Search results: sugar

I am a faithful subscriber to Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom Report on issues having to do with agriculture.  He attended the International Sweetener Symposium in San Diego and took notes.  If you want to know how the sugar industry is dealing with the “eat less sugar” message, here are some hints (wish I’d been there):

From José Orive, executive director of the London-based International Sugar Organization:

There is “sugar diarrhea” in the media, Orive said, referring to the many articles urging reductions in sweetener consumption.  “We need to talk the bull by the horns in pointing out the role of sugar in human nutrition” and talking about the importance of exercise.

From Craig Ruffolo, an analyst with McKeany-Flavell in Oakland, CA:

We need to get back to positivity, not negativity. The sugar industry has a really great message. It starts with 15 calories per teaspoon.

From Courtney Gaine, president and CEO of the Sugar Association:

“We have this obesity crisis that has become a massive economic problem,” Gaine said. The pressures on governments to address the human and economic costs of obesity have combined with “a public health community that does not trust industry” she said.

A lot of the food companies “who should be our friends” are instead reformulating products and advertising they are using less sugar, she said. Coca-Cola is replacing its “Coke Zero” with a label that reads “Coke No Sugar” and is already supplying Delta Air Lines with napkins bearing that slogan.

From Lynn Dornblaser, director of innovation and insight at Mintel, a Chicago market research firm:

“Products making low sugar claims won’t be going away anytime soon”…The “no high-fructose corn syrup” claim “is not losing its power.”

Hagstrom’s summary comes with references:

▪  American Sugar Alliance – “An Evaluation of the Global Sugar Market Environment” by José Orive
▪ “Sugar Market Outlook” by Craig Ruffolo
▪ “The New State of Play for Sugar: Trends, Policy, Consumption and Activism” by Courtney Gaine
▪ “Consumer Trends and Industry Response” by Ron Sterk
▪ “Trends in sugar, sugar reduction, and sweeteners” by Lynn Dornblaser

I can’t believe that I am writing about sugar policy again.  The Trump Administration has just gotten a preliminary agreement with Mexico about the sugar it exports to us.

Mexico says OK, (1) it won’t make us pay as much for it, and (2) it will restrict how much refined (white) sugar it sends.

This is great for U.S. sugar processors who turn raw sugar into white.  They want Mexico to send raw sugar so U.S. processing plants stay busy.

But food and beverage companies making products will have to pay more for sugar.  They belong to the Coalition for Sugar Reform, which is not happy about the agreement.

Under NAFTA, Mexico could sell unlimited amounts of sugar to us.   But our domestic sugar producers complained the Mexicans were “dumping” subsidized sugar and undercutting their prices.  In retaliation,

• We threatened to impose tariffs.
• Mexico threatened to stop buying our high-fructose corn syrup (it currently buys 80% of our HFCS).

Three years ago, we got Mexico to agree to set minimum prices and limit the amount of sugar it sells to us.  The new arrangement confirms that deal, at least for the moment.

As for us public health types, sugar policy is endlessly weird.  Domestically, we don’t produce enough sugar to meet demands so we have to import sugar from other countries.  We keep domestic prices high through quotas, buy-backs and price-support loans.  This ought to discourage consumption, but does not.

How come?  Because the higher price, amounting to billions a year overall, works out to only about $10 per year per capita.

This is not high enough to:

• Reduce sugar consumption
• Improve health
• Generate outrage

Want to read more about this?

• The  US International Trade Commission did a report in 2011 stating that a liberalized sugar trade policy would increase food sales.
• The American Enterprise Institute says higher sugar prices cost Americans almost $3 billion a year.
• Reuters: Coke, Cargill enter fray as sugar dispute threatens Mexico trade 
• Nasdaq: U.S., Mexico closer to sugar trade deal: Mexican economy minister 
• Mexican News Daily:  US sugar industry accused of lying

The British government is serious about reducing sugars, especially in the diets of children.  Its agency, Public Health England (PHE), has been hard at work for several years.

In 2014, it issued a report announcing plans for initiatives to reduce overall sugar intake: Sugar Reduction: Responding to the Challenge.

In 2015, its report provided evidence for why eating less sugar is necesssary: Sugar Reduction: The Evidence for Action.

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has concluded that the recommended average population maximum intake of sugar should be halved: it should not exceed 5% of total dietary energy. SACN also recommended that consumption of sugar sweetened drinks should be minimized by both adults and children. By meeting these recommendations within 10 years we would not only improve an individual’s quality of life but could save the NHS, based on a conservative assessment, around £500 m every year.

