Flashback - Diet Soda and Depression

[I wrote this over seven years ago about another meaningless study meant to make disturbing headlines for the news media and possibly to attract more funding for the researchers. The only party left out of the equation, as usual, was we, the consumers.] 

I have mentioned before the tendency of journalists and the media to try to get and hold our attention with emotionally charged pictures and stories. We regularly see news about the results of studies that seem surprising, scary, or shocking, but they are often somewhat meaningless. They challenge our ability to remain calm and think rationally about the subject. Here is another example.

“A new study finds that people who drink diet sodas or fruit drinks are more likely to be diagnosed with depression.” The article continues very responsibly to explain the size and nature of the study and to emphasize that a link does not necessarily mean that drinking diet sodas causes depression, but the headline - "Drinking diet soda linked to depression" – has us hooked. (With sugary soft drinks being blamed for obesity - blame the soda, not the person drinking it - our choices are narrowing.)

Thinking critically about it, we know that correlation is not the same as causation. "Linked to" isn't the same as "caused by." We may wonder what we are supposed to do with this information – stop drinking diet soda so to avoid depression or start drinking lots of coffee, which the article tells us may have the opposite effect? I don’t think it works that way.

Later in the article they say, “more research is needed.” So what was the point?

Why should we even care about these kinds of studies that give preliminary findings, or publicize findings before they are presented for formal review, or rely heavily on self-reporting as opposed to objective observation?  As I pointed out before, we don’t have the time or energy to be worried about everything, so there is nothing really useful about such news. But it does make for catchy headlines.

[After all this time nothing has changed. Basically meaningless preliminary studies continue to be published and highlighted in the news almost daily, and it won’t stop until a large number of Americans wise up to the tactics.

On second thought, one thing has changed. Judging from comments on social media, some people do have time to worry and express an opinion about everything, but that's another topic. ]

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 – Blame the Sugar

[In February of 2012 I provided another example of how Americans are encouraged by the media to shift the blame rather than take responsibility. Each time we do, we give politicians and regulators a new target for bans and restrictions. This in turn relieves us of the responsibility of making choices along with the risks that some of those choices might turn out to be wrong, but it also deprives otherwise responsible people from making any choices at all. At the time I wondered if sugar would be next on the list.]

In past blogs I have warned that if we don't begin to change our behavior, especially by acting responsibly, bad consequences will continue. This lax attitude can force the government to step in, threatening our freedom. The idea of a threat to freedom may seem like an abstract concept, perhaps a little difficult to pin down. Now we have another concrete example.

Published Wednesday in Nature, a study by three scientists from UC San Francisco finds that sugar is as bad for us as alcohol and tobacco and should be likewise regulated.  This article from the LA Times gives the details. The study's authors make recommendations to the Federal Government including: taxation, distribution controls, age limits, and a limit or ban on television commercials for processed foods containing any form of added sugar. This is what I mean by loss of freedom.   Besides the alcohol and tobacco restrictions, there have been local bans on transfats. Today it's sugar. What next?

This article is interesting because I find the wording, "sugar...is responsible" near the beginning and "sugar itself is to blame" further on. It's the sugar's fault and we are the victims! How long are we going to let inanimate objects take the rap for us? If we don't step up and take responsibility for our behavioral failures and begin to make some changes, well-intentioned people will call for government action and our freedoms will slowly erode. Meanwhile, we will be standing around wondering how it happened!

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?

Food Labeling

It’s interesting how many food items are being relabeled to take advantage of all the misinformation in the news and on social media. They label food as containing no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). That simply means it contains sugar instead.  One is no better or worse for you than the other. If something is labeled as containing no sugar, it’s likely to contain an artificial sweetener. There are all kinds of rumors about how dangerous artificial sweeteners are. Some are labeled as no sugar added, but may have more natural sugar than a comparable product without the label. Everyone should easily be able to figure out that these special labels make little difference to the actual wholesomeness of the food. So why do the food companies make such an effort?

Apparently, it’s because most people don’t go to the trouble to figure this out.  The labels are shortcuts allowing them to follow their superstition of choice – yes, superstition. They are no different than the Salem Witch Trials except no one is killed, but they use the same tactics of mass hysteria.  Someone or some group pick up the chant of avoiding sugar or HFCS or artificial anything or GMOs or gluten (for most healthy people) and people choose to ignore evidence and climb on board the Superstition Express. 

One of the worst cases is the anti-GMO movement. The unreasonable opposition to GMOs starves people and adds to climate change. The promise of increased yields from smaller fields along with reduced reliance on pesticides and fertilizers supports the effort to reduce greenhouse gases and should be embraced by anyone concerned about climate change, but they pick and choose their cause. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, calls the stance against GMOs both anti-science and immoral emphasizing the absence of evidence that these products have hurt anyone or have been a detriment to the environment –“no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” It’s a distraction and political football that keeps good food from hungry people in less-developed countries.

