Are they offering advice or ads?

Some say many scientists named to federal panels are beholden to the industries that fund their research.

WASHINGTON - The sugar industry, which has helped to finance research by nutrition scientist Theresa A. Nicklas, says the results of her work prove that sugar is not responsible for childhood obesity.

So food industry critics and nutrition activists were outraged recently when the Bush administration chose Nicklas, a pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, for an advisory panel that will decide whether the government's dietary guidelines should include limits on how much sugar Americans consume.

Critics of such appointments worry that scientists with close industry ties will be biased when making decisions that will affect the profits of an industry that funds their research and praises their work.

"It's really hard for even well-established scientists to conduct their research without being influenced in some way by those who are paying the bills," said Amy Lanou of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates good nutrition.

Critics also contend that the White House has compromised government advisory panels by including too many members who back the administration's point of view.

The administration was first accused of being too cozy with American industry in 2001, when Vice President Dick Cheney took command of a task force to develop a new energy policy. The General Accounting Office criticized the White House in a report last month, saying that the administration relied primarily on "petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists," while seeking limited input from academic experts, environmentalists and policy groups.

Last month, the Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee issued a report citing other advisory committees influenced by scholars, experts and lobbyists with ties to industry:

The Agriculture Department's 30-member National Advisory Commission on Microbiological Criteria for Foods was revamped in March to include nine food industry representatives.

The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of a key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health in August 2002. The new appointees included several veteran industry consultants, such as Roger McClellan, former director of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, and Dennis Paustenbach, a toxicologist whose firm does risk assessments for industry.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was revamped with new members just as the old committee was prepared to lower the acceptable level of lead in the blood of children. The new members included William Banner, who has served as an expert witness for the Sherwin-Williams Co., a maker of lead paint. (The CDC says the advisory committee is still reviewing the lead policy.)

Phil Schiliro, who helped prepare this report for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., acknowledged that previous presidents have also appointed advisory committee members who were expected to support the administration's point of view. But he said the Bush administration's approach is different.

"In the past, administrations may have appointed scientists who agreed with them, but they made sure the people they appointed were well qualified," Schiliro said. "In this administration, there is much more of a politically correct test and not all of the people who pass that test are well qualified."

He cited the appointment of Joe McIlhaney to a CDC advisory committee, even though the Texas health commissioner under then-Gov. George W. Bush alleged that the obstetrician-gynecologist ignored available evidence in putting together a report on sex education programs.

Another Bush appointee, W. David Hager, a gynecologist and conservative religious activist, was appointed to the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee even though he has a slim research record.

The administration's handling of the 13-member committee on dietary guidelines followed a pattern similar to that outlined by Waxman's staff. Seven of its members have been identified as having close ties to such food industry organizations as the American Egg Board, the American Cocoa Research Institute, the Peanut Institute, the National Dairy Council, Campbell Soup Co. and Tropicana Products Inc. of Bradenton.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the new makeup of the panel has changed the political dynamic.

"The last time, the industry was on the defensive; this time, the consumer groups will be on the defensive," he said.

The advisory panel on dietary guidelines, re-created every five years with scientists chosen by the departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, will grapple with questions that are important to consumers as well as the $1.3-trillion-a-year food industry. Specifically, should our diets include less sugar, salt, dairy and animal fats?

The government's familiar "food pyramid" for consumers is based on the guidelines. In addition, the guidelines influence billions of dollars of federal funding for feeding programs - everything from subsidized school lunches to foreign assistance. Foods are purchased for these programs in strict accordance with the guidelines.

The food industry officials naturally oppose any proposal that might curtail consumption of their products. When the panel responsible for the 2000 guidelines recommended that Americans "limit" the amount of sugar in their diet, sugar lobbyists succeeded in getting the word changed to "moderate."

The Sugar Association, representing 19 sugar producers, including five in Florida, argues there is no scientific evidence that their product contributes to obesity. They point to research showing obesity is the result of many dietary factors and "cannot be attributed to one food, one nutrient or to food consumption alone."

According to the Agriculture Department, U.S. sugar production was valued at $3.5-billion a year between 1997 and 2000.

Nicklas' research was praised in the 2001 Sugar Association annual report, which says that her work "is building on the knowledge that, while children are actually eating better and getting the vitamins and nutrients they need, they are still gaining weight."

"Therefore," the association concluded, "sugar cannot be logically singled out in the often-heard arguments that it displaces needed nutrients in children's diets."

Evelyn J.B. Brewster, the association's spokeswoman, said the sugar association gave Nicklas a small amount of money for her research and emphasized that Nicklas had received funding from a variety of sources.

She said Nicklas was not even among the candidates the organization nominated for the government panel.

Nicklas declined to comment on the controversy, saying she and other appointees to the advisory committee were instructed to refer all news media inquiries to the HHS staff.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently wrote to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, arguing that the dietary guidelines panel does not meet the requirement set out in the Federal Advisory Committee Act that such committees be balanced, impartial and free from the undue influence of special interests. The group urged Thompson to name a new panel less favorable to industry.

Thompson has not replied to the letter, Jacobson says.

Two of the new committee appointees, Lawrence J. Appel of Johns Hopkins Medical School and Connie M. Weaver of Purdue University, have worked closely with Tropicana, the fruit juice company. The firm has a stake in a related issue facing the panel: whether labels should disclose added sugar in products.

Tropicana communications director Kristine Nickel says it is a coincidence that two scientists with ties to her company were appointed to the committee. She said Tropicana did not nominate them.

Tropicana's Pure Premium orange juice has no added sugar, but the company does manufacture some juice drinks with sugar added. Currently, natural and added sugars are lumped together for labeling purposes. Some nutritionists want them listed separately so consumers can avoid drinks that are sweetened unnecessarily.

A unit of PepsiCo, Tropicana opposes separate labeling of added sugar. "The body handles all sugars the same, whether they occur naturally or are added," Nickel said.

Meat and dairy interests also are well-represented on the panel. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says several of the appointees have connections to McDonald's Corp. as well as livestock and dairy groups.

One of the most controversial appointees is Fergus M. Clydesdale, a University of Massachusetts professor who serves on the board of the industry-backed International Food Information Council Foundation. He also has stock in food-related companies, the Center for Science in the Public Interest says.

Nutrition activist groups such as the center and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine contend that industry lobbying over the years has rendered the dietary guidelines nearly useless.

Landou notes that the government recommends six to 11 servings of carbohydrates a day, but makes no distinction between a high-calorie doughnut and a healthful slice of whole grain bread.

Experts say the guidelines should offer more explicit warnings against certain amounts of sugar added to drinks, salt contained in canned foods or fat in meat and dairy products.

"The guidelines are so vague they tend to cancel themselves out," says Marion Nestle, a New York University professor and author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. "Like, "Choose a diet moderate in sugar.' What does that mean?"

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy Policy Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright