I have just been reading a paper on the Eatright website which is from the USA Academy of Nutrition Dietetics (AND). This states that the causes of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) are:
“complex and still not fully known. Sometimes diabetes is triggered by genetics, illness, being overweight or simply getting older. Although food doesn’t cause diabetes, it is part of the strategy for managing the disease” (1).
To say that food does not cause T2D is unbelievable. Does the author not live in the real world? Anyone who troubles to do some research on the topic which is relatively easy with access to the internet will quickly discover that it is the composition of the food which is the primary cause of T2D.
Here is what actually happens:
- If you consume a diet which has a high content of sugar and other foods which contain carbohydrates, the body will have to cope with excessive levels of glucose in the blood.
- This is done by the pancreas which responds by producing insulin which enables the extra glucose to be utilised by the liver and other organs.
- However the high concentrations of insulin in the blood cause insulin resistance to develop in the organs including the liver and the pancreas.
- This means that the demand for insulin is increased even further.
- Ultimately this results in catastrophic failure of the pancreas so that the ability to secrete insulin is impaired.
- As a consequence, it is no longer possible to keep the blood glucose under control. Effectively this is full-blown T2D because it is at this point that the blood glucose starts to increase and if the appropriate tests are conducted the disease will be diagnosed.
- This only happens if a person persists with a diet which is high in sugar and carbohydrates over a long period.
- During this time the insulin resistance which damages the internal organs gradually increases.
- This insulin resistance can result in various diseases/conditions including weight gain, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
- The effect of the raised blood glucose levels is to make things even worse.
There is absolutely no question that the high intake of sugar/carbohydrates is what causes T2D. There is comprehensive research to demonstrate that carbohydrate restriction is an effective treatment (2). Furthermore there are numerous case studies which provide very compelling evidence of the effectiveness of this approach. Many can be found on the Diet Doctor’s website (3).
The key issue is that there are very powerful vested interests which do not want this information to become widely available. This includes food companies which produce foods that have a high content of sugar and or carbohydrates. It is self-evident that if consumers understand which foods are direct cause of T2D then sales will be adversely affected.
The AND is the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals. According to the website it is committed to:
“improving the nation’s health and advancing the profession of dietetics through research, education and advocacy” (4).
However it is dependent on sponsorship from some of the major multinational food companies for part of its income. Currently the main sponsors are the US National Dairy Council, Abbott Nutrition, the Coca-Cola Company Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness, PepsiCo and Unilever. Although Coca Cola has announced that it will cease to act as a sponsor from the end of 2015.
In 2013, Michele Simon, a public interest lawyer, produced a report which was highly critical of the AND with the provocative title:
“Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?”(5).
This described in detail the close working relationship between the organisation and many of the big agro-food corporations. Representatives are actively involved in CPD programmes and play a major role in the annual conference. Specific findings included:
- Companies on AND’s list of approved continuing education providers include Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, and PepsiCo.
- Among the messages taught in Coca-Cola-sponsored continuing education courses are: sugar is not harmful to children; aspartame is completely safe, including for children over one year; and the Institute of Medicine is too restrictive in its school nutrition standards.
- The AND Foundation sells “nutrition symposia” sponsorships for $50,000 at the annual meeting. In 2012, Nestlé presented a session on “Optimal Hydration.”
- Roughly 23 percent of annual meeting speakers had industry ties, although most of these conflicts were not disclosed in the program session description.
- In an independent survey, 80 percent of registered dietitians said sponsorship implies Academy endorsement of that company and its products.
It is unbelievable that the message:
“sugar is not harmful to children”
is being presented as part of a training programme. No doubt the assertion that:
“food does not cause T2D”
is an attempt to provide some kind of justification but it is utterly pathetic.
The President of AND at the time responded the report in a letter which included the following sentence:
“Let me make it clear that the Academy does not tailor our messages or programs in any way due to influence by corporate sponsors and this report does not provide evidence to the contrary” (6).
However none of the above statements were challenged. The fact remains that there is clearly a close working relationship between some of the leading multi-nationals in the food/drink industry and the organization. It is inconceivable that these companies would continue with the relationship if it was not proving to be beneficial.
