BUSH SWEET ON SUGAR
Jan. 18, 2004
The World Health Organization's leading scientists are accusing the Bush administration of putting the sugar industry's interests ahead of the global fight against obesity. The Observer reports, "Professor Kaare Norum, leader of the World Health Organisation's fight to prevent millions developing diet-related diseases, has sparked an international war of words with a highly critical letter to US Health Secretary Tommy Thompson. In it he tells of his grave concern over American opposition to the WHO's blueprint to combat obesity. He accuses the US of making the health of millions of young Americans 'a hostage to fortune' because it has failed to take action over the fat epidemic as a result of its business interests, particularly the sugar lobby." The Bush administration says weight control is a matter for the individual, not the state, and has criticized the WHO strategy for its lack of sound science. Bush and fellow senators have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from "Big Sugar." According to the Observer, sugar baron Jose 'Pepe' Fanjul, head of Florida Crystals, has raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign. SOURCE: Observer (UK), January 18, 2004
Study: U.S. Spent $75 Billion to Treat Obesity in '03
Jan. 20, 2004
ATLANTA (Reuters) - The cost of treating health problems caused by the U.S. obesity epidemic reached an estimated $75 billion last year, with taxpayers picking up about half the tab, according to a study released on Tuesday.
That conclusion, which is described by the study's lead author as "conservative," would mean that Americans spend almost as much on obesity-related health care services as they do to treat the illnesses caused by cigarette smoking.
Obesity, which increases the likelihood of heart disease, diabetes, some types of cancer and arthritis, has become twice as common in the nation since 1980. About 39 million Americans were obese in 2000, according to the U.S. government.
"The $75 billion number is about 5.7 percent of annual health care expenditures. Estimates for smoking are about 6 or 7 percent," said Eric Finkelstein, the study's lead author and an economist with North Carolina think tank RTI International.
RTI did the study in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study, which will be published in this month's issue of Obesity Research, were based on a statistical analysis of government data collected for the 1998 to 2000 period. Researchers used the data to project obesity spending in 2003 dollars.
Their analysis found that government-funded Medicare and Medicaid programs, which help millions of seniors and poor residents get access to health care, paid out an estimated $39 billion for obesity-related medical costs in 2003.
The study was made public on the same day that the United States succeeded in stalling a global obesity-control plan promoted by the World Health Organization.
Backed by its powerful food industry, the United States called on Tuesday for more study of the U.N. agency's plan, which urges cutting the intake of sugar, salt and artery-clogging trans-fatty acids and suggests governments promote healthier eating through subsidies and the tax system.
U.S. Tries to Sabotage World Obesity Fight
Jan. 17, 2004
GENEVA (Reuters) - Consumer groups accused the United States on Friday of trying to sabotage a global fight against obesity targeting junk food and soft drinks.
The World Health Organization (WHO) executive, which includes the United States and 31 other countries, will debate on Tuesday a plan drawn up by the U.N. agency after talks with member states, nutritional experts and the food industry.
The Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health says poor diets and lack of exercise are the leading cause of illnesses including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. These account for nearly 60 percent of 56.5 million deaths a year deemed preventable.
As well as recommending lower intake of sugar, sodium and artery-clogging trans-fatty acids, the WHO plan urges countries to restrict food and beverage advertisements aimed at children. It also suggests that governments gear their taxation and subsidy policies to encourage healthy eating habits.
But activist groups charged that the U.S. administration, under pressure from the domestic food industry, aims to weaken the plan when it comes before the executive board, which meets from January 19-24.
"The Bush Administration is putting the interests of the junk food industry ahead of the health of people -- including children -- on a global scale," Commercial Alert, a non-profit group based in Portland, Oregon, said in a statement. W
HO officials said they expected a significant number of lobbyists representing the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the Sugar Association as well as food interests from other countries to be in Geneva for the meeting.
