Thread: NYTimes: The Sweet and Lowdown on Sugar

http://nytimes.com/2004/01/23/opinion/23NEST.html

You really have to read this. Just when you think you're becoming too cynical, you find out you're still naive.

Quotes:
-----------
To lose weight, people must eat less, be more active, or both. The first part of that prescription, of course, raises the question, "Eat less of what?" For the World Health Organization and most nutritionists, one obvious answer is sugars. But the United States and American food companies seem to have a different idea...

One recommendation in the report raised particular ire — that people should limit "free" sugars. "Free" refers to sugars added to foods that aren't thought of as sweet — mayonnaise and peanut butter, for example — as well as the more obvious soft drinks, snack foods, pastries and candy. The report suggests an upper limit of 10 percent of calories from added sugars — about the amount recommended by our own Department of Agriculture's food pyramid. According to the Agriculture Department, if you eat 2,200 calories a day, you should limit added sugars to 12 teaspoons. The typical American consumes 20. Added sugars made up 11 percent of calories in American diets in the late 1970's; they now are 16 percent overall and 20 percent for teenagers. By itself, that 20-ounce Coke or Pepsi in a school vending machine provides 15 teaspoons of sugars.

Understandably, industry lobbyists are uneasy about calls to cut consumption of sugars. One trade group, the Sugar Association, demanded that the W.H.O. remove an early draft of the report from its Web site and conduct another scientific review. It also vowed to use "every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the report, including asking members of Congress to challenge the United States' $406 million in contributions to the W.H.O...
--------------


Aren't you glad there are groups with names like The Sugar Association looking out for us?

**************
"Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then on the way out, slam the door."

oh yes, I sleep better at night. (snort!)

you should limit added sugars to TWELVE TEASPOONS????????


THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!

Well, count me in for ZERO.

angry,
andrea

Another one of those sites you have to register for-

Rachel in Texas

5'4"
Valentine's: 220/215/210
Overall: 225/215/140

Andrea we need a smilie showing a man (or woman) hanging him/herself. I knew about the sugar industries problem with the WHO report but it still infuriates me when I hear of it.
Thanks for the article Doc.

Rob
310/233/180

Me, a skeptic? I trust you have proof.

Rachel, NY Times asks you to sign up, but they don't ask for any personal info. It's pretty painless and spamfree, and you get to read everything in the New York Times, even before it reaches the morning paper. I read it every night, on-line, before bed. The Washington Post and MSNBC are my other two favorite news sites.

It seems like all the newspapers are moving in the direction of requiring some kind of trivial sign-up. Some newspapers even bilk you for more personal information or want you to respond to an email confirmation, or even money, which is a pretty lame idea since you can read most of this stuff anyway by doing a google search.

**************
"Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then on the way out, slam the door."

Hey Doc.. I'm with you - I've been an online subscriber to the NYT for years (I'm also "Rachel", but I'm not in Texas) it's my primary information source regardless of what country I'm living in.

The New York Times ROCKS!

Hugs,
Rachel
165/145/128
Haec trutina errat. (Latin for,"There is something wrong with this scale".)

Marion Nestle, I see her name come up quite frequently when I read articles about health and nutrition. Last night, I was looking through Amazon, and I noticed a book by her covering many of the same topics, how food manufacturers, advertisers, and lobbying groups are influencing US health and eating habits.

It just goes to show you how much sociological pressure there is to eat what corporations want you to eat. Sure we do have individual choice, but unless we know how foods effect us, people won’t make changes. Even then, we are going against those social forces. The corporations are doing everything in there power to prevent people from learning. Makes me think back to my sociology classes. I had a professor who was always up on things like this. He changed the entire way I see and understand the world.

Ill try to shut up and end this rant here before I end up becoming more depressed than I already am.

Started Atkins on 9/20/03
235-->190; 150 goal

______________________________________________
Aren't you glad there are groups with names like The Sugar Association looking out for us?
_____________________________________________

Isn't that kinda like the IRS taking care of our money?????

Connie

[img]//www.lowcarbeating.com/lcesupporter.gif[/img]