There is no doubt that if there is a concerted effort to reduce the consumption of sugar and other foods which contain carbohydrates that this will have a detrimental impact on the sales of specific products of some of the AND sponsors. The suspicion is the companies which are likely to be affected will attempt to throw doubts about the validity of the evidence. This is an established strategy which was used to great effect by the tobacco industry. All the indications are that the article on diabetes is very much part of these tactics. If so, this is regrettable because it shows complete disregard for the health of consumers.
This is not an isolated case and is certainly not restricted to the USA. Companies clearly believe that it is to their benefit to work closely with societies and charitable organizations. Food scientists, nutritionists and dietitians are in a position to influence the food purchasing patterns of a wide range of businesses as well as individual consumers. Unfortunately conflicts of interest are all too common with the result that endorsements of products are not always the independent assessments they appear to be.
REFERENCES
- http://www.eatright.org/resource/health/diseases-and-conditions/diabetes/diabetes-an-overview
- http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00332-3/pdf
- http://www.dietdoctor.com/diabetes/success-stories
- http://www.eatrightpro.org/resources/about-us/academy-vision-and-mission
- http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/AND_Corporate_Sponsorship_Report.pdf
- http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/01/an-open-letter-to-registered-dietetians-and-rds-in-training-response-to-yesterdays-comments/ /
Thanks for that. You are expressing my exact sentiment, and that of many others whose comments I read on other blogs. I believe that some people initiate organizations such as the AND for the sole purpose of becoming well paid mouthpieces for companies who require some dimension of scientific and authoritarian plausibility to justify the nature of their products, especially if these products may be harmful to human health. The tobacco industry did this for years. Now we have the processed food industries, especially those who manufacture and sell sugary products – cereals, sweet drinks and juices, and all of the cakes and cookies, etc. which are likely as addictive as cigarettes are. And now we are constantly told in the media, supported by big money, that these products are natural and fine and are not harmful to our health. I guess that is true if you are under ten years old and have not yet developed and insulin resistance.
Unfortunately, we, the ordinary folks, will not win this battle without matching the marketing spending of the big corporations by spreading well formualted educational material. Clearly there is no money to be made in such an endeavor, so it would have to fall to a highly motivated philanthropic organization to fund the drive. The Credit Suisse initiatives are a good start (there is money to be made in the stock market if you make the right choices), but I have not seen any other financial institution or fund show much interest. Perhaps it is still to early.
I don’t suppose many non-medical people would read a paper like the one you quoted, but rather more would read a popular science magazine (including many, like me, who are scientifically trained in something other than medicine or biochemistry.
I think it would be helpful to produce a detailed critique of an article such as :
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/is-sugar-really-toxic-sifting-through-the-evidence/
Although that magazine conforms to scientific orthodoxy to a fair degree, it does produce remarkable articles such as this one about salt:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt&print=true
Who knows – you the magazine might even react to such a critique and put your article in their magazine – which would reach a large audience.
I will explore and see if there is any scope.
V
I do believe grassroots pressure helped by social media is building up. It will not be easy. Incompetence, hubris and corruption combine to produce a pretty powerful toxic mix which will be difficult to overcome.
V
Keep up the great work, Verner. Have you looked at how the US approach/system flows through to other countries? Reviews of journal articles end up in a scientific report that directs the US dietary guidelines. Then other countries use material from these reports, such as those produced by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, to develop their own dietary guidelines and nutrient reference values, or daily recommended intakes. Thus the rot flows from one country to another and we all end up with a high carbohydrate and low fat diet, and high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and related complications, with huge impacts on healthcare costs and disability for individuals.
I agree with your take on how things have developed since the first DGs were devised in the US. Problem is that they have become entrenched. The sales of statins are dependent on the validity of the cholesterol theory. Even though it is discredited there are very powerful vested interests which will fight tooth and nail to keep it going as long as possible.
V
This is a global problem and ADSA in South Africa are very much guilty of big food influence. http://www.biznews.com/health/2016/01/06/have-adsa-dietitians-passed-their-sell-by-date-banting-lchf/
Absolutely correct. If you dig deeply you will probably find that much of this rubbish is being driven by the global drug companies. If people realise that many diseases can be avoided/treated by changing diet, that will be bad news for the sales of drugs. V
We have moved to wards a low carb diet trying to no more than about 100gms daily though we do occasionally go off piste when out. Obviously at this level of carbs we are not ketogenic. I am wondering whether you think it is wiser to eliminate as many carbs as possible and become fat burning?