I’m on a panel with Mary Bassett to celebrate the launch of Nick Freudenberg’s new book, “At What Cost: Modern Capitalism and the Future of Health,” from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. Information and registration here. Be sure to click on the orange RSVP button.
by Marion Nestle
Sep 24 2015
Sugar politics: A roundup of items
This week’s post about sugars #4:
Sugar politics is in the news and I’ve been collecting items about it.
- U.K. consumers say sugar is their #1 food issue, beating out waste and salt.
- The Florida sugar industry is giving generously to Republican presidential candidates.
- Australian sugar growers are pushing for greater access to the U.S. sugar market through the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, and are in part responsible for the impasse in signing it (this is not necessarily a bad thing).
- U.S. candy makers are not happy about the suspension agreements brought against Mexican sugar imports. These, they say, have raised the price of sugar. Ordinarily, under NAFTA, Mexico is allowed to ship as much sugar to the U.S. as it likes, with no tariffs. But Mexico agreed to new trade caps in return for not having to deal with antidumping investigations (isn’t trade fun?).
- The Washington Post has a good summary of where we are on putting Added Sugars on food labels.
- The FDA will take comments specifically on its Nutrition Facts panel studies, including controversial research on how well consumers would understand an added sugars label, the agency announced in a Federal Register notice. The comment period is extended to October 15.
- The FDA’s move follows a letter from law firm Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz that criticized the agency for not taking comments on its consumer research.