one of the most impactful public health documents in the world with influence often harmful influence spawning far beyond the united states is that an exaggeration well if it doesn't surprise or not others really know what healthy diets are dietary recommendations have not changed since the 1st recommendation started getting issues for chronic disease vention in the 1950 the basic dietary recommendations are balance calorie intake data a lot of fruits and vegetables and to avoid foods that have a. special rated set salted sugar in the day to guidelines for americans who sit at the end every 5 years since 1980 s. and the new ones are going to say exactly the same things because we know what a healthy diet is well but you know as you like to see it it definitely is and the

details add well barack obama has the united states as projecting a lot of self power on the rest of the well people want to be like the americans they want to eat like the americans they want to business like the americans and it may be good in other areas but when it comes to nutrition and public how is that really that have other countries once you follow because they don't accommodations that react talking about there are influencing school lunches they're influencing what people have sat in hospital they're influencing what people get a chance at setter and a large degree they're also influencing the give it a very good practice is a big multinational that could easily. yeah they're enormously influential in the odd ways but they're written in a euphemism and they're written in euphemisms because it's politically impossible in the united states to advise eating less of anything that has

a industry behind it that makes a lot of money. as i'm going to say over and over again we know what a healthy diet is it means not eating too much for one for one thing and eating less is very very bad for business it doesn't make anybody rich if people eat less food other coated 19 pandemic has illustrated harrop orange it is for people to eat healthily because the people who are at very high risk for this disease are people who are overweight or have chronic diseases already sort of dietary guidelines are extremely important in helping people understand where to eat but they are so heavily criticized it's almost impossible to understand we're being me now i actually want to seize on this point because you're making the

a dollar notes on how big corporations are abusing. trade on science on power on people how but i think it wasn't until because at 19 that the full damage of those practices really hit home as as just sat the lethality of this virus as with many other viruses was super charged by the problems of. diet and ease diseases and i just wonder if that would put an additional sort of political impetus on those scientists to perhaps at least when it comes to public recommendations to change the advice. did . says far as we can tell is going to be pretty much the same as a whole always has been only a little bit more strict in recommend and recommending limits unsaturated fat which is

a euphemism for me. and on salt and sugar and alcohol salt and sugar are you from isn't strong highly processed foods and alcohol but he knows about the new dietary guideline recommendations from the advisory committee are expected to say that people should not drink more than one drink a malibu or do it in order to maximize their health now there is a recently aired just a few days ago an article in the washington post which also suggests that that the board is going to recommend every direction into consumption of added sugars from i think 10 percent of daily calories to 6 percent of the data daily calories if that is true that is actually a reversal of. u.s. policy when it comes to you know it's an extension of the policy the dietary guidelines have always recommended restrictions and sugar this one is much more

specific and is the most restrictive that there's ever been but they've always said eat less sugar that's not new what's use is 60 percent which is roughly in the ballpark of what the world health organization recommended a year ago isn't it ironic that the scientists that kind of in the chocolate ministration would recommend something in line to the recommendations of the world health organization that and eyes mean yes but speaking about sugar i have a crack here i must go cook incidentally report exposed toxic i whenever we discuss those issues he always tells me not to demonize sugar is it possible to demonize sugar. is there a substitute that's done more damage to public how that causes more doubts and my bitties not online so i completely disagree i don't think it's it's sugar alone it's killer if where you're concerned about is overweight or weight is about

calories and it doesn't matter where the calories come from the column is that hilaly loves the case. and if sugar and he want any foreign oil owner of the foods and has sure the i don't think he should. about sugar i don't think we should be trucking in brett saturated fat and i don't think we should be talking about songs we should be talking about the foods that are the major sources of those nutrients there are not enough to how is that possible that all calories are equal i mean a calorie of celery if very different seller is very different from candy but the calories are the same and you can get fat eating celery if you eat enough of it it would be difficult but it's possible because obesity is a matter of calories sugar makes you want to eat more sat makes you want to eat