The typical reaction is referred to in this article as the “healthy halo.” Food companies have found that certain labels elicit a positive response, regardless of logic, making consumers more likely to buy and more likely to pay more. To test this, researchers from Cornell University asked 115 shoppers to give their opinions of the value of snack foods based only on their labels. “People thought foods labeled ‘organic’ were more nutritious, lower in fat, and higher in fiber than the ‘regular’ foods, and were willing to pay up to 23.4 percent more for the food labeled as organic.” The difference was in the labels only: all the study participants were eating the same foods. The ink is cheap and the ability to increase the price by over 20 percent merely by adding one word to the label would be a marketing homerun for any company! And millions of superstitious Americans let them get away with it.

The manufacturers don’t care. And if it gives them an advantage in the market, they will even endorse any error or misconception their customers may have. It’s really sad.

Deceptive Truth

Forget about fake news and alternative facts.  The truth can be used to deceive just as easily.  As Emily Dickenson wrote:

Tell the Truth but tell it slant –

Success in Circuit lies

This came to mind when I received the following graphic from a loyal reader forwarded from the local newspaper.

This is probably a true estimate of how many Americans (56%) believe their drinking water is unsafe.  It’s also true that they are mistaken in that belief.

According to the government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  “The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world.  The EPA requires every municipality to test for the presence and levels of over 90 different contaminants in public drinking water and to provide an annual report to all customers.

Wikipedia adds that in 2016, “over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance” with those EPA standards.

A Harvard site warns about polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), saying they “exceed federally recommended safety levels in public drinking-water supplies for 6 million people in the United States, according to a new study…”  But as a fraction of over 320 million people in the US, that’s less than 2%.

Instead of reassuring, the media emphasizes disasters and calamities about safe drinking water like this example from National Geographic.  But at the end of that article, after presenting the scary stuff,  they admit, "in spite of all the good reasons to be concerned about drinking water safety, resorting to bottles is not a sensible reflex."  Quoting their expert, an environmental scientist at Duke University, "People think bottled water is safer, but there is zero evidence that is true. The quality of water in city tap water is regulated far more closely than bottled water."

So municipalities spend billions of dollars annually so we can wash our clothes and dishes and take showers in water that’s safe to drink while the majority of Americans believe it’s toxic and spend billions more on bottled water.  This newspaper could have easily looked this up, but it’s not their job to educate.  It’s their job to sell newspapers, and scary “facts” sell better.

The next day I set a ketchup bottle on the table and saw (proudly displayed) on the label:  No High Fructose Corn Syrup, No GMO Ingredients.  Although these two statements are technically true, they are mainly intended to lure uninformed shoppers.

First, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for some reason has gotten a bad reputation among food purists; but fructose, glucose and sucrose are all sugars.  This FDA website explains the tiny chemical difference between HFCS and sugar.  They conclude:  “We are not aware of any evidence…that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners.”

These facts of no chemical or health differences are backed up by other sources.  And even those that give reasons to avoid HFCS say it is no worse for us than sugar.

So it’s true, but slightly deceptive – the ketchup contains no HFCS; it contains sugar instead!

Second, the main ingredient in ketchup is tomato concentrate from tomatoes.  As I’ve written before, there are no GMO tomatoes!  Likewise, the label on the Non-GMO orange juice doesn’t mention that there are also no GMO oranges.  Non-GMO statements in both these cases are totally true – but meaningless – except to those incurious people who don’t care about real truth.

That brings us to a recent CBS story about a Facebook executive concerned that “the social media platform may be hurting American democracy” and that they were “too slow to recognize Russian interference in the 2016 election” intended to further divide society as the Russians weaponized information to sow discord.

How can anyone “weaponize” information?  It starts with Americans jumping to conclusions on the basis of popular opinion, weak evidence, information that reinforces their own biases and truths that “tell it slant.”  The distress here should not be over the negative aspects of Facebook or any other media but over a severe weakness in critical thinking, a skill in great demand as we cope with the every-increasing speed and breadth of dissemination coupled with a serious decrease in quality of information.  The problem is not with the Russian posters or the platform; it's with readers who don't question and research.

Now Sugar Causes Cancer?

Eating healthy gets more and more difficult with so many warnings to heed.  Every other day someone is telling us that some other food may cause cancer.  Alternatively, we often find that the ones we were warned about last year are either less dangerous or actually good for us.

This report from the PBS News Hour is a good example.  “Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, said they have uncovered documents demonstrating that members of the sugar industry called off a study, named Project 259, in the 1960s because it linked sucrose – a common sugar – to heart disease and bladder cancer in preliminary experiments.” 

