Powerbase - User contributions [en]

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-18T14:12:53Z

Lynne Semple:

Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], the 10th biggest global food company in the world <ref>"[http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2628 Corporate control of the food system ]",Corporatewatch.org website, accessed 16 November 2010</ref> a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate. The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&Ms and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease. Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” for the Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of [[aspartame]] and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with [[Ajinomoto]]. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International (now known as [[Intrinsik]] and most notoriously known for acting as a corporate advocacy group for
whitewashing the dangers of [[Agent Orange]],a toxic product created by [[Monsanto]]). He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC). He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-18T13:44:43Z

Lynne Semple:

EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer, or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic Organic Review] Food Standards Agency website, accessed on 18 november 2010</ref> This advice goes hand in hand with the official advice given by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref>
There are questions however, over whether or not the debate is not as concerned with health benefits, as it is about corporate interests.
In an article titled 'Organicised Crime' in The Ecologist, journalist Andy Rowell suggested that the backlash against organic food had begun and he suggested that there was a deliberate push by the Agribusiness sector to undermine organic produce. No longer a niche market, but the fastest growing food segment in the market, it is in the interests of big transnational producers of food to stop the public moving from non organic to organic. In the article Rowell suggests -'In these efforts (to undermine the organic food industry), the agribusiness and biotech corporations are supported by a loose network of think-tanks, both in the US and in the UK. To an unsuspecting eye, these think-tanks appear to offer a veneer of independence from the big businesses which plough billions of dollars into their bank accounts to push forward a deregulatory, pro-high-tech, corporate agenda.'<ref> Andy Rowell [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_1_31/ai_70910933/pg_3/?tag=content;col1 Organicised Crime] The Ecologist, February 2001, accessed on 18 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-18T13:17:20Z

Lynne Semple:

EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer, or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2009/jul/organic Organic Review] Food Standards Agency website, accessed on 18 november 2010</ref> This advice goes hand in hand with the official advice given by the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref>
There are questions however, over whether or not the debate is not as concerned with health benefits, as it is about corporate interests.
In an article titled 'Organicised Crime' in The Ecologist, journalist Andy Rowell suggested that the backlash against organic food had begun and he suggested that there was a deliberate push by the Agribusiness sector to undermine organic produce. No longer a niche market, but the fastest growing food segment in the market, it is in the interests of big transnational producers of food to stop the public moving from non organic to organic. In the article Rowell suggests -'In these efforts (to undermine the organic food industry0, the agribusiness and biotech corporations are supported by a loose network of think-tanks, both in the US and in the UK. To an unsuspecting eye, these think-tanks appear to offer a veneer of independence from the big businesses which plough billions of dollars into their bank accounts to push forward a deregulatory, pro-high-tech, corporate agenda.'<ref> Andy Rowell [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_1_31/ai_70910933/pg_3/?tag=content;col1 Organicised Crime] The Ecologist, February 2001, accessed on 18 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-18T13:09:51Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Scientific Advisory Committee

2010-11-17T00:34:54Z

Lynne Semple: /* Scientific Advisory Committee */

===Scientific Advisory Board===
Eufic claims that the role of it's SAB is to ensure that EUFIC's information and communication programmes are based on reviews of scientific evidence which have the support of the scientific community at large so that the information is representative, factually correct and truthful. The members are -

Giorgio Poli, Chairman of the EUFIC Scientific Advisory Board, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,University of Milan, Italy.

Renate Frenz, Vice Chairman of the EUFIC Scientific Advisory Board, Past Honorary Chairman, European Federation of Association of Dieticians (EFAD), Germany.

France Bellisle, Researcher at the Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, University Paris 13,Bobigny, France.

Onno Korver, Former Chief Nutrition Scientist, Unilever, The Netherlands.

Milan Kovac, Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic.

Alan Reilly, Chief Executive Officer, Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

Josef Schlatter, Head of the Nutritional and Toxicological Risks Section, Federal Department of Home Affairs (FDHA), Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Consumer Protection Directorate, Zurich, Switzerland.

