The sugar you swirl into your coffee also swirls in ongoing controversy. The sugar industry claims it's a harmless natural substance, while the diet and health industries claim it's an empty-calorie culprit responsible for the worldwide epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Sugar is a highly profitable crop, but diet trends affect sugar consumption and threaten the financial health of the sugar industry.
Artificial Sweeteners
The diet industry and the sugar industry have engaged in periodic battles ever since the first non-caloric artificial sweetener, saccharin, was introduced in the 1970s. The introduction of sucralose, a popular artificial sweetener whose manufacturer claimed was "made from sugar, so it tastes more like sugar," prompted a legal attack by the sugar industry. Big Sugar began a campaign against sucralose, claiming it was actually a chemical made with chlorine that lacked long-term scientific studies establishing safety, while presenting sugar as a natural alternative for health-conscious consumers. The sugar industry and the diet industry hid their main concern, money, behind concerns for public health.
WHO Recommendations
In 2003, anti-obesity and diabetes guidelines from the World Health Organization's proposed Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health recommended limiting added sugar to 10 percent or less of total calories. The sugar industry immediately attacked the guideline, claiming it was made on assumptions instead of scientific evidence. The U.S. government was expected to fight the guideline after discovery of a letter to the WHO director from a senior U.S. health department official that criticized the research linking sugar to obesity and disputed the claim that intense marketing of energy-dense foods increased the risk. A battle ensued, and Professor Kaare Norum, senior scientist of the WHO's obesity campaign, accused the U.S government of putting the health of millions in jeopardy due to links to the sugar industry. The guideline was ultimately included in the strategy despite delays due to vociferous objections by Big Sugar.
Low-Carb Diet
Although sugar consumption remained high in 2005, it was on the decline. One reason for that decline was interest in the low-carbohydrate diet -- 7 percent of Americans were following a low-carb diet, 33 percent were controlling their intake of carbohydrates, and 24 percent were trying to cut down on sugar compared with just 10 percent in 1999, according to Michigan State University's Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources. Declining sugar sales is a trend that's expected to continue in the future.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans
The 2010 edition of the USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans called for reduced sugar intake to curb high rates of obesity and related chronic diseases. Government officials claim the guidelines are science-based, and they advise Americans to eat fruit more often than sugary desserts, cut back on sugary soft drinks, and drink 100 percent fruit juice instead of fruit drinks. The sugar industry fought back, agreeing that although obesity is a problem the nation needed to address, the new guidelines were based on "emotion and speculation" and not on scientific evidence. The sugar industry also spoke out against the government's plan to highlight the sugar content of processed foods with front-of-package labeling.
References
- Harvard Law School; Sweetness Lite?: Artificial Sweetener Controversies From Saccharin to Sucralose; Lisa Burnett; April 2, 2007
- The Sugar Association; Institute of Medicine: No Scientific Justification for Sugar Intake Limits; Oct. 14, 2010
- Michigan State University; Dry Beans, Sugar and Potatoes; William A. Knudson, et al.; March 2005
- Cornell University; The Sugar Controversy; Fernando Vio and Ricardo Uauy
- "British Medical Journal"; United States Wins More Time to Lobby Against WHO Diet Plan; Owne Dyer; Jan. 31, 2004
- ChooseMyPlate.gov; Let's Eat for the Health of It; June 2011
Member Comments