normal but if you look at what happens in the body a telephone is a killer and that's where dietary recommendations are so confusing because they talk about new treatments not foods they are be talking about foods all i add back to disagree respectfully and i personally lost 35 kilograms by having sugar out of my diet and that people who are as you cut your kids. if you cut out the foods that contain sugar or terror carbohydrates or anything else you're going to be cutting carry if you go down with him a healthier calories but anyway clearly there is that we disagree on on big issue of sugar but one of the parts. is that i want to talk excuse me we don't disagree i think everyone would be healthier eating less sugar talking specifically about sugar sweetened sugar sweetened beverages there's been a long. in the united states to introduce some sort of

a tax and some communities haven't managed to do that but by and large policy makers have kept their wrists back to bill distance from there is beverage companies if we actually believe the washington post story that at 1st time after the guidelines i'm going to recommend a ban on sugary drinks for children before they get to now this is this is mind boggling i think to their rest of their world because that you don't need to be a scientist not to give your here or your baby a coke how did these companies become so powerful so that something like this needs to be actually put them on paper and put in the form of. office i have into and seeding bottles with soft drinks a low wrote with softer glow go some otos of companies so the server companies some

years ago marketed directly to babies made a baby bottles with soft drink logos on and there was evidence he said people who bought those bottles with the softer local the softer. and there is considerable evidence that the united states knew that there are measure who've never sought after needs that are being given to children to truly good. comedian since you have recommended against giving some drinks to children they have also not been able to reach consensus on the other important issues for example that apparently very they couldn't reach and. if initiative opinion on whether there is any connection between the consumption of sugar and type 2 diabetes isn't there really well that's because it is that's why the killer is is

so important attention. is very strongly related to being overweight and to over consumption of calories and it doesn't matter where the calories come from so the evidence is complicated because whenever you talk about a single through substance here you're already is talking that something is silly because you must always take. the consideration i mean most of the opponents of let's say peter diet would tell you that saturated fat has been part of our guy who are not just centuries from millenia i mean our body well you've got saturated fat that's different the fat and general also talking about how he fast about and natural foods but trader sugar is a very very me about this and our bodies have never 'd had the machinery of dealing with it again and that's not that is that not a counter argument against sugar as an unnatural substance. yes except

that people love the taste and it's very difficult to ban something that people love eating i don't think i think bodies can handle sugar quite well they just can't handle a lot of that it one time and so any advice to restrict the amount of sugar seems like a really good idea to be able to try to galleries you'll be the rest of your diet for healthier foods but to tell people not to consume sugar when it's delicious and everybody loves it seems seem not to make much sense one of the wonderful things about food is that it's one of life's greatest pleasure. and personally i like a little sugar in my diet a little not a i mean that how do you make a difference between a little and a lot because clearly sugar has addictive qualities i mean there are many many

studies that show that it pretty much hijacks the same pathways estj every other it dictates substance i mean maybe your have a particularly strong will or a specific genetics that allow you to stay with it then that but is it also a case in those individuals that. statement eating a lot little and not getting addicted to it well food is wonderful let's greatest pleasures and whenever you eat something that is treasure full that that gives you pleasure it has an effect on your brain and there are people who feel that they're addicted to sugar they should avoid sugar isn't that also something that the food companies perhaps exploit you know much the fact that some people cannot consume in moderation especially when it comes to sugary products well i think it's important to understand that the food companies are not social service agencies and they're

not public health agency they're businesses whose job it is just sell food and if their potency traded businesses then they have stockholders to please and that is their primary responsibility so to expect food companies not to make foods with sugar because it would be better to people's health is quite unrealistic in our current business environment well perhaps another we have to take every area sure great now but don't be back in just a few moments. i 1st heard about the you know. from the helicopter for troops in iraq.

