 Dating back to the original dietary goals for the United States in 1977, the so-called McGovern report, leading nutrition scientists were not only calling for a reduction in meat and other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol like dairy and eggs, but also sugar. The goal was to reduce America's sugar intake down to no more than 10% of the daily diet. The final conclusions would hang sugar, reported the president of the Sugar Association. The McGovern report has to be neutralized. Don't worry though, we have the National Cattlemen's Association on our side, and like Big Sugar, they appeal to the Senate Select Committee to withdraw the report. The sugar industry empire striking back appeared to work when the official dietary guidelines were released in 1980, and then again in 1985, no specific limit like 10%, just a vague avoid too much sugar, whatever that means. By 95, it got even vaguer, choose a diet moderate in sugars. In 2000, they were at least back to limit, but even that was too strong under pressure from sugar lobbyists. They went back to moderate your intake of sugars before the 2005 guideline committee dropped the S-word completely, encouraging Americans to choose carbohydrates wisely, whatever that means. If only there were some kind of dietary guidelines committee that could give us guidance. The Sugar Association expressed optimism about that 2005 committee. The Sugar Association incorporated this quote, committed to the protection and promotion of table sugar consumption, and they will not allow for the disparagement of sugar. And they're not kidding. In 2003, the World Health Organization released a report, Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Disease, which for the first time since the McGovern Report called for reduction in sugar intake to under 10%. The Sugar Association responded by threatening to get the U.S. to withdraw all funding from the WHO. Here it is in black and white. The Sugar Association threatening to pressure Congress to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization. You know, polio vaccinations, AIDS medications, be damned. You just don't mess with the Candyman. The threat was described as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure they had experienced from big tobacco. But now 15 years later, 40 years after the first proposed McGovern Report, the current 2015 to 2020 Dietary Guidelines lay out as a key recommendation the 10% limit, currently exceeded by every age bracket in the United States, starting at age one, with adolescents averaging 87 grams of sugar a day, meaning the average teen is effectively eating 29 sugar packets a day. The Sugar Association describes the 10% limit as extremely low, I mean, only like up to a dozen spoonfuls a day. But of course, there's no dietary requirement for added sugar at all, and every single calorie you get from added sugar is a wasted opportunity to get calories from sources that actually provide nutrition. To the American Heart Association's credit, they went further, trying to push added sugar intake down to about 6% of calories, for which a single can of soda could send you over the limit. An added sugar limit exceeded by 90% of Americans. In 2017, the American Heart Association released their guidelines for children, recommending they get no more than about 6 teaspoons per day, which means there's nearly 100 cereals on the U.S. market for which a single serving exceeded the entire recommended daily limit. And the Heart Association recommends no added sugars at all under age two, small toddlers are to avoid added sugars altogether, a recommendation that's violated in up to 80% of toddlers. The U.S. is one of at least 65 countries that have implemented dietary guidelines or policies to curb sugar consumption. In the U.K., the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition made new recommendations to reduce added sugars down to 5%, which is the direction of the world. Health organizations headed as well. They always seem to be kind of ahead of the curve. Why? Because their policymaking process is at least partially protected from industry influence. Unlike governments, which may have competing interests in commerce and trade, the World Health Organization is exclusively concerned with health.