
Sugar industry withheld possible evidence of cancer link 50 years ago - mtberatwork
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/sugar-industry-withheld-possible-evidence-of-cancer-link-50-years-ago-researchers-say
======
qwerty456127
The whole phenomenon of sugar and fructose being added to virtually everything
is beyond comprehension. There are so many people, fat and slim, saying they
don't want to be fat, yet eating foods with added sugar every day. Why not
just replace all the added sugar with erythritol, for example? The whole
situation with sugar reminds me of the situation with opium in early 19th
century China

~~~
ams6110
The reason is that in the 1970s and 80s people started freaking out about fat.
Everyone from the FDA to USDA to family doctor was telling people fat was bad.

So food producers started making fat-free versions of everything. Only problem
is it tasted like shit. So what did they do? They added sugar. So now you have
sugar added to everything from salad dressing to pasta sauce to bread and
muffins. The latter probably had some all along but the fat free varieties had
a lot more.

Edit: I'll add that saturated fat was considered especially evil, which begat
trans-fats substituted everywhere. Turned out they were even worse.

Bottom line, eat minimally processed meats and plants and you can stop
worrying about it.

~~~
gregcrv
There was no fat to remove from pasta sauce. Maybe they also figured out that
sugar was addictive and added it everywhere to sell even more food with sugar?

~~~
tigershark
You need to add sugar to contrast tomato acidity, it has nothing to do with
sugar addiction. And it has been like this since forever, not only from the
'70s. Source: even my grandmother added a pinch of sugar when cooking pasta
sauce.

~~~
AmVess
A very little bit of sugar that's in a pinch isn't any kind of a problem. Even
a tbsp isn't that much. The problem is the massive amount they put in drinks
of all types...and foods of all types. They even put it in bread for heck's
sakes.

In terms of taking the edge off of tomato sauce, shredded carrots works pretty
well. I don't use sugar in any of my cooking, and no one has noticed.

~~~
crx087
Sugar in bread is _so_ nasty to me. I can't stand to eat it, yet it's in
almost every loaf on the shelf at a supermarket with 50 types.

~~~
zaarn
Even without sugar, bread contains a lot of carbohydrates that break down
right into sugar just by coming into contact with the spit in your mouth.

If you think that's not true, simply take a sugar-low bread (check the food
label, don't just go for organic/whole-grain, those usually have more sugar)
and taste it for a while in your mouth. You'll notice it starts to become
sweeter in your mouth.

~~~
KozmoNau7
And that's actually not an issue. As you probably know, glucose is the fuel
our bodies and brains run on, and while your body _can_ break down proteins to
glucose in a pinch, it's not actually healthy (despite what proponents of
ketosis diets will tell you). It's especially hard on the kidneys.

As long as you stick to proper bread without the crazy added sugar, and
preferably whole grain (actual whole grain, not just marketing "whole grain"),
it's not an issue. Unless you try to subsist on literally _only_ bread, of
course.

~~~
zaarn
I'm not talking about various proteins and rather about starch, which is a
natural part of a good bread. The enzymes in your mouth and digestive system
will break down starch to normal Glucose without a problem.

~~~
KozmoNau7
My point is that we need carbs, it is unhealthy to subsist on protein alone.

~~~
zaarn
Obviously, yes. A balanced diet is always a better choice than any extreme
diet. Like basically anything else too.

------
DoodleBuggy
Makes you wonder what we'll find out is being withheld right now, 50 years
from now.

~~~
ashark
I sometimes wonder which materials I directly interact with on a regular basis
that people in a few decades wouldn't touch for anything short of large
amounts of money. History tells us there are probably a few. Guessing at least
a couple are plastics or plastic additives/coatings of some kind. Maybe
whatever they replaced BPA with. Possibly gasoline will qualify. Probably one
or two things currently on/in our food.

~~~
johnchristopher
Some years ago (and I mean decades) my teenage self read somewhere or heard
someone talking of the unknown dangers of some gas being released by
motherboards (think: silent killers).

~~~
Moru
That is usually flame retardant:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_retardant)

~~~
johnchristopher
Thanks, that looks like it.

------
osrec
Sugar is not far from being a drug in my opinion. It certainly feels addictive
and has a definite impact on physical and mental state (especially true with
respect to children). In that sense, it should undergo the same level of
regulation...

~~~
afterburner
I'm all for eating way less sugar, but you might as well say people are
addicted to food. The body needs energy, of course providing it with energy
alters its physical and mental state.

