FINDINGMYSELF61 - I don't think that's the case at all. They don't specifically say cut only cane sugar, they said cut all added sugars. High fructose corn syrup, beet, maple syrup, honey, coconut and yes cane sugar.
All they are saying is moderation should be to a maximum of 5% of daily calories for all types of added sugars.
Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 3/7/2014 (11:36)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
59 3/7/14 9:55 A
I feel this is political to avoid imports from cane sugar (which has some health benefits) producing countries since foreign sugar farms are not a part of the US Farm Bill. Farmers in the US that grow sugar beets are being subisdized to grow corn for fuel instead. The sheeple will believe anything the government/food industry pays the insurance companies, promoters, and tv doctors to recommend..people have been using sugar for centuries along with salt and fats. Of course the chemical/food industries love this! They can make more artificial sweeteners, fat substitutes, additives and flavorings at a much lower cost then growing the "real thing". I prefer natural sugar in moderation over a chemical sweetener, but that is my choice.
3/7/14 9:41 A
I think that a lot of what this situation comes down to is educating people about the benefits of why there is a lower limit on things. The public has been conditioned for decades about the benefits of convenience foods, and why they should be used. No one ever talked about the risks and health hazards of those foods. Now that people are so used to using them, there is a push back to a more natural and fresh way of cooking and eating. It does take time to switch back. I know a lot of people who literally don't know how to cook from scratch because they have always lived in a world where convenience trumps everything else. In some ways I'm extremely lucky...I took a medication that literally changed the tastes of most processed foods and made them disgusting, so it was really easy for me to switch back to fresh healthier foods. There are other terrible effects, but there was something good. But most people don't have it that easy.
It comes down to the consumer to make their own decisions, read labels, track and regulate their own intake of any ingredient they want to ingest less of. Basic food without a lot of additives is still widely available but we have to invest time and thought to obtaining it and cooking it.
It's an individual responsibility, in my opinion. I don't care what the WHO or the government or any "experts" or anyone else says or does about choosing what they eat. I do what's right for me.
The food industry keeps finding ways to lure customers by appealing to their hunger for more and more salt, sugar, and fat. And these days they replace sugar with high fructose corn syrup which some experts say affects the body differently. But the bottom line is that our taste preferences have been so affected by the amount of salt, sugar, and fat processed into the food, that the manufacturers have problems selling their products when they try to cut back. Even the cutback on salt, that was supposed to take effect a year ago, got a lot of resistance. It takes time to wean people back to natural levels of sweetness and salt. It should be done for the health of the public...but try explaining to people why the food tastes different....especially when they've been conditioned by so many of the foods on our shelves.
How do you tell the public they have to eat healthier, when you can't even get people in your own family to do it?
good read.....'Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us' by Michael Moss
Edited by: SHERYLDS at: 3/7/2014 (08:12)
Fitness Minutes: (311,087)
12,366 3/6/14 8:52 P
It is crazy how much sugar food contains, so the added sugar needs to go!!!!
I am very glad that there are some agencies out there that care about people's health and are doing their best to inform us of things that can hurt us.
On a daily basis I am pretty low on my added sugar, definitely lower than 5%. I think if people watched the ingredients of their foods and cut back on added sugars they would be so much healthier.
3/6/14 3:47 P
Great topic! I agree with all but the "breathing air" comment. Looks like people on this thread are doing their research!
3/6/14 3:43 P
The article I read on it yesterday, stated that it was *added* sugar, not the fructose found naturally in fruit or lactose in milk.
I, too, think it's sad that in the US, lobbyists wield so much power. Even when something makes sense for the general population, the lobbyists can sway Congress to whatever their own special interests are. sigh.
I do not see whatever WHO says, making an impact on the daily lives of the general population. It might come into play for those who are interested in these sorts of things (Me! Me!) or become interested, due to a condition such as diabetes. The average Joe or Jane, who isn't looking at nutrition labels anyway.... probably won't care. It *might* factor in some, in the guidelines for school lunches or WIC or if they ever reform food stamps and restrict what a person can buy to healthier type items.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
59 3/6/14 3:05 P
Sugar is a natural food comming from a plant..Any food can be unhealthy if eaten/used in excess. I'd personally like to see the artificial sweetners taken out of food as many can cause organ damage.
Fitness Minutes: (180,380)
3/6/14 3:01 P
I'm waiting for them to tell us not to breathe the air, it's bad for us too......................get down to the lowest common denominator, WHO, plus, too many people, world wide, not using birth control.
Personally I support the directive. I agree that sugar is one of the main toxins in our diet today.
That being said I am not sure what will happen to make this happen. Some things we know: 1. sugar content went up drastically when governments 'encouraged' (government encouraging something is kind of like a wolf encouraging a lamb to become dinner) manufacturers to cut fat in foods. They used sugar and salt to add flavor that they took out in fat. If they reduce sugar, salt will be all that is left unless they create yet another form of sugar (quite possible) 2. When they reduced fat they started to use different types of fat such as trans fat so probably a new chemist version of sugar will arise. 3. In the US sugar manufacturers both making cane sugar and HFCS are very politically active and will fight implementation of this with their last dollar.
In the end I hope for the best but expect very little to come from it at least in the US. I wish I could be more optimistic but past experience makes me skeptical.
On a daily basis I eat no added sugar. Like anyone though I have days where I am not as compliant as I would like to be
WHO opens public consultation on draft sugars guideline
"WHO is launching a public consultation on its draft guideline on sugars intake. When finalized, the guideline will provide countries with recommendations on limiting the consumption of sugars to reduce public health problems like obesity and dental caries (commonly referred to as tooth decay)."
Eating Sugar Causes Massive Health Problems, Says WHO
"In 2004 when the WHO tried to include the 10 per cent sugar limit recommendation in its Global Strategy for Diet, Physical Activity and Health, the U.S. Congress — under pressure from the sugar industry lobby — threatened to withdraw U.S. funding for the agency. The direct reference to the 10 per cent figure was removed from the final report."
This was the lead news story on the 10 o'clock news last night. Apparently too much sugar is bad for us! I think it's really sad that the food industry has so much power over the World Health Orginization.
How much sugar do you typically eat everyday? Are you anywhere near the recommended level of 5% or 25 grams a day? Also I'm trying to figure out if that is sugar total or added sugars? It must be added sugar because fruit is healthy but can contain quite a bit of sugar.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.