Sugar Debate: Added Sugars, Less Urgency? Fine Print and the Guidelines by LCD ..... Injustice, Fraud & Crime Watch
Date: 9/13/2004 4:55:24 AM ( 21 y ago)
Hits: 1,272
URL: https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=269587
Added Sugars, Less Urgency? Fine Print and the Guidelines
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040825/ZNYT04/408250391/1010/STATE
New York Times
IF you want a peek into the fierce debate over whether too much sugar is bad
for you, start at the final recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee report.
After hours of negotiations by committee members, the report, to be released
tomorrow, lacks any direct recommendation that added sugar should be reduced, as
previous reports had urged. Yet fairly hidden on Page 6 are details about the
hazards of sugar, especially the kind found in soft drinks and sweetened juice
beverages. It seems as if the committee wanted to have it both ways.
Should added sugars be considered a health hazard? Until this month, the
committee was evenly divided. Trade associations, which play a major part in the
government's decisions on its food policy, say no. Nonaffiliated scientific
researchers say a resounding yes.
And when the committee looked at two new studies, one published in May, the
other published this week, they changed their minds and voted 8 to 3 to conclude
that there is a relationship between the consumption of added sugars and health.
Historically, "one of the underlying reasons for the debate about refined sugars
is that evidence is not as clear-cut as it is for trans fatty acids or saturated
fat," said Dr. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in
the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group that frequently criticizes the
food industry. "You can use clinical studies to prove the increase in bad
cholesterol and no one debates the effects." It has been the "fuzziness" of
scientific evidence up to now that has prevented even critics of sugar from
"absolutely nailing down the case against sugar," he said.
But most researchers, including Dr. Jacobson, believe the evidence is strong
enough.
"The consumption of added sugars and a deficiency of nutrient intake is pretty
strong," said Dr. Rachel Johnson, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences at the University of Vermont, where she is a professor of nutrition and
a member of the 2000 dietary guidelines advisory panel that worked on the sugar
recommendation.
A study done by Dr. Shanthy Bowman, a nutritionist with the Agricultural
Research Service at the Agriculture Department, showed that people who got more
than 18 percent of their calories from added sugars had "the least adequately
nutritious diets," well below government recommended levels for many nutrients,
compared with two other groups in the study, one of which consumed less than 10
percent of calories from added sugars, the other 10 to 18 percent.
The two new peer-reviewed studies add substantially to the literature on the
added sugar-obesity connection. One that appeared in the Obesity Research
journal in May concludes that "consumption of sugar-added beverages may
contribute to weight gain among adolescents, probably due to their contribution
to total energy intake."
The study that appears in this week's issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association is part of the large, long-running Nurses' Health Study at
Harvard. It concludes that "increased consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks
is associated with larger weight gain in women independent of other lifestyle
and dietary factors."
Dr. Jacobson said that lack of a specific recommendation in the final dietary
guidelines, which are expected at the beginning of 2005, "would be shameful,
because it diminishes people's concern about a major part of the American diet."
In the previous five sets of guidelines, sugar consumption was addressed among
the specific recommendations, which are what most people see. In 1980, it was,
"Avoid too much sugar." In 2000, the guidelines said, "Choose beverages and
foods to moderate your intake of sugar." But the same 2000 advisory committee
also wrote: "There is no direct link between the trend toward higher intake of
sugars and increased rates of obesity," and, "There is no consistent association
between intake of total sugars and nutrient adequacy."
On the other hand, the 2005 recommendations make the connection: "Compared with
individuals who consume small amounts of foods and beverages that are high in
added sugars, those who consume large amounts tend to consume more calories but
smaller amounts of micronutrients. Although more research is needed, available
prospective studies suggest a positive association between consumption of
sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. A reduced intake of added sugars
(especially sugar-sweetened beverages) may help in achieving recommended intakes
of nutrients and in weight control."
Three months ago, this statement did not exist.
"In May, there was no conclusive statement saying sugar was related to obesity
and only an indirect reference to nutrient deficiency," said Dr. Carlos Arturo
Camargo, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public
Health and one of the advisory committee members. "The research was deemed
inconclusive."
Dr. Camargo said the vote to include something about sugars was 6 to 6. But
after the committee members read the newest studies, they voted 8 to 3 to
include the sugar statement. One member was absent, but supported the inclusion.
Still, those words are in the fine print, which usually doesn't reach the
public. The major message is "choose carbohydrates wisely." Since the 2005
scientific advisory committee did not include sugar as a major talking point,
there is little chance that the Agriculture Department and the Department of
Health and Human Services, which for the first time are writing the guidelines,
will. The Sugar Association, the Soft Drink Association and the National Food
Processors Association are hoping that that is the case.
"We prefer this way to the way it was in previous guidelines," said Cheryl
Digges, the director of public policy for the Sugar Association, a trade and
lobbying organization for beet and cane sugar growers. "We think there is too
much emphasis on sugars. Sugars are just a part of the diet."
"There is no negative health impact for sugar; there never has been," she said.
"Every major scientific review found no link between added sugar and any
lifestyle disease, including obesity."
Among the research the Sugar Association currently cites to make its point is a
1997 consultation involving the World Health Organization showing that sugars do
not play a major part in increasing lifetime diseases. But last year the W.H.O.
included sugar as one of the major culprits in worldwide obesity, and the
association tried to have the reference removed, enlisting the Department of
Health and Human Services in an unsuccessful attempt.
Dr. Cutberto Garza, the chairman of the scientific advisory committee for the
2000 guidelines, said further studies linking sugar and obesity are beside the
point.
"There are many strong rationales for limiting sugar intake without having to
rely on long-term epidemiological data," he said. "If you have more than 10
percent of your diet from added sugars, then it is very difficult to meet
nutrient needs from other components. If they were lumberjacks then I wouldn't
worry about them," meaning that those who engage in very strenuous exercise have
plenty of room for all kinds of discretionary calories, including those from
sugar.
"By saying choose carbs wisely, what does that mean?" he continued. "When we had
a guideline about sugar, it was easier for consumers to interpret; but if it's
wrapped in carbohydrates it's very difficult for people to understand."
Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard
School of Public Health, sees no shades of gray. "It's very clear now that soft
drinks and sweetened beverages do contribute to obesity," he said. "The
government can't allow those to be promoted to children."
Dr. Kelly Brownell, director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders,
is equally convinced.
"It is clear people need to eat less sugar," he said. "To leave out a
recommendation on sugar is highly questionable because it's obvious the
population is eating too much of it. You can't blame everything on sugar, but it
is one important part of the puzzle."
Dr. Camargo acknowledges that the government may not heed the researchers'
conclusions.
"If all the final guidelines says is `choose wisely,' nothing will happen," he
said. "If there is a will to change, to improve people's health, the government
will tell people how to choose what's better and what's worse."
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040825/ZNYT04/408250391/1010/STATE
<< Return to the standard message view
fetched in 0.02 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=269587
