Sugar in food is poorly labeled, and the industry likes it that way
The FDA has proposed labeling "added
sugars" on food. Above, the Nutrition Facts label on the side of a cereal
box. (J. David Ake / Associated Press)
By ROBERT H. LUSTIG
Without clear labels
on sugar and public education, 'personal responsibility' is a non sequitur
Added sugar in food is
metabolized in a way that makes it effectively toxic to people
Sugar has been shown to cause diabetes, heart disease and many
other ailments, so we need to label it better
A wild animal is never more dangerous than when it is cornered.
And Big Sugar is lashing out with all the sweet venom it can muster in response
to the latest attacks on the iniquities of the American diet. These attacks are
now seemingly coming from all directions.
Scientists have now demonstrated not just correlation, but causation for
sugar anddiabetes, fatty liver disease, heart
disease andtooth decay. Investment banks Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley have
weighed in on the effects of the detriments of excess sugar consumption on
healthcare costs, economic productivity and the global economy. The Indian
government has asked PepsiCo to reformulate its flagship
beverage to reduce the burden of diabetes that country is facing. And the
passage of the Mexico and Berkeley soda taxes have pierced the
armor of the once-impenetrable Big Sugar.
So, why pick on sugar? The industry says, "a calorie is a
calorie, and a sugar is a sugar." In her Opinion L.A. blog post raising questions over a
proposed federal requirement to label "added sugar," Karin Klein
cites nutritionists who say that processed grains like white flour "have
pretty much the same nutritional profile as sugar."
But it's not true. Sugar starts to fry your liver at about 35
pounds per year, just like alcohol would at the same dosage. This is because
fructose — the sweet molecule of sugar — is metabolized
in the liver just like alcohol. It's not because of the calories.
Alcohol is not dangerous because it has calories; alcohol is dangerous because
it's alcohol. It's the same with sugar. And we're at 100 pounds per year,
triple our limit. That is why children now get the diseases of alcohol consumption
— type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease — without ever drinking alcohol.
There are 51 separate agencies in
charge of our food supply. That fits the food industry just fine. Their
strategy is to divide and conquer.-
Two regulatory issues are currently in play. As Klein notes, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration must now decide on theproposal for including "added
sugar" on the Nutrition Facts label, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture must act on its own Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's
(DGAC)recommendation to limit added sugar
consumption to 10% of total calories. The food industry is fighting both of these tooth and nail.
The success of the FDA proposal rests on the ability of the new
label to educate the public about what the industry added to the food. The
industry says that the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires
only the disclosure of total sugars, which includes the strawberries
in your strawberry ice cream, the lactose in the milk (neither of which is a
problem) and the added sugar. But how much of that total sugar is
lactose, and how much is added sugar?
Consider a 6-ounce carton of pomegranate yogurt, which has 19
grams of sugar. A plain yogurt has 7 grams of sugar, all lactose (milk sugar),
which is not a problem. Thus, each pomegranate yogurt has 12 grams of added
sugar. Plus, the industry hides the sugar well. There are 56 different
names for sugar; by choosing different sugars as the fifth, sixth, seventh and
eighth ingredients, sugar can rapidly add up to No. 1.
The industry’s response is something like this: "If we told
the consumer how much sugar we added to any given product, our competitors
could duplicate our recipes. This is proprietary information, and you can't
know it." In other words, according to Big Sugar, it's not necessary for
you to know. But it is. "Personal responsibility" is a non sequitur
without public education. How can we expect anyone to make a rational decision
when the information on which to make that decision is withheld?
Conversely, the DGAC recommendation to the USDA would limit
added sugar to 10% of total calories, a far cry from the 25% that the Institute
of Medicine sanctioned in 2004. As an example of the
importance of this proposed new mandate, in 2011 the Environmental Working
Group (EWG)identified 17 breakfast cereals marketed
to children in which added sugar constituted more that 50% of calories. Despite
the notoriety of that disclosure, the EWG follow-up in 2014 noted that none of these breakfast
cereals had reduced its sugar content. If the DGAC's recommendation becomes
government policy, then the Nutrition Facts label will show that that a typical
bowl of breakfast cereal provides 33% of the daily value for added sugar for
adults, and a 12-ounce can of soda provides 90%.
If added sugars should only be 10% of total calories, the
industry’s claim would wash away. It would be forced to reformulate.
The goal of the food industry is to keep these two battles
divided. Because if the FDA and USDA were to unite and combine these two
policies, the disingenuous nature of the industry's practices will be obvious.
For instance, the FDA has established a disqualifying level of
certain nutrients for manufacturers making health claims. Previously they
monitored total fat, saturated fat, sodium and cholesterol. This is an outdated
list. The FDA and USDA need to provide a disqualifying level for added sugar.
Walk down the cereal aisle and you will see candy-named products marketed
to children (with appealing cartoon characters) that tout how healthy the
cereal is. Really? And does anyone really want to attest to the
health-promoting properties of a GoGurt?
There are 51 separate agencies in charge of our food supply.
That suits the food industry just fine. Their strategy is to divide and conquer. It's
time for us to unite to tame this wild animal before it can sicken another
generation of children.
- Let
us not forget that raw sugar can only be metabolized by your body at no
more than a 50% rate, where as 100% of corn syrup can be used. Reason
enough why this country never saw rates of obesity until cane sugar was
phased out and corn syrup phased in. The number one reason is the
tariff...
ROMARIN
No comments:
Post a Comment