"These tactics are reminiscent of the tobacco industry's sinister efforts to oppose global anti-smoking initiatives," said the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Sugar Consumption on Rise Worldwide: Study
Nov. 22, 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Our diet keeps getting sweeter, due in large part to the popularity of sugary soft drinks and other sweetened beverages, according to a new study.
North Carolina researchers report that the average daily consumption of sugar and other calorie-containing sweeteners worldwide jumped 74 calories from 1962 to 2000.
In the U.S., the jump in sweet calories was even greater - 83 calories per day from 1977 to 1996. Most of those extra sweet calories - 80 percent - came from sugary soft drinks and fruit drinks, researchers report in the November issue of the journal Obesity Research.
"This research provides a clear sense of the enormity of the increase in added caloric sweeteners in our diet, much of which is potentially hidden," co-author Dr. Barry M. Popkin at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill told Reuters Health.
Even though Popkin said "there is limited research on the role of added sugar in weight gain," he noted that several studies, "all point toward the role of soft drinks and fruit drinks as playing a key role in weight gain in the U.S. and Europe."
According to Popkin, "In a world where obesity is increasingly the key nutrition-related problem, elimination of the extra calories that come from the food industrys adding these caloric sweeteners to our diet is one critical dimension that needs to be added," Popkin said.
Popkin and colleague Samara Joy Nielsen studied dietary data from 103 countries in 1962 and 127 in 2000. They also analyzed data from three national U.S. surveys conducted from 1977 to1978, 1989 to 1991 and 1994 to 1998.
Worldwide, the percentage of total calories that came from sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and other caloric sweeteners in 2000 was 32 percent higher than in 1962.
Most of this worldwide change, the authors assert, was due to population shift to urban areas. The researchers note that people living in cities have greater access to processed foods that are high in sugar.
In the U.S., the rise in caloric sweetener consumption means that as of 1996, 30 percent of all carbohydrate calories came from sugar and other sweeteners. Of the 83 calorie per day increase, 54 calories came from soft drinks and 13 calories came from sugared fruit drinks.
The results show that sugary calories are replacing calories from higher-fiber foods, according to Popkin and Nielsen. Food and drinks with added sugar or other caloric sweeteners provide energy but few other nutrients, according to the researchers.
SOURCE: Obesity Research, November 2003.
Consumer Group Seeks to Curb Promoting Junk Food to Kids
November 11, 2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A consumer group on Monday charged that the marketing of fatty, sugary, and low-nutrient foods was fueling childhood obesity and it called for restricting promotions targeted at the young.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released a report that said advertising and marketing of what it termed junk foods had reached an all-time high.
The Washington, DC-based advocacy group said the wave of promotion was overwhelming parents' ability to manage their children's diets and had helped lead to a 15 percent obesity rate among children.
"We acknowledge there are many contributors to obesity," Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for CSPI, told a news conference. But direct marketing of low nutritional-value foods to children 'is one of the most important contributors."
The group asked the Department of Health and Human Services to work with Congress and the Federal Trade Commission to limit "junk-food advertising aimed at children."
Current federal rules do not restrict advertising content to children, only how much time ads can take up during children's programming -- 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour during the week.
All marketing aimed at children -- including food -- increased from $6.9 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in 2002, according to CSPI.
It is unclear how much of that is for food, but Mary Story of the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, said that for every $1 spent by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on child nutrition education, $10 is spent by companies promoting high-fat snacks, soft drinks, processed and fast foods.
Study: U.S. Infants Eat Fries, Drink Soft Drinks
Oct. 25, 2003
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. infants are eating fattening foods such as french fries and drinking soft drinks instead of milk, which may help explain the country's growing obesity and diabetes problems, researchers said on Saturday.
A survey of the eating habits of 3,000 youngsters aged four to 24 months found their diets were surprisingly similar to that of older children -- heavy on soft drinks, sweet candy, and other junk foods, and light on vegetables and fruits.
