barker. told welcome to worlds apart if you do you just ignore any inconvenience studies the american scientists charged with dropping the use dietary guidelines have finally sour it on sugar recommending an almost youthful reduction in daily consumption for bald adults and children with almost 60 percent of americans

suffering from a diseased one died due to used disease and therefore facing a much higher risk of cobbett neck and complications did vice things long overdue you but is it strong enough jurors the obesity and other related pandemics as well to discuss that i'm now joined by marion nestle a professor emeritus of nutrition foods that is in public health at new york university and bestselling author present nestle and i'm such a big fan of yours thank you very much for it rains it talks yards i'm very happy to be here thanks now for most of our international audience the u.s. dietary guidelines nate come across as obscure or a manuscript that has little or no impact on that own lives but i happen to believe that this is actually one of the most impactful public health documents in the world whether. influence often harmful influence spanning far beyond the united

states is that an exaggeration well if it doesn't summarize or not others really know what healthy diets are dietary recommendations have not changed since the 1st recommendation started getting issues for chronic disease prevention 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. special rated fat salt and 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 say it it definitely is and the details add to well barack is 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 doesn't accommodations that react talking about their influencing school lunches they're influencing what people have sat in hospital they're influencing what people get a chance etc and a large degree they're also influencing the behavior of the practices of 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 and 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 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 reporting today 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 they called 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 g.'s disease list 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 good. 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 for business for highly processed foods and alcohol that 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 doing it 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 in the concentration 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 and 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 the 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 eyes mean yes but speaking about sugar i have a crack here i must go cook incidentally reports for toxic and whenever we discuss those issues he always tells me not to demonize sugar is it possible to demonize sugary. is there a software that's done more damage to public how that causes more doubts and my bitties online i completely disagree i don't think it's it's sugar alone it's carrier it's it's where you're concerned it happens over way or wait is about calories and it doesn't matter with the calories from the columns that hilaly 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 talking about saturated fat and i don't think we should be talking about song 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 keller's sugar makes you want to eat more sat makes you want to eat more but if you look at what happens in the body i tell you killer and

that's where dietary recommendations are so confusing because they talk about new entry it's not food 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 it was glorious you cut your kid. if you cut out the foods that contain sugar or terror carbohydrates or anything else you're going to be cutting care or if you go down with the healthier calories but anyway clearly there is that we disagree on on big issue of sugar but one of the parts. and 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. if 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 but 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 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 become so powerful so that something like these 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 the babies made baby bottles with soft drink

logos on and there was evidence that people who bought those bottles with the softer local the softer in them and there is considerable evidence that the united states knew that there are measures. soft drinks that are being given to children to truly. be a 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 an. if initiative opinion on whether there is any connection between the consumption of added sugar and type 2 diabetes isn't there really because it is 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 complicated because whenever you talk about is single through substance here you're already is something that something is silly because you must always take. into 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 bodies well i have not said that that's different from 7 general also talking about how he facts about and natural foods but the 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 all the 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 me or to try to galleries you leave 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 arrest i mean 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 if they much hijacks the same pathways as every other i

dicked of substance i mean maybe your have a particularly strong will or a specific genetics that allow you to stay with it then it but it isn't also a case in most individuals that it really. isn't a lot at little and not getting addicted to it well food is one lance greatest wishes and whenever you eat something that is your full bit 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 too 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 companies are not social service agencies and they're not public health agency their business is whose job it is just self and if they're posing

a traded business then they have stockholders to please and that is their primary responsibility so to extend it to companies not to make foods with sugar because it would be better to people skills is quite unrealistic in our current business environment personnel we have to take n.p.r. a short break now but to be back in just a few moments. our. quote of the greatest if not the greatest church in the history appreciative he will soon be converted into a loss of what is the importance of the hobby of soviet and for whom europe's energy security does not mean dependence face on the balance.

bottom back to all the parts that matter and that's ok i just say america all nutrition foods that isn't 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 expand we x. factor car prices to do that but i think the. the comment 19 pandemic we all can see the demands told these practices have on both societies at large and personal how the acts are analogies as the economist with put it

a much greater than the profit jesus thing this pandemic provides and not a good key can be got to change things around. well i'm hoping that some good will come out of the code of 910 demagogue i'm 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 curbs 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

a 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 x. rays that at big foot companies are also using that are for after age or it's you know out of the victim back to his 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 they're

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 for 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 that have a lot of banded salt to sugar and there is now an enormous amount of evidence that shows that consumption of all. 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 molests 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 to eat ultra processed foods in small amounts and here you get right back into the same issue of quantity because smart 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 more 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's somebody people 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 concert to look at 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 does. agree 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 we see what they're oh pay for and that's how the scientific knowledge is produced but i think one of the your rich latest book made it makes an excellent point that scientific debate is now being modeled 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. oh well 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 rules invariably 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 were 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 the president of callable on matters of policy i know you're concerned about you know scientists data collecting a paycheck from one of the largest corporations. advising presidential candidate

potentially one of the most powerful people. well india says her 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 in 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 if you're going to the russians really 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 also is that not a euphemism for special interests is not around when you're you happen to remember that the revelations about this came from the hacking hillary clinton's e-mails 0 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 well maybe we don't know about that but we are not positioning ourselves as the you know shining city on the hill but. there's actually a lot of back and forth between the russians and americans about whether the russians or that are 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 not why root them out 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 notes on a lecture i had given in australia were forwarded through the. these hacked e-mails . you know in some way that i just had no idea that this kind of thing was going on and 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 russian and fortunately we have ways of knowing. 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 intro that but anyway we have to leave it there thank you very much for sharing your insights are my pleasure and thank you for watching to see here next week on walls apart. bar.

mean.

in the stories this states that we cannot say paedophiles to children in germany for decades a new report well thought it's he's knew 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 are being destroyed we go on a bill to work and we have become aware that we are just a pile of misery. rejects claims that meddled in last year's.