World Health Organization Shuts Out Industry Group From Policy Setting Deliberations
In a recent meeting, the World Health Organization's Executive Board decided that the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an association of food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies based in Washington, DC, can no longer participate in WHO health standard setting activities, according to ENS newswire.
Sugar is one example of pressure by Big Food groups to disregard science and continue an industry-friendly but health-destroying practice. The refined sweet stuff coming from sugar cane and beets, both produced with government subsidies, causes problems for our teeth, unbalances mineral content in the body and thus our mood (see: Sugar Blues) and generally works to both shorten and 'sicken' our lives.
Indeed it was over a WHO report recommending to limit sugar consumption, that the industry group was found to have been covertly pushing the industry agenda, rather than scientific findings. My earlier report on this is titled Sugar: FAO Scientific Consultation In Doubt - Financed by Sugar Industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council was instrumental in pressing the issue. “At best, ILSI’s participation in WHO’s decisionmaking process is a blatant conflict of interest,” said Dr. Jennifer Sass, the NRDC scientist who organized the coalition effort. “At worst, its participation has biased WHO policies and jeopardized public health in dozens of countries.”
ILSI membership reads like a who's who in big industry including food, chemical and agriculture, but see for yourself. Here is the report by Environment News Service.
- - -
WHO Shuts Life Sciences Industry Group Out of Setting Health Standards
(original on Environment News Service)
February 2nd, 2006GENEVA, Switzerland, February 2, 2006 (ENS) - The World Health Organization (WHO) has barred a life sciences industry association from participating in setting global standards protecting food and water supplies because its members have a financial stake in the outcome.
At a meeting in Geneva that concluded Saturday, the UN health agency’s Executive Board decided that the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an association of food, chemical and pharmaceutical companies based in Washington, DC, can no longer participate in WHO health standard setting activities.
The WHO Executive Board took this action at the urging of a coalition of environment, health and labor organizations. In late December, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and 17 other organizations, including Physicians for Social Responsibility and the United Steelworkers of America, sent a letter to the WHO Executive Board requesting that it sever its ties to ILSI because the relationship violates the health agency’s own guidelines.
WHO requires that nongovernmental organizations working with the agency “be free from concerns which are primarily of a commercial or profit-making nature.” ILSI does not meet that standard.
“At best, ILSI’s participation in WHO’s decisionmaking process is a blatant conflict of interest,” says Dr. Jennifer Sass, the NRDC scientist who organized the coalition effort. “At worst, its participation has biased WHO policies and jeopardized public health in dozens of countries.”
The industry group still will remain one of the nearly 200 nongovernmental organizations the health agency considers to be working partners.
ILSI represents several hundred corporations in the chemical, processed food, agro-chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Its membership includes 3M Pharmaceuticals, Aginomoto, Atofina Chemicals, Bayer CropScience, Coca-Cola, ConAgra, Dow Agrosciences/Dow Chemical, DuPont, Eli Lilly, ExxonMobil, General Mills, Glaxo Smith Kline, Heinz, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Kraft, McDonald’s, Merck & Co., Monsanto, Nestle, Novartis, Nutrasweet, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Proctor and Gamble, Syngenta, and Unilever.
ILSI has branches in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, North Africa and the Gulf, South Africa, and Southeast Asia. For a complete list, go to www.ilsi.org.
ILSI says its goal is "to further the understanding of scientific issues relating to nutrition, food safety, toxicology, risk assessment, and the environment by bringing together scientists from academia, government, and industry."
ILSI says it strives to provide "new knowledge" on the role of nutrition in human health, alleviation of worldwide micronutrient deficiency, the safety of food ingredients and additives, and evaluation of water purification methodologies and standards.
But the NRDC says that over the years, ILSI has participated in WHO activities despite its members’ financial interest in the outcome.
ILSI funded a 1998 WHO-UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) report on carbohydrates and nutrition that concluded there was no direct link between sugar consumption and obesity or any other lifestyle disease, and suggested there be no upper limit for sugar in the diet.
That conclusion contrasts with common sense, as well as with a 1990 WHO report that found that sugar contributes to the risk of chronic disease and a 2003 WHO-FAO report recommending that people restrict sugar consumption sugar to less than 10 percent of their food energy intake.
ILSI also has tried to avoid stronger curbs on toxic pollutants by "misrepresenting study results and sowing doubt about existing science," the NRDC says.
Between 1983 and 1998, ILSI, whose membership includes tobacco company Altria’s subsidiary Kraft Foods, repeatedly attempted to weaken WHO’s position on the dangers of secondhand smoke.
As documented by Derek Yach, a former senior WHO official, in the November 2001 "American Journal of Public Health," ILSI tried to raise doubts about those risks by funding scientists who claimed there was still uncertainty about the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke.