~~~
jmurinello
Totally agree that in current times food is an addiction. Since when do we
need to eat 3 meals a day? At least 90 percent of modern humans history, we
used hunting and gathering to survive. Only in the last 10 percent we have
agriculture, and much much later, refrigerators, supermarkets and convenience
stores. If we needed this much food our species wouldn't last a week before
agriculture. Spoiler alert: we lasted 300,000 years.

~~~
foobarge
Agreed - and it's been proven (citation needed) that a low calorie diet
prolonges life.

But here we are, needing to consume more energy because we do things (good,
bad, useless or wasteful) with our time (and these things aren't _directly_
looking for food.)

------
sillysaurus3
I recently started the Whole 30 diet (paleo), and it's nearly impossible to
avoid sugar, corn starch, and dextrose. Almost all fooeds seem to have one of
those. Often for no reason: why put sugar in beans and bacon, or corn starch
in turkey?

The amount of money I'm spending on food jumped by 3x. It seems accurate to
say that if you're poor, you're almost forced to eat sugar for economic
reasons.

~~~
obstacle1
>Almost all fooeds seem to have one of those

Almost all _prepared, packaged, or preserved_ foods have one of those.

The solution is actually pretty simple: eat meals made from base/raw
ingredients only.

Beans, nuts, meats, vegetables, fruits, vegetable oils, spices... Endless
varieties of stuff to cook with, combine, and eat alone. People just aren't
used to eating this way, because prepackaged crap has been the norm for so
long.

You are right that if you're poor, it's difficult to eat this way, though.

~~~
hydrox24
> prepackaged crap has been the norm for so long

> if you're poor, it's difficult to eat this way, though.

And it is difficult for some poor people to eat this way because their
cultural poverty exacerbates or even causes their financial poverty. Their
parents (if they were lucky enough to have two) didn't teach them to prepare
basic meals, sharpen a knife, or care for a frying pan. Each of these skills
is a barrier to entry, and they add up quickly for basic meals.

It's not the only major barrier, but I think that we have really pulled the
rug out from the poorest by exchanging cultural norms for convenience and a
net rise in costs.

------
kinkrtyavimoodh
30–40 years later we might be saying the same thing about social media.

~~~
noncoml
I wonder if people 80-100 years ago were as hysteric about radio and TV as we
are today about social media.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
They weren't. Television and especially radio were both cherished sources of
reasonably reliable information in the beginning.

~~~
dragonwriter
No, they weren't. They became, over time, accepted sources of _trusted_ and
_emotionally engaging_ information, but IIRC studies many decades ago showed
that—controlling for consumption of other news media like newspapers—increased
consumption of news content from either or both broadcast media was associated
with _decreased_ knowledge of current events. They were never sources of
_reliable_ information (and, yes, from early on there were negative reactions
against the mass acceptance, just as there are today for social media.)

------
DonHopkins
Happy Jax => Sugar Crisp => Super Sugar Crisp => Super Golden Crisp => Golden
Crisp

But it's still "Sugar Crisp" in Canada, where Sugar Bear still says "Can't get
enough of that Sugar Crisp"! Do they have better truth in advertising laws
there or something?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Crisp)

At the 1904 World Fair, the Quaker Oats Company made a candy-coated puffed
cereal, a wheat-based product similar to Cracker Jack's candy-coated popcorn.
The product concept was re-introduced unsuccessfully in 1939 by another
business as Ranger Joe, the first pre-sweetened, candy-coated breakfast
cereal. Post Foods introduced their own version in 1948. The Post version was
originally called Happy Jax, and was renamed to Sugar Crisp the next year. The
name was later changed to Super Sugar Crisp, and in 1985, it was changed again
to Super Golden Crisp. Finally, it was changed to Golden Crisp (during a time
when many cereals dropped the word "Sugar" from their titles) in the American
market.

In the early 1970s, there was a short-lived variation on the original Sugar
Crisp, called Super Orange Crisp, which had orange-flavored O's in it.

The product is still sold as Sugar Crisp in Canada. In Canada, the box still
displays the Sugar Bear mascot and the phrase "Can't get enough of that Sugar
Crisp."

~~~
toomanybeersies
Breakfast cereal companies are borderline criminal. Most cereals are just
straight sugar on some substrate.

Even most muesli/granola is loaded with sugar, whether cane sugar, honey, or
dried fruit.

~~~
zaarn
Depends on the cereal.

The corn flakes I usually eat for breakfast have basically 0 nutritional
value, I think the entire 1kg box contains about 800kJ, no sugar and the rest
of that is then mostly air or filler.