"French fries are the most popular vegetable eaten by children 19 to 24 months old," researcher Dr. Kathleen Reidy said at an American Dietetic Association conference. "Twenty to 25 percent of these kids did not eat a single healthy vegetable on the day of the survey, and 25 to 30 percent did not eat a single fruit."
She said her research showed soft drinks were being placed into the bottles of infants as young as seven months old, and most toddlers between 19 and 24 months old consumed sweets "at least once a day."
Reidy said 10 to 15 percent of preschoolers between the ages of two and five are considered overweight.
The study was conducted in 2002 by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey and baby food maker Gerber Corp. in conjunction with the Tufts University School of Medicine. The results are set to be published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
The findings demonstrate the need for parents to be more aware of the types of foods their children are eating, Reidy said.
"Parents are eating on the run, they're pressed for time and looking for convenience," Reidy said. "Everyone's just too busy and has just too much to do, so they're feeding their young children the same things they're eating.
"The best thing they can do is change their own diets. Be role models for their children to eat in a more healthy way," she said.
Study Says High Fat & Sugar Junk Foods
are as Addictive as Heroin
July 14, 2003
A hamburger and fries can be just as addictive as cigarettes and even hard drugs, a surprising new study claims.
Scientists at the University of Wisconsin say high doses of fat and sugar in fast and processed foods act the same way as nicotine, heroin and other substances in becoming habit-forming.
"A high-fat diet alters brain biochemistry with effects similar to those in powerful opiates such as morphine," lead researcher Matthew Will told a British television documentary.
In Will's research - detailed in the documentary "Big Mac Under Attack," which airs in Britain tomorrow - he fed a group of lab rats high-fat diets and discovered that when the fat was taken away, the rodents displayed withdrawal symptoms similar to those of a drug addict denied a fix.
He also found that a steady diet of fat alters the development of the brain so much that it is almost impossible for a fast-food "junkie" to switch to a healthy diet.
The research was also reported in yesterday's Sunday Times of London.
U.S. Children Fatter, Report Says
July 18,
2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American children are fatter than ever before, according to a government report issued on Friday.
The Report on America's Children, released by the National Institutes of Health, the Census Bureau and other agencies, shows the number of overweight children aged 6 to 18 has more than doubled since 1980.
Edward Sondik, director of the National Center for Health Statistics, said the real concern was the growth, literally, of America's children.
"In 1980, 6 percent of children aged 6 to 18 were overweight," he said. For 2000, it is 15 percent. That's two-and-a-half times what it was just 20 years ago," he said.
"Even more striking than that ... if you look at the figures for black children, 22 percent of black children are overweight," he added. Among Mexican-American children, 25 percent are overweight.
"This really is a major concern."
Doctors are now finding diabetes and heart disease in children, when 20 years ago those were diseases only of adults.
World Facing Diabetes Catastrophe
August 25, 2003
PARIS (Reuters) - More than 300 million people worldwide are at risk of developing diabetes and the disease's economic impact in some hard-hit countries could be higher than that of the AIDS pandemic, diabetes experts warned on Monday.
In a report released at the International Diabetes Federation conference in Paris, experts estimate the annual healthcare costs of diabetes worldwide for people aged 20 to 79 are at least $153 billion.
"In some countries with a higher incidence, diabetes has a higher economic impact than AIDS," Williams Rhys, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Wales, told a news conference.
According to the Diabetes Atlas report, total direct healthcare spending on the disease worldwide will be between $213 billion and $396 billion by 2025, if predictions are correct that the number of people with diabetes will rise to 333 million by 2025 from 194 million.
Diabetes can lead to blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, disability and death.
More than 75 percent of diabetes cases are expected to be in developing countries by 2025 because of rapid culture and social changes as well as increasing urbanization. This is expected to further burden healthcare systems already stretched by the AIDS pandemic.
"What AIDS was in the last 20 years of the 20th century, diabetes is going to be in the first 20 years of this century," said Paul Zimmet, foundation director of the International Diabetes Institute.
