Search results: sugar

The House version of the farm bill is in a mess right now and there is much to say about both its process (highly politicized) and content (thoughtless, mean-spirited, and just plain nasty).  I will be singling out specific pieces for comment every now and then.

Let’s start with a proposed amendment that the House soundly defeated.  AP reporter Candace Choi succinctly summarized the significance of this defeat: Big Sugar beats back Big Candy.

I’ve discussed our absurd Big Sugar policy in previous posts.

For decades, despite endless reform attempts, U.S. sugar policy has protected the interests of producers of sugar cane and sugar beets.

Basically, current policy maintains the price of domestic sugar at a level higher than the market price in order to protect politically powerful sugar cane growers in Louisiana and Florida, and somewhat less powerful—but far more numerous—growers of sugar beets.

American consumers pay more for sugar, but only an average of $10 per capita per year, not enough to get people upset.

The big losers are candy makers and other commercial users of cane and beet sugars.  Soft drink makers are relatively unaffected because they mostly use high fructose corn sweeteners.

Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) sponsored an amendment to the farm bill that would require the sugar industry to repay the government if and when its loan program operates at a loss.

The sugar program is not supposed to cost taxpayers any money because it keeps prices high enough so that loans get paid back.  But in 2013, prices fell and the USDA had to buy surplus sugar at a loss of $259 million. The Congressional Budget Office says that the sugar program will cost about taxpayers about $76 million over the next decade.

Nevertheless the House defeated the sugar amendment by a vote of 137 to 278.  How come?  Louisiana and Florida are key election states.  Sugar beet growers operate in practically every northern state in the U.S.

The successful fight to defeat the amendment was led by the American Sugar Alliance.  The Washington Post reports how the Alliance paid for an advertising campaign positioning the growers it represents as victims.

A full-page ad in last Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal featured a picture of two Louisiana sugar planters and the words: “Excluding us from loans available to other crops isn’t ‘modest reform,’ it’s discriminatory. Don’t cut sugar farmers out of the Farm Bill. Oppose harmful amendments.”

And so the House did.

This is only the latest episode in attempts to reform sugar policy.  Chalk this one up as a win for Big Sugar, as Candace Choi so nicely pointed out.

Here is another collection of Food Navigator articles on special topics from a food-industry perspective.

Special Edition: Sugar reduction and sweeteners

Food and beverage manufacturers have a far wider range of sweetening options than ever before, from coconut sugar to allulose, monk fruit and new stevia blends. This special edition looks at the latest market developments, the changing political landscape, formulation challenges and consumer research.

• FlavorHealth seeks to commercialize novel natural high intensity sweetener with a more sugar-like taste than stevia: New Jersey-based FlavorHealth – best known for using high-throughput cell-based screening to identify natural compounds that enhance sweetness and saltiness and reduce bitterness – is aiming to commercialize a novel natural high-intensity sweetener with a flavor profile it claims is much closer to sugar than stevia… Read

