Editor and General Manager
Discussions about food safety generally focus on contaminants such as bacteria, pesticides and other non-food substances that find their way into the final product, usually through flaws in growing, manufacturing or production. But I am after a different beast—fructose, specifically. There is a lot of information circulating these days about the evils of sugar, and it’s safe to say that added sweeteners are the foundation upon which the very American, certainly Western, obesity epidemic rests. And it seems that fructose is at the heart, or belly, of the problem.
But first, a positive development on the regulatory front. On May 20th the FDA finalized a new Nutrition Facts label for packaged foods, a label that reflects current scientific information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease.1 The new labeling will include “Added Sugars” in grams and as percent Daily Value. Scientific data shows that it is difficult to meet nutritional needs while staying within calorie limits if more than 10% of total daily calories come from added sugar. Food label “Serving Size” information must be based on the amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating, amounts that have increased since the requirements were last updated in 1993. Furthermore, package size affects what people eat, so “… for packages that are between one and two servings, such as a 20-ounce soda or a 15-ounce can of soup, the calories and other nutrients will be required to be labeled as one serving because people typically consume it in one sitting.”1 Manufacturers will have to begin using the new label by July 26, 2018; those with less than $10 million in annual food sales will have an additional year to comply.
SugarScience.org, the product of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a few outside collaborators, is a terrific resource for information on the impact of sugar on human health. The website claims to reflect “…an exhaustive review of more than 8,000 papers … with a focus on the areas where the science is strongest—specifically, on diabetes, heart disease and liver disease.” Much of the data presented in this column is drawn from the website.
Now for the scary part. Sugar increases blood glucose levels, leading to release of insulin by the pancreas. Higher levels of insulin cause the body to store more calories as fat. Insulin also affects a hormone called leptin, a natural appetite suppressant. Imbalanced insulin levels, along with high consumption of certain sugars, such as fructose, have been linked to a condition called leptin resistance, in which the brain no longer gets the message to stop eating. Scanning technology has shown that sugar causes changes in the brain similar to those in people addicted to drugs, changes that are linked to a heightened craving for more sugar. It is estimated that the average American eats about 66 pounds of added sugar per year.
Walking down any aisle in a typical American supermarket is like touring a Hall of Sweeteners, which are found in 74% of packaged foods. There are very few products in the cereal aisle that don’t have added sweetener. Bread made without sweeteners is almost impossible to find. Mayonnaise, breadcrumbs, lunch meats, salad dressings—all contain sweeteners. Even many “healthy foods”—think granola bars, protein bars and yogurts—carry a heavy sugar burden. Packaged drinks can be devastating as well. It’s not just the proliferation of soda—but 20-ounce and bigger sodas; of a variety of multi-adjectival coffee drinks that are nothing but sugar bombs; of specialized “waters” that are a lot more than just water—they all contribute mightily. Even fruit juices lack the fiber that helps with the digestion of fructose in whole fruits.
Ah, yes, fructose. There is growing scientific consensus that fructose can be toxic to the liver. Added sugars, corn syrups and other sweeteners are 50% fructose, sometimes more. Agave nectar, a healthy, natural alternative, is 70% or more fructose. According to SugarScience.org, “What’s unique about fructose is that, unlike any other sugar, it’s processed in the liver. Small amounts of fructose, meted out slowly, are not a problem.” When you eat an apple, for example, “…its sweetness comes with a lot of chewing that takes time. The apple’s fiber slows down its processing in the gut.” But when large amounts of fructose are consumed with added sweeteners, particularly in liquid form on an empty stomach, it “…slams the liver with more than it can handle.”
Researchers are increasingly concerned about two conditions linked to fructose consumption from added sugar (obesity and the consumption of such unhealthy dietary additives as trans-fats also contribute): nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is characterized by the buildup of excess fat in the liver, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), characterized by fatty liver, inflammation and steatosis—essentially scarring as the liver tries to heal its injuries. NASH is now the third-leading reason for liver transplants in America. And it will become the most common reason if recent trends continue. Estimates vary, but conservatively, 31% of American adults and 13% of children suffer from NAFLD.
Other scientists are focusing on an underlying set of metabolic problems as contributors to chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Known as metabolic syndrome, symptoms include large waist size and high triglycerides, total cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar. The American Heart Association estimates that 56 million Americans have metabolic syndrome. Current research is also looking at connections between overconsumption of sweeteners and cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
Recent reports indicate that “activists” who seek to hold oil companies responsible for the financial consequences of global warning are making some headway with what is being described as a “tobacco industry” model. So, much like attorneys for claimants suing cigarette makers used internal research showing that companies were aware of the negative health impacts arising from use of their products, ExxonMobil internal documents are being sought by their pursuers. It is known that the company engaged in a public disinformation campaign while in possession of house research that concurred with most climate scientists about the impact of human activity on planetary health. Might a similar approach someday apply to food producers? What has their own research shown about the health hazards of sugar consumption? What do they know? What are they ignoring on the way to greater profits?
The consumer is complicit too. A lot of relevant material is widely available and being widely reported, and as research progresses more is available every day. But feelings about food and eating are deeply entwined in the social and cultural fabric. Food chemists and dieticians can develop recipes without added sweeteners and low amounts of added fats. Would they catch on? It seems more likely that the sweet-toothed among us would prefer that pharmaceutical companies come up with a recipe for a pill that will mitigate the harm of their brownie or cola, even as they ingest.
Reference
- http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/ GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ ucm385663.htm
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/ Labcompare; [email protected]