Commentary: Sweet policies

The Journal offers us a flow of bitter pieces showing evidence that the sugar industry has adopted the strategy of the tobacco industry.(1,2) It threatens scientific objectivity and people’s health.(3,4) Sugar (sweet drinks and processed foods) is an agent of true epidemics of modern times which rank first among the avoidable causes of deaths and illnesses, as tobacco and alcohol.

The UK responsibility deal favoring partnerships with the industry is a deadly smoke screen.(2, 5) The French government chose to advance unmasking and openly acknowledged the influence of corporate influence on public health policy. The Ministry of Education signed a framework agreement on cooperation with the National inter-professional body for sugar (CEDUS), whose president also chairs the Sugar Producers' Union, the 29 October 2013).(http://cache.media.eduscol.education.fr/file/Partenariat_professionnel/2...) This agreement concerns information for young people and their families and, training of staff of the Ministry through development and dissemination of educational resources, lectures, company visits, hosting youth and teachers in the context of public events …

This contrasts with other strategies from the Swedish and the US governments which are effective.(6,7)

Indeed, schools are important settings for the promotion of a healthy diet to prevent overweight. However, this is not enough and it is hardly conceivable that governments still fail to implement Adam Smith’s visionary theory. In 1776, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith stated : "Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which have become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

Are French and UK politicians only porous to industry vested interest or is it a mix of naivety and ineptitude? The latter hypothesis is frightening: next, they might rely on child abusers for sexuality education programs.

1 Anderson P, Miller D. Commentary: Sweet policies. BMJ 2015;350:h780.

2 Gornall J. Sugar's web of influence 3: Why the responsibility deal is a "dead duck" for sugar reduction. BMJ 2015;350:h219.

3 Yang Q, Zhang Z, Gregg EW, Flanders WD, Merritt R, Hu FB. Added Sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:516-24.

4 Massougbodji J, Le Bodo Y, Fratu R, De Wals P. Reviews examining sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight: correlates of their quality and conclusions. Am J Clin Nutr 2014;99:1096-104.
5 Hawkes N. Food responsibility deal has cost 6000 lives, professor tells meeting. BMJ 2015;350:h676.

6 Patterson E, Elinder LS. Improvements in school meal quality in Sweden after the introduction of new legislation-a 2-year follow-up. Eur J Public Health 2014. Online Nov 12.

7 Terry-McElrath YM, O'Malley PM, Johnston LD. Potential impact of national school nutritional environment policies: Cross-sectional associations with US secondary student overweight/obesity, 2008-2012. JAMA Pediatr 2015;169:78-85.