to a USDA report released this year, available calories from all forms of added
sugars increased 17 percent from 1970 to 2006.
The dramatic rise in obesity is the principal concern about sugar
consumption among health professionals, but sugar’s impact on development of
diabetes, dental cavities and other health problems is also an issue. But can
sugar itself – even the much-maligned overuse of high-fructose corn syrup
(HFCS) – take all the blame? Or is an increase in overall calorie consumption
what’s really at the heart of this debate?
rise in sugar consumption in the U.S. in the past three decades includes the
use of table sugar, cane and beet sugar, honey, molasses and other syrups, as
well as high fructose corn syrup and other corn sweeteners like glucose and
Many point to the introduction
of low-cost HFCS in the 1960s (created by converting some of the glucose in
corn to much sweeter fructose molecules) as the beginning of the American sugar
an increase in sugar seems to correspond to the rise in obesity, that’s not the
Total calories from all
food sources also increased by 520 calories a day from 1970 to 2006. Although
the increase in sugar, HFCS and other sweeteners played a role, added calories from
fat and grain products actually account for even larger portions of our
increased calories. Americans clearly need to reduce our excessive calorie
consumption, and reducing added sugars is just part of that.
But if we need to
cut back on added sugars, is there any difference between old-fashioned table
sugar and the HFCS now so common in commercial foods?
In short, no. In fact, when the American
Medical Association issued a statement earlier this year that encouraged
limiting consumption of all calorie-containing sweeteners, it did not support
specific warnings on high-fructose corn syrup.
Much of the debate
surrounding HFCS focuses on differences in the metabolic effects of glucose and
fructose, the two simple sugars that combine to make the product. But both
table sugar (sucrose) and HFCS are composed of nearly equal amounts of fructose
and glucose. Since sucrose is easily broken down in the digestive tract to the
two simple sugars, both HFCS and table sugar seem to result in absorption of
similar amounts of fructose and glucose.
A healthy diet
will always include some sugar, as it naturally occurs in many nutritious foods
like fruit and milk. The key is to limit added sugars of all types, rather than
focusing on table sugar (sucrose) versus HFCS.
from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggest that added sugars can supply up to
25 percent of our daily calories. But this allows for up to 125 grams of added
sugar a day on a 2000 calorie diet – equivalent to 500 calories and almost 2/3
cup of sugar. Many nutrition experts contest this figure and recommend that no
more than 10 percent of daily calories come from refined sugars. In fact, USDA
dietary patterns show that after we meet our nutritional needs, most people
have room for only 150 to 350 total “discretionary calories” (calories from
“treats” that don’t supply much nutritionally, such as sweets and alcohol).
Even the lower
figure cited by the USDA would allow for up to 22 teaspoons of added sugar if
all discretionary calories were spent on
sugar-sweetened soft drinks (the largest source of added sugars in the U.S.
diet) and other sweets. While that may sound like a lot, check the Nutrition
Facts panel on food labels to see how quickly it adds up.
You’ll often find one or two teaspoons of
added sugar (four to eight grams) in each serving of pasta sauce, white bread,
hamburger rolls, ketchup and soup, with even larger amounts in cereal, yogurt
may provide additional guidance. For now, if we avoid sugary drinks and choose
less processed foods, we can cut excess sugar and calories to help with weight
control and have room for more high-nutrient, health-promoting foods as well.
September 8, 2008
Contact: Sarah Wally, (202) 328-7744
The American Institute for Cancer Research
(AICR) is the cancer charity that fosters research on the relationship of nutrition,
physical activity and weight management to cancer risk, interprets the
scientific literature and educates the public about the results. It has
contributed more than $86 million for innovative research conducted at
universities, hospitals and research centers across the country. AICR has
published two landmark reports that interpret the accumulated research in the
field and is committed to a process of continuous review. AICR also provides a
wide range of educational programs to help millions of Americans learn to make
dietary changes for lower cancer risk. Its award-winning New American Plate
program is presented in brochures, seminars and on its Web site, www.aicr.org.
AICR is a member of the World Cancer Research Fund International.
Disclaimer: What's published on this website should be considered opinions of respective writers only and foodconsumer.org which has no political agenda nor commercial ambition may or may not endorse any opinion of any writer. No accuracy is guaranteed although writers are doing their best to provide accurate information only.
The information on this website should not be construed as medical advice and should not be used to replace professional services provided by qualified or licensed health care workers. The site serves only as a platform for writers and readers to share knowledge, experience, and information from the scientific community, organizations, government agencies and individuals.
Foodconsumer.org encourages readers who have had medical conditions to consult with licensed health care providers - conventional and or alternative medical practitioners.