Currently browsing posts about: Sugars

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.

Just in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, government agencies are, at long last, taking action on food issues.

Two examples:

I.  The Federal Trade Commission has issued warning letters to trade associations and dietitian-influencers they paid to promote sugar and aspartame on social media.

The letter to AmeriBev detail concerns about posts on Instagram and TikTok by Valerie Agyeman, Nichole Andrews, Leslie Bonci, Keri Gans, Stephanie Grasso, Cara Harbstreet, Andrea Miller, Idrees Mughal, Adam Pecoraro, and Mary Ellen Phipps, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to The Canadian Sugar Institute expresses concerns about Instagram posts by Jenn Messina and Lindsay Pleskot, each of whom also received an individual warning letter.

The letter to American Beverage (formerly the American Beverage Association) gives the “or else.”

We strongly urge you to review your social media policy. You should also review the Instagram, TikTok, and other social media posts made by your endorsers as to whether they contain sufficiently clear and conspicuous disclosures of any material connections to the American Beverage Association. To help guide your review, please see the Endorsement Guides3 and the staff publication FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking. Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a federal district court injunction or an administrative cease and desist order

This action comes as a result of the investigative report in the Washington Post (it is cited in the letter).  I wrote about the Post article here and also posted the the response from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

The Post investigative team had this to say about the FTC’s warning letters.

Federal regulators announced warnings against two major food and beverage industry groups and a dozen nutrition influencers Wednesday, as part of a broad action to enforce stricter standards for how companies and social media creators disclose paid advertising.

Comment: Let’s hear it for the power of the press!

II.  New York State Attorney General sues PepsiCo for plastic pollution

New York Attorney General Letitia James today filed a historic and groundbreaking lawsuit against PepsiCo Inc. (PepsiCo) for harming the public and the environment with its single-use plastic packaging. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that single-use plastic produced by PepsiCo contributes significantly to high levels of plastic pollution along the Buffalo River, pollution that is contaminating drinking water and harming wildlife.

…PepsiCo, which is headquartered in New York state, manufactures, produces, and packages at least 85 different beverage brands and 25 snack food brands that predominantly come in single-use plastic containers. Plastic packaging has become a persistent and dangerous form of pollution along the shores of the Buffalo River and in its watershed. In 2022, OAG conducted a survey of all types of waste collected at 13 sites along the Buffalo River and its tributaries and found that PepsiCo’s single-use plastic packaging was the most significant. Of the 1,916 pieces of plastic trash collected with an identifiable brand, over 17 percent were produced by PepsiCo. PepsiCo’s plastic packaging far exceeded any other source of this identifiable plastic waste along the river, and it was three times more abundant than the next highest contributor.

According to the New York Times, PepsiCo:

has said it aims to make all of its packaging “recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or reusable” by 2025. The company also says it wants to cut virgin plastic by 50 percent by 2030, compared with 2020.

The company is now being held accountable for that promise.  What a concept!

Comment: While soda-and-bottled-water companies profess commitments to reducing plastic waste, they fight recycling laws (those that require bottle deposits returnable when the bottle is returned) in every way possible.  Attorney General James is doing something quite remarkable; she is holding PepsiCo accountable for some of the externalized costs of producing sodas, bottled water, and snacks.  I hope this sets a strong precedent.  Kudos!

Hand Cardullo writes in Forbes: 87% Of Sweetened Products Contain Added Sugars Only, Study Finds.   

That seemed interesting.  But then I got to the sub-headline: New Georgetown University report cites need for more low- and no-calorie sweeteners.

As public health officials clamor to remove added sugars from food and beverage products, a new study published by the Georgetown University Business for Impact Center signals that there is much heavy lifing ahead (full disclosure: I served as an author of the paper). The report noted that added sugars dominate products containing sweeteners, with 87% of items formulated this way. Only 8% of sweetened items contain low- or no-calorie sweeteners (LNCS) only, with 5% consisting of a combination of the two. The paper concluded that increased use of LNCS was necessary to eliminate meaningful amounts of added sugars and that LNCS offered effective and safe ways to do so.

Cardullo says: “Here are some things to consider:

• If public health organizations want to achieve their added sugar reduction goals, they must step up and communicate the efficacy and safety of LNCS in helping consumers manage and lose weight. This will go a long way in helping to clear up consumer confusion.
• The evidence suggests that the public health community must use only the best studies to advance firm points of view on the use of LNCS.
• To help reduce added sugars, food and beverage companies should incorporate LNCS into more of their products.”

Really?  My usual question: Who paid for this?

The paper: Moving Towards Healthier Eating Habits: Why Low- and No-Calorie Sweeteners Play a Critical Role

The funder: “Funding for this paper was provided by the Calorie Control Council” [an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry].

Comment: Here is one of the figures from the paper.

This shows that 24% of added sugars come from sugar-sweetened beverages, and another 19% come from desserts and snacks.

Cutting down on both is a good idea on its own, and one that does not require the addition or substitution of artificial sweetneners.

Halloween is about candy, no?  Here are four thoughts on the topic.

I.  From CagleWorld.com

II.  From The CandyStore.com.

III.  From Consumer Reports: What 100 calories of Halloween candy looks like. 

IV.  From my son Charles, who forwarded this, I know not from where:

Enjoy the occasion!

Everything in moderation!

Not being a particular fan of Dunkin’ Donuts, I somehow missed this astonishing drink.

But the esteemed journalist Eric Schlosser, sent me a link to this video tweet (oops, X).

This is INSANE. pic.twitter.com/2TwuSaOofF

— David Belle (@davidbelle_) September 13, 2023

I did not believe it, but excellent journalist that he is, Eric sent me the DUNKIN’ NUTRITION evidence.  Go to page 6 and check out the highlighted item: 930 calories and 167 grams of added sugars (but see NOTE below)

No, you could not make this up.

930 calories, by the way, is about half of what many people need in a day.

Advice: share this with friends—plural.

NOTE: a sharp eyed reader points out that it’s not a pumpkin latte; it’s a large pumpkin swirl frozen coffee with whole milk.  Whatever.