This is a real hoot.

Press Release Source: Sugar Association


Sugar Association Says Consumers Deserve Accurate, Science-Based Nutrition Information
Thursday August 19, 1:18 pm ET


WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- At a public meeting on the current and proposed changes to USDA's Food Guide Pyramid, Dr. Charles Baker, Vice President of Scientific Affairs for the Sugar Association reiterated the statement made in today's meeting by Dr. Eric Hentges, Executive Director of USDA's center for Nutrition Policy and Programs, that all recommendations must be based on sound science. In Dr. Baker's comments, he strongly urged the USDA to use scientific evidence to determine added sugars intake levels rather than the use of mathematical formulas currently being used/ proposed.
"The Association firmly believes that the American public has the right to have accurate dietary guidance and nutrition policy supported by the entire body of science," stated Dr. Baker. "Every major scientific review has concluded that lifestyle diseases, including obesity, are not linked to sugars intake."

Dr. Baker cited the 2002 Institutes of Medicine review of macronutrient intake as a prime example of sound science that is being ignored when intake levels for sugars are being set.

Dr. Baker made three compelling points to support his arguments. First, the mathematical formulas currently being used to determine intake levels contradict the science-based approaches applied when intake recommendations for selective classes of dietary fats and micronutrients like calcium were established. The Association questions why sugars are being treated differently.

Second, sugars continue to be assigned to the category of "leftover calories" to accommodate the mathematical model. The Association questions the consumer benefit since the continued use of the mathematical model essentially minimizes the importance of fortified and enriched foods in the US diet.

Third, the proposed treatment of added sugars continues to give the consuming public the perception that sugar has no value. On the contrary, Dr. Baker pointed out that sugar has played an important role in the food supply for centuries. Some of its functional properties in the food system include food preservation, flavoring, and palatability. As a result, sugar is present in many of the healthy foods necessary for maintaining balanced and nutritionally adequate diets.

"The Sugar Association recognizes that all foods need to be consumed in moderation," continued Dr. Baker. "We encourage the consumer to eat a balanced diet, rich in fruits and vegetables, protein and grain products. Recommending that Americans restrict their added sugar consumption is unnecessary, would be confusing and make it difficult for them to meet their dietary needs."

The Sugar Association is a trade organization representing the nation's sugar cane growers and refiners and sugar beet growers and processors whose primary mission is to inform and educate the consuming public about the role of sugar (sucrose) in nutrition and health.

Graphs Available




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Sugar Association

I like the part where they say it would be difficult to meet our dietary needs while resticting added sugars. I have a hard time not laughing out loud at this one.

I think they have too much free time.

"minimizes the importance of fortified and enriched foods in the US diet"

And rightly so!

"Every major scientific review has concluded that lifestyle diseases, including obesity, are not linked to sugars intake."

So I got fat by eating too many veggies? It was the d**n sugar - ask my pancreas it couldn't keep up!

I fail to see how 'sugar' as it comes in refined sucrose form, as opposed to how 'sugar' comes naturally in fruit, veg and dairy is adding a thing that is healthful or essential to the diet. I think there is a bit of sleight of hand going on due to the confusion between the use of the word 'sugar' in refined sugar vs 'sugar' as we speak of fructose, lactose, dextrose, etc. As omnivores, we do indeed include the latter form of sugars in our natural diets (berries, milk etc), but processed, refined sugar hardly falls into this category. Our friends the bears, also omnivores, also love to eat berries, and honey, and will munch on them when they can, but it is protein, as in fish that they seek out for their survival. You would have to gnaw your way through a whole lot of fibrous sugar cane to get what goes into a Mars bar. Same goes for corn syrup. And honey was meant for bees, not humans (or bears).

This does not mean to say that we shouldn't have the choice to partake of honey, but to argue that it is an essential food is a joke. People with insulin issues and metabolic syndromes, etc should avoid it, and for the rest of us it should be an occasional treat, as it was for our forebears (pardon the pun) and not just placed in foods in order to make them 'more palatable'. It has always annoyed me that I would have to comb the shelves at grocery stores to find peanut butter, tomato sauces etc that weren't laced with sugar.

Val

Look at this, they have a kids section.... evil empire

http://www.sugar.org/kids/

and this from their site

What nutritional impact does refined white sugar have on my diet?
Refined white sugar is pure sucrose, a carbohydrate. Carbohydrates provide energy, contain no fat, and like protein contribute 4 calories per gram in your diet (as opposed to the 9 calories per gram contributed by fat).
Your body treats sucrose in the same way regardless of its source. In fact, your body uses all sugars in the same way, so eating refined sugar, or honey, or sugars from any other source has the same effect on your body -- it is converted into glucose and used by the cells for energy.

It's being treated differently because it is neither a nutrient or essential for life like healthy fats, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, protein or antioxidants. There is no RDA for sugar and never should be since it is completely unnecessary for life or good health.



Sugar is not fortified or enriched and provides absolutely no nutrients to the body other than glucose and then without the benefit of vitamins, minerals or other substances necessary for life. At least when I eat vegetables or berries, I'm getting a lot of other healthy, life-sustaining nutrients along with the carbs instead of just a good dose of sugar and nothing else. If a food has to be "enriched" or "vitamin fortified" to make it useful as a food source, why bother with it?



Sugar has no nutritional value, period. Just because the sugar industry has managed to convince food manufacturers to add sugar to practically every processed product out there and the public has become used to/addicted to it and their palates have been trained to perceive a food without a sweet taste as flat or unpalatable does not equate to it being indespensible for good health. Yes, sugar is present in practially every processed food on the market but it adds absolutely no nutritional value to those foods whatsoever.

What all these arguments come down to, basically, is: "Sugar is good and everyone needs it because we produce and market it and it supports our lifestyles. Besides...people like the way it tastes."

Didnt the tobacco industry say something similar way back, claiming there was no proof cigarette smoking was harmful to your health ?

Are there truely people out there....other than those involved in the sugar industry....that believes this nonsense?

I think it's not the sugar but the Sugar Association that contributes to good health. I've been laughing out loud reading their affirmations. And people who laugh a lot have stronger immune systems so they have better health.

Aw c'mon, all they are saying is that sugar is a pure fat free carb.
Since there are a lot of people out there calling carbs "nutrients" necessary for brain functions etc. why shouldn't sugar be the carbs. All carbs are actually sugar anyway.
It makes sense to anybody who believes that carbs are necessary for life.

danny

I can see the ad campaign now "Sugar, the perfect food for your brain!"

Even if you are one of those who believes living low carb is abnormal or healthy... come one, even then it is a stretch to say sugar is a good source of nutrition.

True, the carbs in sugar are not much different than the carbs in fruit or vegetables. A carbohydrate is a carbohydrate irregardless of the source. However, it's the way that it's not the same that's important. You can eat 100 grams of sugar for 400 calories, and get... 100 grams of sugar for 400 calories. You can eat 100 grams of sugar from fruits and veggies, on the other hand, and get fiber, antioxidants, protein, and healthy fats as well as the 400 calories from sugar.

Sugar is junk food in its purest form. It doesn't contain a single nutrient besides raw energy. This is the definition of junk food. Even chocolate contains most of it's energy in the form of fatty acids (which are useful to the body), some minerals/vitamins, and antioxidants. Same for cheesecake, ice cream, etc.

I find it ironic that they say "sugar is low fat" like that's a good thing. At least if sugar's calories came from fat, then you could say it has a use to the body besides raw energy. You can't even say that of sugar. Fried bacon grease is more nutritious.