And Speaking of Sugar

Last Friday I flashed back to an entry from February 2012 where I showed how eager the media is to help us blame sugar for the obesity and the diabetes epidemics instead of the taking responsibility for our own choices.

Shortly after deciding to feature those comments I came across this related news report. “The Sugar Association is asking the Food and Drug Administration to require more detailed information about artificial sweeteners on packaging.”

The problem as they see it is that, because sweeteners do not provide nutrition or calories, they are not required to be listed on nutrition facts labels. Instead they are listed under ingredients in smaller print on the side of the package.

The industry argument is, “Consumers deserve to know what is in their food so they can make informed decisions for themselves and their families.” By making these changes, the FDA “will bring the complete transparency in sweetener labeling that we know consumers want, deserve and should expect.” 

They innocently portray themselves as merely calling for transparency by putting the information on food labels as “sweetener,” followed by the name. This is similar to the tactics of the anti-GMO crowd. By forcing producers to list an ingredient on the package, they hope that past misinformation will give shoppers the impression that a safe ingredient, because it is highlighted, is really dangerous. It’s a subtle scare tactic dressed up as transparency that they have pulled off elsewhere*, but it’s not based on science!

I referred to information sources I trust like WebMD and the Mayo Clinic rather than believing folks like Global Healing, Nutralegacy or Doctors Jocker and Axe. Here is what the real doctors at Mayo Clinic have to say. 

Under the heading of possible health benefits, they state, “Artificial sweeteners don't contribute to tooth decay and cavities. Artificial sweeteners may also help with: Weight Loss and Diabetes.”

As far as concerns: “according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the United States cause cancer or other serious health problems. Numerous studies confirm that artificial sweeteners are generally safe in limited quantities, even for pregnant women.”

So they are safe and sometimes beneficial, but the Sugar Association has for a long time believed, “Consumers Are Confused: Decoding Artificial Sweeteners,” as that headline from ten years ago stated. The article goes on to say, “August marks the five-year anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) receipt of a petition to help clear up some of the confusion...." So this has been going on for 15 years, and they are taking another run at it. Why? Before you start feeling bad for the Sugar Association, follow the money.

“The U.S. Sugar program is the federal commodity support program that maintains a minimum price for sugar, authorized by the 2002 farm bill....” It was designed to “protect the incomes of the sugar industry-growers of sugarcane and sugar beets, and firms that process each crop into sugar.”

This Reason Magazine article from last year calls it welfare for the rich, saying that it costs Americans as taxpayers and consumers about $4 billion per year. It does this in several ways: 

1. “Subsidies when sugar prices fall below a certain level;
2. Protection from foreign competition (a limit on imports); and
3. A guarantee that prices stay high (the sugar program imposes quotas on how much sugar may be produced in America).”

They are willing to spend a lot of money lobbying to maintain this sweet deal.

This Market Watch story from 2018 confirms the $4 billion cost while pointing out, “On average, U.S. sugar prices are about twice as high as world prices.” 

So, Big Sugar is trying to subtly frighten more people into buying their product at twice the price, based on a false (but popular) notion that the alternatives cause cancer and other problems, while downplaying the truth about the health concerns around sugar itself. They are counting on only a tiny minority of critical thinkers to figure it out.

*Note how successful they have been in giving high fructose corn syrup an undeserved bad rap.

Flashback – Why So Much Bad Advice

[This message was originally posted over six years ago, but since then the dynamic of bad information driving out the good has only gotten stronger with more fake news, advertising weasel words, political spinning, echo-chamber exchanges, media bias and health fads without any scientific basis.]

Why do bad ideas and bad advice seem to persist in a society with easy access to good science? One reason may be the tendency to cling to beliefs then look for evidence to support them, instead of accepting the conclusions of well-designed experiments. In his book The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt proposes that feelings and emotions come first, and that most reasoning works to justify rather than to test beliefs, that our “intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning.”  John Stuart Mill presented the same thought more than 150 years ago:  (paraphrasing) the more you argue, even while making clear, rational points, the deeper others dig in to protect long-held beliefs. Adding to the sad situation are the effects of scientists and doctors who would rather become famous as authors or TV stars by promoting popular beliefs than risk challenging them, as they should, with the truth.

One case that comes to mind is the persistent belief that artificial sweeteners are dangerous. Simple research is reassuring, but the belief is ingrained in our culture. The National Cancer Institute states clearly and unequivocally: “There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.” The Mayo Clinic’s view is that “there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems.” So who do Americans trust, these authoritative sources or a Facebook friend who watched some guy in a halloween costume on YouTube with scary stories?

Likewise folk remedies of all kinds continue to circulate. One longstanding belief is that magnetism has magical healing powers, leading people to buy bracelets, insoles and other magnetic devices. This is odd because over the past 15 years the FTC has ordered Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, among others, to stop advertising magnets as a cure for numerous diseases or even as a pain reliever. No credible evidence exists of healing powers, and none can be claimed in their advertising. One recent well-designed test of such devices confirms this fact concluding: “Wearing a magnetic wrist strap or a copper bracelet did not appear to have any meaningful therapeutic effect, beyond that of a placebo, for alleviating symptoms and combating disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.” Does that slow the sale of magnetic shoe insoles? – Not for people who don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, a persuasive ad or a celebrity endorsement.

It’s your money to use as you please. You can save it for college and retirement, give it away to companies selling you magnetic health devices, or even flush it down the toilet. Two of those choices make the same amount of sense, but as Paul Simon sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

How Sweet It Is!

