, 2004 - Chris GuptaThe Dirty Little Secret between the FDA and Drug Industry
$1.2 billion to buy the FDA? What you say never - well read the following. This is yet again proof that the governments work for the industry under the pretense of looking after our interests. Most new drugs are produced with expediency at the expense of safety and efficacy. Frequently they are not as effective as the older one's that they may be replacing... Secrecy & Conflict of Interest Why... [read more]
August 26, 2004 - Chris Gupta
