PDA

View Full Version : Obesity experts appalled by EU move to approve health claim for fructose


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Demi
Fri, Oct-18-13, 04:25
From The Guardian
London, UK
17 October, 2013

Obesity experts appalled by EU move to approve health claim for fructose

Food firms using fructose will be able to boast of health benefits despite fruit sugar being implicated in soaring US obesity levels

Obesity experts say they are appalled by an EU decision to allow a "health claim" for fructose, the sweetener implicated in the disastrous upsurge in weight in the US.

Fructose, the sugar found in fruit, is used in Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other sweetened US drinks. Many believe the use of high-fructose corn syrup caused obesity to rise faster in the US than elsewhere in the world. Europe has largely used cane and beet sugar instead.

But the EU has now ruled (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:160:0004:0008:EN:PDF) that food and drink manufacturers can claim their sweetened products are healthier if they replace more than 30% of the glucose and sucrose they contain with fructose.

The decision was taken on the advice of the European Food Safety Authority(Efsa) (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/pub/2223.htm), on the grounds that fructose has a lower glycaemic index (GI) – it does not cause as high and rapid a blood sugar spike as sucrose or glucose.

But, say obesity experts, fructose is metabolised differently from other sugars – it goes straight to the liver and unprocessed excess is stored there as fat, building up deposits that can cause life-threatening disease.

There is potential for products high in sugar including soft drinks, cereal bars and low-fat yoghurts to make health claims by using fructose. Lucozade Original contains 33g of sugar in a 380ml bottle, Sprite has 21.8g of sugar in 330ml cans and Dr Pepper 34.1g per 330ml.

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Elevenses bars have 18g of sugar in a 45g bar – so are more than a third sugar.

Barry Popkin – distinguished professor in the department of public health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in the US, who co-authored the groundbreaking paper linking high-fructose corn syrup to obesity in 2003 – said the ruling would lead to claims from food and drink firms that would mislead consumers.

"This claim is so narrow and it will confuse a whole lot of people," he said. "That's what the industry does an awful lot of. People see it and think, 'ah maybe it's healthy.'

"It brings into question the whole area of health claims. They are made on such short-term effects."

Drinking pomegranate juice might give you all the vitamin C and antioxidants you need that day, but six months of regular drinking could raise the risk of diabetes, he said.

A health claim relating to a lower glycaemic index ignored the wider and more important public health issue, he said: that we should all consume less fructose and other sugars.

George Bray, head of the division of clinical obesity and metabolism at the Pennington biomedical research centre in Louisiana and co-author of the fructose paper, said he could see no rational reason for adding pure fructose to the diet.

"Assuming that it is correct that manufacturers can substitute up to 30% fructose for glucose or sucrose, it would be a very sad commentary on their review of the literature," he said.

"The quantity of fructose appearing in the diet is already excessive in my view. [Focusing on the fact that] fructose does not raise glucose as much ignores all of the detrimental effects of fructose from whatever source."

Michael Goran, director of childhood obesity research at the University of Southern California, said that although it had a lower GI, "in the long term, excess fructose is more damaging metabolically for the body than other sugars".

He added: "This opens the door for the beverage and food industry to start replacing sucrose with fructose, which is presumably cheaper."

More people in Europe will be consuming more fructose as a result, he said. "This is a dangerous and problematic issue. There is going to be a big increase in fructose exposure. There is going to be a big increase in fructose exposure."

The European Heart Network (http://www.ehnheart.org/) raised concerns with DG Sanco, the European commission's health department, and asked it to share its views with member states. Its director, Susanne Logstrup, warned that replacing glucose and sucrose with "healthier" fructose might make people think a drink or food was less fattening.

"If the replacement of glucose/sucrose is not isocaloric, replacement could lead to a higher caloric content. In the EU, the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is generally too high and it would not be in the interest of public health if intake were to increase," she said.

Professor Mike Rayner, director of the British Heart Foundation health promotion research group at Oxford University and an adviser to the European Heart Network, said it was important the EU looked at nutritional health claims – and that it had in recent years taken a tougher stance.

"But here is an example in fructose of a claim that is technically probably true but has no public health benefit," he said.

Industry is delighted by the EU ruling. Galam Group, an Israeli fructose manufacturer, called the move "a game-changing step" in comments to the trade journal Nutra Ingredients. It said it expected a surge in sales from 2 January, when the ruling takes effect.http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/17/obesity-experts-appalled-eu-fructose-health-claim-approval

ojoj
Fri, Oct-18-13, 04:31
Money talks - theres your proof!!! A can of HFCS coke will become one of our "five a day"!

"It must be healthy, its the sugar from fruit" - I can hear those claims already!!!!!

Jo xxx

teaser
Fri, Oct-18-13, 06:52
I don`t think any claim that a food is healthier because it has a lower glycemic index is actually valid (unless it got there by the carbohydrate content being very low).

leemack
Fri, Oct-18-13, 08:03
Great instead of HFCS being 55/45 fructose and glucose, it will now be something like 85/15 with a 'healthy' label on it.

keith v
Fri, Oct-18-13, 08:31
All they have to do is to make the claim that HFCS is healthy and people will get confused, give up and eat whatever is put in front of them.