Michael Sjöström, Head of Unit of Preventive Nutrition, Department of Biosciences/Medical Nutrition,Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/page/ONEUFIC/rid/eufic-scientific-advisory-board//index/en/ About EUFIC]", accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-16T00:20:52Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], the 10th biggest global food company in the world <ref>"[http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2628 Corporate control of the food system ]",Corporatewatch.org website, accessed 16 November 2010</ref> a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” for the Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of [[aspartame]] and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with [[Ajinomoto]]. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International (now known as [[Intrinsik]] and most notoriously known for acting as a corporate advocacy group for
whitewashing the dangers of [[Agent Orange]],a toxic product created by [[Monsanto]]). He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-16T00:20:26Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], the 10th biggest global food company in the world <ref>"[http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2628 Corporate control of the food system ]",Corporatewatch.org website, accessed 16 November 2010</ref> a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” for the Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of [[aspartame]] and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with [[Ajinomoto]]. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International (now known as [[Intrinsik]] and most notoriously known for acting as a corporate advocacy group for
whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange,a toxic product created by [[Monsanto]]). He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-16T00:19:42Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], the 10th biggest global food company in the world <ref>"[http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2628 Corporate control of the food system ]",Corporatewatch.org website, accessed 16 November 2010</ref> a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” for the Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of [[aspartame]] and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with [[Ajinomoto]]. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International (now known as 'Intrinsik' and most notoriously known for acting as a corporate advocacy group for
whitewashing the dangers of Agent Orange,a toxic product created by [[Monsanto]]). He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-16T00:03:24Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], the 10th biggest global food company in the world <ref>"[http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2628 Corporate control of the food system ]",Corporatewatch.org website, accessed 16 November 2010</ref> a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is Good for You

2010-11-14T18:08:58Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard accessed 14 November 2010 via [http://www.lexisnexis.com/ Nexis]</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard accessed 14 November 2010 via [http://www.lexisnexis.com/ Nexis]</ref>
This confusing advice appears the be in direct contradiction to EUIFIC's pledge on it's consumers homepage to provide health and nutrition information that 'promotes consumer understanding'. <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/index/en/show/consumers/ Consumer homepage]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref> It also highlights an apparent conflict of interests when you consider that a large proportion of EUFIC's funding providers are maufacturers of snack type products.

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is Good for You

2010-11-14T18:07:38Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is Good for You

2010-11-14T18:03:54Z

Lynne Semple: Removing all content from page

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:45:24Z

Lynne Semple:

EUFIC claims clearly on their website that there is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer,or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/difference-organic-conventional-food/ What is the difference between organic and conventional food?] EUFIC website, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:22:21Z

Lynne Semple:

EUFIC claim clearly on their website that here is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer,or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref> [http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/difference-organic-conventional-food/ What is the difference between organic and conventional food?] EUFIC website, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref> However, this advice again produces a confusing dilemma for the consumer, as there are numerous conflicting opinions on the matter, most recently a study conducted by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA). The Independent on Sunday reported that the study had found that organic plant products contain more dry matter, and so are more nutrient-dense and contain more minerals such as iron and magnesium than conventional foods. The study also suggested that organic produce contains more polyphenols than its non-organic counterpart.<ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/is-organic-produce-better-for-you-2126067.html Is organic produce better for you?] The Independent on Sunday, 5 November 2010, accessed on 14 november 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:06:11Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:05:42Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:05:10Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Organically Produced Food

2010-11-14T17:03:38Z

Lynne Semple: New page: EUFIC claim clearly on their website that here is no evidence that organically produced food is any safer,or more nutritious than its conventionally produced counterpart.<ref>http://www.eu...

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is Good for You

2010-11-14T16:29:09Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is Good for You

2010-11-14T16:27:50Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard accessed 14 November 2010 via [http://www.lexisnexis.com/ Nexis]</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:24:20Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref>
This confusing advice is in direct contradiction to EUFIC's claim on it's homepage to 'provide information in a way that promotes consumer understanding'<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/index/en/show/consumers/ Consumers Homepage]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref> It could also suggest a conflict of interest, as various EUFIC funders are manufacturers of snack type foodstuffs.

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:22:26Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref>
This confusing advice is in direct contradiction to EUFIC's claim on it's homepage to 'provide information in a way that promotes consumer understanding'[http://www.eufic.org/index/en/show/consumers/Consumers Homepage]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>. It could also suggest a conflict of interest, as various EUFIC funders are manufacturers of snack type foodstuffs.

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:21:25Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref>
This confusing advice is in direct contradiction to EUFIC's claim on it's homepage to 'provide information in a way that promotes consumer understanding'[http://www.eufic.org/index/en/show/consumers/ Consumers Homepage]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>. It could also suggest a conflict of interest, as various EUFIC funders are manufacturers of snack type foodstuffs.

