Oh sugar, pour a little sugar on it honey
December 27, 2018 6:16 AM   Subscribe

“The Sugar Association is proud of our long research history and believe that sugar is best enjoyed in moderation, a fact that is supported by decades of scientific research.” "Internal documents reveal that from 1967 to 1971, the Sugar Research Foundation sank $188,000 in today’s money into a study to compare the effects of a high-sugar diet versus a high-starch diet in rats. Led by a scientist in the UK, the project aimed to evaluate the effects of sucrose on heart health. But as Kearns’ team reported last year, the experimental data suggested that sucrose consumption actually increased levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer in humans. The trade group halted the study and never published the unfavorable findings; its research director described the project’s value as “nil.”
posted by mecran01 (28 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
I am shocked, shocked to find that lobbyists have lied.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 6:52 AM on December 27, 2018 [9 favorites]




Yeah, predictable. Capitalism at its worst, etc. But fuck Big Sugar. I grew up in the Wonderbread south, and was raised on all things sugary- sweet tea, Kool Aid, cakes, cookies, pies, candy etc. at a steady, unchecked rate of intake. Weirdly, for most of my life, this kind of sugar consumption was practically part of my cultural identity. I am now a mid-forties adult trying to get woke about what I funnel into this aging somatic temple of mine. So as an experiment, I gave up sugar and processed foods earlier this year. Good God, it was tough at first. I mean, sugar is a powerful drug & I had long been conditioned to think of it as a "normal" part of my diet. But once I made it through the first 2-3 weeks, I completely stopped craving it. Six months in, I have never felt better and food has never seemed so substantive, tasty, and beneficial. And now that my taste buds have re-calibrated, fruits and many vegetables taste plenty sweet on their own. Just looking at a piece of cake makes my teeth hurt.
posted by Bob Regular at 7:12 AM on December 27, 2018 [18 favorites]


It's hard to work up much outrage. This is what industries do. And the opposite extreme view - all white sugar is eeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllll - is no less fatuous.
posted by PhineasGage at 8:10 AM on December 27, 2018 [4 favorites]


Yeah, but "all white sugar is eeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllll" might be incorrect, but being incorrect in this way doesn't have quite as much money or negative health effects behind it, so it's hard to really call 'em equivalent.
posted by entropone at 8:33 AM on December 27, 2018 [17 favorites]


While I"m not necessarily saying they were right to shelve it, I am necessarily saying that the weasel words for sensationalist science reporting is here:

"suggested that sucrose consumption actually increased levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer"

(correlation/causation, yada yada).

That said, I truly believe sugar is worse than most other drugs, not least because it's so widespread and it's a "food" not a "drug". I'm an addict to it. how many of our health problems are caused by sugar in everything (see the "corn is in everything" Swift on Security Twitter Thread posted on the blue a few weeks ago).
posted by symbioid at 8:41 AM on December 27, 2018 [2 favorites]


...the opposite extreme view - all white sugar is eeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllll - is no less fatuous.

Enter: The Precautionary Principle
posted by steamynachos at 8:54 AM on December 27, 2018 [4 favorites]


"Addiction" to sugar isn't accurate or useful language - it is not like being addicted to opioids or alcohol. We crave sweet, we crave salty. Excess of either aren't good for our health. But using the word "addiction" is scientifically and medically incorrect, and points us in the wrong direction for understanding how best to address our overuse of them.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:02 AM on December 27, 2018 [21 favorites]


But fuck Big Sugar

Only do this if you really want a yeast infection.
posted by srboisvert at 9:12 AM on December 27, 2018 [22 favorites]


And the opposite extreme view - all white sugar is eeevvvvvvviiiiilllll - is no less fatuous.

Given the link between sugar cultivation and slavery and colonialism, “eeeeevvvvvvviiiiilllll” could use a few extra es.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:19 AM on December 27, 2018 [21 favorites]


Sugar's Got What It Takes!
posted by JanetLand at 9:57 AM on December 27, 2018 [1 favorite]


Not going to claim I was "addicted" but I once mainlined sugar. It was at the hospital and they called it "glucose solution" but still. Pretty hardcore.
posted by some loser at 10:07 AM on December 27, 2018 [19 favorites]


A long time ago, a friend who'd spent a lot of time with health-conscious hippies told me, "if you're craving sweets, you need protein. Your body's looking for a short-term burst to give you enough energy to find real sustenance."

And it's worked - when I want something sweet, I look for something protein-rich, and that dodges the sugar craving.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:08 AM on December 27, 2018 [16 favorites]


We definitely try to limit sugar in our household. Sugary things like jam and peanut butter on toast (store-bought-bread is full of sugar) are okay, as is ice cream, but soda pop is just for special occasions and we try to persuade our older son to avoid Coke.

Don't buy fruit juice at all.
posted by JamesBay at 10:25 AM on December 27, 2018 [2 favorites]


"Addiction" to sugar isn't accurate or useful language - it is not like being addicted to opioids or alcohol. We crave sweet, we crave salty. Excess of either aren't good for our health. But using the word "addiction" is scientifically and medically incorrect, and points us in the wrong direction for understanding how best to address our overuse of them.

I mean, all of those sorta exploit neurological mechanisms that are there for a good reason. If I have a problem with the turn against sugar, it's that in the public discourse sugar becoming The Problem seems to get steak - or even bacon, for fuck's sake - off the hook. There are a lot of weird gaps in what we know about nutrition but I certainly wouldn't bet on that being how it turns out. I am fairly certain the meat industry has a hand in the either/or framing. I wouldn't be surprised if it also has a hand in research funding, which kinda takes it full circle.
posted by atoxyl at 10:54 AM on December 27, 2018 [4 favorites]


"Addiction" to sugar isn't accurate or useful language - it is not like being addicted to opioids or alcohol.

Well, sugar does activate the opioid receptors in the brain, so...
posted by Automocar at 11:03 AM on December 27, 2018 [4 favorites]


Sigh. This is the stuff I get told about whenever I bring up how sick sugar makes me. "Well that's good, because sugar is so bad for you!" I mean, yeah, but I would like, just once, to be able to eat a stack of diner pancakes without ending up feeling like I'm having a seizure. Just, like, with butter! I don't even need maple syrup!

But I mean, I guess I can reassure myself that I'll likely end up acquiring fewer health problems than the average person, even if I started out with more...
posted by brook horse at 11:06 AM on December 27, 2018 [1 favorite]


"Addiction" to sugar isn't accurate or useful language - it is not like being addicted to opioids or alcohol.

In "The Case Against Sugar" by Gary Taubes the author notes a couple of reasons in the introduction why sugar isn't looked upon unfavorably, at least quite yet - one, it doesn't result in awful behavior the way a drug like meth does, for example, and two, there are no epidemiological smoking guns with sugar the way there is with tobacco and lung cancer. So it's a long, slow march for nutritional science to overcome institutional inertia along with business pressure. He builds a good case that the introduction of western diets in new locations always leads to obesity and diabetes epidemics, but again, no real smoking gun or evidence that hasn't been defeated by skepticism or PR in the public eye.

It's an interesting read if you're into the topic - it's a polemic by his own admission if not in those words (which I appreciated) and it isn't quite dense enough to be a thorough history, but the early days of nutrition science he goes over (mostly the first half of the 20th century) and some of the big players involved in academia and industry over the years was very interesting reading.
posted by MillMan at 12:33 PM on December 27, 2018 [3 favorites]


The worst part of the anti-sugar movement is all the people who are replacing it with other "healthy" sugars and then calling their agave nectar double chocolate muffins "healthy". I love cooking and finding delicious recipes but the level of sheer bullshit "healthy" recipes out there on the recipe blogosphere is pretty much overwhelming the sphere and really turning me off.

No matter what your sweetener is, eating an 800 kcal double chocolate muffin isn't going to be healthy. And if you want agave to be part of your unhealthy diet then pair that muffin with some mezcal and exult in it ya filthy animal. Then make your new years resolution.
posted by srboisvert at 1:07 PM on December 27, 2018 [16 favorites]


One of my favorite podcasts, Gastropod, just did a two-part episode on sugar and soft drinks in particular, including material from the trove Kearns dug up. Worth a listen.
posted by me3dia at 3:02 PM on December 27, 2018 [1 favorite]


From the article: "As a former dentist, Kearns had seen some of those harms firsthand. But to drill down to what seemed to be the root cause..."

