Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Oct 29 2015

Another 5 industry-funded nutrition studies with results favorable to the sponsor. The score: 75:6

I’ve managed to collect another five industry-sponsored studies with results that the funder must love, bringing the total to 75 since mid-March.  As always, please keep your eye out for industry-funded studies that are contrary to the sponsor’s interests.  I’ve only managed to find 6 so far.

Dairy products consumption and metabolic syndrome in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studiesGuo-Chong Chen, Ignatius M. Y. Szeto, Li-Hua Chen, Shu-Fen Han, Yan-Jie Li, Rina van Hekezen, and Li-Qiang Qin.. Science Reports. 2015; 5: 14606. Published online 2015 Sep 29. doi:  10.1038/srep14606

  • Conclusions: Higher dairy consumption significantly reduced MetS [metabolic syndrome] by 17% in the cross-sectional/case-control studies…and by 14%…in cohort studies….Our findings suggest an inverse dose-response relationship between dairy consumption and risk of MetS.
  • Funding: This study was supported by Yili Innovation Center, Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co., Ltd. The funding source had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
  • Comment: The Yili Group is a privately owned Chinese company headquartered in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, engaged in processing and manufacturing milk products, including ice-cream, powdered milk, milk tea powder, sterilized milk and fresh milk.

Energy compensation following consumption of sugar‑reduced products: a randomized controlled trial.  Oonagh Markey · Julia Le Jeune · Julie A. Lovegrove  Eur J Nutr First online: 09 September 2015 DOI 10.1007/s00394-015-1028-5.

  • Conclusion: Consumption of sugar-reduced products, as part of a blinded dietary exchange for an 8-week period, resulted in a significant reduction in sugar intake. Body weight did not change significantly, which we propose was due to energy compensation.
  • Conflict of interest. This work was supported by Sugar Nutrition UK; however, the sponsor had no input into the study hypothesis and design, data analysis and interpretation.
  • Comment: It is in the interest of sugar trade associations to demonstrate that eating less sugar has no effect on body weight. 

Trends in Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Are Public Health and the Market Aligned or in Conflict?  William Shrapnel.  Nutrients 2015, 7(9), 8189-8198; doi:10.3390/nu7095390.

  • Conclusions: drinks containing non-nutritive sweeteners enable the “small change” in health behaviour that individuals are willing to consider…Among those who currently consume carbonated beverages, the “small change” involved in moving from a sugar-sweetened beverage to a similar sugar-free beverage appears to be one that some consumers are willing to accept.  Facilitating this change may be a more productive public health strategy than advocacy for taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.
  • Author disclosure: William Shrapnel was paid a consultancy fee by the Australian Beverage Council Ltd. to prepare this paper…The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Dietary Intervention for Overweight and Obese Adults: Comparison of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets. A Meta-Analysis.  Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, David Kanter,  Sanjay Kaul.  PLoS One, October 20, 2015.  DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139817.

  • Conclusions: In conclusion, this trial-level meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials shows that both LoCHO and LoFAT diets are effective in reducing weight. However, LoCHO diet appears to achieve greater weight loss and reduction in predicted risk of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] events compared with LoFAT diet. On the basis of these results, we suggest that dietary recommendations for weight loss should be revisited to consider this additional evidence of the benefits of LoCHO diets.
  • Funding: The study was supported by Atkins Nutritionals….Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein owns and may receive compensation from ExVivos, LLC. ExVivos, LLC provided payment to authors (DK and SK) for their role as contractors to ExVivos, LLC.
  • Comment: ExVivos, LLC has one employee—Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein.  Atkins Nutritionals markets a low-carbohydrate diet plan.

Breast-feeding and postpartum maternal weight trajectories.  Laura Mullaney, Amy C O’Higgins, Shona Cawley, Rachel Kennedy, Daniel McCartney and Michael J Turner.

  • Conclusions: There are many reasons why breast-feeding should be strongly promoted but we found no evidence to support postpartum weight management as an advantage of breast-feeding.
  • Financial support: This project was supported by the UCD Centre for Human Reproduction and was partially funded by an unlimited educational grant from Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition for the first author.
  • Comment: Food companies often provide scholarships for doctoral research.  This particular arrangement raises some tough questions: Should dissertation research supervisors allow their students to accept such funding?  Or does accepting such an award run the risk of compromising the integrity of the student’s work?
Oct 28 2015

Sugar science and politics: a roundup

First, the science

Study: obese kids lose weight and improve metabolic markers when sugars are removed from their dietsThe pediatrician Robert Lustig and his colleagues removed all sources of sugar from the diets of 43 extremely obese Latino and African-American children and teens, replacing the lost calories with starchy foods.  After nine days, the kids lost a little weight and greatly improved their metabolic markers.  We can argue about whether the effects are due to reduced calories, sugars, or fructose, and whether the results will hold up over a longer time period (as is explained in a careful critique).  But what’s impressive is that it took only nine days to achieve highly statistically significant and beneficial improvements to occur.   This finding deserves further research. 

And now the politics

Action for Health Food supports Added Sugars on food labelsI learned this from Politico Pro Morning Agriculture.  The group, backed by Houston philanthropists Laura and John Arnold, support Added Sugars on food labels.  Action for Healthy Food says that it works with communities to inform consumers about the health effects of added sugars and where they are in food and drinks, and to support policies to help people reduce sugar intake and the amount of sugar in foods.

The International Food Information Council (IFIC) opposes Added Sugars labels.  Such labels, it says, “run counter to rigorous research by the IFIC Foundation and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demonstrating that consumers instead could be misled, not enlightened, by the addition of an ‘Added Sugars’ line.”

Also from Politico Pro Agriculture: Sam Kass favors Added Sugars labels.  Helena Bottemiller Evich did the interview:

Are you following the Nutrition Facts panel debate going on right now? There’s a divide in the food industry on the issue of labeling added sugars. You have Nestle and Mars supporting added sugars labeling and a Daily Value, but there’s also fierce opposition on the other side. I think it’s clear that this issue is a high priority for the administration. Do you think that will come to fruition? Has that ship sailed?

In my book, that ship has sailed. It’s absolutely the right thing to do for consumers. I think the FDA knows that and that’s why they proposed it. I think the evidence firmly backs it and I just don’t see a good argument not to do it. I think there’s fierce opposition because some of these companies are putting way too much added sugars in their products, and they don’t want that to be pointed out. But just like trans fats, this is one of these things where the health issues are pretty clear. I just don’t see any legitimacy in their pushback.

They argue that people will be confused by the label.

Yeah, that’s a nice claim.

They have studies showing that people are confused.

I’m sure they do. Money can buy whatever outcome you want. But I just think this one is clear as day, especially when you look at the diabetes epidemic and the relation to added sugars and health outcomes in this country.

Another from Politico Pro Agriculture: Nestlé and Mars have split with the Grocery Manufacturers Association over Added Sugars labeling.  “While the nation’s leading food group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, welcomes the FDA’s labeling proposal about as much as it would a toothache, the pair of global powerhouses…are voicing support for even the thorniest details of the Obama administration’s plans, both in the regulatory docket and in the media.”  FDA’s own research in support of Added Sugars leaves room for debate.

The courts have rejected class action claims about Whole Foods’ use of the term “evaporated cane juice.   The plaintiff argued that this is a euphemism for sugar and is only used to hide sugar on foods labels.  The judge called the plaintiff “clueless, as elsewhere in his testimony he implies he knew ECJ was an unrefined form of added sugar: Added unrefined sugar is added sugar, no matter how Plaintiff tries to spin it.”

It’s Halloween and the Candy Industry is happy.  The industry considers October 31 its “Super Bowl,” with sales expected to hit a record $2.6 billion, according to Politico.  The candy industry complains that sugar is being demonized by “public activists.”  It is fighting to eliminate tariffs and quotas that protect sugar farmers and keep the price of U.S. sugar higher than on world markets. He said candy “plays a special, unique role in people’s lives in terms of a happy and balanced lifestyle, and it really is a moment of pleasure.”

On that note, trick or treat?

Oct 27 2015

Some comments on the meat-is-carcinogenic report

Yesterday, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a warning about the carcinogenic potential of processed and red meat.  This, as you might expect, caused a media flurry.  CNN News asked me for a written comment.  They titled it “The other benefit to eating less red meat.”  Here’s what I wrote:

The just-released report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer judging processed meat as clearly carcinogenic and red meat as probably carcinogenic has caused consternation among meat producers and consumers.

Meat producers do not like the “eat less meat” message. Consumers do not want to give up their bacon and hamburgers — delicious and also icons of the American way of life.

But these judgments should come as no surprise to anyone. Eating less processed and red meat has been accepted dietary advice since Ancel and Margaret Keys wrote their diet book for heart disease prevention, “Eat Well and Stay Well,” in 1959. Their advice: “restrict saturated fats, the fats in beef, pork, lamb, sausages …” They aimed this advice at reducing saturated fat to prevent heart disease. Federal committees and agencies have continued issuing such heart-disease advice to the present day.

Cancer entered the picture in the 1970s, when scientists began to link red meat — beef, pork, lamb — to the risk of cancers of the colon and rectum. Even after several decades of research, they had a hard time deciding whether the culprit in meat was fat, saturated fat, protein, carcinogens induced when meat is cooked to high temperatures or some other component.

In the mid-1990s, dietary guidelines committees advised eating lean meats and limiting intake of processed meats, still because of their high fat content. By the late 1990s, cancer experts said that red meat “probably” increases the risk of colorectal cancers, and “possibly” increases the risk of cancers of the pancreas, breast, prostate and kidney. The IARC report, based on more recent evidence, makes even stronger recommendations and favors carcinogens as the causative factors.

To put this in context: For decades, the meat industry’s big public relations problem has been that vegetarians are demonstrably healthier than meat eaters. People who do not eat red meat havemuch less of a chance of developing heart disease and bowel cancers than the average American.

More recently, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) found diets “higher in red/processed meats…” to be associated with a greater risk of colorectal cancer, and it recommended dietary patterns and low in red and/or processed meats, but higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, lean meats/seafood and low-fat dairy — largely, but not necessarily exclusively, plant-based.

This is good advice for anyone.

Eating less red and processed meats has two benefits: a reduced risk for certain forms of cancer,and a reduced effect on climate change.

The DGAC deemed eating less red meat to be exceptionally beneficial to the environment as well as to human health. The IARC report strengthens the health component of the recommendation. The secretaries of USDA and Health and Human Services, however, have refused to allow environmental concerns to be considered in the 2015 dietary guidelines.

I mention the dispute over environmental “sustainability” in the dietary guidelines because largely plant-based diets are appropriate for all kinds of health concerns — obesity, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and now, especially, colorectal cancer — as well as environmental concerns.

By eating less red and processed meats, you promote both your own health and that of the planet.

At issue then is how much red and processed meat is compatible with good health. The IARC commission ducked that question, although it cites evidence that as little as 100 grams (a quarter pound) of red meat a day, and half that much of processed meats, increases cancer risk by 15% to 20%.

Will an occasional hamburger or piece of bacon raise your risk that much? I don’t think so. But the evidence reviewed by IARC strongly suggests that if you do eat meat, eat less when you do, don’t eat meat every day, save processed meats for rare treats and be sure to eat plenty of vegetables.

Fortunately, this advice leaves plenty of room for delicious meals — just with meat taking up much less room on the plate.

Other comments

Oct 26 2015

Here’s why food companies sponsor research: Mars Inc.’s CocoaVia

In case you were wondering why food companies would bother to sponsor research, consider CocoaVia, a chocolate derivative.

At the New York Times’ Food for Tomorrow conference last week, Mars, Inc., gave out samples of CocoaVia cocoa extract.Capture

Here’s the one with sweetened dark chocolate.

Capture

And here’s the health claim.

Capture2

Mind you, “Promotes a healthy heart by supporting healthy blood flow” is not an FDA-approved health claim.  CocoaVia is being marketed as a dietary supplement, not a food.   The label says it’s a “daily cocoa extract supplement,” and has a Supplement Facts label rather than the Nutrition Facts label used for foods.

It’s interesting that Mars, Inc. originally marketed CocoaVia as chocolate bars.  The FDA considers candy bars to be foods, labeled with Nutrition Facts.

But by marketing CocoaVia as a supplement, Mars, Inc. can take advantage of the permissive marketing allowed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.  This act allows “structure/function” claims on supplements like the one used by CocoaVia.  By marketing CocoaVia flavanols as supplements, Mars, Inc. does not have to adhere to the FDA’s more restrictive requirements for health claims on food packages.

I’m surprised that Mars, Inc. is using the supplement route because the company has gone to a lot of trouble to establish a scientific basis for a health claim for its processed cocoa flavanols.

Is it possible that Mars, Inc. thinks the cocoa flavanol claim won’t hold up to FDA scrutiny.

Here again are the three studies funded by Mars, Inc. (I posted them as examples of industry-funded studies with results favorable to the sponsor’s interest).

1. Cocoa flavanol consumption improves cognitive function, blood pressure control, and metabolic profile in elderly subjects: the Cocoa, Cognition, and Aging (CoCoA) Study—a randomized controlled trialby Daniela Mastroiacovo, Catherine Kwik-Uribe, Davide Grassi, Stefano Necozione, Angelo Raffaele, Luana Pistacchio, Roberta Righetti, Raffaella Bocale, Maria Carmela Lechiara, Carmine Marini, Claudio Ferri, and Giovambattista Desideri.  Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 101:538-548 doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.092189.

  • Conclusion: These data suggest that the habitual intake of flavanols can support healthy cognitive function with age.
  • Sponsor: Mars, Inc.

2.  Impact of cocoa flavanol intake on age-dependent vascular stiffness in healthy men: a randomized, controlled, double-masked trial.  Christian Heiss & Roberto Sansone & Hakima Karimi & Moritz Krabbe & Dominik Schuler & Ana Rodriguez-Mateos & Thomas Kraemer & Miriam Margherita Cortese-Krott & Gunter G. C. Kuhnle & Jeremy P. E. Spencer & Hagen Schroeter & Marc W. Merx & Malte Kelm & for the FLAVIOLA Consortium, European Union 7th Framework Program.  AGE (2015) 37: 56 DOI 10.1007/s11357-015-9794-9

  • Conclusion: CF [cocoa flavanol] intake reverses age-related burden of cardiovascular risk in healthy elderly, highlighting the potential of dietary flavanols to maintain cardiovascular health.
  • Funding: …Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant by MARS, Inc…MARS, Inc. provided the standardized test drinks used in this investigation. HS is employed by MARS, Inc., a member of the FLAVIOLA research consortium and a company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities.

3.  Cocoa flavanol intake improves endothelial function and Framingham Risk Score in healthy men and women: a randomised, controlled, double-masked trial: the Flaviola Health Study Roberto Sansone, Ana Rodriguez-Mateos , Jan Heuel, David Falk, Dominik Schuler, Rabea Wagstaff, Gunter G. C. Kuhnle, Jeremy P. E. Spencer, Hagen Schroeter, Marc W. Merx, Malte Kelm and Christian Heiss for the Flaviola Consortium, European Union 7th Framework Program.  British Journal of Nutrition, September 9, 2015. doi:10.1017/S0007114515002822.

  • Conclusion: In healthy individuals, regular CF [cocoa flavanol] intake improved accredited cardiovascular surrogates of cardiovascular risk, demonstrating that dietary flavanols have the potential to maintain cardiovascular health even in low-risk subjects.
  • Funding: Additional funding was provided…through an unrestricted grant by MARS Inc. MARS Inc. also provided the standardised test drinks used in this investigation… H. S. provided test drinks on behalf of Mars Inc… H. S. is employed by MARS Inc., a member of the Flaviola research consortium and a company engaged in flavanol research and flavanol-related commercial activities. [The conflict statement also discloses that MARS employee H.S. shared responsibility for designing the study, writing the paper, and approving the final content].

To publicize this research, Mars, Inc.

  • Gave out samples to participants at the New York Times’ conference.

My interpretation: Mars, Inc. must expect to make some serious money on this supplement—more than enough to pay for all the research and marketing.

As for whether cocoa flavanols really do support healthy blood flow, or whether this is just the standard hyperbole only to be expected from supplement marketers, I’m reserving judgment until I see the results of independently funded studies.

Oct 23 2015

100 Mayors Sign Milan Urban Food Policy Pact

This morning, I received this press release from Franca Roiatti in Milan, announcing that on October 15 the mayors of more than 100 cities signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact and Framework for Action.  This pact commits these cities—New York among them—to work for more equitable and sustainable urban food systems.

The mayors made 7 commitments, among them working to

  • Develop sustainable food systems that are inclusive, resilient, safe and diverse, that provide healthy and affordable food to all people in a human rights-based framework, that minimise waste and conserve biodiversity while adapting to and mitigating impacts of climate change;
  • Engage all sectors within the food system (including neighbouring authorities, technical and academic organizations, civil society, small scale producers, and the private sector) in the formulation, implementation and assessment of all food-related policies, programmes and initiatives;
  • Use the Framework for Action as a starting point for each city to address the development of their own urban food system and we will share developments with participating cities and our national governments and international agencies when appropriate;

The Framework recommends 37 actions, among them

  • Identify, map and evaluate local initiatives
  • Develop or revise urban food policies and plans
  • Address non-communicable diseases associated with poor diets and obesity, giving specific attention where appropriate to reducing intake of sugar, salt, transfats, meat and dairy products and increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables and non-processed foods
  • Develop sustainable dietary guidelines to inform consumers, city planners (in particular for public food procurement), food service providers, retailers, producers and processors, and promote communication and training campaigns.
  • Explore regulatory and voluntary instruments to promote sustainable diets involving private and public companies as appropriate, using marketing, publicity and labelling policies; and economic incentives or disincentives; streamline regulations regarding the marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverages to children in accordance with WHO recommendations.
  • Those aimed at social and economic equity (cash transfers, school feeding programs, employment, education, training, research).
  • And those aimed at improving food production and reducing waste.

Finally, it comes with an e-book that collects 49 selected good practices from 28 signatory cities.

The point?  Even though everything about this pact and framework is voluntary, these findings and recommendations ought to be enough to give any city mayor a mandate to start working on sustainability issues.

I am looking forward to seeing how New York City uses the report and framework.

Additional documents

Oct 22 2015

Food Navigator-USA presents options for protein formulations

If you are a maker of processed foods, and have exhausted low-carb and low-fat marketing options, all you have left is proteins—the hot new marketing tool.  Protein-supplemented products are all over supermarket shelves.  Never mind that most Americans get twice the protein required, and that even vegans can easily meet and exceed protein requirements.

As FoodNavigator-USA puts it, “manufacturers are now competing to impress shoppers with how much they can pack into bars, beverages and yogurts. In this FoodNavigator-USA special edition we’ll look at what protein options are available for formulators, from new insect and algal-based proteins to pea, soy, and dairy-based proteins.”

Just remember: Diets adequate in calories are highly likely to be adequate in protein, and average protein intake in the population is twice the amount required.  From the standpoint of nutrition, protein is a non-issue.  But that doesn’t stop marketers from looking for ways to push it.

Oct 21 2015

Canada’s new government’s commitments on food and nutrition

The Washington, DC-based Center for Science in the Public Interest also operates in Canada.  It issued a comment on the recent Canadian election.

Newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has four years to implement his public health nutrition commitments.  He and his party have pledged to:

  • Introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children, similar to those now in place in Quebec
  • Bring in tougher regulations to eliminate trans fats, similar to those in the U.S., and to reduce salt in processed foods
  • Improve food labels to give more information on added sugars and artificial dyes in processed foods
  • Make additional investments of $40 million for Nutrition North and $80 million for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Sounds like a new era indeed.  This will be interesting to watch.

