
Industry pushes sugary products, while obfuscating the health hazards - laurex
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2018/12/412916/sugars-sick-secrets-how-industry-forces-have-manipulated-science-downplay-harm
======
foxfired
I started to notice that sugar content has increased in sodas.

I used to work in a grocery store 12/13 years ago, and I remember stacking
sodas on the shelves. The sugar content was 35g. I stacked them everyday so as
far as I remember this was the norm at the time for a one serving in
California.

Only a couple months ago, I started looking at the labels of sodas again. The
content varies from 39g to 55g in California.

I was recently in Utah, and I took a picture of label of ginger ale. I
compared it to the exact same can in California, the one in CA has less sugar
content.

~~~
nradov
Are you sure that's adjusted for serving size?

~~~
cyphar
Does the US not have a section telling you the nutritional content per-100g
(or 100mL or whatever "standard" measurement you folks have) so you can
compare products? Or is everything given in serving sizes (which can be
arbitrarily chosen by the producer)?

~~~
DanBC
55g of sugar per 100ml of product would be insane. Coca Cola has about 10-12g
per 100ml. Starbucks Mulled Fruit Drink (widely reported in the UK as a very
sugary drink) has about 14g per 100ml.

~~~
cyphar
That wasn't my point -- I was confused that there isn't a standard way to
compare food content in the US. In Australia, by law, nutritional information
contains a column with the "serving size", and a column for 100g or 100mL of
the product so you can compare similar products much more easily) I can only
imagine how difficult it would be to compare the nutrition between two
different drinks or foods if they have different container sizes.

In other words, you could easily track the change in sugar content over the
years if you paid attention to the "per 100{g,mL}" column without having to do
any maths.

~~~
DanBC
Sorry, yes, I agree with you.

------
maxxxxx
It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything. Just looked at my
girlfriend's Starbucks Chai tea container. 100g sugar! She would be better off
drinking a bottle of Coke. And Starbucks are supposed to be good guys .

On a related note: how do they get that much sugar into these drinks? If I
made a liter of Chai tea and poured 100g sugar into it I don't think it would
be drinkable.

~~~
paganel
> It's mind boggling how much sugar is in everything

I remember traveling to Western Europe a couple of years ago (I live further
East) and trying to buy plain yogurt from a supermarket, I mean yogurt which
should have tasted as close as possible to the one my peasant grandma used to
make. It was close to impossible to find such a product, as even the yogurt
labeled as "plain" had a sweetish taste, you could definitely tell that they
had put sugar in it. I imagine that in the US the state of affairs regarding
sugary foods is even worse.

~~~
MrBuddyCasino
Can’t be Germany, natural yoghurt is commonly available here. And yes, US
makes it very difficult to buy healthy food.

~~~
influx
its Amazing how much less sugar common foods in Germany have than the USA. It
took us a bit to adjust but when we got back all the bakery sweets here tasted
disgusting. Wish we could change the culture here to be closer to European in
that aspect.

~~~
chki
When I was about 10 years old my parents took my siblings and me on a 5 week
vacation to the US (I'm from Europe). It was a lot of fun, but I distinctly
remember that it was impossible for me to eat the bread that we would buy at
the supermarket because it was just too sweet. And this was not because my
parents just bought some bread but they actually tried to find some "normal"
tasting bread and it was not possible.

But for pudding the problem was kind of the reverse: It was hard to find
normal tasting pudding because instead of sugar and fat there were artificial
sweeteners in everything.

~~~
Gibbon1
I used to eat rye bread because it was heartier than white or 'wheat' bread.
Because unlike modern wheat rye still had historical ratio's of carbs to
protein.

Now it's just rye flavored white bread.

And all the healthy hippie dippie bread have buttloads of hidden sugars in it.

