How did so much sugar end up in our food?
26 December 2024
The article below was one of the first published on our original site (then called Health Synergy) and has since been reproduced, with our permission, as part of an educational document compiled by Spinney Press.
Most people now know that consistent overconsumption of sugar can have devastating effects on our health. With this awareness, an increasing amount of confusing and misleading information has emerged, particularly from "health coaches" who seem to know more about marketing than nutrition. We've seen claims like “eating a mango has as much sugar as a Mars Bar,” “drinking oat milk (or eating dates) is like drinking Coca-Cola,” and perhaps the most ridiculous, “açai bowls have as much sugar as Krispy Kreme doughnuts.” These sensational claims have the desired ‘click-bait’ impact, frightening some people.
There is no context to any of the above claims. To use the last one as an example, pure organic açai berry contains zero sugar. It is a highly nutritious, antioxidant-rich food. What is added to the açai is, of course, where there is variance in sugar content. We add a banana for sweetness (approximately 14g sugar, of which approximately 3g is fibre—this obviously varies with size and ripeness of the banana). Bananas are also nutrient-dense. We may also add blueberries, good-quality protein powder (from organic food sources), and toppings such as nuts, nut butter, and yoghurt. An important part of our philosophy is that we need a diversity of foods as close to their natural source as possible for optimum macro and micronutrient and phytonutrient supply to nourish our bodies, minds, and microbiome.
It is true that there may end up being a similar amount of sugar in an açai bowl as in a Krispy Kreme doughnut. However, the message conveyed in the claim is very misleading. Naturally occurring sugars in food are very different from the white, commercially produced, heavily sprayed (with poisonous glyphosate) sugar found in ultra-processed foods like Krispy Kreme doughnuts. This distinction is explained in our now 10-year-old article, reproduced below…
A growing collection of documentaries depicts the epidemic of obesity and chronic disease as a result of our food choices. For example, there is Supersize Me, Super Juice Me, The Men Who Made Us Fat, Food Matters, and most recently, That Sugar Film. Some of these are criticised for the lack of ‘lab’-style data, but the results and messages seem very consistent. Junk (processed) and ultra-processed food makes us sick, while healthy food helps restore and maintain our health. This picture is increasingly being supported by research.
The first way to take charge of our health is to become aware of how the food industry works and how such large quantities of sugar have crept into most packaged products on supermarket shelves, as well as fast food restaurants.
The three-part documentary aired in 2012, The Men That Made Us Fat (by Jacques Peretti), discusses a more political cause for what it terms ‘the obesity epidemic.’ Just to recap, or for those who haven’t seen it, key factors in the rise of obesity over the past forty years, according to this documentary, are as follows:
In the 1970s in America, there was a push towards maximum agricultural production, and many small farms were lost to industrialised farming methods. Corn was particularly abundant.
It was discovered (by a Japanese scientist) that corn could be converted into a very sweet syrup, called High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), with a higher ratio of fructose to glucose than table sugar, as well as being sweeter and 1/3 cheaper than sugar. This was then, for economic reasons, quickly adopted as a sugar replacement by many food and beverage companies, substantially increasing profit margins. This product is now ubiquitous in processed foods and soft drinks.
Simultaneously in the UK, the concept of ‘snacking’ was introduced, with marketing campaigns encouraging snacking on sugary bars in between meals, increasing not only calorie intake but also dramatically increasing the proportion of sugar consumed by individuals.
The prevalence of heart disease during the 1970s was blamed on high saturated fats. The food industry quickly saw an opportunity to produce and market ‘low fat’ foods, altering the saturated fat to trans fat by hydrogenation processes (now known to be far more dangerous than saturated fat) and adding sugar to compensate for compromised taste. Obesity continued to escalate, as did cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases.
Professor John Yudkin vehemently believed sugar played a bigger role in disease than fats. He published a book in 1972, called Pure, White and Deadly. Professor Yudkin was discredited for his work, and his findings were dismissed.
Portion sizes increased as a marketing tool packaged as ‘value.’ Low-cost, nutrient-devoid foods like popcorn, fries, and soda came in a ‘jumbo’ size for a relatively small price increase. This resulted in increased profit margins for food companies, and the population became accustomed to larger portions. Then came the concept of ‘bundling,’ again pitched as value as more high-sugar, low-nutrient foods were added.