~~~
Joakal
[https://www.kelloggs.com.au/en_AU/products/corn-
flakes.html](https://www.kelloggs.com.au/en_AU/products/corn-flakes.html) This
is the most popular in Australia and it has sugar and salt. Which one doesn't
have sugar?

~~~
zaarn
I just pick my local store's brand. It's got the consistency and taste of wet
cardboard but it gets me through the morning.

------
ellyagg
Being overweight is a much stronger correlate to cancer and heart disease than
"sugar".

And, despite what you might have read in the press, it's nowhere near a
consensus that sugar is the primary cause of being overweight. You really
think a 50-year-old study is the smoking gun that's going to usher in a
consensus among nutrition scientists everywhere?

Personally, I buy Stephen Guyenet's theory that palatability is the driver of
overweight. I think it's increasing palatability and falling food costs.

~~~
zzz157
Sugar seems to pretty obviously make people overweight. Especially in liquid
form. And if this is not a consensus, well, see the title of this post. This
isn't a hard thing to test.

------
doitLP
Interesting but not surprising. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, don't
publish or cancel studies that show unfavorable results all the time and no
one makes a fuss. Who knows the loss to the community and consumers at large
in terms of knowledge and health?

Beyond that, the take away is yet again: If it's a shortcut or if it's
delicious, it's bad for you. (gazes longingly at holiday cookies on desk)

~~~
KozmoNau7
I don't know, I certainly find chicken (with skin and bone, and no salt/sugar
marinade, thank you!) with rice and plenty of veggies to be quite delicious. A
lot more delicious than cookies, honestly.

I've been trying to live by the No S Diet for a while, and it seems to be
working for me, I highly recommend it.

------
aquamo
When reading a book about Alan Turing, I came across a reference to "Natural
Wonders, 1928" by Edwin Tenney Brewster (free in iBooks and on the web) -
where he refers to Chapter 38: Of Sugar and other Poisons :=)

It's not surprising that after we made fat the demon, the supply change
replaced fat with with sugar (at least in yogurts) and type 2 diabetes is now
rampant.

:-)

------
assafmo
I started the keto diet with intermittent fasting about a month ago. Lost
13kg, doesn't have cravings anymore, doesn't feel hungry all the time, and
it's easier now to consentrate, fall asleep and wake up.

Defenetly feels like carbohydrates/sugar is poison.

~~~
devmunchies
Keto diet is terrible for you. You are losing weight because you are sick.
It's the refined carbs and sugar that are not good, you just need to get them
from whole sources with the fiber and all.

~~~
dublinclontarf
> Keto diet is terrible for you.

Because?

~~~
saladeen
In my online experience, 90% of people who straight up attack keto like this
are vegans who want to keep propping up the dogma that 'animal products = bad
for you'. They often also assume that keto = eating only meat.

------
jmurinello
I consider sugar to be no different from cocaine (not that I ever tried), but
we crave for it the same way people who consume that drug or any other, crave
for. Sugar is everywhere, and it's our main source of energy, being that our
body feels terrible when its levels are low, but as soon as you eat it feels
wonderful. The same goes with cocaine.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's a bit similar but I don't think it's good to make second-hand
comparisons. Cravings are not a simple binary. Like, if you consume cocaine
for pleasure then you can have a craving to keep doing more until you run out
or its time to go home or whatever. But below a certain threshold the craving
isn't that strong, so you could have a little bit and then get on with your
day, much as you might have a cup of coffee in the morning but you don't
necessarily want it round the clock.

~~~
jmurinello
I agree, although when it comes to sugar we way past that threshold, since
most of us crave for food many times a day when glucose levels drops.

~~~
anigbrowl
Ah sorry, I was thinking of craving in terms of 'you want it whether or not
you actually need it' as happens in abuse and addiction.

------
tengbretson
Why were they responsible for this information in the first place?

------
Fnoord
There's a plethora of E-numbers which are a safe alternative [1] (according to
the EU). I could quote them, but you might as well just click on the link
instead.

