New Book By Dr. Hull!

Splenda^®: Is It Safe Or Not?
Dr. Janet Hull reveals the scientific evidence strongly suggesting the chemical sweetener sucralose may harm your body. Visit Is Splenda Safe.com for more information!

Sugarphobia

By Dr. Janet Starr Hull

Over the last several decades, sugar has become a villain in the modern American diet. General sugar-bashing has led to a sugarphobia, which can lead to a dependency on chemical sweetener substitutes, which then creates a craving for “replacement foods.”  Sugar is blamed for causing many health problems including heart disease, diabetes, anxiety, fatigue, depression, hyperactivity, and even criminal behavior.  But:

• Is this accurate information?
• Are we blaming the “right” form of sugar for our health problems?
• Has dis-information over time created a false fear of sugar?

According to the 1986 FDA Report from the Sugars Task Force, added sugar at current levels is not detrimental to health.  They stated, “when normal or moderate quantities (of sugar) are consumed, sugar cannot be linked to any disease, nor does it create a dependency.”

Walter Glinsmann, M.D., FDA associate director for clinical nutrition and   

senior author of the Task Force, reports that eating unlimited amounts of sugar is not advisable. "There are not good or bad foods, only good or bad diets," he says. "If half your diet is pure sugar, that is not healthy. In a normal, varied diet, there are no adverse effects of sugar itself."

They are making a valid point, even though I am not sure if I totally agree with their conclusion. Let’s see what the experts have to say…

Despite the report, many consumers persist in linking sugar consumption to assorted illnesses, such as hyperactivity and aggressive behavior in children. Parents who say that their children are uncontrollable after eating candy and other sugary sweets often report this reaction. But artificial sweeteners are not the solution.

Use Natural Sugar As Opposed To Artificial Sugars

According to Consumer’s Research Magazine: “refined sugars and chemical sugar substitutes benefit the corporations manufacturing and marketing them, but do not benefit the consumers.”  They write: “Are such foods truly beneficial and desirable?  Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples rather than turnovers; or plain dairy foods rather than sweetened.”

As of 1990, Americans were consuming an average of twenty pounds of artificial sweeteners. Yet, as the consumption of sugar-substitutes rises, so too has the consumption of sugar.

“Sugar, averaging fifteen calories per teaspoon,” states Andy Briscoe of the National Sugar Association, “is blamed for America's obesity epidemic, a perception perpetuated by the artificial sweetener market.”

What do the artificial sweetener manufacturers say?  "A moderate coffee drinker who chooses sugar, consumes an additional 20,000 calories a year, and a heavy coffee drinker adds 80,000," says Lael Edelstein, Manager of Nutrition Communication for Chicago's Merisant Corp., now manufacturing Equal®. 

So the debate continues. The study's authors suggest sugar-free foods may play a role in the nation's obesity epidemic. Other scientists, however, dismiss that conclusion. But for every advocate touting the health advantages of the artificial sweeteners, there are at least as many cautioning against their use.

Posted on March 30, 2005 in Sugar | Link To This Entry | Comments (0)

Comments