not changed since the 1st recommendation started getting issues for chronic disease then sion in the 1950 the basic dietary recommendations are balanced calorie intake data a lot of fruits and vegetables and to avoid foods that have a raw saturated fat salt and sugar in the j.j. guidelines for americans have said that 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 say it it definitely is and the details add to well better or is the united states as projecting a lot of power on the rest of the well people want to be like the americans they want to eat like the americans they want a good business like the americans and it may be good in other areas but. when it comes to nutrition and public how to eat that really did have other countries want

you to follow because they doesn't accommodations that we are talking about they're influencing school lunches they're influencing what people have fat in hospital they're influencing what people give a setter and a large degree they're also influencing the give it a very the practices of big multinational that today's iraq. 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 how reported 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 or on people how but i think it wasn't until because at 19 that the full damage of those practices really hit home as a. as just sat the lethality of this virus as with many other viruses was super

charged by the problems of volek ad diet and g.'s 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 well the advice is 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. salt and sugar and alcohol salt and sugar are usually isn't safe for 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 male who are. in order to maximize their health that 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 news is 60 percent which is roughly in the ballpark of what the world health organization recommended. year ago isn't it

ironic that the scientists that kind of in the chunk of ministration would recommend something in line to the recommendations of the world health organization that and i've been yet but stooping about sugar i have a cracker i must go cook incidentally works for toxic i whenever we discuss those issues he always tells me not to demonize sugar is it possible to demonize sugar is there a subset 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 a it's sure her alone it's killer if where you're concerned about is overweight or weight is about calories it doesn't matter with calories from the columns that hilas loves the taste and if sugar and he want any foreign oil owner of the foods that have 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 is very different cellar 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 more but if you look at what happens in the body a tele 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 this. very respectfully and i personally lost 35 kilograms by having sugar out

of my diet and that it was glorious you cut your killer really. if you cut out the foods that contain sugar or terror. or anything else you're going to be cutting jerry if you go down with my healthier calories but anyway clearly there is a we disagree on on the issue of sugar but one of the questions that i want to look like isn't it 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 5. 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 those beverage companies if we actually believe the washington post story that 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 the rest of the 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 been trying to sell powerful so that something like this needs to be actually put them on paper and put in the form of. office i have the infant feeding bottles with soft drinks a low wrote with softer glow go otos of companies so the sir companies some years ago marketed directly to babies may be in the bottles with soft drinks logos on and there was evidence he said people who bought those bottles with the softer global with a softer. and there is considerable evidence that he. knew

that there are measure of. soft drinks that are being given. to truly good. comedians since you have recommended against giving subjects to children they have also not been able to reach consensus on other important issues for example they have apparently a very they couldn't reach a definitive opinion on whether there is any connection between the consumption of added sugar and type 2 diabetes. isn't there really possessed because of liberties that's why the killer is is so important. 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 true because whenever you talk about a single through substance here you're already is talking that something is silly

because you must always take. this a 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 for millenia i mean our body well you have about saturated fat that's different from that and general also talking about how he facts about and natural foods but also traders sugar is a very very me about this and our bodies have never 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 'd of sugar

seems like a really good idea to be able to try to galleries you'll be in 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 which 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 it but is it also a case in those individuals that. statement eating a lot

a little and not getting addicted to it well food is wonderful life's greatest pleasures and whenever you eat something that is your full 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 sherry 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 their business is whose job it is just sell food and if they're potently treated business 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. if

you're born into a poor family if you're born into a minority family if you're born into a family that has a single parent that really constrains your life chances. are. it's a. fight every day so you meet your needs and the needs of your family. during the vietnam war u.s. forces also. there was a secret war. and for years the american people did not know.

millions of unexploded bombs still in danger lives in this small agricultural country. even today kids in laos full victims of bombs dropped decades ago is the u.s. making amends for the tragedy and. help to the people need in that little. bottom back to old apartment 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 i think with the call that 19 pandemic we all can see be imagined stalled these practices have on both societies at large and personal how they acts or analogies as the economist with put it 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 the 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. kinder for a dilatory situation because you can just say if you're going to buy soft drink it has to be in a very small amount 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 at big foot companies are often using that are for after age or it's you know out of the to

back this playbook. 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 cost 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 are you know real foods and be processed once well it's a process that really is causing the problem and these are categories of foods that don't resemble the foods through which they were extracted or were created that are

not within gritty instead are not found in who kitchens and have a lot of men 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 comment molest 5 years and i'm interested to see whether the dietary guidelines say anything about breasts and i hope they do but what's complicated about food and that makes it much more complicated than cigarettes cigarettes are simple don't smoke. foods are more complicated because it's really ok to eat 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 to do you know any nutritionist who is the slightest bit concerned about an 8 ounce softer and once in a while i think what people are all i want to get 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 presents are harmful is a quantitative issue that's very difficult to talk about conceptually you're having trouble with that conceptually and added to that to the fact that there is

legitimate disagreement among scientists there is also these days that scientists well there are many scientists i know and i have interviewed on this show that strongly disagree. if you're point of view that calories a calorie episode we have already discussed that but that's not my point at 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 really what they're oh pay 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. that scientific debate is now being muddled by a very deliberate industry affray to do it in most any science that goes slightly 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 a 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 in providing advice to kill or it clinton's campaign and it was in active

communication where by its president of coca-cola on matters of policy i know you're concerned about you know scientists being influenced by the industry but you have any qualms about. somebody like this collecting a paycheck from one of the largest corporations. advising presidential candidate potentially one of the most powerful people. well india says 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 aussies that know they euphemism for special interests is not around when you're you happen to remember that the revelations about this from the hacking 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 that 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. no lecture i had given in australia were forwarded through these hacked e-mails. 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 and teaching students and writing books i'm not making a case for interfering in anyone's that elections but it strikes me as not just a political campaign because after those multinational 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 why they me i really just have no way of knowing it and my point is different by point margin and fortunately we have ways of knowing it knowing you don't not knowing if the americans publish out. does not benefit from this knowledge unfortunately their whole day year's day new dietary guidelines can improve that but anyway we have to

leave it there thank you very much for sharing your insights my pleasure and thank you for watching poultice here next week on world apart. or. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy confrontation let it be an arms race off and spearing dramatic development only

personally i'm going to resist i don't see you. will be successful very critical time time to sit down and talk. during the vietnam war u.s. forces are also bombs in neighboring laos there was a secret war. and for years the american people did not know. until our so much it is officially the most heavily bombed country per capita all of human history millions of unexploded bombs still in danger lives in this small agricultural country jordyn wieber. even today kids in laos full victims of bombs dropped decades ago is the us making amends for their tragedy and . help to the people need in that little land of mines.

in the stories that shaped the week quassia rejects claims that meddled in last year's election in the u.k. although to try to steal information on the country's coronavirus foxy. paedophiles fostered children and shot many fed decades in your reporter field samuel forty's new. all along we hear from the victims every day was mental and physical mistreatment we were forced to do things we wouldn't normally do because we were threatened our lives have been destroyed we are unable to work and we have become aware that we are just a pile of misery and china says it will hit back following president thomas revoking of hong kong's special trade status.