business news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times this morning reports that "five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry," which did its level best to make sure that fat was identified as the major culprit, not sugar.

The approach to lobbying hardly is an isolated case: "Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science," the Times writes. "Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not."

The piece is worth reading here.
KC's View:
People and companies with deep pockets using it to influence the national debate hardly is a new phenomenon. The good news is that new levels of transparency make it easier to know when we're being played.

This is, by the way, why I continue to believe that every dollar of political contributions - whether to candidates, political parties, political action committees, or any organization that makes political donations - ought to be reported and made public. Whether that money is trying to influence a lawmaker or a law, it ought to be public. No exemptions. No excuses.