[ad_1]
According to a peer-reviewed study, an institute whose experts hold key positions on EU and UN regulatory committees is in fact an industry lobby group posing as a charity in the domain of health.
The Washington-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) describes its mission as "the pursuit of objectivity, clarity and reproducibility" to "promote the public good".
Researchers from the University of Cambridge, Bocconi University in Milan and the American Right to Know campaign have evaluated more than 17,000 pages of documents under the US Freedom of Information Act. information to present evidence of influence traffic.
Dr. Sarah Steele, Principal Researcher at the University of Cambridge, said, "Our findings support the fact that this non-profit organization has been used by its companies for years to counter public health policies. ILSI should be considered an industrial group – a private organization – and regulated as such, and not as an organization acting for the greater good of the world. "
In a 2015 email, copied to Suzanne Harris, then director of ILSI, and to leaders of companies such as Coca-Cola and Monsanto, the founder of ILSI, Alex Malaspina, former vice- President of Coca-Cola, bitterly complained about new US dietary guidelines aimed at reducing sugar intake. .
"These guidelines are a disaster!" He wrote. "They could potentially affect us significantly in many ways; Taxes on soft drinks, modified breakfast programs, an important educational effort to educate children and adults to [sic] limit their sugar consumption, limit advertising for sugary foods and drinks and possibly strong pressure from the CDC [the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention] and other agencies to force the industry to start deducting [sic] drastically the sugar we add to processed foods and beverages. "
Malaspina – whom Coca-Cola describes as a "long-time leader in the field of scientific and regulatory affairs" – said that he expected many countries to comply with the new guidelines, adding: "We need to think about how to prepare for a strong defense."
According to the imperative principles declared by ILSI, "it can not directly or indirectly propose public policy solutions or defend the commercial interests of their member companies or other parties".
Kristin DiNicolantonio, ILSI Global's director of communications, told the Guardian that "ILSI does not protect the industry from adverse policy and law abuse".
The study, published Monday in the journal Globalization and Health, revealed that when ILSI's regional offices failed to promote industry-friendly messaging, they were subject to sanctions.
In another e-mail of 2015, Malaspina wrote: "About the ILSI Mexico disaster is at stake because they sponsored in September a conference on sweeteners during which the subject of taxation of soft drinks has been discussed. ILSI now suspends ILSI Mexico until they correct themselves. A real mess. "
Malaspina added, "I hope we have now reached the bottom [sic] and finally we will recover as [far as] Coke and ILSI are concerned. "
ILSI said its Mexican affiliate was suspended for "participating in activities that could be interpreted as political advocacy."
Around the same time, ILSI was caught in another controversy when the Guardian revealed that ILSI Europe Vice President Alan Boobis was chairing a UN panel that concluded that glyphosate was probably not not carcinogenic to humans.
The panel's final report did not contain any conflict of interest statements, while ILSI Europe received donations of US $ 500,000 (£ 344,234) from Monsanto, which uses glyphosate in its weed killer. RoundUp and $ 528,500 from its industry representative, Croplife International.
Company executives such as Monsanto, Kraft and Nestle have sat on the ILSI board, although Mr DiNicolantonio said he did so "on an individual basis".
In 2012, the European Parliament suspended funding for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for six months, following a series of allegations of conflicts of interest involving members of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for six months, following a series of allegations of conflicts of interest involving members of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 39, ILSI in his own council. A separate parliamentary inquiry into the group in 2017 has contributed to new EU transparency rules.
Last year, the Mars Food Group announced that it would sever ties with ILSI, whose work was termed "advocacy-led."
However, former and current ILSI officials continue to play a key role in the EU's scientific advisory mechanism, which recently issued a report in which it recommends a multitude of industry positions on pesticides. These would replace, for example, the current rules prohibiting any product that may be harmful to human health by an American concept of "acceptable risk".
A similar approach of EFSA, the threshold of toxicological concern published earlier this year, is the result of a working group in which the majority of experts had formal links with ILSI, according to the European Pesticides Network Action Network (PAN-E). The new threshold would allow "safe exposure levels" for many chemicals whose toxicity has not been fully tested.
PAN-E alleges that the regulatory use of eight of the 12 EU pesticide risk badessments it's investigated has been designed and / or promoted by the industry.
During 2015, a World Health Organization (WHO) moved away from ILSI due to links between one of its members and the tobacco industry, causing a some internal anxiety at ILSI, according to the new study.
An email exchange between Professor Adam Drewnowski of the University of Washington and Malaspina suggested a direct approach with WHO Director Margaret Chan.
Drewnowski wrote that Chan had "declared that she was ready to be" at the table – but not in bed – with industry "(her own phrase). Since then, his position has been considerably hardened. We should remind him of his own sentence and bring him to the table. "
Malaspina later sent an email to senior officials of ILSI and Coca-Cola, in which he said, "We must find a way to make sure that someone like a famous scientist make the necessary arrangements to pay for it. [Chan] visit. Jim Hill or someone of similar stature or a US government scientist. "
If a dialogue can not be started, Chan "will continue to send us significant negative consequences on a global scale," he continued. "This threat to our business is serious."
In another email to Barbara Bowman, then director of the CDC's Division of Prevention of Heart Disease and Stroke, Malaspina complains that the WHO "no longer wants to work with the drug." 39; industry [but] who finds all the new drugs. Not the WHO, but the industry. She is influenced by the Chinese government and is against the United States. Something must be done."
In comments sent by e-mail, DiNicolantonio stated that any suggestion that ILSI attempted to influence Chan on sugar-sweetened products would be "unfounded and inaccurate".
Source link