They're supposedly easy to recognize as they're in the E95? and E96? range.
Unfortunately the fear for E-numbers has caused manufacturers to stop
mentioning them and instead naming the ingredients again.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E900.E2.80.93E999_.28...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number#E900.E2.80.93E999_.28glazing_agents.2C_gases_and_sweeteners.29)

------
richardknop
Has it actually been proven that natural fats are bad for you? I always
thought fat is healthier than sugar. Both sugar and fat are required part of
healthy diet but I’d rather eat some pork sausage than ice cream or chocolate.
It seems much healthier to me but I could be totally wrong and this is just
some irrational belief I hold.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Watch out for that sausage, it's very likely to have nitrite salts in it, as
well as surprisingly high amounts of sodium and sugar.

~~~
richardknop
Is salt unhealthy? I thought that is a myth too. I think salt is required part
of healthy diet. In moderation of course.

Sugar? Hmm I didn’t know there’s much sugar in sausages. I mostly eat family
made sausages and I don’t think there’s much sugar.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Salt isn't dangerous, as long as you get enough fluids, your kidneys are
healthy and you don't overdo it. In other words yeah moderation is key, but
sausages (and other cured meats) can have a surprising salt content.

Sugar routinely gets added to a lot of foodstuffs you wouldn't expect it in.
But if you're primarily eating home-made sausages, you're probably not going
to have any issues, they're mostly in processed and ready-made foods.

------
hutzlibu
I am not sure, how appropriate this is, but a related question/poll:

there is the stereotype, that hackers/IT guys are in general fat/unhealthy.

But in my experience, this is not at all true. It might just be my circles of
people (mostly germans around 30), but most of the IT guys I know, take good
care of their body, eat healthy and do all kinds of sports. Even though some
are now starting to get lazy, the overall picture for me is, that most are
healthy, above average (compared to people of their age).

So I am curious, how the world is for other people here on HN?

~~~
propelol
People with higher education often take better care of their bodies. Here is
my theory: A couple of decades ago, IT didn't require much education, because
there weren't many schools doing IT. So many people without higher education
worked in IT.

~~~
hutzlibu
I would go more with, a lot of sad, fat kids at home, discovered the world of
computers, where they could shine, because nobody cared how they looked in the
real world, it only mattered what they could do. And this stereotype
definitely still exists, I would be curious, how many of the HN crowd fit into
it, but I can understand, that nobody wants to out himself like that.

edit: and I believe every fat person, knows and knew, that being fat is bad,
but when you are sad and eating is your allmost only joy, what can you do?
Starving and give up that little bit of happiness?

------
stefek99
I don't really understand - what's the catch?

Some other day I've heard the news they were sponsoring research that fat
makes you fat.

Capitalism baby - profit for shareholders - we need
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line)
so that it is legally OK not to harm people.

------
ohiovr
Count the isles in your supermarket, how many of them are nearly 100%
dedicated to sugar and sugary products? Think back 30 years, is this the way
you remember it? Saying diabetes and sugar aren't related while in America
there is a massive influx of diabetes diagnoses is like saying your dog ate
your homework.

------
sandov
I find it hard to follow nutritional advise when there are so many charlatans
taking advantage of women trying to lose weight without any health concern.

A Medicine degree shouldn't be necessary in order to eat well.

Any reliable source where I can learn the 'nutritional 101' in layman terms?

------
justboxing
Required viewing if you are interested in the Politics of Sugar. =>
[http://sugarcoateddoc.com](http://sugarcoateddoc.com)

Saw it on Netflix. Thought I saw it on youtube also for free, but can't seem
to find the video.

~~~
thirdsun
Only available on Netflix US and Canada as well as a handful theater
screenings. I've said it before but it almost seems as if those documentaries
try to limit their audience. I can't count the number of times I stumbled upon
interesting small, niche and independent documentaries only to find out that
they are only screening in a few limited locations worldwide without any
purchasing option in sight.

~~~
saladeen
In that case, here's the hash of the torrent:
376C45CE22B1DDE014F8AF2809BF4ECC798B4C19

------
m3kw9
The issue begins when you have the sugar industry funding the research

------
lerie82
Maybe we should all just have some moderation.

------
anindha
I wonder if we will see a class action for everyone that has developed type 2
diabetes. There is a precedent.

------
sddfd
This doesn't surprise me at all.

It took almost 40 years to prove that smoking causes lung cancer.

Similarly, despite unambiguous scientific evidence, it still seems acceptable
to deny that man-made CO2 release into the atmosphere causes global warming.

There's actually a good book covering these two instances and others:
"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues
from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"

~~~
QAPereo
Common factor: Money to be made.

Tobacco was the core of many states' economies, and still remains a massive
industry which makes many people wealthy.

Dealing with CO2 emissions would have required dealing with fossil fuel use...
and that's _tons_ of money and power in play there.

