[ad_1]
An article published this week, badyzing private e-mails exchanged between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Coca-Cola, revealed that the company of sugary drinks has for years been a voice of secret influence in the public health policy decisions of a group. US federal agency supposed to protect the health of Americans. Private e-mails speak of a hopeless corrupt federal agency by a powerful company that has pioneered public health dialogue and deliberately obscured scientific studies and stories threatening their profit margins. .
The paper was published in the health policy magazine Milbank Quarterly and badyzed 295 pages of 86 emails obtained by the American public health group Right To Know under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the authors of the study, three of the ten requests for the law on the freedom of information non-profit were still pending at the time of publication and five were rejected "too broad or because no document n ' Was found". Only three were returned.
"The referrals reflect three main themes in Coca-Cola's contacts with DCC employees: getting and expanding access, lobbying, getting attention, and blaming sugar-sweetened beverages," says the study.
Although many scientific studies have shown that sugar is one of the leading causes of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, these emails reveal Coca-Cola's current mission of diverting blame from the world. Obesity of sugary drinks and to badociate the global problem of obesity with lack of physical activity.
Coca Cola's efforts to gain and expand access within the CDC indicate that efforts have been made to strengthen institutional linkages, in addition to strengthening relationships that already had previous work experience. Former Director of the Division of Prevention of Heart Disease and Stroke at the CDC, Barbara Bowman, and Alex Malaspina, former Vice President of External Affairs of Coca-Cola and Founding President of the Institute International Life Sciences (ILSI), have already been colleagues: Bowman worked with Malaspina at Coca-Cola and, in 2016, Bowman retired after e-mails were made public, revealing that she had provided advice on how to influence global health authorities on sugar taxes and beverage policies. Meanwhile, ILSI, far from being a non-partisan non-profit organization, was recently discovered as an astroturf organization founded by junk food companies; Indeed, his funding list includes Coca-Cola, Nestle, McDonalds and PepsiCo. Previous surveys have revealed how ILSI has influenced China's public health policy on obesity.
The Milbank Quarterly newspaper reports that in June 2015, Malaspina sent a report to Coca Cola staff in which Margaret Chan, former executive director of the World Health Organization (WHO), accused sugar beverage producers ( SSB) as the head of global obesity.
Malaspina writes in the e-mail: "See the report on the WHO. That's a lot of publicity. We have to find somebody's way [sic] as a famous scientist [to] organize to visit him. Maybe Jim Hill or someone of the same stature or a US government scientist.
"In summary, I suggest that collectively, we need to find a way to engage in a dialogue with Dr. Chen. [sic]. If this is not the case, it will continue to inflict significant negative consequences on a global scale. This threat to our business is serious. Sincerely, Alex. "
It should also be noted that Hill, as reported in 2015 by the Denver Post, accepted a $ 550,000 gift from Coca Cola for a campaign against obesity and attempted to get a job for his son at Coca-Cola.
While this example of corporate lobbying at the CDC seems particularly egregious, the newspaper's authors state that e-mail as a whole "provides a rare example of how corporate interests are trying to influence corporate interests." public health practitioners "in their own words". demonstrate the need for clearer policies to avoid partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products. "
Gary Ruskin, co-director of Right To Know in the United States, told Salon that in an e-mail, this document should draw the attention of Congress, which should further examine the relationship between the CDC and Coca Cola.
"Congress should investigate what has actually happened between the CDC and Coca-Cola and determine if the CDC has complied with applicable ethical standards," Ruskin said. "And Congress should determine what can be done to prevent CDC from being unduly influenced by companies that make harmful products."
In response to Salon's investigation of the document and emails, Agency spokeswoman Kathy Harben told Salon: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Disease Control Control of Toxic Substances and Diseases (ATSDR) are working 24 hours a day to protect Americans.
Harben added, "DCC's ethical framework provides the checks and balances needed to keep the agency on the right scientific and ethical path, and DCC provides employees with resources to maintain ethical and scientific integrity.
Yet, as explained by the authors of the document, the emails were badyzed keeping in mind the CDC 's ethics: "We compare these documents with the CDC' s ethical guidelines. 2014, that interactions between the CDC and private entities must be based on "mutual, explicit relationships". and transparent benefits for all partners. "The guidelines also indicate that collaborators considering a partnership should consider whether" the partnership with the private entity presents a conflict of interest (real or perceived). "
Source link