In 2016, a different agency of the UK government issued a plan for action to reduce childhood obesity. Among other recommendations, the plan called for taxes on soft drinks, but it also challenged the food and beverage industries to reduce sugars in products aimed at children by at least 20% by 2020, including a 5% reduction in the first year.  It said companies could do this by reducing sugar levels in products, reducing portion size, or shifting purchases to lower sugar alternatives.

In 2017, Public Health England set targets: Sugar Reduction: Achieving the 20%.

The role for Public Health England (PHE) is to advise government on setting the sugar reduction guidelines per 100 g of product and the calorie or portion size guidelines for specific single serving products. PHE is committed to publishing the category-specific guidelines for the nine initial categories of food in March 2017 and this report fulfills that commitment.

The guidelines are quite precise:

The good news: everyone has to do this so it will be an across-the-board reduction.

The not-so-good news: the reports say not one word about enforcement.

Public Health England plans follow-up reports.  Stay tuned.

• For a quick summary, see FoodManufacture.co.uk
• For the candy industry’s take, see ConfectionaryNews.com

It’s a quiet news day so let’s enjoy one of Food-Navigator’s occasional special editions in which it collects articles on a specific topic, in this case sugar marketing trends in the Asia-Pacific region:

Special Edition: Asia-Pacific’s sugar fads

From breakthroughs in ingredients to lively debate over ways to keep consumers healthy, Asia-Pacific has gained a new confidence in its approach to sugar and sweeteners. We explore this spirited segment in a new FoodNavigator-Asia special edition.

• Groundbreaking natural low-GI sugar revealed, with Nobel link: Until not long ago, Holista CollTech was best known for being the only company to produce ovine collagen using patented extraction methods. Over the last year, though, the Malaysian-Australian biotech company has courted a number of headlines in quick succession, the most recent being that it will file for a patent for natural low-GI sugar that it is developing… Read
• Thailand’s sugar major looks at ways to capitalise on high prices: Thailand’s biggest sugar manufacturer has filed a legal application with financial regulators to raise money for the expansion of its core sugar business, with proceeds to be used to build the company’s first new sugar refining factory. .. Read
• Asia-Pacific sweetener market dynamics: Asia-Pacific stands out both as a region with high sweetener consumption and consistent growth. By 2019, the region is predicted to overtake declining Western Europe. .. Read
• The age of the soda tax: Moves in Asia-Pacific: Debate over sugar taxes hit the limelight last year, with the controversial topic grabbing headlines around the globe.  .. Read
• Ethnicity not found to affect GI beverage response in Asia: The glycaemic response (GR) to beverages does not vary depending on Asian ethnicity, with Chinese, Indian and Malay displaying similar responses, a first of its kind study has established… Read
• Severe obesity rockets in Korea: Younger people at greater risk: Cases of severe and extreme obesity have doubled in Korea over the past 12 years, with people in their 20s and 30s most likely to be piling on the pounds… Read
• Chinese sweetener prices rising at last after spate of plant closures: After a year-long race to the bottom by Chinese manufacturers, acesulfame-K sweetener prices have grown steadily since May, with analysts expecting further increases then stabilisation as suppliers, including segment giant Anhui Jinhe, hold back on production… Read

Last week was a big one for comments about sugars.  I’m traveling this week but here’s a quick round-up.

• Julia Belluz of Vox explains what sugar is about (I’m quoted) and displays a great graphic of where it hides in food (here’s an excerpt).
  
• Gary Taubes, author of The Case Against Sugar, summarizes how the sugar industry attempted to manipulate research on the effects of fat v. sugar and heart disease risk.
• Yoni Freedhoff counters with a somewhat different perspective on Taubes’ interpretations and the sugar story.
• A Canadian study shows that two-thirds of packaged foods sold in Canada have added sugar.
• Canada’s new food label is causing a fuss over the sugar listing because it (a) does not distinguish between intrinsic and added sugars, and (b) sets 100 grams per day as the standard amount.  Looks like the Canadian sugar lobby won this one.

Just in the nick of time, the FDA has released rules on labeling added sugars.  and re-adjusting serving sizes, documents aimed at helping food manufacturers prepare for the sweeping update to Nutrition Facts labels set for 2018.

The FDA also released draft guidance for complying with the rules.  Here is one example from this Q and A:

7. How should I calculate the amount of added sugars in a fruit juice blend containing the juices of multiple fruits that have not been reconstituted to 100 percent (full-strength)?