Oct 20 2015

Uh oh. Big Soda lobbyists weaken Mexican soda tax

Yesterday, I received this ALERT from health advocates in Mexico:

Big Soda negotiates behind doors with PRI to reduce Mexican SSB tax to 5% for drinks with 5 grams of added sugars per 100ml– Public health advocates denounce conflict of interest and speak out in defense of the tax

Yesterday Mexico’s Congressional Finance Committee proposed and voted in favor of an alarming measure to reduce the rate of the current 10% sugar-sweetened beverage tax to 5% on products with 5 grams of added sugar or less per 100 milliliters. The measure was pushed through committee vote with a reservation from only one political party and moves on to a vote in the lower house within the next 24-48 hours. Beverages with more than 5 grams of added sugar per 100 milliliters would continue to be taxed at 10% (1 peso per liter).

A columnist in one of Mexico’s most prominent dailies indicates that this negotiation between the FEMSA Coca-Cola bottling company and the PRI political party (current administration and majority vote holder in Congress and Senate) came about after attempts at a food and beverage industry negotiation with the PRI, seeking to reduce Mexico’s SSB and snack taxes. The columnist says Bimbo (&the food industry) was eventually excluded from this negotiation to focus on an attainable goal of reducing the SSB tax. (See column in Spanish: http://www.dineroenimagen.com/2015-10-19/63221 )

After several recent press conferences and an act in Congress “to trap” industry lobby mosquitos (Oct 6), continuing to call for an increase to a 20% SSB tax in accordance with national and international expert recommendations, and warning the public and decision makers of industry lobby, today civil society advocates –the Nutritional Health Alliance and ContraPESO– published a full page ad in Mexico’s most important daily asking whether legislators are on the side of public health or soda industry interests and calling on them not to cede to the industry lobby.

In the ad (see translation below and image attached), advocates warn that the most currently consumed 600 ml sugary drink on the Mexican market that has 5 grams of sugar per 100 milliliters contains 30 grams of sugar, above the WHO’s new guidelines for healthy living.

The language of the initiative to reduce the tax recognizes the SSB tax as a public health measure and the progress made, yet proceeds to reduce the tax far below the expert recommended rate, representating a setback to Mexico’s landmark tax.

FYI: Although Mexico’s lower house of Congress (Chamber of Deputies) holds authority over final budget decisions on income, Mexican legislative process entails that the budget package, once voted in the lower house, passes to the Senate for review and a vote, before passing back to the lower house for final approval.

TO SUPPORT MEXICAN ADVOCATES:
Tweet indignation over industry back-door negotiation and support for the current tax and need for an increased tax: #ImpuestoAlRefresco
Press interviews: contact comunicacion@elpoderdelconsumidor.org
If you or your association can emit a declaration or letter of support, send to:
comunicacion@elpoderdelconsumidor.org
desarrolloinstitucional@elpoderdelconsumidor.org

PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES IN MEXICO – Ad in Reforma newspapers OCT 19, 2015 – IN DEFENSE OF MEXICAN SSB TAX. Translation:
Members of Congress:

Have you let yourselves be bitten by the sugar-sweetened beverage lobby mosquitos?:

Do you serve soda industry or public health interests?

– The tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is 10% (1 peso) and not 20% (2 pesos) per liter as recommended by international and national organizations.

– The proposal to lower the tax to 5% to beverages with 5 grams or less of sugar per 100 milliliters acquiesces to soda industry interests, which are the parties mainly responsible for the collapse of public health in Mexico.

– The most consumed 600 milliliter drink in Mexico has 5 grams of sugar for every 100 milliliters contains 30 grams of sugar (6 spoonfuls).

– This surpasses the 25 grams (5 spoonfuls) that the World Health Organization establishes as a maximum amount of added sugars per day in order to preserve one’s health. (1)

– Sugar is not an essential nutrient and there is solid evidence showing that its consumption is harmful to health, contributing to overweight, obesity and caries, serious public health problems in Mexico.

Sugar-sweetened beverages kill more Mexicans a year than organized crime. (2)

Whose side are you on?

DO NOT GIVE IN TO INDUSTRY PRESSURE!

Show that you work to protect the public health of the Mexican population and not Big Soda’s profits.

We demand that the special tax be preserved and increased to 20% for ALL SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES, as recommended by international and national organizations.

Page 10 of 318« First...89101112...Last »