Currently browsing posts about: Sugars

A reader, Colleen Wysocki, sent me a note about this study, the basis of a Nutrition and Dietetics SmartBrief e-mailed to members from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to members.

 RD: Enhance yogurt’s probiotic power with honey…A study in the Journal of Nutrition published earlier this year found that clover honey helps probiotics in yogurt survive longer during digestion, particularly benefiting the probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis…honey adds antioxidants and acts as a protective agent for probiotics. Research advises using just one to two tablespoons of clover honey per serving to optimize probiotic survival.

Here’s the study: Alvarado DA, Ibarra-Sánchez LA, Mysonhimer AR, Khan TA, Cao R, Miller MJ, Holscher HD. Honey Varietals Differentially Impact Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Survivability in Yogurt through Simulated In Vitro Digestion. J Nutr. 2024 Mar;154(3):866-874. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.01.010.

Method: This was an in vitro (petri dish) study of the effects of honey on bacterial counts, with and without the addition of “simulated intestinal fluids.”

Results: “Yogurt with 10-20% wt/wt clover honey increased B. animalis survivability after simulated in vitro digestion (≤ ∼4.7 Log CFU/g survival; P < 0.05).”

Conclusion: “Yogurt with added honey improves probiotic survivability during in vitro digestion.”

Funding: “This work was supported partially by the National Honey Board (HDH and MJM).”

Comment: Honey may be delicious, and no wonder; it is 82% sugar, mostly fructose (41%) and glucose (35%) and not all that different biochemically from sucrose (table sugar).  The reason why the Honey Board funded this study must surely be to demonstrate that adding honey (i.e., sugar) to your yogurt is good for you.  And don’t we all love results like this?

The Santa Cruz Sentinal says Measure Z soda tax officially passes in Santa Cruz.

According to the Santa Cruz County Elections Department, 15,780 votes were counted in favor of the ballot initiative, or about 52%, and 14,364 votes, or approximately 48%, were counted against the passage of Measure Z….“Despite being outspent $1.9 million to our $85,000 by corporate special interests, the people of Santa Cruz stood strong and made their voices heard.”

The tax has been a long time coming.  It was first proposed in 2018, but was blocked by a California state act backed by the soda industry which prevented taxes on groceries until 2031.  Lawsuits overturned the penalty provision of the act, which allowed tax proposals to continue.

Politico reviews the history of soda tax fights in California.

Berkeley voted to renew its existing tax, no doubt for these reasons and despite being outspent tenfold.

Research looking at the last decade of Berkeley’s sugary drink tax shows the tax is working: Consumption of sugary drinks dropped by 52% and water increased by 29% among Berkeley residents in diverse neighborhoods with a large proportion of Black and Latino residents. In addition, 16 hydration stations have been installed and $5.7 million has been invested into 18 community gardens at Berkeley Unified School District sites. Funding has also supported vital public health and sustainability programs through organizations like Lifelong Medical Care, Healthy Black Families, The Multicultural Institute, YMCA of the East Bay Early Childhood Impact and The Ecology Center.

The point of all this:

Sugary drinks are the largest source of added sugar in the American diet. The American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of added sugar per day for women and nine teaspoons for men. One 12-ounce can of sugared soda contains about 10 teaspoons.

Thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for this one.

Substituting Refined Sugars With Maple Syrup Decreases Key Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Individuals With Mild Metabolic Alterations: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Crossover Trial. Arianne Morissette, Anne-Laure Agrinier, Théo Gignac, Lamia Ramadan, Khoudia Diop, Julie Marois, Thibault V Varin, Geneviève Pilon, Serge Simard, Éric Larose, Claudia Gagnon, Benoit J Arsenault, Jean-Pierre Després, Anne-Marie Carreau, Marie-Claude Vohl, André Marette.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 154, Issue 10, 2024, Pages 2963-2975.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.08.014.

Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial with 42 overweight adults with mild cardiometabolic alterations, participants were instructed to substitute 5% of their total caloric intake from added sugars with either maple syrup or an artificially flavored sucrose syrup for 8 wk.

Results: Replacing refined sugars with maple syrup over 8 wk decreased the glucose area under the curve when compared with substituting refined sugars with sucrose syrup, as determined during the oral glucose tolerance test, leading to a significant difference between the intervention arms.

Conclusions: Substituting refined sugars with maple syrup in individuals with mild metabolic alterations result in a significantly greater reduction of key cardiometabolic risk factors compared with substitution with sucrose syrup, in association with specific changes in gut microbiota.

Funding: This study was funded by the Producteurs et productrices acéricoles du Québec (PPAQ) and the Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ). The sponsors had no role in study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Honey has an industry behind it?  Of course it does.

The National Honey Board (a USDA-sponsored checkoff entity) is working hard to convince dietitians that honey is a health food.  Here are three examples sent to me by members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, who received these ads via e-mail.

I.  “Harness the power of honey in the Mediterranean diet this summer…Incorporating honey into the MSDP [Mediterranean-style dietary pattern] is a natural fit.”