Mounting evidence that excess sugar in processed foods was being presented to governments was generally ignored.
A report prepared by JP Morgan in 2003 warned investors that manufacturers of unhealthy foods were vulnerable to financial losses. This certainly motivated action, but the concerns were about profits and shareholdings, not public health.
The increasing public interest in health led food manufacturers to label products accordingly, perhaps fortified with vitamins, but there was no reduction in sugar. In the UK, the food industry successfully fought a proposal for mandatory ‘traffic light labeling’ to help consumers readily discern high-sugar, high-calorie, and high-fat meals. This became a voluntary measure taken up by Sainsbury’s but declined by Tesco. It seemed the risk of people finding out a food was unhealthy and then choosing not to buy it was too high.
A comment made in this documentary that struck me was that one of the great strengths of supermarkets is their responsiveness to consumer demand. That puts us back in charge. The only way this situation will be reversed is through education and through us as individuals making different choices. While it is not difficult to see that the government and food industry bear considerable responsibility for the health crisis we currently face, with so many competing interests, it is difficult to see a clear solution. The food companies employ millions of people, are answerable to their shareholders, and of course, enjoy enormous profits. Our health is a long way down the list of priorities. Therefore, it seems that, while the government and food industry may have created this situation, only we can fix it.
Another key figure in the growing awareness of the dangers of sugar is Professor Robert Lustig, who has posted a number of informative lectures on YouTube. In 2009, he posted a lecture called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth,” which has had over 5 million views. It is highly recommended. Professor Lustig describes sugar as a toxin, akin to tobacco and alcohol, and says it should come with warnings and taxes. He goes further than just calories, citing fructose, in particular, as a poison when consumed in excess, due to its ability to switch off satiety centres in the brain, interfere with leptin and other hormones associated with negative feedback control. It is important to note that when fructose occurs in whole foods, such as fruit and vegetables, it is not dangerous, as the fibre and other nutrients reduce the absorption and help metabolise this substance. Professor Lustig’s lectures give clear scientific explanations of the different ways sugars behave in the body and why not all calories are the same.
The point that not all calories are the same is also referred to in the recent popular documentary That Sugar Film. During this experiment, Damon Gameau replaces his usual diet, consisting of whole foods, with packaged/processed foods marketed as healthy, with the intention of matching the estimated daily sugar intake of Australians, being 42 teaspoons per day. Gameau claimed that his calorie intake didn’t change, but the type of calories did. The outcome was predictably that he gained weight, experienced mood swings, fatigue, and developed signs of fatty liver through raised liver enzymes, particularly ALT (Alanine Transaminase). While I wouldn’t consider any of the foods eaten by Damon Gameau in the documentary to be healthy, it is disturbing that a number of people do. The results were by no means a shock, and to go back to our initial point, the evidence shown in this growing collection of documentaries appears very consistent: nutrient-poor, fibre-poor, sugar-laden foods are harmful and make us sick.
Over recent years, there has been an enormous amount of attention given to the dangers of sugar, somewhat vindicating those of us who have been saying this for decades. However, the demonisation of all sugars and conflicting information can be confusing. We do, after all, require a constant supply of glucose to function, with our brains being particularly dependent on this substance. Sugars do occur naturally in foods or are converted from foods (carbohydrates). Certainly, added sugars should be minimised, and the biggest source of these added sugars are hidden in processed foods.
To simplify and sum up: there are very few people who would argue with the fact that the Western world consumes an excessive amount of sugar, although some may be shocked at just how much. If the sugars (whether in the form of sucrose or HFCS) are added to foods with few nutrients and little to no fibre, blood sugar will spike, the liver will struggle to metabolise the fructose portion, satiety will not occur through disruption of hormones such as leptin and all of these factors will encourage over eating whilst simultaneously leaving the body and brain undernourished. This is why a mango is different to a mars bar and dates are different to coca cola. My concern about these suggestions is that during a lapse of willpower, which is highly likely in any deprivation type diet, people may think that if it is all the same they may as well have a mars bar or coke, when they would be much better to satisfy their cravings with a mango or a date.
