US Sugar Lobbying by Industry. Export to CSV. Industry. Total. Crop Production & Basic Processing. $1,050,000. NOTE: Figures on this page are calculations by OpenSecrets based on data from the Senate Office of Public Records.
Lobbying Firm Hired Total Amount* Client Lobbyist Revolving Door Profiles Former Members of Congress; Ballard Partners: $480,000: US Sugar: Brian D Ballard : Revolving Door Profiles: Non Former Members of Congress: Ballard Partners: $480,000: US Sugar: Rebecca Benn : Revolving Door Profiles: Non Former Members of Congress: Ballard Partners: $480,000: US Sugar: …
Mar 10, 2015 · Meanwhile, sugar industry lobbying is still at work today. The United States’ Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee currently wants to recommend a cap for added sugars in people's diets. The recommended limit would show up …
Jul 16, 2020 · Assuming that only about 20-40% of the F&B industry’s $28M lobbying (2017; see immediately below) would be sugar-related (reflecting the product portfolio of these companies), or $5-10M, if we included both the beverages and ag products industries for sugar and meat ($10M and $18.5M, respectively; see above), the skew would still favor meat, perhaps even …
Francie Diep. Francie Diep is a staff writer at Pacific Standard, where she specializes in health and drug policy and the intersections of culture and science. Previously, she covered science, health, and science policy for Scientific American, Popular Science, and Smithsonian.
The United States’ Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee currently wants to recommend a cap for added sugars in people's diets. The recommended limit would show up on nutrition labels, much like limits for fat and sodium. The Sugar Association opposes such a cap, saying there’s not enough science to support it.
Sugar organizations couldn’t hide the scientific evidence that sugar causes tooth decay, according to Kearns. “So what they did was they began to fund research to create a deflection strategy to say, ‘You don’t need to restrict sugar. We can create enzymes we can add to food , or we’ll find a tooth-decay vaccine ,’” she says. Neither the enzyme food additive nor the vaccin e ever came to fruition.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—and specifically, the secretaries of those federal departments —set the Dietary Guidelines, appointing a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) to review the science and present them evidence-based recommendations. (Here’s a backgrounder on the process.)
So far this cycle, the main processed meat player appears to be Hormel Foods Corporation, maker of the inimitable Spam canned meat, which has already plunked down $740,000 on such lobbying between January 2018 and March 2019. Drink less soda.
Since the beginning of 2018, the ABA has shouldered the burden, racking up $1.68 million in lobbying expenses, joined by Red Bull North America at $320,000. For infants, breastfeeding is best. For the first time, the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines will include recommendations specifically for infants and toddlers.
As you might imagine, the oil and gas lobbying sector is one of the most active lobbying groups. Lobbyist efforts have historically focused on promoting legislators with pro-energy views in the areas of fossil fuel production, commodity exploration, and extraction. As of March 2020, the top lobbying spenders in the industry were Chevron Corp, Koch Industries, and Exxon Mobil.
Lobbyists for corporations or industries might seek to sway officials regarding legislation, regulations, and the enforcement of government decisions. Over the past 22 years, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has spent the most money of all industries in lobbying spending. Other industries that spend heavily on lobbying efforts ...
In the American political system, lobbying is par for the course. It has come to be expected that major industries, and the leading corporations in those industries, will seek to influence legislation , regulation, and the enforcement of government decisions, such that they receive preferential treatment. This could come in the form of campaign ...
Spending $4.45 billion over the past 22 years, the pharmaceutical and health products industry has far outpaced all other industries in lobbying spending. It's important to note that this industry includes not only drug manufacturers, but also the sellers of medical products and nutritional and dietary supplements. From Jan. 2020 through March 2020, spending was topped by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and Pfizer Inc.
The top lobbyist in electric utilities as of March 2020 is Duke Energy .
Political contributions and lobbying efforts from the education industry come mostly from individual educators or administrators, as educational institutions are not usually able to form political action committees (PACs). Areas of interest for educators and education lobbyists include the federal budget (allocations for research money, programs, and student aid) and student loans, and specifically the Student Loan Fairness Act, which prevented student loans from doubling when the congressional agreement expired. Lobbyists in the education sector spent $82.2 million in 2019 with the Association of American Medical Colleges coming in as a top spender.
Florida’s powerful sugar industry spent more than $11 million on Florida campaigns in the 2020 cycle. Lawmakers are now considering a bill that would undermine legal efforts to stop burns that produce pollution.
From October through May each year, sugarcane farmers prepare for their harvest by burning the outer leaves of cane stalks. Although there is a “green harvesting” alternative that requires no burning, igniting the stalks requires less equipment and makes harvesting more efficient. But it also causes smoke and plumes of soot to fall in what is commonly known as “black snow.”
Sister Laura Cavanaugh, of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament ministry in Belle Glade traveled to Tallahassee Tuesday to tell the House committee to reject the bill. She said she has known families that have “had to relocate from the Glades due to health concerns of family members.”
Administered by the USDA, it guarantees a minimum price at which the department will buy from sugar processors if they cannot sell at higher price on the domestic market. The USDA then relies on production controls to keep the market price well above the minimum price. Import controls are relaxed to keep the price from going too high, and a sugar-to-ethanol program allows the government to dispose of excess sugar in a scheme that further distorts the energy market.
The sugar program is a classic government-created cartel, enforced by government coercion rather than by conspiracy among cartel members, that forces American families to pay higher prices for a smaller supply of sugar.
Early in the 20th century, a way of life for most of America’s farmers came to an end. Industrialization was reaching the countryside, dramatically increasing farm productivity and putting downward pressure on prices.
In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to prohibit monopolization, price-fixing cartels, and other restraints on trade. Congress understood that arrangements that restrict output and raise prices hurt working families and result in significant economic losses for society as a whole.
Thus, free trade holds the promise of dismantling the New Deal’s cartelization of the U.S. agricultural market , which paradoxically could help to heal a constitutional wound that has festered for 70 years. Under the sugar program, the USDA manipulates import quotas to keep prices from rising too much.
[19] Then the Great Depression brought an epidemic of bank failures in which millions of families lost their life savings, and protectionist barriers sparked a trade war.
The sugar program constitutes a huge subsidy for sugar producers and processors. Because it is an indirect subsidy in the form of higher prices rather than direct payments, it is off-budget by design and thus largely immune from public criticism.
In the 1960s , the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.
A newly discovered cache of internal documents reveals that the sugar industry downplayed the risks of sugar in the 1960s. A newly discovered cache of internal documents reveals that the sugar industry downplayed the risks of sugar in the 1960s. In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted ...
The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.
Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola's cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity.
But in the '60s, the SRF became aware of "flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates," as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document.