So now I mostly avoid bread.

~~~
cyphar
You can always bake your own bread. Takes only about 10 real minutes of your
time (plus 2 hours proofing and 30 minutes baking), you know exactly what's in
it, and it's certainly cheaper (you just need flour, water, salt, yeast, and
optionally a little bit of olive oil).

------
oblib
Sugar, all by itself is bad (awful bad), but when you add "Red 40" to the mix
children go into instant hyperactive-overdrive. They start bouncing off the
walls and you might as well be feeding them crack cocaine.

I spent a total of 24 days watching our grandkids this year and everyone of
them was a battle over what they'd eat. I could not get the oldest (11 years
old now) to take a single bite of real food during the course of two 10 day
stints or the past four days. I did only slightly better with his younger
sister, 5 years old now, and she's getting worse, not better.

Last night we had a huge spread of wonderful homemade food for Christmas
Dinner and those two kids didn't taste a bit of it.

It's like watching my grandkids get slowly poisoned. It's insane and there is
nothing I can do about it.

~~~
Puer
That sounds like poor parenting more than anything else. Also, the "sugar ->
hyperactive ADHD kids!" thing is a myth.

~~~
oblib
It is no doubt poor parenting.

And no, sugar does make kids hyperactive. You really only have to spend time
with them to know this. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't.

~~~
luc4sdreyer
Actually, sugar does not cause hyperactivity in children. As soon as you
double-blind the people evaluating the children's activity levels, no one can
tell which children had sugar.

Here are some links to the research:

[https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-
hyper...](https://www.webmd.com/parenting/features/busting-sugar-
hyperactivity-myth#1)

[https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-
too-...](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-too-much-
sugar-causes-hyperactivity-in-children.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Nutrition,_food,_and_drink)

The reason most people have this misconception is confirmation bias. Children
are almost always eating sugar, and almost always "hyperactive".

If you still don't believe me, (I'm sure _your_ children are different), do
your own study. It would be a fun thing to do with your children, and very
easy. It's very important that make it double blinded:
[https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-double-blind-
study-27...](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-double-blind-
study-2795103)

If you're right and your study shows it, you'll overturn a 30 year scientific
consensus, and probably become internationally famous.

~~~
oblib
"you'll overturn a 30 year scientific consensus"

Wouldn't be the first time but I still wouldn't be famous..

My first wife suffered from postpartum psychosis twice years before the cause
and effect was recognized by the health care industry and both times I pointed
out the connection and then argued with her doctors about it.

When you're right, you're right. Doesn't matter what others say or think. I
know I'm right on this issue. The science needs to catch up and start trashing
those junk "pay for conclusions studies" and that's what this particular link
posted here talks about.

------
kevin_b_er
How long do we wait for "market forces" to magically correct under the
information asymmetry of rich corporations vs the common person which inhibit
the public from understanding the danger introduced in order to make more
money?

~~~
maxxxxx
The free market can only work if everybody had perfect information and no
secrets. Otherwise whoever has more information can manipulate reality.

~~~
cgrand-net
Perfect information and unlimited computing power.

~~~
gnulinux
I think this is a more important point that is always missed in free market
debates. You need not only perfect information, but also unlimited computation
power _and_ skill to compute necessary information. If you can get a CSV file
of global potato and onion producers with transportation cost, but you have no
means of solving this TSP problem, you will not make an optimal decision.

In particular, relevant to this thread, if you have a magical CSV file created
by an Oracle associating every food available in US with how "healthy" they
are and how much calory they provide, in order to build a 2500 calory diet
that maximizes health and minimizes cost, you need to solve a knapsack-like
problem. In this environment market will necessarily be a little random not
because we don't have enough information but because we don't have enough
computational power.

~~~
cheald
This is generally the argument against command economies, in _favor_ of market
economies. It's formally referred to as the Economic Calculation Problem.

~~~
gnulinux
I wasn't making a point against/in favor of free market nor was I suggesting
this was a hidden factor I just unraveled. I just don't see this discussed in
free market debates, here or in reddit but I think this is a very practical
problem for some markets. I personally try to take as much rational decisions
as possible and one of the limiting factors for me is knowing good enough
algorithms to efficiently compute rational decisions. Of course, we don't have
perfect information, so that's a problem too.

EDIT: I must also admit that I know absolutely nothing about economics. I'm a
regular software engineer.

------
dgudkov
>Stop Blaming Yourself

I'm not sure if such advice is good. Of course, the industry should start
reducing/removing added sugar from products. You can keep eating what you're
eating, keep blaming the evil corporations and wait for ages until the
industry starts changing.

Or, you know, you can take a bit of responsibility for own eating habits and
get noticeably healthier in a matter of weeks. Adapt to the reality where most
packaged products are full of sugary stuff and therefore should be avoided as
if they are spoiled. Maybe buy less packaged products, and buy more fresh
food. Maybe cook sometimes instead of watching TV. Maybe start paying more
attention to ingredients and don't buy products which contents is more
appropriate for a chemical lab rather than a kitchen. It doesn't take much and
it definitely is not "an incredible burden" as the article states. Yes, it's a
burden, but far from "incredible".

And no, you don't necessarily have to start going to the gym to become
healthier. It would be a nice addition to your new lifestyle, but it's not
strictly required.

------
mack1001
Sugar industry mirrors the approach that the oil industry has taken. Both
should be addressed aggressively by introducing real education, researching
and developing worthwhile alternatives. Both have unprecedented costs to
humanity.

------
tyfon
My father in-law is in hospital right now with gallstones and various other
infections due to this. He had severe stomach pain and went to the hospital.

Tomorrow he'll be transported to another hospital via helicopter and airplane
for operation.

It's not too serious when treated but the doctors say it's due to high sugar
intake.

Personally I prefer natural sugar over the artificial stuff but, as with
everything else, moderation is key.

~~~
nradov
What do you mean by "artificial stuff"? Pretty much all sugar sold for human
consumption comes from natural plant sources: corn, beets, sugar cane.

~~~
tyfon
Aspartame, sucralose, saccharin etc

------
skilled
The crazy part is that a lot of people would go absolutely insane if their
sugar was to be cut off all of a sudden.

That's the one thing we don't want to hear. And in doing so, pretend that
everything is great. The same goes for canned and long shelf-life food.

If you eat a healthy diet then getting naturally occuring sugars is not a
problem.

And I understand the argument that eating 'healthy' _might not_ be possible
for everyone. Especially someplace like US where organic food costs ten times
more than anything else.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
So, your argument is that on a healthy diet, you can eat whatever you want.
Got it.

And the fallacy that organic food = healthy is absolutely mind boggling to me.
Study after study has shown that there is minimal difference in the
nutritional quality of "organic" vs "non-organic" foods. It doesn't matter,
and also the perceived benefit to the environment is nil.

And whats wrong with canned and long shelf-life food? Are you against
vegetables being kept for long periods of time without refrigeration and
maintaining 99% of their nutritional content? Ditto for Jams and Honey which
are both long shelf-life food due to their extreme abundance of "natural"
sugar.

~~~
skilled
The funny thing is that I have no reason to talk out of my butt. I am just
expressing my personal experience with food.

My idea of a healthy diet is fruit, seeds, nuts, and occasional grains /
legumes. The 'Steve Jobs' diet if you will.

It's honestly surprising to see how much lighter and energetic you become once
you drop meat and huge blocks (carbs) of crap that makes you feel like you ate
something worthwhile.

~~~
ryanobjc
Given Steve jobs prematurely died due to his diet, I feel like that wasn't a
wise choice in anecdotes.

Funny thing is how much more energy and lighter I became when I only ate meat.
So much for dropping meat.

~~~
skilled
Actually, Steve Jobs was following solely a fruitarian diet. So, maybe I was
just testing your wits, huh?

And here I was thinking that I am the sensitive one. :)

------
Ologn
In a desire to eat healthier, I decided instead of eating candy as a snack, I
would eat dried mangoes. It naturally contains fiber, Vitamin C and natural
sugars.

When I go to the supermarket and look at the labels, I see most of the brands
don't just have the mango's natural sugar, but add extra sugar as well. If I
go that route, I might as well have a candy bar. Luckily, one brand I found
does not add extra sugar.

