In fairness to what is reported in the book, I would like to note some changes in legislation, regulations, and other improvements that have happened in the past few years.
Throughout the book, I lament about the FDA and USDA regarding their lax requirements for everything from research to what constitutes a ‘vegetable’ in school lunches. But, I also cautioned in Part III, “The Man”, that these entities are Public Institutions, built for the public interest. It is then up to US to manage them. That being said, let’s commend them and the lobbying entities that helped redirect their agenda.
Added Sugar – The awkward 2-step:
- PRO: New requirements by the USDA and FDA will require companies to separate the added from natural occurring sugars. They will need to now report to the consumer, via the nutrition label, exactly how much of the added sugar is extra, and how much is the estimated sugar content of the item (Some companies report ALL sugar together, others leave out natural occurring sugars, etc. This will show which ones are the worst offenders.).
- CON: They still aren’t going to be required to list the percentage of daily allowance for a 2000 calorie diet that the sugar actually represents. (i.e. Any item over 25 begins at 100% and increases exponentially from there.)
- PRO: Speaking of the USDA, they have now adopted the American Heart Association suggested daily intake of 25 grams of added sugar per day. (The original recommendations maxed at 40 grams.)
- CON: Now sugar is not a ‘bad’ thing. Which is true, but it is how it is being said that bothers me.
The article that spawned this blog rant has been lost in the ether that is the internet. However, the spirit remains. When I read articles now on CNN or NPR or some random health site, it seemed that the conversation was being turned to say, “Oh, well, sugar is not all that BAD.” The original article went on to say how we ‘need’ sugar.
However, the writer(s) wasn’t talking about added sugar at all, they were talking about glucose. Glucose is an electrolyte, like Sodium, and the other one I always forget (magnesium?)… Glucose is ENERGY for your cells. You need it. You get it from starchy foods. And in high doses, not balanced with enough fiber or protein – IT IS JUST AS BAD as added sugar. This falls under my previous blog calling for the “Loaded Language Police”.
The writer upset me because they were purposefully misusing the term ‘sugar’. They were redefining it and glazing over the definition to make it fit.
Do you think that the writer appreciated that most people are too busy to read the article in its entirety? Do you think that the writer knew that most likely, 90% of people only read the title of the article?
If they were showing any journalistic integrity, the title would say “Glucose is good for you in Moderation.” Not “Sugar is…” *gasp* God help us. We spend so much time on language and then, when we need it most, we throw it out for what sells papers.
I complain because I know that I can’t be the only one out there saying, what the hell? And I make myself feel better by looking up words in the dictionary. Not crazy at all? Lol.
Here’s the result of my most recent dictionary search:
Glaze: transitive verb 1 : to furnish or fit with glass 2 a : to coat with or as if with a glaze <the storm glazed trees with ice> b : to apply a glaze to <glaze doughnuts> 3 : to give a smooth glossy surface to intransitive verb 1 : to become glazed or glassy <my eyes glazed over> 2 : to form a glaze — glazyer noun
My favorite definition is “3: to give a smooth glossy surface to”. I’m pretty sure that is what is happening to the SUGAR conversation.