Zimmet and other experts say the diabetes epidemic will be fueled by an estimated 314 million people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or higher than normal blood glucose levels -- a high risk condition for developing type II diabetes.
They also warn that type II diabetes was increasing in children and adolescents in many countries and is linked to rising obesity. They urged food companies -- especially those who make fast foods -- to produce healthier foods and governments to set up national campaigns to combat diabetes.
"We are running out of time," IDF President-elect Pierre Lefebvre warned during a news conference.
UN Urges Sugar Limit for Healthier Living
March 03, 2003
ROME (Reuters) - People should get no more than 10 percent of their calories from sugar, eat more fruit and vegetables and exercise moderately to cut risks of chronic disease, two UN agencies said on Monday.
A new report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) gave advice to governments on diet and lifestyle to combat increases in chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancers, diabetes and obesity.
"Carbohydrates, the report suggests, should provide the bulk of energy requirements--between 55 and 75 percent of daily intake, and free sugars should remain beneath 10 percent," the FAO and WHO said in a statement.
"Protein should make up a further 10-15 percent of calorie intake and salt should be restricted to less than five grams a day," it added.
"Intake of fruit and vegetables should be plumped up to reach at least 400 grams a day."
The burden of chronic diseases is rapidly increasing worldwide, FAO and WHO said.
In 2001, chronic diseases contributed some 59 percent of the 56.5 million total reported deaths in the world and 46 percent of the global burden of disease, they said.
"This expert report contains the best currently available scientific evidence on the relationship of diet, nutrition and physical activity to chronic diseases," said Ricardo Uauy, professor of public health nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who helped prepare the report.
The report recommended:
-- reducing energy-rich foods high in saturated fat and sugar;
-- cutting the amount of salt and increasing the amount of fresh fruit and vegetables in the diet;
-- undertaking moderate physical activity for at least an hour a day.
Energy consumed each day should match energy expenditure, the report said.
"Evidence suggests that excessive consumption of energy-rich foods can encourage weight gain, the report said. It called for a limit in the consumption of saturated fats, sugars and salt in the diet, noting they are often found in snacks, processed foods and drinks," the UN agencies said.
U.N. Sticks to Advice to Limit Sugar Intake
Tue Apr 22, 2003
GENEVA (Reuters) - The World Health Organization says it stands by scientific findings advising consumers to limit sugar intake, shrugging off pressure from sugar and soft drinks industry lobbyists to ease off.
The Geneva-based WHO said on Tuesday it received letters from U.S. and European associations representing the industry hotly contesting research recommending that consumers limit sugar to 10 percent of all food and drinks consumed in a day.
"WHO believes that the findings represent the best available science in the world. We stand by it," spokesman Jon Liden said.
To help tackle global health problems including obesity and diabetes, United Nations agencies WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) on Wednesday will launch a joint report on nutrition compiled by some 30 independent experts. "The launch and briefing will take place in Rome tomorrow," an FAO official told Reuters.
"The report has been published on the web for some weeks and it will remain there," he added, referring to
The report recommends limiting sugar to 10 percent of overall dietary intake, running counter to the sugar industry's backing of 25 percent as a sugar consumption limit.
"We have not found anything in the sugar industry's argument that makes us reconsider any findings," Liden said. He added the WHO had recommended a 10 percent limit as far back as 1990.
Groups that have lobbied the WHO include the American Association of Sugar Producers, the U.K.-based World Sugar Research Organization and the Brussels-based European Committee of Sugar Manufacturers, he said.
Diabetes and obesity worldwide: epidemics in full flightPaul Zimmet Coca-colonization Epidemic obesity Type 2 in the young |
Study: Sugary Drinks Help Children Get Fat
Fri Jun 27, 2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The proof's in the calories: those sweet sodas, bottled teas and fruit drinks can make your children fat, U.S. researchers said on Friday.
