New website aims to offer ‘accurate context for sugar’
 

https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/A...ts-demonization

Just so you don't have to hunt around in the article that was posted here's the site:

https://sugar.org/

I LOVE IT! STOP DEOMONIZING SHUGER PLEEZ!!

You'll notice that sugar also plays important roles in many foods that you eat. Please let's get over this hateful thinking against a subsance as natrual as sugars...

Please notice the graph below...



;)

From the article by Elizabeth Crawford:


Good, sounds like the accurate message is getting through to some about the dangers of sugar to the point where the sugar industry is becoming concerned about profitability. I have no sympathy for Mr. Hogan and his association members. Over the past 50+ years, the sugar industry has distorted the concept a healthy diet by sponsoring and paying "experts" to promote the message of sugar using celebrities describing its part in a healthy balanced diet to the point where saturated fat was mistakenly identified as the bad health scapegoat. The money paid to promote sugar and its products by sports and entertainment associations and related celebrities is stunning. This was to the detriment of the health of many who in good faith were following the recommended balanced diet and still are today. I take this communication and website as a good sign that some progress is being made. As a recovered carb addict, I have first-hand knowledge of how over time sugar in its many forms can lead people to eat in a haphazard way without control over quantity consumed while experiencing the incessant cravings for more.

I love how the website is copyright protected. Clearly not to protect the content, because the whole point is to spread lies, but to make it harder to post fair-use criticism of the nonsense they post. Or is that too harsh? Or not harsh enough? Am I being paranoid, or is this an appropriate response to finding yourself in a nutritional dystopia?

But I liked the bit about how important to them scientific transparency and accuracy is--but pointing out how extremely cliched these terms supposedly are. As in--at least this is how I read it--"our critics are virtue-signalling when they demand transparency and accuracy, but we're the real deal."

I'm sure there are some very nice sugar farmers. Some very nice tobacco farmers had to find something else to do with their lives. However nice they were, nobody owed them their lungs.

"a more accurate context of an overall diet"--that's the thing, much of the damage of sugar is to be found in the more accurate context of an overall diet. Is the worst diet the one highest in sugar? Step back--I won't gorge that much on pure sugar, though I know there are some who would. For me it was more things like donuts, pastries, ice cream etc.--yes, high in sugar, but a large portion of the food I ate more of because of sugar was starch and fat.

I used to think I liked chocolate - but then I cut out sugar. Found out that I really don't like chocolate - even with fake sweeteners. It was the sugar I loved.

Why would I want to feed cancer cells??

After carefully reading the graph, each and every header is how sugar improves the making of products. SUgar is just one of thousands of food addatives used to improve mouth feel, texture, etc. I did not see one header in regard to good nutrition.

There is never any context that makes sugar a good choice as far as I can tell.