A+
posted by reductiondesign at 5:18 PM on December 27, 2018 [7 favorites]


The worst part of the anti-sugar movement is all the people who are replacing it with other "healthy" sugars and then calling their agave nectar double chocolate muffins "healthy". I love cooking and finding delicious recipes but the level of sheer bullshit "healthy" recipes out there on the recipe blogosphere is pretty much overwhelming the sphere and really turning me off.

I kinda hate when people refer to foods as healthy or unhealthy. Barring things like allergies, there's really no such thing as food that's healthy or unhealthy, and thinking of food in such a way I think probably contributes to problems with food and eating that people sometimes have. Instead there's healthy and unhealthy consumption. Having a slice of pie with your dinner is fine. Having a pie for dinner, not so much.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:00 PM on December 27, 2018 [11 favorites]


I really only think of food and nutrition in terms of macros, with a slight nod toward night-carbs (candy, usually) causing reflux when I'm trying to sleep. But healthy? Unhealthy? Once upon a time I checked the nutritional information on Grape Nuts and gave up forever, because surprise, it's basically compressed croutons. Protein Special K has less of pretty much everything except flavor from cactus syrup or whatever, and all in all it isn't much different than Frosted Shredded Wheat. I like breakfast.

I have weight and fitness targets, and however well I hold to my macros (coupled with exercise) determines how quickly I reach my target(s). Besides that, I eat salads and bananas as often as possible for gut health and I can otherwise eat stress free. Perhaps "lucky me," but until a doctor tells me different I think it works. Heck, my RN mom who for some reason subscribes to every dietary superstition told me only recently that diabetes isn't caused by the overconsumption of sugar.
posted by rhizome at 6:30 PM on December 27, 2018


Heck, my RN mom who for some reason subscribes to every dietary superstition told me only recently that diabetes isn't caused by the overconsumption of sugar.

I thought that, very generally speaking, Type-2 diabetes is caused by chronic obesity; being obese can throw hormone cascades out of whack, which in turn affects the production of insulin, and also causes insulin resistance.

Sugar is a problem because it is omnipresent in processed foods, which means it can be difficult to gauge caloric intake, which leads to obesity.

Although, fundamentally, eat sugary foods is just unhealthy.
posted by JamesBay at 9:32 PM on December 27, 2018 [1 favorite]


I just read a book on Butter which was biased toward butter but also had what looks like solid evidence that the anti-fat pro-carb advice of the last few decades was a scam backed up by the original bad scientist and the sugar lobby, who swayed the US government. The book doesn't mention, but I am certainly suspicious of, the political pull of US sugar producers as either party supporters or anticommunists.
posted by clew at 12:13 AM on December 28, 2018


I thought Taubes was having a problem substantiating his ideas.
posted by Selena777 at 7:41 AM on December 28, 2018


I thought that, very generally speaking, Type-2 diabetes is caused by chronic obesity; being obese can throw hormone cascades out of whack, which in turn affects the production of insulin, and also causes insulin resistance.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, either, but it was true the last I checked research hadn't really indicated sugar intake as the primary cause of diabetes. Rather, sugar intake is a contributor to metabolic conditions that cause diabetes - there's some evidence meat consumption does, too. Unless those studies are no good, of course, which is always possible.
posted by atoxyl at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2018


The article is really interesting, beyond the lede in the OP --
For decades, Kearns and a cadre of researchers have discovered, Big Sugar sought to influence journalists, scientists, and regulators with the effect of delaying research into its product’s potentially harmful health effects.

As a former dentist, Kearns had seen some of those harms firsthand. But to drill down to what seemed to be the root cause — how the sugar industry grew so powerful and ubiquitous in the first place — she hung up her dental coat to become a unique blend of investigative journalist, historian, and health researcher. She now crosses the country in search of libraries with formerly confidential archives from now-defunct sugar manufacturers, trade groups, scientists, consultants, and executives. By combing through thousands of pages of internal documents, Kearns and her team have gained unprecedented clarity into the machinations of the sugar industry during the mid-20th century.
Emphasis mine, because the tactic of Kearns and her team are fascinating -- look for documents available from defunct companies, because active companies won't divulge these details. I wonder how often this is done in other fields of investigative journalism.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:13 PM on December 28, 2018 [9 favorites]


« Older Economic haruspicy   |   The truck is not alone. Not by a long shot. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments