Currently browsing posts about: Sugars

I am indebted to Margarita Raycheva, who writes for the highly informative newsletter, IEG Policy Agribusiness, for her recent article, which certainly got my attention: “Coca-Cola asks DGAC to develop detailed dietary recommendations for beverages” (this is probably behind a paywall).

Her article is about comments filed by Coca-Cola to the DGAC, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.  She did not provide a link to those comments, so I had to search for them.  This involved finding the DGAC comments page, searching for Coca-Cola, locating the company’s letter, and opening the pdf attachment.

The 12-page document reads like a highly sophisticated advertisement for Coca-Cola’s astounding number of beverage options, many of them low in sugar or sugar-free.

Over the last few years, Coca-Cola has been transforming to become a total beverage company that meets Americans’ fast-changing preferences across a wide array of beverage categories. We support the World Health Organization’s recommendation that people should limit added sugar to no more than 10% of their total daily calorie consumption1 and are rethinking existing recipes, package sizes and offerings to ensure we are helping consumers manage their daily intake of added sugar and other nutrients from our portfolio.  Today, we offer more than 800 drinks in the U.S. alone, ranging from soft drinks to juices, teas, coffee, dairy, sports drinks, water and more – more than 250 of which are low- or zero-sugar options. More than 40% of our sparkling beverage brands in the U.S. are now available in package sizes that are smaller than 8.5 ounces. We are increasing marketing support for low-sugar, no-sugar and unsweetened products…; we are introducing less sweet versions of classic soft drinks…; and we are accelerating our expansion into new beverage categories through the acquisition of brands….We are taking these actions because we recognize the critical role that we – and the entire industry – can play in advancing nutritional goals by using our scale for good.

Why do this?

• About 15% of energy comes from beverages
• Beverages, such as sweetened soft drinks, coffee and tea contribute more than 40% of daily added sugar intake
• Beverages, mainly milk and 100% juice, contribute over 40% of vitamin C and D intake and more than 20% intake of carbohydrates, calcium, potassium and magnesium
• Fruit intake (0.9 cup/day) is half of recommended levels (2 cups/day); 100% fruit juice contributes up to 24% of fruit intake in children, but decreases after adolescence
• Coffee and tea contribute up to 12% of potassium intake in adults
• Waters contribute up to 10% of calcium intake in adults

In other words, drink more (of our) beverages!

Coca-Cola’s proposals for how beverages can enhance diets:

• Hydration
• Nutrition and health
• Enjoyment
• Performance

What should the DGAC do?

By creating a framework that includes guidance for all types of beverages, the DGA can help drive Americans towards healthier versions of drinks they are typically consuming. Recommending limited
consumption or small shifts towards healthier beverages is more effective than simply discouraging the consumption of entire beverage categories.

The company’s proposals for how the DGAC can help it sell more beverages include sample statements like these examples [with my translations]:

• Water should be the primary beverage choice [recommend our bottled water]
• Milk plays an important role in development and health, and contributes essential nutrients to healthy eating patterns, including protein, calcium, vitamin D and potassium [recommend our milk drinks]
• When fortified, plant-based beverages may provide nutrients and support consumer choice, but generally should not be considered a replacement for dairy [please don’t recommend almond, soy, or oat milks–we don’t make any of those drinks]
• Juice contributes to the public’s consumption of essential nutrients, phytonutrient and fruit/vegetable intake [recommend our juice drinks]
• Coffee and tea are sources of health-promoting phytonutrients and are associated with reduced risk of rtain non-communicable diseases (NCDs) [recommend them; we sell those too]
• Replace sugar-sweetened beverages >40 kcal that do not contribute significantly to nutrition needs with these beverages to reduce calorie and sugar consumption [if you must recommend avoing sugary beverages, at least recommend replacement with everything else we sell]
• Sports drinks can be beneficial for individuals who engage in prolonged vigorous physical activity, or those sweating for prolonged hours due to warm to hot temperatures [OK, they have sugar, but recommend them anyway]

I can’t wait to see what the DGAC does with this impressively written document.

Not that it matters, really.  Recall: The DGAC submits the research report, but the agencies—USDA takes the lead this time—write the actual guidelines.

I’m still seeing articles coming out from the USDA’s Economic Research Service, now sadly moved to Kansas City.  This one is based on an older article.*  It’s about how “consumption” of sugars (in quotes because the data actually reflect the availability of sugars in the food supply—production less exports plus imports).

Here’s how I read this chart:

• Overall sugars are down almost to the level of the late 1970s.
• Refined (table) sugar dropped at about the time High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) became widely used; it is holding steady.
• HFCS accounted for the increase in total sugars from 1975-1999.  The subsequent decline is also mainly in HFCS.

The big reason for the decline is lower consumption of soft drinks (these account for nearly half total sugars consumed).

Another trend is substitution of HFCS by table sugar.  This is to the higher cost of HFCS relative to table sugar.  It used to be much cheaper but increased demand for corn to produce ethanol has made HFCS and table sugar cost about the same.

Also, HFCS has a reputation for being worse for health than table sugar, but they are about the same physiologically.  HFCS is glucose and fructose separated.  Table sugar is glucose and fructose stuck together (but quickly separated in the body).

I’m all for eating less of either one.  This, at least, is a healthy trend.

*Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: July 2019 , by Michael McConnell and David W. Olson, ERS, July 2019

I love the Sugar Association, the chief lobbying group for producers of sugar cane and sugar beets, for its endlessly creative ways of trying to convince that more sugar is good for us. [Note: High Fructose Corn Syrup is represented by a separate group, the Corn Refiners Association, which does much of the same.]

I was sent this account of  sugar-industry speeches at a symposium run by the American Sugar Alliance, another trade group.

What to do about all those pesky “eat less sugar” messages?  According to one public relations speaker,

The fact that sugar comes from a plant is a positive for consumers…The terms “real” and “pure” create positive associations in consumers’ minds…Consumers believe that honey is “the most healthy and natural” of sweeteners and that high-fructose corn syrup is “not real.”

Only 30% think sugar is naturally grown…A key message should be that “sugar comes from a plant—like sugar beets or sugar cane.  It’s grown on a farm and it’s minimally processed.

As always, you can’t make this stuff up.

I was alerted to this story by the FoodNavigator-USA headline: Sugar content in soft drinks cut by nearly a third as voluntary efforts fall way off target.

Public Health England’s latest progress report on the food and drink industry’s sugar cutting efforts reveal significant changes in areas where the sugar tax applies, but a disappointing lack of progress with the voluntary sugar reduction programme.

The Year 2 progress report finds:

• The sugar in taxed drinks affected by the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) decreased by 28.8% between 2015 and 2018.
• For non-taxed products, the reduction in sugar was only 2.9%.
• Total sugar increased by 2.6%: the largest increases were for ice cream, candies, sweet spreads, and cookies.

Moral: if you want companies to reduce sugar in their products, tax them.

You may think, as I do, that everyone would be better off eating less sugar, but that’s not how The Sugar Association sees it.  This trade association for sugar producers funds research to demonstrate that eating sugar is a good thing and not harmful.

Here’s what The Sugar Association says:

The Sugar Association is committed to transparent engagement with researchers, external partners and consumers to address knowledge gaps and support independent, peer-reviewed science. Recent literature suggests this framework, rooted in transparency and communication and reflected in our Operating Principles, leads to increased public confidence in industry-funded research,* a goal the organization is working to achieve.

The asterisk refers to Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research, a consensus report written by, among others, representatives of the International Life Sciences Institute, a well known front group for the food industry, and other organizations with ties to food companies.

The Sugar Association lists some of its recent publications [you can’t make this stuff up]:

• Bakke AJ, Stubbs CA, McDowell EH, Moding KJ, Johnson SL, Hayes JE. Mary Poppins was right: Adding small amounts of sugar or salt reduces the bitterness of vegetables. Appetite. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.03.015. [Mary Poppins was talking about medicine, not vegetables: “Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, In a most delightful way.”]
• Bailey RL, Fulgoni VL, Cowan AE, Gaine PC. Sources of Added Sugars in Young Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Low and High Intakes of Added Sugars. Nutrients. 2018;10(1):102.

Nutrition Today Supplement: Sweet Taste Perception and Feeding Toddlers. March/April 2017 – Volume 52 [The Sugar Association funded the conference that resulted in this supplement, which it also funded].

