Decades-old documents have surfaced showing that the powerful U.S. sugar industry skewed the government's medical research on dental care—and ultimately what officials recommended for American diets.
數十年的資料浮出檯面, 顯示強力的美國糖製產業扭曲政府在牙醫方面的研究, 以及專家如何推薦美國飲食
Despite a widespread understanding that sugar played a key role in tooth decay, sugar industry leaders advocated for policies that did not recommend people eat less sugar, according to an archive of industry letters dating back to the 1950s preserved by the University of Illinois and analyzed by a team of researchers at the University of California in San Francisco. And the government listened, according to a new report published in the journal PLOS Medicine.
僅管大眾知曉糖在蛀牙扮演很關鍵角色, 糖製產業的高層仍倡導民眾(((不)))要少吃糖, 根據早至1950年的書信, 而政府還買單.
In the 1960s, amid a national effort to boost cavity prevention, the U.S. government spearheaded a research program, known as the National Caries Program (NCP), which aimed to eradicate tooth decay by the end of the 1970s.
1960年, 一陣倡導防止蛀牙的國內運動, 美國政府矛頭指向一項研究方案, 暫譯: 國家防護方案, 這項方案針對如何消除1970年以來的蛀牙而發起的
But instead of turning to an obvious solution—having people eat less sugar—the government was swayed by industry interests that pushed alternative methods, such as ways to break up dental plaque and vaccines for fighting tooth decay, according to more than 300 internal industry documents, including old letters and meeting minutes.
但, 無法成為一項明顯的解決方案 - 讓民眾吃少一點的糖 - 政府仍被產業的利益給擺布 - 幫助推動替代性方法, 比方打破牙菌斑, 與打相關(防止蛀牙的疫苗), 根據三百個內部產業文件, 包涵文件往返與會議紀錄
How did the industry wield so much power?
為何產業能有如此大的權力呢?
For one, the sugar industry had a strong presence in the subcommittee that developed the very research priorities that later guided dental care policies. A task force committee that was set up by the government to set research priorities for the NCP included many doctors and scientists who were also working closely with the sugar industry. These committee members were also part of another group called the International Sugar Research Foundation, which was established by the sugar industry.
一來, 糖製產業在政府的次要委員會占有席次, 能策動研究方案的先後順序, 並在之後促成牙齒防護的政策制定. 政府並設立一個專案委員會, 決定一些研發方案的先後順序, 委員會招攬很多博士, 科學家, 與糖產業密切掛在一起. 這些委員會成員又是另一個團體的成員, 稱: 國際糖研究基金會, 正是由糖產業成立的
The overlap included all but three members, as shown by the table below.
It's no surprise then that the research plan laid out by the government ended up looking eerily similar to what the sugar industry had proposed. Some 80 percent of the industry's recommendations were adopted, and research that was seen as being potentially harmful to the industry was noticeably absent from the proposal, according to the report. And, what's more, as much as 40 percent of the recommendations included in a report written by the sugar industry's research group, ISRF, ended up being used—almost verbatim.
這下, 政府的研究方向怎麼跟糖製產業建議的不謀而合, 就不令人意外了. 百分之八十, 這個產業的建議都被政府採納. 研究顯示糖製產業對人體有害的部份則被刻意忽略. 更一步地, 百分之四十的建議, 包含一份糖產業所作的報告, 是被執行的
Rather than recommending that people reduce sugar intake, government-funded research focused on interventions that wouldn't advise Americans to lower their sweets consumption. For instance, the research encouraged the wider use of fluoride and sealants in dental hygiene. The approach essentially conceded that imploring people to reduce sugar intake was impractical, even if it would help prevent tooth decay.
不是建議民眾減糖, 由政府資助的研究是專注在干預民眾不需減少糖份的攝取與消費. 比方, 在牙齒保健方面, 研究鼓勵...氟化物和密封劑的更廣泛使用, 這個方法甚至承認要求民眾即使吃糖會導致蛀牙, 但降低使用糖量是很不實際的....
