Disinformation » sugar

Sugar Should Be Regulated As A Toxin

majestic — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 01:18:41 +0000

Personally I’d prefer to see the likes of aspartame, saccharin, sucralose and the other artificial sweeteners outlawed (not to mention the ubiquitous High-Fructose Corn Syrup) … From Live Science via Yahoo News:

A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco…

[continues at Live Science via Yahoo News]

The Fake Sugar Rush

majestic — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:12:22 +0000

Can ingesting so many sugar wannabes be a good thing? Remember that saccharin and aspartame were once touted as safe and calorie free before they were found to be totally toxic. Anne Marie Chaker reports for the Wall Street Journal:

At the Whole Foods Market in Silver Spring, Md., the self-serve coffee counter offers four types of milk and nearly every imaginable alternative to granulated sugar. There’s unrefined sugar, evaporated cane juice, agave nectar—and a no-calorie sugar substitute called Truvia.

The green packets are tucked behind the cash register; if you want it, you have to ask. That’s because they have a way of disappearing. “People take a lot more than they need,” says Liz Burkhart, a Whole Foods spokeswoman.

Truvia’s maker, agricultural giant Cargill Inc., of Minneapolis, is aware that consumers often stock up on Truvia packets at coffee bars and in restaurants. Zanna McFerson, vice president and business director for Cargill Health and Nutrition, says Cargill is developing a dispenser that would limit the number of packets a consumer can take at once.

One reason Truvia is so appealing is its position as a “natural” alternative to aspartame, saccharin and other chemically derived sugar substitutes. Fans say they think Truvia’s taste and texture are closer to sugar than those of older entries. It’s true that Truvia pours out of the packet in convincing crystal-like granules, not in a powder. And when sprinkled on top of foods such as cereal, Truvia crunches.

Some detractors, though, complain of a Truvia aftertaste, especially when it is used in coffee. And many customers blanch at the price. A 40-count box of Truvia packets retails for $4.29 at the Giant Foods supermarket in Silver Spring, compared with $2.99 for a 50-count box of Splenda.

Few consumer products have been a greater marketing challenge than no-calorie sweeteners. Companies have devoted teams of scientists to trying to develop better-tasting sugar-substitutes. “I don’t think anyone’s cracked the code,” says Allen Adamson, managing director of the New York office of brand-consulting firm Landor Associates. Consumers resist, whether complaining about taste or worrying about safety.

Taste “used to be the only thing [marketers] had to worry about,” Mr. Adamson says. “Does it taste good? Is there an aftertaste?” Now, he says, “the new challenge is to alleviate the lingering concerns . . . . Did they really test it on enough rats over a long enough period of time?”…

[continues in the Wall Street Journal]

Drinking Diet Soda Increases Risk Of Stroke

majestic — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 12:54:24 +0000

No matter what new chemical concoctions the corporate food companies put in “diet” (i.e. low calorie) carbonated beverages (variously known as soda, pop or other terms depending on where you live) to replace sugar, it’s not natural and it’s not good for you. Just think of the various health risks later discovered from saccharin and aspartame. Now it turns out that stroke is another of the health hazards. Stick to sugar — in moderation! From the South Asia Mail:

New research is raising fresh worries about diet soft drinks, noting that people who drink them every day have a higher risk for strokes and heart attacks compared to those who drink no pop at all.

But the researchers are quick to point out that their study does not prove that diet soft drinks cause heart attacks or strokes. They note there could be other aspects about diet pop drinkers that accounts for the increased risk that they observed.

The research was presented this week at the American Stroke Association’s International Stroke Conference 2011. It found that people who drank diet pop every day had a 48 per cent higher risk of stroke or heart attack than people who said they never drank the stuff.

The study’s lead researcher, Hannah Gardener, an epidemiologist at the University of Miami, says she has no idea why diet soft drinks could be risky.

It may be that people who drink lots of diet pop also tend to have a poor lifestyle that raises their stroke risk. That poor lifestyle could include smoking, drinking too much alcohol, not exercising enough or having high blood pressure and smoking.