i think of them actually going to going to this military who have never forgiven. this guy traitor the truth of the book and every little thing you believe you saw he was really starting to have. independent journalists and that he's too dark to see a lot of crimes to outnumber the audience. the idea of developing an anonymous digital trumps and applying it to the media consensus. that was a friends. i didn't destroy and just write it would be for a short while. in the room one of the world's most powerful news a womanizer serious anderson anderson every founder to the song get a song knowing. that there was a great deal of jealousy in the brains for the song the fit why won't it be more

like oh they have hugh seem all. instantly. smile. on her and. we have julia outside in solitary confinement in the prison for terrorists a way to keep the house alive for so. i don't see him dying. and i. know what he's saying. bottom back to world of heart rhythm marion nestle professor emeritus of nutrition foods that is in public health at new york university professor nestle all of your

books are all to mentally about work rate tricks to increase profits and to some extent we expect that part ration to do that but i think with the call that 9000 pandemic we all can see be imagined stalled these practices have on both societies at large and personal how the acts are analogies as the economist would have it's a much greater than the profit jesus thing this pandemic provides and nothing to keep can be got to change things around. well i'm hoping that some good will come out of the code of 9 111 'd demagogue not seeing it yet but the hope is that people will have a much greater understanding of food systems work and will. provide much more political support for curves from country excesses for

insistence that foods be healthier and that we have a much more healthy and sustainable food supply i'm keeping fingers crossed about that ever said before it's kind of understandable that corporations what try to preserve their products and then most favorable lie that's the nature of marketing i wonder how where do you draw the line that when. marketing. deceit and the abuse of the consumers well i think their place where the line is easiest to draw isn't marketing to children i don't think food companies should marketed children at all actually i don't think that anybody should market to children at all so that's an easy place to draw a line. where the companies are making products that people feel like they are addicted to like soft drinks for example soft drinks are the easiest example because they can change sugars in water and nothing else of

nutritional value and they are consumed in very large quantities and advertised very heavily to children among other people and so there i think it's an easy. kind of regular turi situation because you can just say if you're going to buy a soft drink it has to be in a very small mant anything other than softer gets you into a much more complicated situation because the foods that sugars appear in many of those foods have nutritional value and so rare you draw the line is a complicated one but you could say that you would tax companies on the basis of the amount of sugar in their products countries that are doing that we're finding that people are consuming less sugar in those countries that's

a group think now we often hear out from you and other experts that have big foot companies are often using that are for after age or it's you know out of the victim back as playbook and they have an additional argument of saying that food is different from tobacco because you actually need to leave but actually i want a that applies to processed look because. you know as far as i'm concerned there very few products that let's say coca-cola produces apart from bottled water that doesn't cause active harm to people how to add the same goes from or out most of those companies that produce cookies and other happily processed foods be called them plebs don't you think that there actually should be a distinction between natural or proper or you know real foods and the processed ones. well it's a process that really is causing the problem and these are categories of foods that

don't resemble the foods from which they were extracted or are created that are not within gritty instead are not found in who kitchens and have a lot of that it's all too sugar and there is now an enormous amount of evidence that shows that consumption of bullshit processed foods is associated with overweight gaining weight chronic diseases that are associated with overweight and that these are not very healthy products and this is relatively new data that's only come out in the last 5 years and i'm interested to see whether the dietary guidelines say anything about your process and i hope they do what's complicated about food and that makes it much more complicated than cigarettes cigarettes or simple don't smoke. foods are more complicated because it's really ok g e l to processed foods in small amounts and here you get right back into the same

issue of quantity because small on it is really don't matter and give people a lot of pleasure how many cigarettes you once in a while also doesn't cause. there is no lid there's no place at which smoking is healthy and doesn't that apply just as much to your sugar sweetened beverages or let's say the fat ass old ass chocolate in the united states because it's almost impossible i didn't know any nutritionist who was the slightest bit concerned about an 8 ounce softer and once in a while i think what people are automatically is not a scientist he's a journalist but i'm pretty sure if he is somebody who would be well i disagree with him i think the evidence does not indicate that small amounts of sugar or older process. so harmful is a quantitative issue that's very difficult to talk about conceptually if you're

having trouble start to look at added to that to the fact that there is legitimate disagreement among scientists there is also these are scientists well there are many scientists i know and i have interviewed on this show that strongly disagree with your point of view that calories a calorie we have already discussed that but that's not my point that the point i was trying to make is that it's ok for scientists to disagree over things i mean that's how do you see what they're paid for and that's how the scientific knowledge is produced but i think one of the your latest book made it makes an excellent point at that scientific debate is now being muddled by a very deliberate industry affray tissue diligent in my eyes any science that goes lightly against that narrative can you talk more about that. well well no my most recent book is called unsavory truth and it's about how food companies pay for