I saw this with a very smart co-worker of mine. In his 20's in good shape but "high" cholesterol, I talked to him about low carb and told him to do the research. He ended up eating less fat, because he said " there's a lot of claims on both sides of the argument" and the doctor told him to eat less fat...

rightnow
Fri, Oct-18-13, 08:33
If the government would just get out of the health business the people would probably be better off.

PJ

Demi
Tue, Oct-22-13, 03:11
From The Guardian
London, UK
21 October, 2013

Fructose: the poison index

A ruling on fructose boosts the powerful sugar industry, either by incompetence or collusion, but is based on pseudoscience

Robert Lustig

The battle over the compound fructose now reaches new levels of obfuscation. The food industry is a strong – and loud, and rich – proponent, hard to ignore. The European Food and Safety Agency has just weighed in, in favour of the substitution of sucrose (table sugar: a disaccharide composed of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose) with fructose alone, the sweeter of the two – even to the point of allowing health claims for fructose (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/17/obesity-experts-appalled-eu-fructose-health-claim-approval) on the packaging of processed foods.

And yet the scientific data on fructose says it is one of the most egregious components of the western diet (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemic), directly contributing to heart disease and diabetes, and associated with cancer and dementia. Nature magazine has just published a scathing indictment of fructose by Dr Lewis Cantley (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/502181a.html), one of the US's leading cancer researchers. But the EFSA says it sees no harm, justifying its stance on the basis that fructose has a lower glycaemic index than glucose.

The concept of glycaemic index is simple. This is how high your blood glucose rises after ingesting 50 grams of carbohydrate in any specific food, which is a measure of a food's generation of an insulin response, and is used as a way of showing a food's potential for weight gain. Glycaemic index is a proxy for how high your insulin level will rise, which determines whether that blood glucose will get shunted to fat cells for storage. Low-glycaemic-index diets promote blood sugar stability and are associated with weight loss. But the EFSA has missed the point. Glycaemic index is not the issue.

Glycaemic load is where it's at. This takes into account how much of a given food one must eat to obtain 50 grams of carbohydrate. The perfect example is carrots. Carrots have a high glycaemic index – if you consume 50 grams of carbohydrate in carrots, your blood sugar will rise pretty high. But you would have to eat 1.3lbs – 600 grams – of carrots to get 50 grams of carbohydrate. Highly unlikely. Any high-glycaemic-index food can become a low-glycaemic-load food if it's eaten with its inherent fibre. That means "real food". But fructose is made in a lab. It's anything but "real".

Yes, fructose has a low glycaemic index of 19, because it doesn't increase blood glucose. It's fructose, for goodness sake. It increases blood fructose, which is way worse. Fructose causes seven times as much cell damage as does glucose, because it binds to cellular proteins seven times faster; and it releases 100 times the number of oxygen radicals (such as hydrogen peroxide, which kills everything in sight). Indeed, a 20oz soda results in a serum fructose concentration of six micromolar, enough to do major arterial and pancreatic damage. Glycaemic index is a canard; and fructose makes it so. Because fructose's poisonous effects have nothing to do with glycaemic index; they are beyond glycaemic index.

The food industry is fond of referring to a 1999 study showing that liver fat generation from oral fructose occurs at a very low rate (less than 5%). And that's true, if you're thin, insulin sensitive, fasting (and therefore glycogen-depleted), and given just fructose alone (which is poorly absorbed). Conversely, if you're obese, insulin resistant, well fed, and getting both fructose and glucose together (like a sizable percentage of the population), then fructose gets converted to fat at a much higher rate, approximating 30%. In other words, the toxicity of fructose depends on context.

The industry points to meta-analyses of controlled isocaloric "fructose for glucose" exchange studies that demonstrate no effect from fructose on weight gain or other morbidities. Perhaps one reason for this is because crystalline fructose is incompletely absorbed. When that happens, residual fructose in the gastrointestinal system causes pain, bloating, and diarrhoea: ask any child the morning after Halloween in between trips to the bathroom relieving his diarrhoea. Furthermore, those meta-analyses where fructose was supplied in excess do show weight gain, high levels of lipids in the blood, and insulin resistance. The dose determines the poison.

The EFSA has boosted the position of the sugar industry, either through incompetence or collusion. But it is clear that this recommendation is scientifically bogus. Nutritional policy should be based on science – not pseudoscience, as we have seen over the past 30 years.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/fructose-poison-sugar-industry-pseudoscience

WereBear
Tue, Oct-22-13, 03:47
If the government would just get out of the health business the people would probably be better off.

PJ

If the corporations got out of the health business they would be less confused, too.

Look at the low fat craze: the science said cut down on saturated fat; wrong, but specific. It took the food processors to demonize fat and market Snackwells... the science wasn't there, first, I don't think.

Groggy60
Wed, Oct-23-13, 09:51
Friggin scary, not even HFCS - pure fructose proceeding directly to the devil.

Whofan
Wed, Oct-23-13, 10:06
Industry is delighted by the EU ruling. Galam Group, an Israeli fructose manufacturer, called the move "a game-changing step" in comments to the trade journal Nutra Ingredients. It said it expected a surge in sales from 2 January, when the ruling takes effect.

Who took bribes for power and/or money this time? I seriously wish so-called investigative journalists would actually investigate this kind of thing and name bloody names!