Children who drank more than 12 ounces of sweetened drinks a day gained significantly more weight over two months than children who drank less than 6 ounces a day, the team of nutritionists at Cornell University in New York found.
The soft drink industry has long argued that a lack of exercise and not the availability of drinks is responsible for the rise of obesity in the United States.
But the Cornell team's study of 30 children aged 6 to 12 found that on days when they drank sweetened drinks, they took in, on average, 244 more calories a day.
The children did not eat any less food to compensate for the extra calories in the sodas, lemonades and other drink treats, the researchers said.
Children who drank more than 16 ounces a day of sweetened beverages gained an average of 2.5 pounds, compared with a 0.7- to 1-pound gain in children who consumed on average 6 to 16 ounces of sweetened drinks a day, they found.
"These findings suggest that sweetened drinks may be a significant factor in the increase in obesity among children in the United States," said David Levitsky, a professor of nutritional sciences and of psychology who oversaw the study.
Writing in the Journal of Pediatrics, Levitsky and Ph.D. candidate Gordana Mrdjenovic defined sweetened drinks as soda, fruit punch, bottled tea or drinks made from fruit-flavored powders, such as grape and lemonade.
They also found that children tended to pass up milk when they were offered a sweet drink, and that caregivers tended to offer either milk, or a sweet drink, but not both.
Children getting 12 ounces of more of soft drinks got 20 percent less phosphorus, 19 percent less protein and magnesium, 16 percent less calcium and 10 percent less vitamin A per day than recommended by the U.S. government.
The World Health organization estimates that there are 17.6 million overweight children under age 5, with 20 percent of children in European countries obese or overweight. Fifteen percent of U.S. children aged 6 to 11 are overweight.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit health interest group has lobbied for a tax on soft drinks, calling them "liquid candy."
"Soda pop is Americans' single biggest source of refined sugars, providing the average person with one-third of that sugar," the CSPI said in a statement.
"Twelve- to 19-year-old boys get 44 percent of their 34 teaspoons of sugar a day from soft drinks."
The Hidden Cost of Things
Underpayment of Labor: Most obviously there is the cost that derives from the underpayment of labor. In the case of cane sugar, sugar workers are among the worst paid farm laborers in the world. In Brazil, the largest exporter of cane sugar, workers earn less than $25.00 (USD) a week. In the Dominican Republic, Haitian sugar workers earn about CAN$10 per day. However in that case the worker must also pay to have the cane picked up and weighed, and bears the loss if it is not done on time. Thus, in the end, a skilled cutter will earn less than 1000 pesos ($70 USD) a month, while 7,500 pesos ($530 USD) per month is the estimated amount needed to feed a family of four. You can get a information and a history of the exploitation of sugar workers in the article, Informal Resistance on a Dominican Sugar Plantation by Catherine C. LeGrand.
To calculate the hidden labor costs, we would also need to include the cost of the force necessary to discipline workers to accept far less then their labor warrants and the costs that accrue because of living conditions of those forced to work at less than a living wage.
We can get a good appreciation of the hidden costs of labor by the fact that economists estimate that if workers in the South were paid the same as workers in the North the cost of imported items would be ten times higher than they are.
Environment: Another obvious cost not reflected in the price of sugar is environmental damage. Environmentally, sugar is not a benign crop. Its growth (not to mention its processing into the highly-refined white, granular stuff we desire) is responsible for damage to corral reefs in Hawaii, water pollution in Buenos Aries, damage to river estuaries in Brazil, and waterways in the Philippines. Florida's sugarcane industry is situated just south of Lake Okeechobee, one of North America's largest fresh water lakes. Water that had flowed unimpeded from the lake to the Everglades now must pass through thousands of acres of sugar cane. When it reaches the Everglades it is contaminated with phosphorus-laden agricultural run-off that destroys native species and results in the growth of non-native species. As a result, almost $8 billion will be spent over the next 2 years to fix the Everglades. While some of that cost will be paid by the sugar producers, most of it will be passed on to taxpayers. Of course in countries with few or no environmental regulations, these costs will be paid largely by the poor with increased health problems and passed on to future generations.
Direct and Indirect government subsidies. Part of the hidden cost of sugar comes from the subsidies provided by nation-states, subsidies that ultimately come from taxpayers. In the United States, most direct subsidies were discontinued after 1996 (although some remain), with import quotas being used in some cases, particularly for sugar, to keep prices high. Thus the federal government sugar program costs consumers approximately $1.4 billion a year in higher prices. This is not a hidden cost of a Twinkie, since it is passed on the consumer. But these price supports do make sugar production in the U.S. more profitable and have encouraged the conversion of over 500,000 acres of Everglades wetlands to sugar cane production.
Indirect subsidies include government funding of the infrastructure for sugar production and processing. This includes, among other things, the roads, the power system, water and sanitation system, waste disposal, etc. The entire water management infrastructure that supports the Florida sugarcane industry, for example, was built with federal tax dollars. We would also need to calculate the portion of the military budget needed to maintain governments friendly to neo-liberal economic policies.
Health damage: There is little doubt that Americans consume too much sugar. A report released this month by Worldwatch Institute, on chronic hunger and obesity, outlines the effects of our diet on our health. For example, 17% of the calories consumed by North Americans are from sugar and other sweeteners. Among other things, that means that our basic nutrition must come from the other 83%. While there is no specific data on the direct contribution of sugar to excess weight and obesity (fat is obviously another major culprit), 54% of Americans are overweight. One estimate of the direct and indirect cost of obesity in the U.S. puts the cost at $118 billion annually, or 12% of the nation's health care costs. The amount spent on diet drugs and weight loss programs would add another $33 billion.
These are only some of the hidden costs of one ingredient in what we eat. To arrive at a real cost of items we would need to examine each of the other ingredients and then add the hidden costs of processing, packaging, delivery, and waste disposal. The energy and pollution costs of distribution, alone, would be considerable. In Europe and North America a typical food item travels 1,000 miles before it reaches our meal plates. The average head of lettuce from your local supermarket has traveled an average of 1,200 miles from where it was grown.
This brief overview should suffice to illustrate how the costs of our commodities, measured in monetary and non-monetary terms, are far greater than the direct price that we pay. The question is why do people seem so unaware of the real costs of commodities?
|
|
The Sugar Price Support Program Destroys the Everglades
The federal government's sugar price support program is responsible for a devastating adverse impact on the natural Everglades ecosystem. Sugar price supports have fueled the exponential expansion of the sugarcane industry in an area where large corporate farming would never have been possible. As a result, this program leads to the degradation of an additional three to five acres of Everglades each and every day.
Subsidizing sugar through import restrictions, guaranteed prices, and non-recourse loans has increased sugar prices in the U.S. domestic market, and led to the direct conversion of over 500,000 acres of Everglades wetlands to sugarcane production. Large-scale corporate sugarcane harvesting operations in Florida's Everglades Agricultural Area are the direct result of sugar price supports and federal water management practices designed to encourage agriculture in the Everglades.
Continued subsidization of sugarcane production encourages extensive sugar production in the worst of all possible places — the center of the main watershed for the Everglades. Florida's sugarcane industry is situated just south of Lake Okeechobee, one of North America's largest fresh water lakes. Water that once flowed unimpaired from the lake to the Everglades now passes through thousands of acres of sugarcane. By the time the water reaches the Everglades it is contaminated with phosphorus-laden agricultural run-off. This pollution is devastating the remaining natural Everglades, resulting in the growth of non-native plant species, displacing native wildlife and plant communities, and upsetting the delicate natural balance that makes the Everglades unique.
Florida's sugarcane industry already receives extensive subsidies from both the federal government and the State of Florida. The Army Corps of Engineers spends millions to provide flood protection to the Everglades Agricultural Area, while the state provides sugarcane farms with millions in subsidized irrigation and water management services. In fact, the entire water management infrastructure that supports the Florida sugarcane industry was built with federal tax dollars.
Big sugar is still big trouble for the environment. The Farm Bill barely made a dent. Big sugar's claims of recent reductions in pollution from cane production are a sore point of debate. The $20 million authorized over the life of the Farm Bill is merely a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to restore the Everglades.
Billions of tax dollars are being spent to fix the Everglades and undue problems created by the federal sugar price support program. Continuation of the sugar price support program will only exacerbate the environmental degradation associated with this program, and result in even more public resources being spent on a classic example of "corporate welfare" that benefits a small special interest, while costing taxpayers dearly. For the sake of the Everglades we must pass the Miller-Schumer amendment as a first step to scaling back the government's sugar price support program and its decimation of the Everglades.
Everglades pollution bill alarms U.S. judge
Miami Herald
Apr. 24, 2003
TALLAHASSEE - A push by Gov. Jeb Bush and the powerful sugar industry to loosen pollution standards in the Everglades could be challenged by a Miami federal judge, who said Wednesday the measure may threaten ongoing restoration efforts.
In a strongly worded order, U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler demanded that the state appear in court to discuss the matter May 2, the same day the Legislature is scheduled to end its annual session.
Citing Herald reports of the deal, Hoeveler said he views the proposal with ''considerable apprehension'' and twice noted in a four-paragraph order that he has no intention of abandoning a 1992 Everglades cleanup settlement agreement he orchestrated.
''I think we should immediately have a hearing on this subject and you should make every effort to attend before this legislation becomes effective,'' Hoeveler wrote.
The politically connected sugar industry has angered environmentalists and members of Congress from both parties in recent weeks with its aggressive efforts to convince the Republican-led Legislature to soften water-quality standards in the Everglades. The legislation has moved swiftly through House and Senate committees with little objection from either party, guided by a battalion of sugar industry lobbyists.
The measures would push back enforcement deadlines for cleaning up the Everglades by at least seven years -- and the House version would boost the acceptable amount of one key pollutant by 50 percent or more.
Environmentalists and members of Congress have decried the effort, saying it endangers an $8 billion federal-state Everglades restoration effort.
Pepsi demands a US coup. Goodbye Allende. Hello Pinochet
Greg Palast
The Observer, London
Sunday, November 8, 1998
'It is the firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup... Please review all your present and possibly new activities to include propaganda, black operations, surfacing of intelligence or disinformation, personal contacts, or anything else your imagination can conjure...'
'Eyes only, restricted handling, secret' message. To US station chief, Santiago. From CIA headquarters. 16 October 1970.
You would be wrong to assume this plan for mayhem was another manifestation of the Cold War between the 'free world' and communism. Much more was at stake: Pepsi-Cola's market share and other matters closer to the heart of corporate America.
In exclusive interviews with The Observer last week, the former US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Korry, told the story in - and behind - these and other top secret CIA, State Department and White House cables recently released by the National Security Archives. Korry filled in gaps in the story by describing cables still classified, and disclosing information censored in papers now available under the US Freedom of Information Act.
Korry, who served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, told how US companies, from cola to copper, using the CIA as an international debt collection agency and investment security force.
Indeed, the October 1970 plot against Chile's President-elect Salvador Allende, using CIA 'sub-machine guns and ammo', was the direct result of a plea for action a month earlier by Donald Kendall, chairman of PepsiCo, in two telephone calls to the company's former lawyer, President Richard Nixon.
Kendall arranged for the owner of the company's Chilean bottling operation to meet National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger on September 15. Hours later, Nixon called in his CIA chief, Richard Helms, and, according to Helms's handwritten notes, ordered the CIA to prevent Allende's inauguration. - Entire article
"I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916."
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.