• Dwyer JT. Good Nutrition in Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S1-S2.5.
• Bailey RL, Barr SI. Introduction: Sweet Taste Perception and Feeding Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S3-S5.
• Achterberg C. A Perspective: Toddler Feeding, Science, and Nutrition Policy. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S6-S13.
• Kleinman RE, Greer F, Cowart BJ, et al. Roundtable Proceedings: The Role of Innate Sweet Taste Perception in Supporting a Nutrient-Dense Diet for Toddlers, 12 to 24 Months Old. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S14-S24. [Kleinman is co-chair of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee]
• Murray RD. Influences on the Initial Dietary Pattern Among Children From Birth to 24 Months. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S25-S29.Johnson SL, Hayes JE. Developmental Readiness, Caregiver and Child Feeding Behaviors, and Sensory Science as a Framework for Feeding Young Children. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S30-S40.
• Hayes JE, Johnson SL. Sensory Aspects of Bitter and Sweet Tastes During Early Childhood.Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S41-S51.
• Moshfegh AJ, Rhodes DG, Goldman JD, Clemens JC. Characterizing the Dietary Landscape of Children, 12 to 35 Months Old. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S52-S59.
• Welsh JA, Figueroa J. Intake of Added Sugars During the Early Toddler Period. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S60-68.
• Palmer CA. Oral and Dental Health Considerations in Feeding Toddlers. Nutrition Today. 2017;52(2):S69-S75.

I’m indebted to Mimi Griffith for telling me about an article in Food Dive about a new product Domino must think you can’t live without: Golden Sugar.

It’s “Less Processed” !

And, “bakes and dissolves like white sugar.”  Of course it does.  It’s sugar.

OK, so it hasn’t gone through the last stage of refinement to white sugar and has a slight taste of molasses.  But it’s still sugar.

Less processed or not, Golden Sugar is sugar; it is not a health food.

Domino is taking advantage of current advice to avoid “ultra-processed” junk foods.  The company must believe that you will think this is healthier than white sugar.  Not a chance.

I”m curious to know:  Is Golden Sugar any different from the Turbinado sugar Domino currently sells?  Does Domino think you will relate this to Golden Rice, the poster child for GMO’s?  What was Domino’s marketing team thinking?

White, tan, or brown, sugar is sugar—50% glucose, 50% fructose, 4 calories per gram.

Most of us would be better off eating less of it, unprocessed or processed.

The industry newsletter, FoodNavigator.com, which I follow for its thorough coverage of this industry, has collected a set of its articles on sweeteners in a “special edition.”

Reminder: We love sweet foods.  Sugars have calories and encourage us to eat more of sweet foods.  Food companies wish they had a reasonable alternative to sugars that tasted as good and didn’t cause health problems.

Good luck with that!  In the meantime…

Special Edition: Sweeteners and sugar reduction

Food and beverage manufacturers have a far wider range of sweetening options than ever before, from coconut sugar and date syrup to allulose, monk fruit and new stevia blends. We explore the latest market developments, formulation challenges, and consumer research.