~~~
nradov
If you can shop at Costco they have good prices on dried mango with no added
sugar.

------
solveit
The article, while making copious allusions to damning research, is light on
actual damning research and heavy on rhetoric. The linked website
([http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu](http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu)) is also full of
references to studies that are suggestive but nothing conclusive.

What's really worrying is the constant refrain that they just "knew" something
had to be wrong. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their research. They
then keep following up with references to diabetes, as if diabetes is
obviously a sugar consumption problem, but I understand that that's not the
case ([https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-
food/eat...](https://www.diabetes.org.uk/guide-to-diabetes/enjoy-food/eating-
with-diabetes/diabetes-food-myths/myth-sugar-causes-diabetes)).

All in all, with references to research that is weaker than they suggest,
fearmongering rhetoric, and pushing a narrative of Big Sugar stifling honest,
brave scientists, this article is indistinguishable to a layman (me) from an
antivaxxer screed.

And honestly? The comments here are also indistinguishable from comments on an
antivax website.

~~~
will_brown
>They then keep following up with references to diabetes, as if diabetes is
obviously a sugar consumption problem, but I understand that that's not the
case

In good faith anyone talking about sugar consumption being the cause of
diabeties is obviously talking about type 2. Your linked articles is muddying
the waters and introducing type 1 highlighting people are born with type
1...no one thinks type 1 has anything to do with sugar consumption. That is
elementary and bad faith discussion.

Type 2 is when the body no longer responds to insulin. What triggers insulin?
Types of sugar not processed by the liver, which go into the blood and
requirie the body to produce insulin to regulate blood sugar levels. With type
2 the body continues to produce insulin normally but the body no longer
responds to the insulin...it’s all triggered by sugar.

To put it another way if you remove sugars requiring insulin production from
the diet...100% of type 2 cases can be prevented. Only laymen argue this point
as it’s not controversial...all thats needed is a single case of type 2 to
disprove that, but none exist to date. Further, many cases of type 2 can
actually be reversed through diet (ie avoid sugars that trigger insulin
spikes) and lifestyle changes.

How about nonalcoholic fatty liver disease? Do you believe that is not caused
by the other types of sugar (ie sugar processed in the liver)?

~~~
solveit
The link I included specifically says:

> With Type 2 diabetes, though we know sugar doesn’t directly cause Type 2
> diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain
> weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods
> and drinks contain a lot of calories.

It's misleading to talk about sugar when the problem is obesity.

I don't have answers to your questions as I am not an expert on nutrition and
it would be stupid to hold opinions on what I don't know. However, I don't
have to be an expert on nutrition to note that the UCSF link is contradicting
other domain experts (may or may not be damning) and is being intellectually
dishonest (definitely damning).

~~~
b_tterc_p
It’s misleading to deflect from sugar onto obesity when consumption of sugary
foods is a primary driver of obesity.

~~~
abaldwin7302
It's an important distinction though. It's possible to consume sugary foods
and not be obese. See twinkie diet.

~~~
will_brown
But skinny people get diabeties also...and if you follow a Twinkie diet and
manage to keep your calories consistent and not gain weight you will be
priming your body for obesity.

All those twinkies have triggered insulin, a side effect of which increases
cell size, with significant impact on fat cells. If your fat cells are
enlarged from insulin, then you are primed to become obese because your cells
are ready to store more than someone who hasn’t been wrecking their body with
insulin spikes from twinkies all day every day.

------
travisoneill1
Why has everything got to be an "Evil Corporations" plot? I remember
explicitly learning that sugar is bad for you from the food pyramid in
elementary school and implicitly from being told I can't have candy well
before. If some companies tried to convince people that sugar is healthy they
wasted their money. Every few years we get a new food bogeyman, so seems like
whatever science is out there is far from conclusive. I have a hard time
believing that the link between sugar and all these diseases is so obvious
that it was found and buried by what is essentially a marketing department of
some food company, while completely eluding every independent researcher out
there.