• Cargill launches EverSweet fermented steviol glycosides: EverSweet – the hotly-anticipated ‘next-generation’ Reb D and Reb M sweetener from Cargill and Evolva produced via fermentation – is now available in commercial quantities, say the partners, who have also struck a deal to explore whether other high intensity sweeteners could be produced in the same way… Read
• Icon Foods CEO: ‘Out of all of the projects that are in the R&D queue right now, allulose is dominating’: Allulose is the sweetener generating the most buzz among food formulators right now, although many are waiting to see if the FDA exempts it from sugar labeling (it’s technically a sugar, but it’s not metabolized like one), before launching products featuring the ingredient, says Icon Foods CEO Thom King… Read
• Stevia outshines aspartame as high intensity sweetener of choice in global new product launches in 2017: Mintel data* shared by stevia supplier PureCircle shows the number of global new product launches containing stevia grew by 10% in 2017, with stevia utilized in 28% of new products containing high intensity sweeteners, slightly ahead of aspartame – which featured in 25% of launches… Read
• Does diet soda promote weight gain? Debate rages in the courts as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, challenge ‘outlandish’ lawsuits: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have urged courts to toss claims in a series of lawsuits* alleging consumers are being led to believe that diet sodas “will assist in weight loss or management,” when in fact the opposite may be true… Read
• Kill Cliff exec shares challenges in marketing specialty carbohydrates in age of sugar reduction: Atlanta-based Kill Cliff, a sports beverage brand focusing on clean label formulations, launched a new line of sports drinks called Endure, which features a slow-burning specialty carbohydrate, at the Natural Products Expo West show. However, the carbohydrate may be a double-edged sword….. Read
• ‘Entirely new’ approach to sensory testing is a gamechanger for taste evaluation, claims Opertech Bio. Opertech Bio has developed a novel approach to sensory testing utilising games and rewards, which it claims enables human testers to analyze hundreds of samples in a fraction of the time – and with a greater degree of accuracy – than is possible using traditional taste panel testing… Read
• Ongoing ‘war on sugar’ is not cause for ‘panic just yet,’ stakeholders say: Despite the escalating ‘war on sugar,’ including so-called sin taxes and manufacturers’ efforts to cut-back on the ingredient in some products, industry stakeholders remain confident sugar can hold its own against competing sweeteners and reduction efforts in the coming years… Read
• Mediterranean Umami may help savory applications reduce sugar and sodium: Salt of the Earth’s Mediterranean Umami may allow simultaneous sodium and sugar reduction in clean label foods like savory sauces… Read
• Yooga has ‘drastically less sugar’ than other plant-based yogurts, claims CEO: Multiple exhibitors at the Natural Products Expo West show were showcasing plant-based yogurts this year, but each with a slightly different slant, says Jody Polishchuk, who claims his product – Yooga – delivers on taste and nutrition, without as much sugar… Watch now
• New products from KIND Snacks offer reduced sugar for healthier alternatives to competing options: For KIND Snacks, rising consumer concern about sugar and upcoming changes to the Nutrition Facts panel that will more boldly highlight the nutrient represent an opportunity – rather than a threat – to set itself apart from the competition with new products that have reduced sugar but not reduced taste… Watch now
• Sugar taxes: The global picture in 2017: Sugar taxes have continued to gain momentum in 2017, but the introduction of new legislation is rarely straight-forward. We take a look at countries around the globe where sugar taxes have been making headlines this year… Read
• Pyure Brands: Amazon can be an ‘insanely disruptive’ platform for challenger brands: Amazon can be an “insanely disruptive” platform for challenger brands willing to put in the time and effort to understand how to maximize their prospects on the site, says Pyure Brands, which is giving far larger rivals a run for their money in the stevia-based sweeteners market… Read
• HEYLO! There’s a new sugar replacer in town… and this one’s a game-changer, says ex-PepsiCo exec: The term ‘game-changer’ is bandied around with wearying regularity by food start-ups, but HEYLO – a patented combination of acacia fiber and stevia promising to blow rivals out of the water in the sugar replacement stakes – may actually warrant this moniker, argues the firm behind the new clean label ingredient… Read
• Where next for natural sweeteners? In conversation with Layn USA: Monk fruit is still more expensive than stevia, but significant progress is being made on tackling the pricing and regulatory issues that have historically held the market back, says Layn Corp, a leading supplier of monk fruit and stevia based natural sweeteners… Read

Nutrition labels may seem self-evident but it takes volumes of Federal Register notices to explain how every word works.  When it comes to food labels, the devil is in those details.

Take “Added Sugars,” coming soon to a food label near you.

How does the term apply to honey and maple syrup or, for that matter, sugar itself.  These are sugars ready to add.

Pure honey and maple syrup producers are worried that when you see grams of Added Sugars on their labels, you will think that these natural products have been adulterated with—gasp—High Fructose Corn Syrup.

The producers of sugar-sweetened cranberry products are also concerned.  They worry that the added sugars will discourage you from buying cranberries.

Here is how the FDA suggests dealing with these “problems,” in quotes because they are problems for producers, not you and me—we know what “added” means.

The purpose of this draft guidance is to advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to the use in the Nutrition Facts label of a symbol “†” immediately after the added sugars percent Daily Value information on single ingredient packages and/or containers of pure honey or pure maple syrup and on certain dried cranberry and cranberry juice products that are sweetened with added sugars and that contain total sugars at levels no greater than comparable products with endogenous (inherent) sugars, but no added sugars.

Got that?

Pure honey and maple syrup get a “†” indicating that they have no more sugar than any other comparable sugar.

Cranberries are more complicated:

With respect to the labeling of certain cranberry products, cranberries are a naturally tart fruit, and certain dried cranberries and cranberry juice products have added sugars added to them to bring the total sugars per serving up to levels comparable to the levels of non-cranberry competitor products that contain equivalent amounts of total sugars, but whose labels list zero “added sugars” because their fruit products are inherently sweet.

Did you get that?

If I read this FDA-speak correctly, the FDA is making an exception for cranberries.  It agrees that the Added Sugars in cranberries also deserve a “†”.

Why is FDA allowing this?  The Draft Guidance explains:

We received comments from the cranberry industry to the final rule and subsequent correspondence that the added sugars declaration would be detrimental to the cranberry industry by implying that cranberry products are less nutritious than competitive products that have similar amounts of total sugars and nutrients.

