Search results: sugar

My upstate New York edition of the New York Times today carries a full-page, full-color advertisement from the Corn Refiners Association: “A little sweetness in life is good. And what sweetens a lot of our favorite foods and beverages are sugars made from corn, such as high fructose corn syrup. It has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey. And the same number of calories. But like most foods, sweeteners should be enjoyed in moderation. Please visit our website and learn the facts.”

I went right to the website and took the quiz. If you were wondering why this group would buy an expensive ($80,000?) ad like this, check out question #3: “Which of the following sweeteners is considered a natural food ingredient? (a) High fructose corn syrup, (b) Honey, (c) Sugar, (d) All of the above.”  Aw come on.  You can guess.

The soft drink industry is using the latest research findings to argue that vending machines in schools are not the problem in childhood obesity, and it’s what kids drink at home that matters. The research in question finds that adolescents get 10% to 15% of their calories from sugary beverages. Average intake among 2 to 5 year olds is 176 calories per day; among 12 to 19 year olds it is 356. Overall average intake rose from 240 calories/day in 1988 to 270 in 2004. Doesn’t what kids drink in school influence what they drink at home, and vice versa? Never mind. Try this one: a new meta-analysis – coincidentally (?) sponsored by the American Beverage Association–finds no relationship between consumption of sweetened beverages and body mass index. High marks to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition for printing a rather tough sponsorship note: “The research proposal to the sponsor was approved as submitted, but the sponsor requested that an independent expert on meta-analysis—to be chosen by the authors—review the manuscript…One author (MLS) accepted a position with the sponsor after the first decision letter regarding the manuscript was received.” Could this cozy relationship have anything to do with the way the study was designed and conducted? Just asking.

The New York Times reports that the organic version of Similac infant formula is made with organic cane juice – sucrose – not lactose (milk sugar). Sucrose is sweeter than lactose; infants love it. Sucrose encourages infants to drink more formula and could promote weight gain.

But the goal of formula companies is to sell as much formula as possible. Because the number of formula-drinking babies is small and fixed, they either have to expand the number of mothers who use formula (rather than breast feed), or encourage infants to drink more. Either approach raises ethical issues. But why else would Abbott Labs, the maker of Similac, put sucrose in formula and organic formula at that? Can’t the company find a source for organic lactose? Is organic cane juice cheaper? And try this for a price comparison: at my local Duane Reade, organic Similac is nearly $31 per can, whereas Earth’s Best is just $26. This makes Earth’s Best a much better buy, especially because it uses organic lactose. Sucrose in infant formula? That’s one more good reason to breast feed.

The latest consumer survey from the International Food Information Council has arrived, along with its press release. When it comes to food, Americans say one thing but do another (no surprise, this). The respondents to this survey are confused about calories, sugars, and fats, are buying lots of functional foods (although not as many as marketers would like), are not exercising enough, and are not taking nearly enough responsibility for food safety. For those of you interested in public health nutrition, there is much work to be done. Get busy!

The April issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association carries three research papers on the current state of food marketing to children. One finds that websites targeted to kids carry advertising for junk foods. One compared breakfast cereals marketed to children to those marketed to adults; the kids’ cereals had more calories, sugars, and salt but less fiber and protein (oh, great). The third looked at Saturday morning TV and found 90% of the food commercials to be for junk foods. Hmm. Doesn’t sound like much has changed since the Institute of Medicine’s call for stopping all this (or at least slowing it down). Time to hold food companies accountable, I think.

According to Food Navigator, the FDA says it’s too busy to deal with the question of whether high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) can be labeled as “all natural,” something the Sugar Association and Sara Lee would dearly love to be allowed to do. This non-action, in effect, is the FDA’s way of just saying no. HFCS, as the FDA points out, requires enzymes to break starch into glucose and to convert some of the glucose to fructose, and that ain’t necessarily natural.  The Sugar Association is “deeply disappointed” in the FDA’s decision.  Why am I not surprised?

The USDA is a big, complicated agency with many units working at apparent cross purposes. I particularly like the work of the Economic Research Service, which produces reports on many interesting aspects of the food economy. Here is a new one, for example, on trends in the availability of foods for consumption by Americans from 1970 to 2005. This is not a report on what people actually eat. “Availability for consumption” means foods produced in the United States, less exports, plus imports, divided by the total population. My favorite figures from the report: added fats and oils account for 32% of caloric availability (this does not count the fat normally present in foods), and added sugars are up 19%. Dietary recommendations suggest consuming no more than 8 teaspoons of sugars a day; 30 are available per capita. This report does not give nutrient information, but other USDA/ERS reports show that the number of calories available for consumption increased from 3,200 to 3,900 per person per day over that period. If more food is available, more of it has to be sold….

Correction: make that 4,000 calories per person per day in the latest USDA report.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is requiring chain restaurants to post nutrition information on menu boards–not just calories, as in New York, but also fat, carbohydrates, and sodium. Carbohydrates but not sugars? All that? It will be interesting to see how this works in six months when the rule goes into effect.