The relationship between ILSI and the tobacco industry is detailed in a February 2001 report by the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative online at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/ILSI.pdf.
In the United States, ILSI hosts workshops for industry, academic and federal agency scientists that have been a tool for influencing health and environmental policy decisions.
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessed a class of chemicals that includes perfluorochemicals used by DuPont to make Teflon, the EPA drafted its policy based on an ILSI review claiming that although the chemicals caused cancer in test rodents, the way they caused cancer was irrelevant to humans, so the class of chemicals could be considered safe. The ILSI review said there was insufficient evidence to determine how the chemicals cause liver tumors in rodents, and the possibility that they could cause liver tumors in humans "could not be ruled out."
An independent scientific panel rejected EPA’s draft policy because it was not supported by the data. Late last year DuPont was hit with the largest administrative fine in EPA history to settle charges that it hid information for more than two decades showing that perfluorochemicals used in the manufacture of its Teflon coated products are a significant threat to human health. Lab animal tests have linked the chemical with liver and testicular cancer, reduced weight of newborns, and immune system suppression.
Last week, the EPA launched a program that encourages companies to reduce perfluorooctanoic acid releases and its presence in products by 95 percent by no later than 2010 and to work toward eliminating these sources of exposure five years after that but no later than 2015.
The letter NRDC sent to the WHO Executive Board in late December was signed by the California Committee on Safety and Health; Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice; Environmental Health Fund; Environmental Working Group; Infant Feeding Action Coalition Canada; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; International Federation of Building and Woodworkers; International Federation of Journalists; International Metalworkers’ Federation; IUF-International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Pesticide Action Network North America ; Physicians for Social Responsibility; The Breast Cancer Fund; Third World Network; United Steelworkers of America; and Women’s Environment and Development Organization
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Monday February 6 2006
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/02/06/world_health_organization_shuts_out_industry_group_from_policy_setting_deliberations.htm
Related ArticlesSugar: FAO Scientific Consultation In Doubt - Financed by Sugar Industry
Sugar is a refined carbohydrate devoid of all the nutrients necessary to assimilate and metabolise it in the human body. It is a net robber of nutrients. That means, for each gram of sugar we eat our body needs to utilize vitamins and minerals obtained from other foods - just to metabolize the sugar and unlock its energy potential. Sugar, in other words, is a positively unhealthy food. Who would... [read more]
October 09, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerCorrupted Research: Most Scientific Findings Are False
Published Research is majorly false. That is the upshot of a recent Greek study which examined the outcomes of scientific studies against subsequent research which proved them unreliable. It seems that most studies "find" whatever outcome the funders desire. With most funding for health related research coming from pharmaceutical companies, it is no wonder that there should be a certain bias. Contradictory outcomes of studies are common. Many of the... [read more]
September 16, 2005 - Sepp HasslbergerThe Negative Impact of Sugar on Vitamin C
Thanks Owen, exactly what I had suspected, one can also add alcohol to Dr. Ely's theory . The hit to the immune system by sugar is an added insult. See: Fibiger's Work on Cancer & Sugar Another good reason, from many, to ditch processed foods... Chris Gupta ----------------------- At 07:22 AM 7/22/2004, fonorow@internetwks.com wrote: FYI - Dr. John Ely has a Glucose Antagonism Theory - that since both glucose and... [read more]
August 04, 2004 - Chris GuptaCodex: WHO/FAO Told Nutrient Risk Assessment Must Consider Benefits
In a submission to the FAO/WHO nutrient risk assessment project, Dr. Robert Verkerk, Director of the Alliance for Natural Health charges that assessment of the possible risks of nutrient overdose must also consider the beneficial effects of nutrients. He says that risk assessments undertaken to date "are not based on a sufficiently rational scientific platform" and "will provide misleading information for policy decision-makers". At stake is the continued availability of... [read more]
December 16, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerToxic Teflon Frying Pans
The Fumes from non-stick frying pans lined with fluorine compounds such as Teflon, can be deadly to birds. We don't seem to understand that warning sign very well, although Canaries have for a long time been used to warn miners of deadly gases in the 'underworld'. A recent report available on the site of the Environmental Working Group accuses Du Pont, maker of Teflon non-stick material used in frying pans... [read more]
January 31, 2004 - Sepp HasslbergerCodex Alimentarius Adopts Vitamin Guidelines
4 July 2005 - The Codex Alimentarius Commission has voted to adopt potentially restrictive guidelines for vitamin and mineral supplements proposed by the Codex Nutrition Committee. In its 28th session here in sun dried, heat plagued Rome, the planet's supreme food regulator has given a nod to industry in approving guidelines for food supplements over the strenuous opposition of consumer representatives. Several associations representing consumers and health practitioners were present... [read more]
July 04, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger
