A
United Nations agency has launched an investigation into claims
that a key consultation into how much sugar we should be eating
was secretly funded by the sugar industry.
The BBC's Panorama programme has uncovered documents which reveal
the World Sugar Research Organisation and International Life
Sciences Institute, both funded by the sugar industry, helped
pay for the Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition.
The programme also reveals that ISLI was given the opportunity
to suggest members of the committee and select the chairman,
as well as review the agenda of the consultation.
"I
believe that it would be impossible to produce an unbiased
report when the source of funding came from groups with clearly
vested interests." --- Professor Jim Mann Committee
member
Since its publication the report of the consultation has been
used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between
sugar and health concerns.
Now the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has said
it plans to reconvene the research committee "urgently".
'Impartiality
doubts'
The expert consultation was a joint venture between the World
Health Organisation (WHO) and the FAO and was due to look impartially
at key questions, including whether sugar is detrimental to
human health.
But Jim Mann - a highly respected nutritionist from New Zealand
- told the programme he always had doubts about the consultation's
independence.
He said: "When we arrived some of us were summoned by one of
the officials who was involved in the organisation of the consultation
and told very clearly that it would be inappropriate us to say
anything bad about sugar in relation to human health."
Another of the team invited to Rome sensed that the science
might not be the only driving force.
Professor John Cummings claims that a chairman had already been
chosen before the committee began its work.
He also claimed that one official - there as an observer - obstructed
the debate when sugar was being discussed.
He added: "I was very surprised when he sort of came immediately
to the defence of sugar during the consultation. I couldn't
really understand why he did because normally these officials
sit and listen and just sort of prod you when they think something
needs doing but this was quite amazing."
Funding
documents
The experts didn't know that the sugar industry was paying for
them to be in Rome.
But Panorama has discovered a series of documents which show
exactly where the money came from.
It shows that the World Sugar Research Organisation - funded
by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.
ILSI - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American
research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and
Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000.
Panorama reveals that ILSI was also invited to suggest who might
sit on the consultation and even nominated the chairman months
before the experts ever came to Rome.
This funding deal was agreed with the FAO's then Director of
Food and Nutrition, John Lupien.
'Surprise
revelation'
This news came as a surprise to the committee members that Panorama
spoke to, none of whom had any idea that the research had been
funded by the sugar industry.
Professor Mann, said: "My guess would be that I certainly and
probably my colleagues would not have been prepared to be involved
with such an activity had it been funded by these organisations.
"I believe that it would be impossible to produce an unbiased
report when the source of funding came from groups with clearly
vested interests."
"If
the funding was accepted together with influence of the choice
of experts or of the wording of the report then it is unacceptable"
--- Hartwig de Haen FAO assistant director general
But another shocking fact was to come out of the committee discussion.
The experts Panorama spoke to claim they had agreed on a limit
of between 55 and 75% on how much carbohydrate we should eat.
But when the report came out the upper limit had gone.
Professor Mann complained that a report which failed to mention
a limit on carbohydrate - or on sugar - was open to abuse.
He added: "I think it would clearly be to the advantage of the
industry not to have an upper limit, because increasingly the
industry are producing food products which are reduced in fat,
and one way of compensating for fat is to increase the amount
of sugar.
"So obviously if there's no upper limit of sugar, one can add
sugar with impunity into a whole range of food products."
The FAO's Assistant Director General, Hartwig de Haen, was also
surprised at Panorama's revelations.
"If the funding was accepted together with influence of the
choice of experts or of the wording of the report then it is
unacceptable, that is true," he said.
'Misinterpreted
recommendations'
A statement from the FAO confirmed that the ISLI and the WSRO
were asked to propose names of experts for the consultation
but that the FAO had the final say.
It went on to say that the lack of rigid guidelines meant the
consultation was not illegal but "did contravene common sense
norms of transparency and the avoidance of perceived conflict
of interest."
"We
see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the consultation
or our participation in the process would call into question
the credibility of the consultation" --- ILSI
statement
The FAO said the sugar lobby had misquoted and misinterpreted
the recommendations of the 1998 study.
It added that the WHO has been working on reconvening a Carbohydrates
consultation, and that this matter was now "regarded as urgent".
ILSI also said it only suggested names of experts to be on the
committee, adding: "We did not suggest a specific person as
the Chair; it is our understanding that decision is made by
the experts themselves.
"We see no reason why ILSI's partial support of the consultation
or our participation in the process would call into question
the credibility of the consultation."
John Lupien, contradicted Mr de Haen and said that it was normal
practice to seek outside funding for studies, adding: "The sources
of these funds were not made known to the experts, and were
not acknowledged in the final report since this was routine
FAO/WHO practice."
He added that the experts had approved the draft agenda and
elected Professor David Lineback as their Chairman.
A
United Nations agency has launched an investigation into claims
that a key consultation into how much sugar we should be eating
was secretly funded by the sugar industry.
