Currently browsing posts about: Sugars

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 industry-funded International Food Information Council has just announced the release of it 12th annual Food and Health Survey.  This asks people what they think about a wide range of consumer issues related to food and nutrition.

The report is full of interesting tidbits about how Americans think about food issues.

Or this one:

This one is impressive:

And here’s my favorite:

Lots of interesting material here, all to be taken with some degree of caution since the data come from an online survey taking 22 minutes to complete.

USDA researchers produce lots of data and sometimes summarize it all in handy charts.

Here are three examples:

1.  Who makes money from food?  Food services—34.4 cents on every dollar.  Farmers?  8.6 cents on average.

2.  How sweet is the food supply?  Less than it was in 2000 but more than in 1990.  Most of this can be explained by the decline in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

3.  What happening with food assistance?  The peak in federal spending for all of the programs came a few years ago, but the amounts are now declining.    SNAP is the big one—about $75 billion last year.

Ag policy in snapshots.  More to come.

FoodNavigator-USA, a food-industry newsletter that I read regularly, publishes occasional “Special Editions,” meaning collections of articles it has published on specific topics.  This one is on Sweeteners and Sugar Reduction,

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. It will also address some labeling and regulatory issues affecting the market, from new FDA requirements to list added sugar on the Nutrition Facts label and the extent to which the ‘GMO factor’ is impacting purchasing decisions for sweeteners.

• Senomyx unveils ‘natural’ sweetener breakthrough, plans GRAS notification by end of 2019: Senomyx has identified a new zero-calorie, high-potency sweetening compound found in trace levels in monk fruit, which it plans to produce on a commercial scale via fermentation… Read
• Consumers want stevia from the leaf, says PureCircle: ‘They want naturally-sourced plant-based ingredients’: As the technology around producing steviol glycosides continues to evolve, transparency in labeling will be critical if consumer trust in ‘natural’ sweeteners is to be retained, says PureCircle, which claims to be the “clear market leader in terms of production capacity and R&D” when it comes to stevia extracts… Read
• Where next for stevia? From designer glycoside blends to fermentation and enzyme modification: If high purity Reb A used to be the only game in town when it comes to stevia, the game has become a lot more sophisticated in the past couple of years as suppliers compete to provide the best-tasting combinations of steviol glycosides, and products become more application-specific, says Sweet Green Fields chief science officer Mel Jackson PhD… Read
• Allulose could change the sugar reduction game… if labeling rules are changed, says Tate & Lyle: Allulose – an ultra low-calorie sugar found naturally in jackfruit and figs that Tate & Lyle is making in commercial quantities from corn using enzymes – has got some high profile advocates including Quest Nutrition, but would gain significantly more traction if manufacturers were not required to include it as added sugar on US food labels, says Tate & Lyle… Read
• FDA issues GRAS no objection letter for Sweegen’s Bestevia Reb-M – which starts with the leaf, then undergoes ‘enzymatic conversion’: California-based SweeGen has received a GRAS no objections letter from the FDA for the use of its Bestevia branded Reb-M – manufactured from stevia leaf extracts converted to Reb M using enzymes – for use as a general purpose sweetener for food and beverage applications in the US… Read
• Big Tree Farms unveils golden coconut sugar to compete with refined white sugar: ‘This is going to be a truly disruptive sweetener’: Big Tree Farms has developed a paler, finer ‘golden’ organic Fair trade coconut sugar that can replace refined white sugar in applications where coarser, darker coconut sugars aren’t ideal, says the company, which has been selling coconut sweeteners for a decade and is still generating double digit growth year-on-year as consumers embrace their ‘unrefined’ and low-GI credentials… Read
• New kid on the block explores novel business model for stevia production: California-based B’BOX Group claims to have developed a proprietary technique for producing clean-tasting, high-purity stevia extracts that is so fast and cost-efficient that it says leading CPG manufacturers are considering buying the technology and producing their own sweeteners – a new model for the industry… Read
• ADM teams up with GLG Lifetech to add stevia and monk fruit to its portfolio: ADM is bringing two sweetener brands, SweetRight stevia and VerySweet monk fruit, to market following a tie up with Canadian high potency sweeteners specialist GLG Lifetech… Read
• Should foods high in added sugar be disqualified from making nutrient content and health claims?  High levels of added sugar should disqualify foods from being able to make health claims, or nutrient content claims such as ‘healthy’ or ‘high fiber,’ argues a citizen’s petition filed last week by the nonprofit advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists… Read
• Confused about added sugar? FDA issues draft guidance on Nutrition Facts changes: The FDA has attempted to clear up some of the confusion over defining and calculating added sugar, in new draft guidance designed to help firms get to grips with the key changes it is making to the Nutrition Facts panel… Read
• Sparkling ICE unveils $37m ad campaign, queries soda tax inconsistencies: ‘It’s a mess’: Talking Rain Beverage Co has unveiled a $37m national ad campaign that president Kevin Klock says will give Sparkling ICE a stronger brand identity – something it has historically lacked, despite its meteoric growth (estimated retail sales have surged from around $10m in 2011 to well over $600m today)… Read
• Ag Committee weighs whether SNAP should pay for sugary drinks: Prohibiting the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and other “unhealthy” foods and beverages with SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps, likely would not discourage their consumption, but would be costly and difficult for retailers to implement, industry stakeholders argued on Capitol Hill last week. .. Read
• Kellogg, Post & General Mills hit with wave of lawsuits as plaintiff’s bar turns up the heat on sugar: If a high percentage of the calories in your product are from added sugar, and you are stating or implying that it’s healthy and nutritious, are you at risk of a false advertising lawsuit? A flurry of lawsuits recently filed vs Kellogg, General Mills and Post Foods suggest the answer is yes, although legal experts predict the plaintiffs face an uphill battle… Read
• Misfit Juicery’s two-prong approach to addressing the anti-sugar trend’s threat to juice: Startup Misfit Juicery is taking a two prong approach to the growing threat to the juice category posed by consumers’ increasing concern about sugar, and in doing so is setting itself apart from the competition… Read
• Health advocates argue for a tax on sugary drinks in Canada to save lives and healthcare costs: Twenty-four public health advocates and organizations are calling on the Canadian government to levy a significant tax on manufacturers of sugary drinks to discourage consumption and help fund healthy living initiatives… Read
• In age of sugar reduction and ‘clean label,’ sweetener manufacturers adapt: A combination of shifting consumer demand for ‘clean label’ and a new FDA requirement to list added sugars on nutrition panels means sweetener manufacturers are navigating through new territory… Read
• Chicago snack start-up No Denial Foods targets low-sugar shoppers seeking indulgence: “Sugar is the new fat” when it comes to dietary villains, says No Denial Foods Founder Debbie Wood. “Sugar is going to be on a lot of people’s radar.”.. Read

