"Why our food is making us fat"

[rory robertson]

There's a disturbing piece in today's Guardian. Check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... ing-us-fat
For the story on sugar and obesity/diabetes in Australia, try http://www.australianparadox.com/

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, shocking and worth a read

 

[Paul_c]

terrifying... and so true... our own politicians are in the pockets of the food industry which is why they're making no attempt to tackle the problem from the right direction in banning the addition of sugar and instead are blaming people themselves.

 

[phoenix]

terrifying... and so true... our own politicians are in the pockets of the food industry which is why they're making no attempt to tackle the problem from the right direction in banning the addition of sugar and instead are blaming people themselves.

But once more trying to put a US scenario onto the UK. I don't think industrial food is good for anyone but you can't automatically translate what has happened in the US into a European scenario. A great deal of that article is simply not relevant to Europe

Sugar contains equal amounts of glucose and fructose,
In the US HFCS contains 55% fructose. It has been used extensively in manufactured goods.
In Europe:
glucose fructose syrup contains 5-50% fructose
fructose-glucose syrup contains over 50% fructose

Within the European Union (EU), the Sugar Regime regulates the allowed production quota. Production of GFS is currently limited to about 5% of total sugar production in the EU. Therefore, wide-scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in Europe and it remains a small marke

Because of the limited availability in Europe, the products in which GFS is used, are those where the sweetening power and other qualities are needed simultaneously. Examples of this can be found in baked goods, cereal products, confectionery, jams and preserves, yogurts and other dairy products, condiments (e.g. mustard and ketchup), canned and packed goods. The use of GFS in soft drinks has been limited as this application needs a fructose content of 42% or higher to give the desired sweetness and GFS is not available in sufficient quantities to be widely used in soft drinks. In the EU, soft drinks continue to be sweetened mostly with sucrose, when in the US, they are sweetened with HFCS

http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/f ... ose-syrup/

BUT I don't think that gets soft drinks off the hook, I think that along with other manufactured goods are very much part of the problem. I just don't happen to think that you can put the blame on one macronutrient or one commodity,when you do that there always seems to be a big exception.
These take a bit more reading than the newspaper article. They are from the Journal of the World Public Health Nutrition Association (though not written for scientists)
What Drives Global Obesity?
http://www.wphna.org/2012_june_wn2_editorial.htm
Ultraprocessing
http://www.wphna.org/2012_june_wn3_UPP.htm

 

[dawnmc]

Anyway its going to be on the telly soon.

 

[lucylocket61]

But once more trying to put a US scenario onto the UK. I don't think industrial food is good for anyone but you can't automatically translate what has happened in the US into a European scenario. A great deal of that article is simply not relevant to Europe

I disagree phoenix. Most of the food manufacturers are owned by America. Much of the food production is owned or controlled by America. Much of the seed and fertiliser and animal feed is controlled by America. Much of our processed food is imported from America. The US influence is very important.

 

[dawnmc]

If Kelloggs can subsidise DUK then everything else is fair game.

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

terrifying... and so true... our own politicians are in the pockets of the food industry which is why they're making no attempt to tackle the problem from the right direction in banning the addition of sugar and instead are blaming people themselves.

It's always easy for them to blame people because most folk feel guilty about putting on weight and so don't ask too many questions why it's happening :sick:

 

[rory robertson]

Yes, yes, it's all very complicated. For many, however, simply removing added sugar/fructose - anything sweet - will turn out to be a “silver bullet” for significant weightloss and better health. And then – as the suddenly sugar-free experience the unexpected joys of trending towards slimness again and away from diabetes - sceptical food scientists watching from the sidelines can ponder all the second-order issues that make a complete understanding of obesity so complicated.

An important part of the anti-obesity story is that SUGAR DOES SOMETHING BAD TO APPETITE CONTROL, KILLING “SELF DISCIPLINE“. That is, scientists need to put more energy into explaining exactly how/why sugar tends to promote food cravings, why a calorie clearly is not a calorie when it comes to satiety. The following study is a neat start in that direction: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/51 . Meanwhile, the opinions of “scientists” working on the clearly wrong assumption that “a calorie is a calorie” should be ignored or ridiculed.

My confident forecast is that within a decade or two, across the scientific, medical and nutritionist communities, added sugar/fructose will be linked to obesity and diabetes in the same way that today the sun is linked to sun cancer, and tobacco is linked to lung cancer. It probably is that simple. Set up a Google “Alert” for “fructose“ and watch the evidence - linking the sweet stuff to bad health outcomes – roll in each week, month after month.

My bottom line is that removing added sugar from our food supply is the obvious low-hanging fruit in any serious anti-obesity and anti-diabetes campaign. If society over time can gain a better understanding of – and then reduce – the damaging health effects of excess sugar/fructose, then tens of billions of health-care and aged-care dollars could be saved or redirected, every year. Not to mention the much happier, healthier and longer lives that would be lived by a slimmer population with greater control over its appetite.

A detailed discussion of these issues can be found at the earlier link.

Best wishes,
Rory

 

[SouthernGeneral6512]

I had a thing about sugary drinks (still do I suppose) almost like a high on consuming them and yet every time I was doing it I was damaging my health ... so now when I see a coca cola truck I almost see it like a pusher driving past making money out of peoples misery.

Ok you can argue people should be more responsible for their own health but I really do believe that as with alcohol and illegal drugs some people are more prone to getting hooked on the sugar fix

 

[phoenix]

But once more trying to put a US scenario onto the UK. I don't think industrial food is good for anyone but you can't automatically translate what has happened in the US into a European scenario. A great deal of that article is simply not relevant to Europe

I disagree phoenix. Most of the food manufacturers are owned by America. Much of the food production is owned or controlled by America. Much of the seed and fertiliser and animal feed is controlled by America. Much of our processed food is imported from America. The US influence is very important.

Lucy, they have manufacturing units here and for the most part make their goods here, using recipes that are adapted to local tastes and ingredients. Thats why the GI of a product like Special K has very different GIs in samples taken from different countries.
eg from the coca cola website
"We make 95 percent of our products in GB, a fact we are proud to put on our bottles and cans."
and from the Kelloggs website.
1938 - Kellogg’s opens its first UK manufacturing plant in Manchester - the world’s largest cereal manufacturing plan

Both Coca cola and Pepsi are made with sugar in Europe.

 

[Craigybus]

Erm it is the Grauniad, a paper so full of bile. It isn't even fit to be used as bog paper. That & The Daily Fail aren't happy unless they are scaremongering and spewing bull. I've lost count at how many times Ian Hislop has successfully sued this bunch of liars.