SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A new study reveals that the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) is an "industry front group," fighting regulations on sugary products, tobacco, and carcinogenic chemicals. (Photo: USAID Egypt/cc/flickr)
'Industry Front Group' Claims to Promote Public Health While Fighting Chemical and Food Safety Regulations, Study Finds
"Industry wolf disguised as scientific health charity."
Jun 03, 2019
A international so-called science institute has for years embedded itself on public health panels run by the European Union and United Nations, only to work against the goals of such bodies by pushing the profit-focused agendas of the tobacco, pesticide, and other industries, according to a new study.
World Health Organization (WHO) consultant Simon Barquera tweeted Monday that it was "Black Monday" for the Washington, D.C.-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) after researchers at two universities and the U.S. Right to Know organization released a study showing that the group has received millions of dollars from the industries it's meant to protect consumers from.
According to researchers at Cambridge University and Bocconi University in Milan, top officials at ILSI often sit on international panels where government leaders discuss the negative impacts tobacco, sugary foods, and chemicals have on the public--but use their positions to push for lax regulations on those products.
ILSI "has been used by its corporate backers for years to counter public health policies," head researcher Sarah Steele told The Guardian.
"ILSI should be regarded as an industry group--a private body--and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good," she added.
Steele and her team uncovered documents like a 2015 email from ILSI founder Alex Malaspina to executives at Coca-Cola, in which he called new sugar intake guidelines in the U.S. a "disaster" for the soft drink company.
The new rules could give way to a host of public health-focused regulations, Malaspina wrote, including taxes on sodas and new efforts to educate the public about limiting sugar consumption.
Ultimately, Malaspina said the guidelines could lead to "a great pressure from CDC and other agencies to force industry to start deducing drastically the sugar we add to processed foods and beverages."
Such concerns, critics said Monday, were incongruous for the head of an organization whose stated mission "is to provide science that improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment."
The newly-released research, published in Globalization and Health, also shows how ILSI's conflicts of interest kept it from regulating companies like Monsanto, whose use of the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate in its weedkiller, Roundup, resulted in the product being banned in a number of European countries.
After ILSI Europe received more than $1 million from Monsanto and an affiliated company, Croplife International, the group's vice president chaired a U.N. panel which determined glyphosate was safe for humans.
According to The Guardian, ILSI representatives are still serving on panels which recommend how to regulate chemicals like glyphosate. One recent report called on European regulators to roll back its ban on the chemical, shifting to a model that allows products to remain on the market if they demonstrate a so-called "acceptable risk" to public health.
"While ILSI purports to be working for health and well-being of populations internationally," the researchers concluded, "we identified attempts by ILSI to influence individuals, professional guidance, and policy, both locally and internationally, while we saw evidence that its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally."
"Policy makers, international bodies, and the medical and research communities, should approach ILSI's work with caution, viewing it as industry funded and influenced," they added.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
centers for disease control (cdc)corporate powereuropean unionglyphosatemonsantopesticidespublic healthunited nationswar on science
A international so-called science institute has for years embedded itself on public health panels run by the European Union and United Nations, only to work against the goals of such bodies by pushing the profit-focused agendas of the tobacco, pesticide, and other industries, according to a new study.
World Health Organization (WHO) consultant Simon Barquera tweeted Monday that it was "Black Monday" for the Washington, D.C.-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) after researchers at two universities and the U.S. Right to Know organization released a study showing that the group has received millions of dollars from the industries it's meant to protect consumers from.
According to researchers at Cambridge University and Bocconi University in Milan, top officials at ILSI often sit on international panels where government leaders discuss the negative impacts tobacco, sugary foods, and chemicals have on the public--but use their positions to push for lax regulations on those products.
ILSI "has been used by its corporate backers for years to counter public health policies," head researcher Sarah Steele told The Guardian.
"ILSI should be regarded as an industry group--a private body--and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good," she added.
Steele and her team uncovered documents like a 2015 email from ILSI founder Alex Malaspina to executives at Coca-Cola, in which he called new sugar intake guidelines in the U.S. a "disaster" for the soft drink company.