• Consumer fear of sugar is mounting – but is it deserved and what alternatives will consumers accept?  Using tactics such as “sin taxes” and a new bold-faced call-out for added sugar on the revised Nutrition Facts panel, public health advocates and regulators have targeted sugar as a primary caloric contributor in the ongoing obesity epidemic in the US – and sales data shows that consumers are listening… Read
• FDA guidance could prompt surge of interest in low-cal, tooth-friendly, rare sugar allulose:  FDA draft guidance allowing allulose to be excluded from the total and added sugars declarations on the Nutrition Facts panel could generate a surge of interest in the rare sugar, predict formulators… Read
• SmartSweets to double store count in 2019: ‘We’re making candy cool again,’ says founder:  Low-sugar confectionery startup SmartSweets is primed for solid expansion into mass and grocery this year, a move its founder says should bring Gen Y and Z back to the candy aisle… Read
• Sweeteners in focus: Where next for allulose, stevia, isomaltulose?  Are sugar alcohols losing their luster, will allulose take off, and is stevia still hot? FoodNavigator-USA caught up with Icon Foods, Cargill and Beneo to explore formulation trends as brands come under increasing pressure to reduce sugar and keep labels clean… Read
• Are zero calorie sweeteners fueling, rather than fighting, the obesity epidemic?  Are zero calorie sweeteners fueling, rather than fighting, the obesity epidemic by meddling with our metabolism or negatively altering our gut bacteria, as some critics claims? Or do they remain invaluable – and exhaustively tested – tools in the formulator’s toolbox?.. Read
• KIND challenges snack makers to better disclose sugar & sweeteners in products with an ‘X-ray’ popup:  In response to the public’s growing aversion to sugar, manufacturers across categories have reformulated and launched products made with alternative sweeteners, but increasingly consumers don’t want those either – but they also can’t as easily identify them, suggests a recent survey conducted by KIND… Read
• Amyris bids for 30% slice of stevia market by 2022 with new Reb M sweetener: ‘On a quality basis, it’s a superior product. It simply tastes better’:  Synthetic biology specialist Amyris has embarked on a mission to capture 30% of the global stevia sweeteners market by 2022 with a Reb M sweetener produced from cane sugar by a modified yeast strain, that it claims gives it a clear competitive advantage over rivals on cost and quality… Read
• Russell Stover corrects ‘brand communication problem’, brings sales growth to sugar-free chocolate product:  Russell Stover enjoyed years of market dominance when it first launched its seemingly ‘too-good-to-be-true’ sugar-free chocolate line in the ’80s. But lately, its sugar-free chocolate sales have wavered as it fell out of favor with consumers who perceived the products to be at odds with a growing better-for-you lifestyle… Read
• Lily’s Sweets CEO: ‘It feels like a mainstream trend [reducing sugar] is being boosted by a micro-trend [keto]’:  Consumers often say that if they’re going to indulge, they’d rather eat a small portion of something made with ‘real’ or familiar ingredients (butter, cane sugar, whole milk) than a more ‘processed’ low calorie/sugar/fat alternative… Read
• Finding stevia ‘polarizing’, beverage brand Petal switches up its sweetener ahead of national retail launch this summer:  Sparkling botanical beverage brand Petal has had a busy first year as the company doubled its product line with three new flavors, underwent a reformulation (swapping out stevia and erythritol for organic agave), and is now primed for national distribution in the coming months, shared CEO and founder, Candice Crane… Read
• Changes to Nutrition Facts label to call out ‘added sugar’ could save millions of lives, study suggests:  Impending changes to the Nutrition Facts label that will require products to clearly label the grams and percent Daily Value of added sugar could prevent or postpone nearly 1 million cases of cardiometabolic disease and save billions in healthcare and societal costs over the next 20 years, according to a modeling study published this month in the journal Circulation… Read
• Yeast-based production process for tagatose could unlock low GI sweetener’s commercial potential, say researchers:  A newly-engineered strain of yeast that can efficiently metabolize lactose into tagatose (a low-calorie, low-glycemic sweetener) may be the key to unlocking commercial-scale availability of the sweetener, researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign believe… Read
• Sugar taxes: The global picture:  Sugar taxes continue to hit the headlines, but the introduction of new legislation is never straight-forward. We take a look at 20 countries around the globe where sugar taxes have been in the news… Read
• SweetLeaf Stevia CEO: The sugar substitutes category is flat, but stevia products were up 31% YOY in Q1:  If fat is back with a vengeance and protein remains on trend, sugar is now public enemy number one for many consumers, who want to cut down, but remain suspicious of the ‘natural’ credentials of some alternatives. FoodNavigator-USA caught up with Carol May (CM), CEO at Wisdom Natural Brands, maker of Sweetleaf Stevia, to find out what’s happening in the US sugar substitutes aisle… Read
  

Unsavory Truth came out late last year, but I’m following up by posting recent examples of the issues it covers.  Here, for example, is a recent study that caught my eye:

The role of dietary sugars in health: molecular composition or just calories?  Philip Prinz. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2019).

A big argument in nutrition right now is whether the metabolic dysfunction that results from excessive consumption of sugars is due to the sugars themselves or to the calories they produce (or, I suppose, to both).

The author who attempted to answer this question conducted a lengthy and detailed review of research on the effects of sugars on obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other chronic conditions .  His conclusion:

Current scientific evidence does not support the conclusion that dietary sugars themselves are detrimental to human health and the cause of obesity as well as NCDs [non-communicable— chronic—diseases]. Data from human studies clearly shows that it is the excess amount of calories, also consumed in form of dietary sugars, that promotes obesity and with that favors NCDs. For sucrose, further research is needed in order to evaluate the relevance of its molecular composition, especially in comparison with other macronutrients.

In other words, you don’t have to worry about sugars; just don’t overeat anything.

So, who paid for this?

The paper provides no disclosures of funding or conflicted interests.

But if you click on Philip Prinz, you will see that he is with the Department of Nutritional Sciences, German Sugar Association, Berlin, Germany

Comment

My interpretation of this literature generally favors calories (see my book with Malden Nesheim, Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics).  As I see it, when it comes to weight gain, how much you eat matters more than what you eat, especially if your diet is reasonably healthy.

But I would be much more confident in conclusions like these if they came from a researcher whose salary did not depend on producing desirable results for a sugar association.

And everybody would be better off eating less sugar, for reasons of nutritional health, if not necessarily weight.