research that they can use for marketing purposes. so they provide funding and scientists take the funding and do the research and the research that is paid for by industry woolston variably comes out with results that favor the sponsors commercial interests and this happens not because the companies are buying the scientists it happens because the influence is unconscious it occurs at the subconscious level there's a huge amount of evidence that shows this and the i don't think this kind of research should be done i wish there were some other way for scientists to get money to do the research that they do now as a russian i have to ask you this question because in that book here share the story of how your name handed out and not clinton's hacked e-mails it just happened so that i would hope was on paper all at coca-cola was also simultaneously providing

advice to kill or it clinton's campaign and it was in active communication where by the president of coca-cola on matters of policy i know you're concerned about you know scientists being influenced by the industry but do you have any qualms about. somebody like this collecting a paycheck from one of the largest corporations. advising a us presidential candidate potentially one of the most powerful people. well india said to corporations do they try to influence politicians and in the united states we have an election campaigns that are funded by corporations. with no limit on the amount of money that corporations can give to candidates really through complicated ways but the supreme court has said. that there do not need to be any limits on

corporate campaign contributions that's an enormous problem in american politics you mention that. matter factory but this is actually i think it human to the russians we are cynical people but this is absolutely mind boggling i mean if you don't go into the story of this depression marshall this lady that was working for the clinton's campaign but with some research i found out that she was providing coke with strategic consulting and marketing work whilst rassi her former credentials as the chief of protocol at the state department bench specifically told them a training on commercial diplomacy commercial is that not a euphemism for special interests it's not around when you're you happen to remember that the revelations about this from the hacking of hillary clinton's e-mails oh which apparently were done by people in your country and you will have a hard time convincing me that people in your country don't do exactly the same

thing maybe we don't know about that but we are not positioning ourselves as the you know shining city on that here but. there is actually a lot of back and forth between the russians and americans about whether the russians or a bad i'm not the kremlin you perhaps know denies it but in any case do you think it was in in the public's interest for something like this is not why i wrote about it of course it's not in the public interest i don't think that government should be beholden to corporations that's a that's a method of corrupting government then we fight against all the time in the united states not always successful unfortunately this was a particular example in which i happened to get caught up because some note. some lecture i had given in australia were forwarded through the pac to

emails. you know in some way that i just had no idea that this kind of things going on i actually thought it was quite funny to be caught up in this major political involvement when i'm just an intrusion as you know talking about nutrition teaching students and writing books i'm not making a case for interfering in anyone's elections but it strikes me as not just a political campaign because there is not a national companies operate in the same way abroad and maybe even. cannot possibly be true these companies work this way in every country in which they're allowed to and you cannot convince me that the same things don't happen in your country they do. damian i really just have no way of knowing it and my point is different my point. fortunately we have ways of knowing. knowing you don't know it knowing it

that americans which shall. just no benefit from this knowledge unfortunately there may be used a new dietary guidelines can improve that but anyway be shocked when you get there thank you very much for sharing your insights oh my pleasure and thank you for watching hope to see here next week on the walls apart.

segregated to. my social class. people who are also in poverty 1st. if you're born into a poor family if you're born into a minority family if you're born into a family that only has a single parent that really constrains your life chances people die on average 15 years old if you're born into generational poverty. it's a tough fight every day to meet your needs and the needs of your family. the world is driven by a dream shaped by frank person with those great. no

dares thinks. we dare to ask. the biggest story of the week is brought to you saute international brush it denies that britain is out of his ations of meddling in last year's election or how kids cope with vaccine research. a damning study in germany sheds light on how vulnerable children were fostered by sex abusers for decades with the authorities apparently in the know some of the victims describe to us what they'd lived through . every day was mental and physical mistreatment we were forced to do things we would normally do because we were threatened our lives have been destroyed we go on able to work and we have become aware that we are just a pile of misery and china vows to retaliate after president try.