If the juice blend is reconstituted such that the sugar concentration is less than what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice (e.g., less than 100% juice), the added sugar declaration would be zero. If the juice blend is reconstituted such that the sugar concentration is greater than what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice, the amount of sugar that is in excess of what would be expected in the same amount of the same type of single strength juice must be declared as added sugars on the label.

A separate draft guidance explains changes in serving sizes that also go into effect.

When does all this happen?  The rules became final in May but they do not have to be implemented until July 26, 2018.  Businesses with annual food sales below $10 million get an additional year to comply.

The elephant in the room?  Will the new administration step in and repeal the whole thing?

The relevant documents

• Draft Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels Related to the Compliance Date, Added Sugars, and Declaration of Quantitative Amounts of Vitamins and Minerals
• Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance on Questions and Answers
• Draft Guidance for Industry: Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed: List of Products for Each Product Category
• Federal Register Notice for the Draft Guidance on Reference Amounts
• Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label

Gary Taubes: The Case Against Sugar.  Knopf, 2016.

The title of this book says just what it is: a legal brief arguing that sugar is the cause of just about everything that ails us: obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, of course, but also cancer, high blood pressure and, therefore, stroke, as well as gout and Alzheimer’s disease.

This book makes a different argument: that sugars like sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup are fundamental causes of diabetes and obesity, using the same simple concept of causality that we employ when we say smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.  It’s not because we eat too much of these sugars…but because they have unique physiological, metabolic, and endocrinological (i.e. hormonal) effects in the human body that directly trigger these disorders.

Sugar, Taubes says, is the basis of a simple unifying hypothesis—insulin resistance—to explain all of these conditions.  To make this case, he provides vast amounts of evidence: historical, observational, and interventional.

Is he right?  Many of his hypotheses are testable and it is greatly to his credit that he has organized the Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSi) to do just that.

Taubes is an excellent writer, clear and compelling, and he covers an enormous territory here, from slavery to manipulation of research by the sugar industry.

I worry that focusing on one substance—sugar—smacks of “nutritionism,” reducing the complexities of dietary patterns and health risks to just sugar.   I also think questions remain about the dietary context in which we consume sugar, particularly calories but also complex carbohydrates (starch), which gets digested to sugar—glucose.  Should we not be worried about excess glucose on its own?

If I understand the last chapter correctly, Taubes ducks the question of how much sugar is OK to eat.  Or maybe it’s not ducking.  Maybe what he is saying is that the only safe level of sugar is none.

If so, that is well below the 10% of calories recommended as an upper daily limit by the US Dietary Guidelines and the World Health Organization on the basis of those committees’ reviews of the science.

Let’s get those hypotheses tested.

In the meantime, I am all for eating less sugar.

If this book encourages people to cut down on sugar, it’s all to the good.

The Associated Press reporter Candice Choi has a special interest in industry-funded research (as I do) and has been using emails obtained through FOIA requests to document connections between funders and researchers that otherwise would not come to light.

Yesterday, she reported some follow up on the article I was surprised to see published in the Annals of Internal Medicine—the one I wrote about in my last post.

Ms. Choi came up with these delicious tidbits:

• Mars Inc., which is one of the companies that funds ILSI (the International Life Sciences Institute, which funded the study in the Annals charging that dietary guidelines for sugar are based on weak evidence), is now denouncing the study on the grounds that “the paper undermines the work of public health officials and makes all industry-funded research look bad…[and] creates more doubt for consumers rather than helping them make better choices.”
• Mars is saying this even though emails show that two Mars executives knew about the study last year.
• Mars now said it will make clear to ILSI hat it does not support such work.
• ILSI’s executive director says ILSI devised the concept for the study, but the paper originally said that the authors wrote the protocol and conducted the study independently from the funder. Oops.  When confronted with the Associated Press emails “showing the group sent the authors ‘requested revisions’ on the proposal last year,” the journal corrected that statement to make clear that ILSI “reviewed and approved” the protocol.
• One of the authors did not fully disclose her consulting and research agreements with companies that make high-sugar foods.  The AP had emails demonstrating this author’s financial ties to Coca-Cola and to ILSI for a previous grant on the same topic.  The Annals now show a more complete disclosure statement.

The point of all this is that when food companies sponsor research, they sometimes are much more involved in it than they would like to let on.

Mars is right.  These kinds of incidents make all industry-funded research look bad.  Mars should know.  It funds research to make chocolate look like a health food.