A couple of things came together over the last few weeks that brought up some interesting questions. The first was this video from John Stossel using the sugar industry as an example of crony capitalism or corporate welfare. The second was the bold print on the side of a bread package announcing that the product contained no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Most of the Stossel video, “Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal,” is about how the industry advertises that they are not subsidized, but government bailouts (using our tax dollars) when the price falls, keep them rich and happy. The government also helps keep the price up with artificial quotas on domestic production and imports. So much of our food costs more, because sugar costs more, and it’s in so many products. 

When I looked at the ingredients on that bread package, the one proudly proclaiming that it contained no HFCS, I was not surprised to see sugar near the top of the list. Perhaps the sugar industry also is behind the bad reputation that most people associate with the cheaper substitute. Is there something behind the halo-effect of “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” or is this another case of hype?

This source gave me a clue: “There isn't enough evidence to say that HFCS is less safe to eat than table sugar, according to the American Medical Association, which has stated that HFSC does not appear to be more harmful than other caloric sweeteners.”

The HealthLine site goes into more detail. “There are only tiny differences between HFCS 55. – the most common type of high-fructose corn syrup – and regular sugar. A major difference is that high-fructose corn syrup is liquid – containing 24% water – whereas table sugar is dry and granulated.” The differences in chemical structure between the fructose and glucose in HFCS and the sucrose in sugar is not significant and “do not affect nutritional value or health properties.” After they are broken down in the digestive system, they end up looking exactly the same.

In a discussion of recipes on howstuffworks.com, they point out that there is a small difference. The HFCS has slightly higher levels of fructose, but the difference is very small and not particularly relevant from a health perspective.

So the package posting no HFCS is not really a reassurance; it only means they used sugar instead. It’s just another advertising trick. Both are about the same thing, neither is particularly good for us, and both should be consumed in moderation.

But what of the packages that say “no sugar” or “sugar-free.” Therein lies another can of worms. Most of the time those products don’t contain HFCS either; they contain artificial sweeteners. But wait! Aren’t artificial sweeteners a kind of slow-acting poison? Some will tell you exactly that.

It turned into another research project. This time I went to Mayo Clinic's site. “Artificial sweeteners are synthetic sugar substitutes. But they may be derived from naturally occurring substances, such as herbs or sugar itself.” They can be “attractive alternatives to sugar” because they contain virtually no calories and do not contribute to dental problems. Artificial sweeteners may also help with weight control and diabetes.

They go on to say: “Artificial sweeteners have been scrutinized intensely for decades.”  Studies from the 1970s “that linked the artificial sweetener saccharin to bladder cancer in laboratory rats” led critics to claim that they are unhealthy and carcinogenic. “But according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the United States cause cancer or other serious health problems. Numerous studies confirm that artificial sweeteners are generally safe in limited quantities, even for pregnant women.” 

The sole choices left are the so-called natural sweeteners, such as honey, maple syrup, and molasses. These are popular among the health-conscious crowd, some even calling honey a miracle food. Back to Mayo for this information: "Natural sugar substitutes may seem healthier than sugar. But their vitamin and mineral content isn't significantly different. For example, honey and sugar are nutritionally similar, and your body processes both into glucose and fructose.”

Will all that information change minds? Probably not! Will “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” continue to sell, while people continue to warn their neighbors about the dangers of artificial sweeteners? Most likely! Will foodies be attracted to honey in recipes thinking it contains some health secret? That, too! Critical thinking and simple, solid research where are you?

Why So Much Bad Advice?

Why do bad ideas and bad advice seem to persist in a society with easy access to good science?  One reason may be the tendency to cling to beliefs then look for evidence to support them, instead of accepting the conclusions of well-designed experiments.  In his book The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt proposes that feelings and emotions come first, and that most reasoning works to justify rather than to test beliefs, that our “intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning.”  John Stuart Mill presented the same thought more than 150 years ago:  (paraphrasing) the more you argue, even while making clear, rational points, the deeper others dig in to protect long-held beliefs.  Adding to the sad situation are the effects of scientists and doctors who would rather become famous as authors or TV stars by promoting populist beliefs than risk challenging them, as they should, with the truth.

One case that comes to mind is the persistent belief that artificial sweeteners are dangerous.  Simple research is reassuring, but the belief is ingrained in our culture.  The National Cancer Institute states clearly and unequivocally:  “There is no clear evidence that the artificial sweeteners available commercially in the United States are associated with cancer risk in humans.”  The Mayo Clinic’s view is that “there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the U.S. cause cancer or other serious health problems.”  So who do Americans trust, these authoritative sources or a Facebook friend who watched some guy in a halloween costume on YouTube?

Likewise folk remedies of all kinds continue to circulate.  One longstanding belief is that magnetism has magical healing powers, leading people to buy bracelets, insoles and other magnetic devices.  This is odd because over the past 15 years the FTC has ordered Magnetic Therapeutic Technologies, among others, to stop advertising magnets as a cure for numerous diseases or even as a pain reliever.  No credible evidence exists of healing powers, and none can be claimed in their advertising.  One recent well-designed test of such devices confirms this fact concluding: “Wearing a magnetic wrist strap or a copper bracelet did not appear to have any meaningful therapeutic effect, beyond that of a placebo, for alleviating symptoms and combating disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.”  Does that slow the sale of magnetic shoe insoles? – Not for people who don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story, a persuasive ad or a celebrity endorsement.

It’s your money to use as you please.  You can save it for college and retirement, give it away to companies selling you magnetic health devices, or even flush it down the toilet.  Two of those choices make the same amount of sense, but as Paul Simon sang, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.