The problem with the industry's influence on cavity research, aside from the obvious conflicts of interest, is that it led to a series of recommendations that never proved effective. For instance, the government also proposed using a mixture of fructose and glucose to substitute sugar, but scientists figured out that was ineffective a decade later. There were also efforts to create an additive that nullified the effects of sugar on tooth decay. That research was soon abandoned.
除了明顯與民眾切身健康有衝擊以外, 這個產業影響蛀牙研究的問題是, 它導致一系列從未被證實有效過的推薦. 比方: 政府建議用果糖與葡萄糖替代糖使用量, 但十年後科學家發現無效. 也想用添加劑試圖去除糖對蛀牙的影響. 這項研究後來放棄
These days, the sugar industry might not wield the same level of power it did when these documents were written, but it still spends a lot of money to get its way.
現在糖製產業或許沒像過去那麼積極發揮台面上影響力, 但仍丟很多錢達到目的....
In 2009, for instance, ahead of a possible federal excise tax on sugary drinks, the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola Company, and PepsiCo spent nearly $40 million to prevent the policy proposal from passing into law. The effort was unsuccessful.
比方: 2009年, 有建議立法要對高糖的飲料徵稅, 美國飲料協會, 比方百事可樂, 可口可樂丟了四千萬美金阻止這項立法通過
More recently, the industry attempted to influence the ongoing debate about changes to the Food and Drug Administration's nutrition facts label. One of the key changes currently being mulled is the inclusion of an "added sugar" label, which is meant to communicate how much of any given food's sugar content was added during processing. The industry is vehemently opposed. The American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, American Frozen Food Institute, Corn Refiners Association, International Dairy Foods Association and National Confectioners Association wrote a letter this past fall imploring the FDA to reconsider the proposed change.
最近, 糖製產業試圖扭轉如火如荼的爭論, 想要改變美國衛福部要求標籤明示的規定. 改變之一就是標籤上要註明"添加糖份", 目的是要讓消費者清楚他買的飲食, 添加了多少的糖份. 糖產業盡全力反對. 所有相關的食品業, 像美國烘焙業, 美國飲料協會, 美國冷凍食品業, 玉米精製協會, 國際奶品協會, 國際糖果協會, 在去年秋天寫了聯合聲明給美國衛福部(FDA), 請求他們重新考慮這項規定的改變
"When you take on Big Sugar, you take on a huge political money operation," Rep. Mark Steven Kirk from Illinois said back in 2007.
當你在挑戰大糖製產業, 你也在挑戰龐大政治金的操作.
The industry, for its part, is critical of the new report. "It is challenging for the current Sugar Association staff to comment directly on documents and events that allegedly occurred before and during Richard Nixon’s presidency, given the staff has changed entirely since the 1970s," said Tonya Allen, a spokesperson for the Sugar Association. "Sugar has been safely used by our mothers and grandmothers for hundreds of years."
"這個產業, 對於新的報告很重要. "對於現有糖業協會的員工, 要直接對尼克森任期內與下台後的報告與事件下結論實在很具挑戰性. 因為當時的員工跟現在的員工老早換好幾圈了 "早從我們的母親, 祖母用糖用了好幾百年"
Tooth decay, though preventable, is still widely prevalent in the United States. It's the most common chronic disease among children and adolescents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it affects adults, too—as much as 90 percent of them in some way or other, per the CDC. Eradicating it, as we aspired to in the 1960s, might be a bit far-fetched. But it's easy to imagine there could have been more progress made if the government had not been influenced so much by the industry.
蛀牙, 雖可預防, 在美國仍很普遍. 這是兒童與青少年最普遍的慢性病. 也影響90%的成人. 消除蛀牙, 可能看來遙不可及. 但你可容易想像, 如果政府不要被糖製產業擺布的話, 會有多大的改善與進展.
Roberto A. Ferdman is a reporter for Wonkblog covering food, economics, immigration and other things. He was previously a staff writer at Quartz.
原文網址:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/11/the-sneaky-way-the-sugar-industry-shaped-government-funded-dental-research/?tid=sm_fb
文章定位：