These comments were similar to those we received which noted that grape juice contains 36 grams of total sugar with no added sugars while cranberry cocktail, with sugars added for palatability because cranberries are naturally tart, generally contains 28 grams of total sugars including 25 grams of added sugars and has 30 fewer calories per serving than 100% grape juice.

Likewise, comments explained that sweetened dried cranberries contain 29 grams of total sugars including 25 grams of added sugars per serving while raisins contain 29 grams of total sugars with no added sugars per serving. Both sweetened dried cranberries and raisins have the same number of calories per serving and a similar nutrient profile.

In translation, you are not supposed to be concerned about the Added Sugars in cranberries.

But couldn’t you could buy real cranberries and add a whole lot less sugar than that?

Chalk this as a win for cranberry lobbyists.

The documents

• Download the Draft Guidance 
• Federal Register Notice
• Constituent Update
• Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label
• Additional Labeling Guidance

In the late 1980s, nutrition scientists identified fat and saturated fat as key nutrients that needed to be reduced in US diets.

One result was the Snackwell’s phenomenon in the early 1990s—“no-fat” cookies with just as many calories as the ones with fat.  They flew off the shelves.

Now the push is to get rid of carbs, especially sugars.  The result?  Fat is back, along with its calories (fat has more than twice the calories per gram as carbohydrates, 9 as opposed to 4).

A tweet from Kevin Bass tells the story:

Why are Americans getting fatter? A food love-story in six graphs. (P.S. It's not the carbs or the sugar.) pic.twitter.com/8V2BmIs97k

— Kevin Bass, MS (@kevinnbass) December 3, 2017

The USDA tells the same story, but with respect to specific products:

These products may be more satiating, but watch the calories!

Also watch out for the saturated fat:

If you search this site for “Sugar Policy,” you will get lots of items over the years.

Now, several members of Congress have introduced a bill, the Sugar Policy Modernization Act, to remove price supports and repeal marketing allotments and quotas.

These keep the price of sugar produced in the U.S. artificially high, but not so high that the public complains.

Industrial users of sugar—candy and soda makers, for example—want to buy sugar at cheaper worldwide market rates.

Good luck with trying to do this. Big Sugar is happy with the current system and lobbies with great effect to make sure it stays that way.

Representatives from the House Sugar Caucus (yes, there is one) sent a letter to fellow members of Congress urging them to vote against this proposal.

The Sugar Program Modernization Act would upend this success and reward the world’s worst subsidizers at the expense of U.S. sugar farmers. While a handful of food manufacturers would benefit under the Sugar Program Modernization Act, farmers, sugar workers, rural communities, and consumers would lose out. That is too steep a price to pay so multinational food conglomerates can pad their profits.

But politics makes strange bedfellows.  The American Enterprise Institute has a new analysis of sugar policies. Its key points?

• The US sugar program is a protectionist scheme destined to transfer income to sugar growers and processors at the cost of sugar users and consumers.
• The losses to consumers and users are large in aggregate for the country, in the order of $2.4–$4 billion.
• The major recommendation is the total removal of the sugar program’s main components, including tariff-rate quotas, allotments, and sugar loan rates.

It’s hard to know how this will play out this year.  History favors a win for Big Sugar.  They run politics in Louisiana and Florida,  But this too will be interesting to watch.

Is sugar under siege?

The sugar industry must think so.

Take a look at these recent industry reports:

• International Sugar Organization: An Evaluation of the Global Sugar Market Environment
• American Sugar Alliance: Sugar Market Outlook
• Sosland Publishing: Consumer Trends and Industry Response 
• Mintel: Trends in sugar, sugar reduction, and sweeteners
• Rabobank: Sweetness and Lite: How Vulnerable is Global Sugar Consumption to Food & Beverage Trends?
• The Sugar Association: The New State of Play for Sugar: Trends, Policy, Consumption and Activism 

Here’s what the sugar industry is worried about, according to The Sugar Association:

As a result of yesterday’s post, readers asked questions about sugar.  Here’s one:

Q: Is there a difference between cane and beet sugar?

A: It depends.

Both are 99.95% sucrose.

But the plants are different.  Sugar cane is grassy; sugar beets are a root vegetable.

The sucrose is extracted and refined by different methods.

And that remaining 0.05%: chefs say it makes a difference in cooking properties.

The San Francisco Chronicle did some comparative baking and then ran blind taste tests.

These showed big differences, with cane sugar a clear winner.

Who knew?

Just for fun, here’s another difference: sugar beets are about 95% GMO; sugar cane is non-GMO.

Also for fun, here’s cane-plus-beet versus high fructose corn syrup:

You know the drill.  Everyone would be healthier eating less sugar—no matter whether it comes from cane, beets, or corn.