The new rules could give way to a host of public health-focused regulations, Malaspina wrote, including taxes on sodas and new efforts to educate the public about limiting sugar consumption.
Ultimately, Malaspina said the guidelines could lead to "a great pressure from CDC and other agencies to force industry to start deducing drastically the sugar we add to processed foods and beverages."
Such concerns, critics said Monday, were incongruous for the head of an organization whose stated mission "is to provide science that improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment."
The newly-released research, published in Globalization and Health, also shows how ILSI's conflicts of interest kept it from regulating companies like Monsanto, whose use of the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate in its weedkiller, Roundup, resulted in the product being banned in a number of European countries.
After ILSI Europe received more than $1 million from Monsanto and an affiliated company, Croplife International, the group's vice president chaired a U.N. panel which determined glyphosate was safe for humans.
According to The Guardian, ILSI representatives are still serving on panels which recommend how to regulate chemicals like glyphosate. One recent report called on European regulators to roll back its ban on the chemical, shifting to a model that allows products to remain on the market if they demonstrate a so-called "acceptable risk" to public health.
"While ILSI purports to be working for health and well-being of populations internationally," the researchers concluded, "we identified attempts by ILSI to influence individuals, professional guidance, and policy, both locally and internationally, while we saw evidence that its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally."
"Policy makers, international bodies, and the medical and research communities, should approach ILSI's work with caution, viewing it as industry funded and influenced," they added.
A international so-called science institute has for years embedded itself on public health panels run by the European Union and United Nations, only to work against the goals of such bodies by pushing the profit-focused agendas of the tobacco, pesticide, and other industries, according to a new study.
World Health Organization (WHO) consultant Simon Barquera tweeted Monday that it was "Black Monday" for the Washington, D.C.-based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) after researchers at two universities and the U.S. Right to Know organization released a study showing that the group has received millions of dollars from the industries it's meant to protect consumers from.
According to researchers at Cambridge University and Bocconi University in Milan, top officials at ILSI often sit on international panels where government leaders discuss the negative impacts tobacco, sugary foods, and chemicals have on the public--but use their positions to push for lax regulations on those products.
ILSI "has been used by its corporate backers for years to counter public health policies," head researcher Sarah Steele told The Guardian.
"ILSI should be regarded as an industry group--a private body--and regulated as such, not as a body acting for the greater good," she added.
Steele and her team uncovered documents like a 2015 email from ILSI founder Alex Malaspina to executives at Coca-Cola, in which he called new sugar intake guidelines in the U.S. a "disaster" for the soft drink company.
The new rules could give way to a host of public health-focused regulations, Malaspina wrote, including taxes on sodas and new efforts to educate the public about limiting sugar consumption.
Ultimately, Malaspina said the guidelines could lead to "a great pressure from CDC and other agencies to force industry to start deducing drastically the sugar we add to processed foods and beverages."
Such concerns, critics said Monday, were incongruous for the head of an organization whose stated mission "is to provide science that improves human health and well-being and safeguards the environment."
The newly-released research, published in Globalization and Health, also shows how ILSI's conflicts of interest kept it from regulating companies like Monsanto, whose use of the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate in its weedkiller, Roundup, resulted in the product being banned in a number of European countries.
After ILSI Europe received more than $1 million from Monsanto and an affiliated company, Croplife International, the group's vice president chaired a U.N. panel which determined glyphosate was safe for humans.
According to The Guardian, ILSI representatives are still serving on panels which recommend how to regulate chemicals like glyphosate. One recent report called on European regulators to roll back its ban on the chemical, shifting to a model that allows products to remain on the market if they demonstrate a so-called "acceptable risk" to public health.
"While ILSI purports to be working for health and well-being of populations internationally," the researchers concluded, "we identified attempts by ILSI to influence individuals, professional guidance, and policy, both locally and internationally, while we saw evidence that its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally."
"Policy makers, international bodies, and the medical and research communities, should approach ILSI's work with caution, viewing it as industry funded and influenced," they added.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.