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

I’m out of the country for a few weeks (México) and missed the House hearing on whether SNAP-eligible food items should continue to include sugary beverages.

From what I gather, most witnesses opposed any change in the program, with one from the American Enterprise Institute the lone holdout.

As I discussed in the chapter on SNAP in Soda Politics, I continue to think that taking sugar-sweetened beverages out of the package is a no brainer.

• They are sugars and water and have no nutritional value.
• Tons of research links their consumption to a higher risk for obesity and its consequences.
• SNAP recipients spend a lot of taxpayer money on them.
• SNAP recipients may well have worse diets and higher proportions of chronic disease than equally poor people who do not get SNAP benefits.
• Surveys say that SNAP recipients would not mind this change.
• SNAP recipients can always buy sodas with their own cash.

I recognize that not everyone sees things this way.  I suspect that people opposed to this idea are worried that any change to SNAP will leave it vulnerable to cuts, and they could well be right.

Here are their arguments:

• The Hill: Restricting what recipients of SNAP benefits eat won’t fix nutritional issues
• FoodDive: Grocery and food industry to Congress: No SNAP soda ban
• Washington Post: How liberals undermine the food stamp program
• Politico: Few fans for restricting SNAP purchases

Politico provides some sound bites on the topic:

• “Food surveillance violates the basic principles of this great country.” — Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.)
• “What can we do to incentivize rather than punish?” — Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.)
• “If you want to do a pilot program, I’m happy to co-sponsor one at the White House. I’m worried about our president’s eating habits.” — Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.)

The state of Maine, however, has just renewed its request to USDA to remove sugar-sweetened beverages and candy from SNAP-eligible items.

Maine believes the purchase of sugar sweetened beverages and candy is detrimental to the health of the SNAP population, and is antithetical to the purpose of the SNAP program.

SNAP is supposed to be a nutrition program, no?  Nutrition is about a lot more than calories (and this from someone who wrote a book about calories).

The USDA has just issued a report on trends in per capita food availability from 1970 to 2014.

Here’s my favorite figure:

The inner ring represents calories from those food groups in 1970. The outer ring includes data from 2014.

The bottom line: calories from all food groups increased, fats and oils and the meat group most of all, dairy and fruits and vegetables the least.

The sugar data are also interesting:

Total sugars (blue) peaked at about 1999 in parallel with high fructose corn syrup (orange).  Table sugar, sucrose, has been flat since the 1980s (green).

Eat your veggies!

Last week I posted this about Canada’s new food label:

• 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.

I received a note from a reader who sent an article from the Canada Gazette giving some of the background for these decisions.

The government did a cost-benefit analysis of the then-proposed label:

Costs were estimated based on the inclusion of all regulatory options that were presented during consultations (i.e. the U.S. approach for added sugar, mandatory inclusion of vitamin D in the NFt). Stakeholders indicated that the cost would be a maximum of $727.1 million and with the removal of outliers, $598 million. However, the decision to use a Daily Value approach for sugars instead of added sugars would significantly lower these costs…The coming-into-force period of 5 years was chosen to minimize the cost of implementing the proposed amendments.

How did the Daily Value get to be 100 grams per day, twice the U.S. Daily Value of 50 grams?  All it says is:

A DV of 100 g is being proposed for sugar, and the declaration of the % DV for sugar in the NFt would be mandated for all foods.

Food industry politics in action!