Several questions spring to mind.  Is the science from 50 years ago as good as the science of today?  Is calling off a study that same as confirming that the unfavorable findings are true?  What was the objective of this Project 259 that they happened to stumble upon these findings – surely the sugar industry didn’t say, “Look into the health benefits of our product, but if you find anything scary, stop!”  Does PBS not understand that linked to is not the same as causes?  And, what are these scientists doing poking around into documents from studies done in the 1960s other than trying to stir things up and make headlines?  Finally, haven't we been told over and over that it's artificial sweeteners, like aspartame, not sugar, that supposedly cause cancer?

Back in the 1960s they were denying that sugar was the cause of obesity, pinning the blame instead on fat.  It took scientists and the government over 50 years to get that straight and still some want to argue.

A more recent source from a couple of years ago brings this sugar/cancer issue up to date:  “It’s true that sugar feeds every cell in our body – even cancer cells. But, research shows that eating sugar doesn’t necessarily lead to cancer. It’s what sugar does to your waistline that can lead to cancer.”

How do we keep these conflicting and confusing stories straight?  Another source provides some helpful information.

In 2013 the American Society for Nutrition reviewed 264 studies on cancer risk for “50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook.”  They found at least one paper reporting a cancer risk for forty of those fifty ingredients.  In total, “191 (72%) of the studies concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk.  It seems that if you look hard enough, you can find a study that confirms what you want to believe about the dangers or benefits of almost any food.

The conclusion of this wide-ranging review confirms that notion.  “Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak.”

One writer put it into perspective with this comment:  “Perhaps the best example is processed red meat, which the WHO thinks will raise your relative risk of cancer by 18 percent. That sounds scary. That's still debatable, but even if it's true, then it would mean that if I declared today that I would eat an extra three pieces of bacon every day for the next 30 years, my absolute risk of colon cancer might go from 2.7 percent to 3.2 percent. That's… not that scary. And I'm not going to eat that much bacon, so it's likely much less.”

So, there we have it.  If sugar causes cancer, it’s in some good company.  It’s always important to put these reports in perspective, never counting on the news media to do it for us.  (But do take it easy on the Christmas cookies.)

Halloween Responsibility

What do Halloween and sugar have in common?  The easy answer is candy for the trick-or-treat bags.  The correct answer is that each gives organizations an opportunity to identify victims and to pass the responsibility to outside parties rather than where it belongs.

The first such organization is one called Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) working “on behalf of the 15 million Americans with food allergies.”  They are promoting a program to shift the responsibility for children with food allergies away from the children themselves and their parents and onto the community.  Their website reads:  “This Halloween, FARE is encouraging families to start a new tradition: paint a pumpkin teal and place it on your porch to indicate you have non-food treats available.”  They want neighbors to feel compassion for these children who otherwise could find themselves not included in the festivities.

In days gone by parents inspected the trick-or-treat collection for possible problems, ranging from the legendary needles in apples to allergy issues to candy that might affect loose teeth.  In other situations the children themselves were expected to, and did not feel uncomfortable to turn down any foods that were not allowed in their diets.  When they were too young to do so the parent stepped in.  Teachers were often unaware of these problems and not expected to police the situation.

Now all that has changed and neighbors, the community, innocent bystanders are being drawn in to do the work and are asked to raise their own awareness along with that of others on the block, making sure those 1 in 13 kids don’t feel left out.  (They even offer the solution of painting a plastic pumpkin for participants with pumpkin allergies!)

The next bit of information is a trailer for a documentary 'FED UP' which “contains a lot of crucial information that most Americans don't know about the food industry. The increase in certain health problems and fatal diseases has been on the rise, and research shows that sugar is at the core of most these ailments.”  That’s right.  Don’t send the kids out at all on Halloween.  They are the victims of a sugar industry with “extraordinary power” that is “in business to make money, not keep America healthy.”  In this trailer speakers use the word “epidemic” twice and seem to mock Michelle Obama’s statement:  “It shouldn’t be so hard to get them to run around and play,” implying that it’s not the kids problem to solve – it’s the fault of the sugar industry and their willing accomplices in government. 

They support this shifting the blame with statements like: “Your brain lights up with sugar just like it does with cocaine or heroin” and “You’re going to become an addict.”  Their solution is not diet and exercise, because the problem is systemic.  “We are blaming willpower and it’s a crime” (to do so).  They conclude by saying, “We have to change the diet of America.”  Who do you think this we will include?  If we, common citizen, can’t be trusted to feed our kids properly, if we can’t be trusted to read the food labels to know how much sugar our family is eating, if we can’t be trusted to see through the deceptions of the junk food companies that are “acting just like tobacco companies,” I’m sure we can’t be trusted with the vast responsibility of changing the diet of America!  We, especially our children, are the victims here and must look to someone else to save us from the epidemic. 

Halloween is about children who are the victims of food allergies.  We would be heartless to exclude them.  Give them toys instead of the candy we use to feed the addictions of the rest of the children who are victims of the evil sugar industry, a complacent, if not complicit government, and the well-meaning but misguided people who recommend that they just go out and run around.  It’s certainly not hard to find examples of responsibility gone dormant.  Happy Halloween.