However, the researchers tried to take into account these known stroke risk factors. And yet, they still didn’t see a change in the link between drinking diet pop and increased stroke risk.

“If our results are confirmed with future studies, then it would suggest that diet soda may not be the optimal substitute for sugar-sweetened beverages for protection against vascular outcomes,” Gardener said in a news release…

[continues in the South Asia Mail]

Proof: Corn Syrup Makes You Fatter Than Sugar

majestic — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:47:29 +0000

I never buy anything that has “high fructose corn syrup” on the list of ingredients, to the annoyance of certain members of my household. Now a research team at Princeton University can back up my assertions that it’s far worse for you than sugar, as reported in Princeton’s News Site:

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”

In results published online March 18 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity…

[continues at Princeton's News Site]

Sweetened Soda Drinks Increase Risk Of Pancreatic Cancer

majestic — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:35:27 +0000

Many of us know that consumption of sugar (or more likely corn syrup) -laden carbonated drinks is a major cause of the obesity epidemic (see the disinformation® documentary Killer At Large for more on that), but now it seems that they can lead to pancreatic cancer too. From Minnesota Public Radio News:

Minneapolis — A University of Minnesota study shows that consuming a lot of soft drinks appears to increase a person’s risk of pancreatic cancer.

The findings are based on the dietary habits of more than 60,000 Chinese people who were observed for 14 years.

The study found a nearly two-fold increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer among people who consumed at least two carbonated, sugar-sweetened beverages per week compared to those who did not consume soft drinks.

U of M Researcher Mark Pereira said people who drink soda release a jolt of insulin into their pancreas, which may overwhelm the organ.

“They’re pretty much all sugar, stimulate a lot of blood glucose, blood sugar and then insulin,” Pereira said. “And as we know, the consumption of soft drinks in our society is very common and the portion sizes are unfortunately very large; so lots of sugar, lots of insulin.”…

[continues at Minnesota Public Radio News]

How Sugar Made Tycoons Out Of A Religious Sect

majestic — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:56:36 +0000

Multinational junk-food company Kraft’s takeover of Britain’s mass-market chocolatier Cadbury has stimulated all sorts of criticism, especially from xenophobic newspapers like the Daily Mail, with its Keep Cadbury British campaign. Now the British media are looking at Cadbury’s religious roots, asking how sugar made tycoons out of a religious sect. Just one of several similar reports, from the BBC:

Cadbury, which has been sold to US firm Kraft, is one of several great British firms founded by Quakers. But how did they gain such a stranglehold on the chocolate industry and why were they so successful in business?

For a religious sect more interested in championing social reform than industry, the Quakers have established an impressive roll call of household business names.

Barclays and Lloyds banks, Clarks shoes, Bryant & May matches and the biscuit firms Huntley & Palmers and Carrs are just a few of the companies founded by members of the pacifist group.

But when it comes to confectionery, there has been a virtual monopoly for more than a century, led by Cadbury of Birmingham, Fry’s of Bristol and Rowntree’s and Terrys of York.

This achievement is all the more remarkable given the tiny numbers of Quakers. In 1851 they only accounted for about one in 1,400 of the population of 21 million in England, Scotland and Wales – less than 0.1%.

The move into chocolate began with cocoa drinks in the 19th Century as a reaction against the perceived misery and deprivation caused by alcohol, says Quaker historian Helen Rowlands.

“Quakers and other non-conformists at the time were concerned about levels of alcohol misuse in the population at large, they were part of the temperance movement.

“Cocoa was a way of providing cheap and available drink. It was healthy because you had to boil the water to make it when they didn’t have good water supplies.”

There was a friendly rivalry between the manufacturers, many of whom started out as general grocers, but also a fraternity.

“There were certainly strong networks between them. They knew one another from their church-based life, and because of the way they had been excluded and persecuted on the edge of society, there was a strong sense they should help each other out,” says Ms Rowlands.

“So they developed strong business networks as well as personal ones.”

As they moved into producing chocolate bars, several of the Victorian Quaker firms bought new cutting-edge machinery and established a competitive edge over other producers.

[more at the BBC]