Download Our Med Diet Handout

View Our Med Diet Research Summary

Get Inspired With Med Diet Recipes

II.  Another reader, Katherine Walcott, sent me this one about how honey can boost probiotics.  She points out that the ad links to an article in health.com and then to studies one and two , both supported by the National Honey Board.

III.  Yet another dietitian sent me yet another ad, this one featuring dietitians extolling the benefits of honey as part of nutritious diets.

RD: Honey offers antioxidants, heart health and more

Honey may offers numerous healthful benefits: it is rich in antioxidants like flavonoids and phenolic acids, which help neutralize reactive oxygen species, potentially reducing the risk of conditions like premature aging, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, writes registered dietitian nutritionist SaVanna Shoemaker. Honey may aid in blood sugar management by increasing adiponectin levels, though it should be consumed in moderation, especially by people with diabetes. Studies suggest honey can improve heart health by lowering blood pressure and improving blood fat levels. It also has antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, making it effective for treating burns, wounds and coughs in children over 1 year old, however honey should never be given to children under 1 year of age.

Comment

I need to point out the obvious: honey is a form of sugar.  It is a mix of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and traces of other sugars, minerals, and flavors.  Its main benefits?  It is delicious, but most people are unlikely to eat much of it, and not nearly as much as they might eat of sucrose table sugar.  Can it be part of nutritious diets?  Of course it can.  A health food?  Depends on how much you eat of it.

Also obvious: the purpose of the National Honey Board is to convince you to eat more honey.

Fruit juices were not a problem when I was growing up.

Ancient history: Juice was so expensive—it was freshly squeezed from several oranges—that we couldn’t afford to drink much of it,  Juice glasses were 6 ounces.

This was long before cheap concentrated juice appeared in supermarkets, let alone canned and bottled juices and juice drinks.

Because juice is squeezed from several fruits, the sugars add up but the fiber disappears.

The USDA says more than half of apples available for U.S. consumption are used in juices.

All that juice may not be as healthy as you might think.  Two reasons: calories and toxic metals.

CALORIES: Consumption of 100% Fruit Juice and Body Weight in Children and AdultsA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

in this systematic review and meta-analysis, 1 serving per day of 100% fruit juice was associated with BMI gain among children. Findings in adults found a significant association among studies unadjusted for total energy, suggesting potential mediation by calories…Our findings support guidance to limit consumption of fruit juice to prevent intake of excess calories and weight gain.

TOXIC METALS: Toxic metals and essential elements contents in commercially available fruit juices and other non-alcoholic beverages from the United States. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, Volume 119, June 2023, 105230.

The results showed that the concentrations of Ni, Mn, B, Cd, Sr, As, and Se exceeded the recommended drinking water standards, whereas the remaining elements were found below the drinking water standards….consumption of metals either below or above the drinking water standards can increase the cumulative metals exposure from combined sources and may lead to adverse health outcomes…The study found seven of the 25 elements measured exceeded drinking water standards, especially in the mixed fruit juices. While toxicity is unlikely, more attention should be paid toward moderate beverage consumption, especially to protect the health of infants and young children.

The fruit juice industry—yes, there is such a thing—is fighting back by funding its own research (thanks to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for sending this one).

The study:  Health effects of 100% fruit and vegetable juices: evidence from human intervention studies. September 2023.  Nutrition Research Reviews.  DOI: 10.1017/S095442242300015X.

Purpose: The review aimed to shed light on the potential impact of 100% FVJ on human subject health, comprehensively assessing the role each type of juice may have in specific health outcomes for a particular target population, as reported in dietary interventions.

Findings: Some juices demonstrated their ability to exert potential preventive effects on some outcomes while others on other health outcomes, emphasising how the differential composition in bioactive compounds defines juice effects.

Conclusion: Although 100% FVJ appear to have beneficial effects on some cardiometabolic health outcomes, cognition and exercise performance, or neutral effects on anthropometric parameters and body composition, further efforts are needed to better understand the impact of 100% FVJ on human subject health.

Funding: This work was partially funded by the International Fruit and Vegetable Juice Association (IFU). The funder of the study had no input on the design, implementation, analysis or interpretation of the data. P.M. received a research grant from IFU to conduct this review. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Comment: This is the usual result from industry-funded articles.  Fruit is better, but juices are fine in small amounts—bring back 6-ounce glasses!

And while we are on the topic, this just in: Are all sugars equal? Role of the food source in physiological responses to sugars with an emphasis on fruit and fruit juice.

Of the currently available data on direct comparisons of whole fruit versus fruit juice, there is no clear evidence for meaningful differences in glycaemic control, inflammation, or blood pressure. There is, however, consistent evidence that whole apples can lower plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations compared with fruit juice.

The USDA has released its latest data on sugar production and the 20-year downward trend continues.

The chart is based on data from the USDA Economic Research Service’s (ERS) Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System,

Availability means total amount produced, less exports, plus imports; it is a proxy for consumption (but undoubtedly higher than actual consumption).

In 2021, total caloric sweeteners (meaning all kinds of sugars and syrups) had dropped by 17% since 1999, the peak year for sugars availability.

