Paid for by US taxpayers $850 million The UN agency that pays annual membership dues to the World Health Organization expects more than evasions and bad science, yet it continues to spread fear and issue warnings that are often completely unrelated to reality.
Last July, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer released a damning assessment warning that aspartame, a non-sugar sweetener commonly found in diet drinks, is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Health experts pushed back, describing the study as:FlawedEmails recently obtained by the Taxpayer Protection League Foundation reveal deep frustration among U.S. government officials with this global bureaucracy: WHO and IARC should not receive a cent of taxpayer money until they address problems such as sloppy science.
Using public information requests to learn how WHO responded would be useful, but watchdog groups and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.
July 14, 2023 was never a boring day for scientists who study food and beverage safety. On that day, IARC published its damning assessment of aspartame, and the WHO and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives also released their own report. A more nuanced review Of sweeteners.
The WHO's conflicting messages on aspartame angered Mary Frances Lowe, a U.S. Department of Agriculture regulator, who in a message to colleagues called the WHO's communication a “disappointment in risk communication.” In response, the Food and Drug Administration stepped in to counter IARC's claims and convince the public and media that JECFA had presented the right science.
“JECFA concludes that aspartame is not of carcinogenic concern when ingested in animals. Aspartame is not of genotoxic concern when ingested in animals. The evidence of an association between aspartame intake and cancer in humans is not compelling,” FDA official Shruti Kabadi wrote on July 14. Shruti's colleague Sabine Franke praised the JECFA findings, writing in response, “I have seen the JECFA report. It is an excellent rebuttal to the IARC effort!! Science has won.”
of The FDA acted quickly To clarify information on its website and to refute IARC's flawed analysis in media communications. Regulatory officials at the FDA and USDA were understandably frustrated, as their research supporting aspartame safety was undermined by IARC's shoddy science. In responseThe two agencies urged “WHO action to prevent future duplicative reviews of food chemicals by IARC and the WHO/FAO Joint Scientific Advice Programme.”
Using public information requests to learn how WHO responded would be useful, but watchdog groups and journalists face significant challenges in accessing these records.
WHO's “Information Disclosure PolicyThe document states that “information whose disclosure may adversely affect relations between WHO and its Member States or other intergovernmental organizations” is considered “confidential information not normally subject to disclosure.” In other words, documents regarding differences of opinion between WHO and its Member States or intergovernmental organizations are 194 member countries The broad ban on disclosure is costing aspartame's safety reputation, not to mention the global pandemic and tobacco harm reduction efforts.
and”World Press Freedom Day” Every year on May 3rd Assert Although the UN claims that “freedom of information is an integral part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression,” the UN does not have a law similar to FOIA. Tarif Dean Notes“Long-standing proposals for FOIA at the UN have failed to materialise mainly due to inaction by the 193-nation General Assembly, the UN's highest policy-making body, and a lack of transparency in the internal workings of the UN and its Secretariat.”
FOIA requesters are only able to see, at best, half of the conversations between U.S. federal agencies and the WHO about the safety of sweeteners. Why the WHO continues to ignore the wealth of evidence highlighted by the FDA-Food and Agriculture Organization Joint Expert Committee remains a mystery. This lack of transparency is not very pleasing to taxpayers who fund the WHO or to consumers who want sugar alternatives and sound science.
