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 isn't in the details and 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 to 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 that have other countries once you follow because they doesn't accommodations that react talking about their influence in school lunches they're influencing what people have sat in hospital their influence and what people give up that's etc and a large degree there are also influencing the it is 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 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 politicized 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. preying on science on power on people how but i think it wasn't until they caught 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. diet and g.'s diseases and i just wonder if that would put an additional sort of political entity 'd on those scientists to perhaps at least when it comes to public recommendations to change the advice well good basis 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 salt and sugar and alcohol salt and sugar are usually isn't strong highly processed foods and alcohol very 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 now there is a recently aired just a few days ago an article in the washington post which also suggests that that the board that 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 of what recommend something like to the recommendations of the world health organization that and eyes mean yes but speaking 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 substitute 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 if where you're concerned it happens over way or weight is about calories and it doesn't matter with the calories from the columns that hilaly loves the case . and if you left sugar and he won the foreign oil owner of the foods that have sure that 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 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 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 killers 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. 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 this issue of sugar but one of the questions that i want to know your 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 fire. 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 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 the

infant feeding bottles with soft drinks or wrote with softer glow go otos of companies so the server companies some years ago marketed directly to the babies may be in the bottles with softer logos and there was evidence he said people who bought those bottles with a softer local with a softer. there is considerable evidence than ill united states. with their own measure of. soft drinks that are being given. to truly not a good one. comedian since you have recommended against giving some drinks to chug rubbish out also not been able to reach consensus on the other important issues for example that apparently very they couldn't reach a definitive opinion on whether there is any connection between the consumption of

all added sugar and type 2 diabetes isn't there really well says 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 a single truth substance here you're already is talking about something misleading 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 body well you've got saturated fat that's different said in general also talking about how he facts about and natural foods but traded sugar is

a very very me about this and that advice 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'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 to me 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 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 a much hijacks the same top places every other right 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 most individuals that. statement isn't a lot little and not getting addicted to it well food is wonderful let's greatest wishes and whenever you eat something that is treasure full and 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 too 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 food companies are not social service agencies and they're not public health agency their business is. who's job it is just and if they're opposed they traded. 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 for people still it's quite unrealistic in our current business environment purpose and that's the we have to take every area sure great now but don't be back in just a few moments h. r. l

look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. must obey the orders given by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the 1st law show your identification for should be very careful about official intelligence the point obesity is to create trust. conflicting theories chummy with artificial intelligence will something to. protect its own existence with. the. problem drugs don't always come from unscrupulous dealers but from pharmacies too in every state in the united states we see me very sharp increase in the number of people seeking treatment for addiction to prescription

opioids invited america under the banner of medicine persisted with the pain but instead of trying to wean him off though she just goes after dose after dose after dose and really became his drug dealer. so who's to blame patients doctors manufacturers or the governments of. god no team no crowd. no shots. actually well to be. dr no the 1st. point should be your thirst for action.

bottom actually the part with 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 the call that 19 pandemic we all can see be imagined stalled these practices have on both societies at large and personal how they axed analogies as the economists put it a much greater than the off jesus thing this pandemic provides and nothing but she can do got to change things around. well i'm hoping that some good will come out of the code of 911 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're 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 bigfoot companies are also using that are for after age or it's you know out of the victim back as playbook. they have an additional argument of saying that food is different from tobacco because you actually need to leave but actually i want to have 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 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 molests 5 years and i'm interested to see whether the dietary guidelines say anything about cross bones 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 ultra 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 a 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 but 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 processed foods are harmful is a quantitative issue that's very difficult to talk about conceptually if you're having trouble 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 disagree. if you're 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 and 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 rich latest book made him it's an excellent wind that scientific debate is now being muddled by

a very deliberate industry after a few diligent the most any science that goes likely against that narrative can you talk more about that. oh 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 rules to 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 languish 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 you know a name handed out and not clinton's hacked e-mails it just happened so that a woman who was on paper all at coca-cola was also simultaneously providing advice to culinary clinton's campaign and was in active communication where vice president of coca-cola on matters of policy i know you're concerned about you know scientists being influenced by the interest or what. do you have any qualms about. somebody like this collecting a paycheck from a lot of the largest corporations and advising a u.s. presidential candidate potentially one of the most powerful people. will india says who 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 mentioned 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 this 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 on says that no they euphemism for special interests is not around when you're you have 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 that i'm not the president 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 course it's not in the public interest i don't think that government should be beholden to corporations that are 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 back 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 not 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's 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 made it 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 knowing if the americans publish how. just no benefits from this knowledge unfortunately there will 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 i hope to see here next week on was a part of. all. during

the vietnam war u.s. forces also bomb to neighboring laos it was a secret war. and for years the american people did not know. our so much it is

officially the most heavily bombed country per capita in all human history millions of unexploded bombs still in danger lives in this small agricultural country shoreline would have been going on a canal which happened there even today kids in laos fall victim to bombs dropped decades ago is the us making amends for the tragedy in laos what help do the people need in that little land of mines. you cannot be bold with yet you walk.

in the stories the shapes that we can articulate pedophiles to children in germany for decades a new report will build your forties new or long. russia rejects claims that meddled in last year's election in the u.k. although they tried to steal information on the country's coronavirus facts the. china says they will hit back following president trump's revoking of hong kong special trade date this. visit r.t. dot com for more on the latest headlines and stay with us the going underground is coming up next.