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:08:29Z

Lynne Semple:

On the [[EUFIC]] website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to over consumption and thus contributes to weight gain. Some short term laboratory studies support this theory. Studies have demonstrated for example that when people are given a snack prior to a meal, the size of their subsequent meal is not affected. In other words they do not cut down on calories in the meal even after consuming a high calorie snack.<ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/review-eating-between-meals-health/ Snacking and Calorie Control]",EUFIC website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

However, in a London Evening Standard article in 2001, it was reported that a newsletter had been produced by EUFIC advocating the opposite, that snacking could be helpful in controlling weight. <ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref> The article reports - "EUFIC says that rather than consuming the recommended daily calorie intake in three goes - breakfast, lunch and dinner - people with weight problems should spread their eating to include three snacks as well.The key is to follow the "formula of eight". Each snack - midmorning, mid-afternoon and after-dinner - should be kept to no more than eight per cent of the total calorie intake. Eurocitizens should divide calorie intake thus: 12 per cent for breakfast, eight per cent midmorning, 32 per cent for lunch, eight per cent mid-afternoon, 32 per cent for dinner and eight per cent after dinner. For years the calories have been distributed at 20 per cent for breakfast and 40 per cent each for lunch and dinner. But it is better to follow the 'three eights' formula,"<ref>" Colin Freeman; Paul House[http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/nexis/returnTo.do?returnToKey=20_T10602398126/ Eurocrats' guide to snacking is hard to swallow]",The Evening Standard (accessed via NexisUK) accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==

<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:03:37Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T16:02:46Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T15:49:02Z

Lynne Semple:

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Snacking is good for you

2010-11-14T15:46:18Z

Lynne Semple: New page: On the EUFIC website the general advice on snacking is this - Avoidance of eating between meals is standard advice for body weight control, the rationale being that snacking leads to o...

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-14T15:33:29Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/ Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-14T15:32:38Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref> However, controversy and confusion surrounding the safety of aspartame continues, and the Food Standards Agency in the UK announced their intention to launch a fresh investigation into the sweetener and it's side effects amid ongoing claims that some consumers continue to experience unpleasant side effects such as migraines, dizziness, nausea and fatigue.<ref> Ian Sample"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/sweetener-aspartame-side-effects Sweetener aspartame to be investigated for possible side-effects]", The Guardian, 23 September 2009, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-14T14:57:26Z

Lynne Semple: /* John Lupien */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==
In his capacity as the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) John Lupien agreed a funding deal into a report titled 'Expert Consultation on Carbohydrates in Human Nutrition'. In an episode titled 'The Trouble With Sugar', the BBC Programme 'Panorama' revealed that the [[ILSI]] and the World Sugar Research Organisation had contributed to the cost of the report. The World Sugar Research Organisation - funded by the sugar industry paid US$20,000 towards the consultation.[[ILSI]] - the International Life Sciences Institute - an American research group paid for by food companies like Coca Cola and Tate and Lyle also put in US$40,000. Since its publication the report of the consultation has been used by the sugar lobby to fight any suggestion of a link between sugar and health concerns. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3726510.stm UN probes sugar industry claims] BBC News Website, accessed 14 November 2010</ref>

Mr Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

File:Euficlogo.jpg

2010-11-13T16:33:44Z

Lynne Semple: eufic logo

eufic logo

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-09T12:39:22Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufic website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-09T12:39:02Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufi website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-09T12:38:26Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>
The Eufi website categorically insists that aspartame is safe prolaiming -Aspartame is classed as a food additive under European Food legislation, and as such, underwent rigorous, safety evaluation by the Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF) before its approval in 1981. Once an additive has been approved as safe across the European Union, it is assigned an E-number and Aspartame carries the number E-951. Aspartame has been approved as safe for the general public - including diabetics, pregnant and nursing women, and children - by more than 90 nations worldwide <ref>"[http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/aspartame/Much Ado About Nothing]", EUFIC website, accessed 9 November 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-03T23:14:24Z

Lynne Semple: /* John Lupien */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the [[Nestlé]] attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-03T23:13:51Z

Lynne Semple: /* Ronald Walker */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the [[ILSI]]’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. [[ILSI]] is funded by [[Monsanto]], [[Ajinomoto]], [[Coca Cola]], [[Pepsi Cola]], etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the Nestlé attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-03T23:09:45Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. An article in The Guardian reported in 2002 that the company which can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK, has over the past decade, been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas"..<ref>James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

Mars launched its Cocoapro trademark after funding research into the use of plant compound polyphenol in the manufacture of its chocolate.The Cocoapro logo, which appears on packs of M&M's and is soon to be extended across the Mars range, directs consumers to a dedicated website that explains how polyphenols can prevent heart disease.Mars denies it is positioning its confectionery as functional food, but industry groups claim Cocoapro is a cynical marketing ploy. Dr Wills again jumped to Mars' defence, in a response in Marketing Week - "We are saying that, as part of a balanced diet, polyphenols in chocolate can help maintain a healthy heart. There is fat in Mars, but tests have proven it has no effect on cholesterol levels which cause heart disease.
We're not making any health claims with Cocoapro and we would never tell people to eat ten Mars Bars a day.
We appreciate people will be sceptical. But when organisations say chocolate is bad for you it sounds as though they are not well-informed."<ref> Ian McCawley [http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/home/healthy-interests/2040501.article Healthy Interests]",Marketing Week, 27 April 2000, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Ronald Walker==