Almost all of the change is due to the drop in availability of corn sweeteners.

Why the drop in corn sweeteners?  Corn syrup used to be much cheaper than cane and beet sugars.  But now that so much of it is grown to produce ethanol biofuel, its cost is about the same so there is no point in using it except in products where it works better—soft drinks, for example.

The drop in overall sugar availability looks like a healthy trend.  But the prevalence of  overweight and obesity continues to rise in children and adults.

There are still plenty of sugar calories available in the food supply.

The 127.3 pounds available in 2021 works out to a whopping 158 grams per person per day, three times the upper recommended limit and about 5 ounces.

If someone is producing that much sugar, or making sugary products, that person wants to sell it.

You are the target of those sales efforts.

If you try to resist, you are fighting the entire food system on your own.

Courage!

I like sweet foods as much as anyone (maybe more), but I do try to keep sugar intake within reasonable limits.

For one thing, sugars have no nutritional value beyond calories (which hardly anyone needs more of).  For another, it encourages overeating whatever foods in comes with, many of them ultra-processed.

Thus, I cannot understand why my nutrition colleagues would do anything to imply that eating more sugar is OK.

But, thanks to Ricardo Salvador at the Union of Concerned Scientists who forwarded the study to me, we here have: Risk assessment of nutrients: There must be a threshold for their effects.

Its authors argue that because no firm threshold has been established for harm from excessive sugar intake, guidance to keep sugars “as low as possible in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet” is inappropriate.

The most appropriate interpretation from the vast amount of data is that currently no definitive conclusion can be drawn on the tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. Therefore, EFSA’s [European Food Safety Authority’s] own guidance would lead to the conclusion that the available data do not allow the setting of an upper limit for added sugars and hence, that more robust data are required to identify the threshold value for intake of sugars.

Sigh.  Who paid for this?

Funding: “Cosun Nutrition Center (Hilversum, The Netherlands) provided financial support for some of the cost for the preparation of this paper. This support was unrestricted, and Cosun Nutrition Center had no influence on or input to the content of this paper” [yeah, right].

And what, pray tell, is the Cosun Nutrition Center?

The Cosun Nutrition Center conducts research and acquires scientific information on plant-based foods in relation to health and sustainability…The Cosun Nutrition Center is funded by Royal Cosun.

Sounds legit.  But what is Royal Cosum?

Founded 125 years ago, Royal Cosun has developed into a leading international agricultural cooperative with more than 8,100 sugar beet growers.

Sugar beet growers?  Oh.

I won’t bother to list the authors’ conflicts of interest, except to assure you that some include affiliations with sugar companies.

Conflicted?  Absolutely.

Caveat lector.

While producers of sugar cane celebrated National Real Sugar Day on October 14, the New York City Council voted to require chain restaurants to post warning labels on sodas and other menu items that exceed to-be-defined limits on added sugars.

Mayor Eric Adams signed the Sweet Truth Act, which gives the city until 2024 to set standards and design the icon, and gives chain restaurants until 2025 to comply.

Meals at fast food and fast casual restaurants can be exceedingly high in added sugars, amounts that far exceed the FDA’s daily recommendation for consumption of 50 grams per day. Even most “small” fountain sodas sold at leading fast food chains contain more than a day’s worth of added sugars. Added sugars have been linked to weight gain in children and adults. Sugary drinks may also contribute to type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

In a video, New York City Health Commissioner, Dr. Ashwin Vasan, explains why sugar redction is a good idea.

Where is the FDA in all this?  It held a public meeting on the need for sugar reduction.  What it will do as a result remains to be seen, but the New York City action is surely a nudge.

In the meantime, the Government Accountability Office has some things to say about the U.S. Sugar Program.  It sums up the issues concisely.

The Department of Agriculture administers the U.S. sugar program to support domestic sugar production through tools such as limiting the supply of sugar.

The program creates higher sugar prices, which cost consumers more than producers benefit, at an annual cost to the economy of around $1 billion per year.

The program also restricts the amount of sugar entering the U.S. at a low tariff. The tariff restrictions are applied using a method based on 40-year-old data that doesn’t reflect current market conditions. This has led to fewer sugar imports than expected.

We recommended that USDA evaluate its method for restricting imports.

Comment: Here is a situation in which policies for sugar production and import intersect with policies for sugar and health in peculiar ways.  The objective of import policies is to restrict them in order to keep prices higher as a means to protect domestic sugar producers.

Ordinarily, food policies are designed to keep prices low—but not in this case (chalk this up to effective lobbying by cane and beet sugar producers, and the power of lobbyists in sugar-producing states).

Also ordinarily, higher prices would reduce demand, but sugar prices are nowhere near high enough to influence demand, which is one reason why this system continues.

Current policies are estimated to cost the public as much as $3.5 billion a year; divided by 350 million Americans means that the policies cost you an extra $10 per year for the sugar you buy—nowhere near enough to affect consumption.

Disparate goals for sugar are yet another reason why a single food agency overseeing the entire food system would be useful for reconciling these kinds of problems.