Sugar is, at the very least, another substance people crave, and has been
making people rich for hundreds of years.

Delaying tactics are feasible when you have billions or trillions of dollars,
control regulatory bodies, own politicians, scientists, and armies of lawyers.
Delaying tactics on the orders of just a few decades means generations of VP's
and C-levels getting unfathomably rich, as well as key shareholders. So...
fuck the harm, delay, delay, delay.

The key is that you have to not give a shit about anyone other than yourself,
or be genuinely deluded.

~~~
ythn
> The key is that you have to not give a shit about anyone other than yourself

This is actually quite difficult. Despite its shortcomings (and perhaps
ironically) religion can be effective at convincing people to put others first
but I would say the default behavior in most people is "I only care about
myself and family first". This default behavior is exacerbated when people
follow the influence of greed, lust, etc.

~~~
StillBored
Its a double edge sword. Most religions require suspension of critical
reasoning as well in order to "take on faith" that which cannot be proven (or
is outright wrong).

The result is basically training people to be susceptible to propaganda.

------
MrScoobs
When calories are controlled, there is no difference in health markers between
a high sugar diet vs low.

------
rubicon33
I wish someone could explain in detail what EXACTLY is meant by "sugar". It's
become an overloaded term.

When we say sugar, do we JUST mean refined, processed, isolated sugars of the
likes of candy bars, sodas, etc?

Or do we mean carbohydrates in general, which are broken down by enzymes in
our saliva (amylase) into sugars?

If the latter then can we conclude carbohydrates in general are cancer
causing? I'm no biologist, or medical professional, so this all gets really
confusing when you start thinking beyond the simple "sugar is bad" assertion.

~~~
hathawsh
Of the people I know who have been on a sugar-free diet, all of them continued
to eat carrots, even though carrots have an interesting amount of sugar.

[http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm](http://www.sugarstacks.com/carrots.htm)

So when people say they're on a sugar-free diet, I interpret that to mean they
are avoiding refined sugars.

~~~
anindha
The total amount of sugar is less important than the glycemic load and the
insulin response caused. Carrots are high in fibre.

"The glycemic index is a value assigned to foods based on how slowly or how
quickly those foods cause increases in blood glucose levels" [1]

Coca Cola® (63) vs Carrots (39). Higher is worse.

[1] [https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-
conditions/glyce...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-
conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods)

~~~
fattyboy420
Coca Cola® (63) vs White Rice (72). Higher is worse. By using that logic,
chicken nuggets and Pizza Hut beat plain potatoes. Clearly not a good recipe
for a healthy diet.

~~~
anindha
Both pizza and chicken nuggets are higher in fat and protein so don't spike
insulin or blood glucose levels. The preservatives and additives make the
Pizza Hut pizza and frozen chicken nuggets unhealthy for other reasons.

If you were making your own baked chicken nuggets or pizza from quality
ingredients then they are definitely healthier than potatoes or white rice,
assuming the calorie intake was the same.

This is counter-intuitive to most people because of all the misinformation
around the benefits of a low-fat diet [1].

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945404-the-obesity-
cod...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945404-the-obesity-code)

------
ratpik
Mobile phones companies will be next.

------
microcolonel
Fruits and vegetables are full of sucrose, it is the most commonly occurring
sugar in plants. If splitting more sucrose (or is fructose really the
problem?) increases your chance of cancer, it means very little on its own.
Would you get the same results if they matched the starches to the glucose
equivalent, rather than the same mass?

Which is why I don't see why they would bother to suppress a result like this,
but I guess the public interpretation would likely be the outrageous
"specifically refined table sugar _gives you cancer_ ", so I can't exactly
blame 'em for wanting to.

~~~
losteric
A 12 oz can of Coca Cola has _twice_ the sugar content of an apple, without
the beneficial fiber or vitamins.

How many Americans are obese because they eat too many fruits and vegetables?
An overwhelming majority are obese due to fast foods, soda, snacks, and
sweets... costing taxpayers _millions_ of dollars while companies profit from
the negative externality.

~~~
test6554
Where I come from, if a person buys and eats junk and gets obese, that's their
own fault, not the fault of the person who sells junk, and certainly not the
fault of taxpayers. Their additional costs should come out of their own
pockets.

~~~
s73ver_
That's an extremely short sighted way to look at things, which gives a
complete pass to a bunch of bad actors in the system.

Why is it always "personal responsibility", but never "corporate
responsibility"?