Ronald Walker Ronald Walker spent seven years as the ILSI’s Chairman of their Scientific Committee on Toxicology/Food Safety in Europe. ILSI is funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, etc. He was a consultant for DSM Nutritional Products, a company that sold “Twinsweet” from Holland Sweetener Company which is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame-k. The DSM web site contained aspartame advocacy articles written by Holland Sweetener Company. He was a consultant for the Numico Beheer BV / Danone Group, a company that had a joint venture with Ajinomoto. He was also a paid consultant for Cantox Health Sciences International. He has written a glowing review of an Ajinomoto product, monosodium glutamate (MSG) for a symposium funded by an Ajinomoto managed trade group, International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC).He has participated in another aspartame review where he claimed that aspartame was safe. <ref>"[http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/burdock/ Aspartame and Manufacturer Funded Scientific Reviews]", Holistic Healing Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==John Lupien==

John Lupien in 2000 John Lupien participated in a debate which proposed 'Ultra-processed foods are adverse to human health'. John Lupien opposed in the debate. The debate was a reaction to the practice of transnational food and drink manufacturers exerting pressure on South American countries to reduce the amount of natural foodstuffs they consumed and increase the amounts of processed foodstuffs they consumed. An example of which was the Nestlé attempt to reach Amazonian people and promote their processed products to them, a group who's diet is almost entirely natural and traditional. John Lupien's response was that we should 'get real, and live in the modern world, processed food is the way it is'. The debate resulted in a vote of 30 for the proposal and 0 opposed. <ref>Fabio Gomes '[http://www.wphna.org/fabiogomesoct2010.asp Porto 2010. Food processing: The worlds in which we live] ''Fabio Gomes - October Blog'', World Public Health Nutrition Association Website, accessed 19 October 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-03T23:07:25Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:57:03Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:45:47Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:45:19Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:44:23Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:39:46Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:39:14Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:38:43Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:33:04Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. The company can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK. Over the past decade, Mars has been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas". .<ref> James Meek,"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]",The Guardian, 23 December 2002, accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:25:21Z

Lynne Semple: /* Josephine Wills */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. The company can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK. Over the past decade, Mars has been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas". .<ref>"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/23/research.highereducation Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]", James Meek, The Guardian, 23 December 2002 accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:16:22Z

Lynne Semple: /* Controversies surrounding EUFIC people */

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. The company can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK. Over the past decade, Mars has been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas". .<ref>"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/index/en/ Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]", accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Globalisation:European Food Information Council: Controversies surrounding EUFIC people

2010-11-02T16:13:15Z

Lynne Semple: /* Controversies surrounding EUFIC people */

===Controversies surrounding EUFIC people===

==Josephine Wills==
Josephine Wills was involved in a controversy surrounding her employers [[Mars]], a subsidiary of [[Masterfoods]] in 2002 when the company suggested that eating chocolate may have health benefits. The company can claim to take a 1/4 share of the £3.5bn generated by sales of chocolate in the UK. Over the past decade, Mars has been pouring money into research in some of the world's leading universities to try to prove that cocoa beans, the source of pure chocolate, contain enough of the right kind of a class of chemicals called flavonoids to help human hearts stay healthy. Yet the chocolate products Mars markets in Britain and elsewhere contain small proportions of cocoa beans and high proportions of the fats and sugars which, in excess, can lead to obesity - an underlying cause of heart disease. Mars' flagship bar, the Mars bar, contains only a small covering of chocolate and contains mainly sugar. When Dr Wills was questioned over the apparent attempt by Mars to start marketing their chocolate products as health foods, she said "We are not trying to position chocolates as health products. They're not designed that way, they're not marketed that way, but I think if you take chocolate in moderation you're not going to do any harm to yourselves. They're actually doing some good because they're contributing flavonoids shown to have this potential cardiological health benefit." However, Mars has been feeding the media stories about the beneficial qualities of chocolate, using a combination of respectable scientific events and PR companies to nudge journalists towards them. For instance, Mars employed a PR company, Grayling Healthcare, to issue a press release about an American Heart Association event. The release was headlined "Media Alert: News for Chocolate Lovers This Christmas". .<ref>"[http://www.guardian.co.uk/index/en/ Chocolate is good for you...or how Mars tried to sell us this as health food ]", accessed 2 November 2010</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>