Just a spoonful


Sugar makers to fight obesity worries with new ads touting the use of sugar as natural and healthy.

By Scott Leith

Cox News Service



ATLANTA - Sure, the U.S. population is getting fatter and fatter.

Must be time to start pushing more sugar.

The U.S. sugar industry is going on the offensive this year, from pursuing a lawsuit against a company that sells a no-calorie artificial sweetener to preparing a new ad campaign that will - for the first time in a decade - tout the use of real sugar.

"It's time we take back our own identity," said Melanie Miller, a spokeswoman for the Sugar Association. "Sugar isn't the enemy."

Bad rap

Such an approach might seem odd at the moment, given that obesity worries continue to get plenty of attention. But the sugar business thinks it has gotten a bad rep.

In the complex U.S. sweetener market, a pro-sugar campaign might seem to be good news, especially for companies such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

But the big beverage makers actually use very little sugar. Instead, they sweeten virtually all of their regular drinks with high-fructose corn syrup.

The Washington-based Sugar Association, meanwhile, is trying to boost sales of sugar made from cane and beets.

A decade ago, the group was doing its job in part by using ads that promoted sugar. The ads ended. In recent times, obesity rates have prompted criticism of sugar consumption.

Now, the Sugar Association has hired Marriner Marketing Communications of Columbia, Md., to develop a sugar ad campaign that will be tested in St. Louis and Cincinnati in May before a possible broader rollout. Miller said the trade group will spend $3 million to $5 million on the effort, with funding from the sugar beet side of the industry.

Positioning

One goal is to position sugar as a natural, healthy product with 15 calories per teaspoon.

Steve Hersh, president of New York-based Utmost Brands, makes a sugar-sweetened line of drinks called Grown-up Soda. GuS, as the product is known, is a premium-priced line sold in gourmet shops such as Eatzi's in Atlanta.

Hersh insisted on using cane sugar in the product because he believes there's an upscale market for products with real sugar, especially among people who are leery of high-fructose corn syrup.

"It's helped improve our business," he said.

Mark Kloster, owner and general manager of Dublin Dr Pepper Bottling Co. in Dublin, Texas, said his company is one of the few that still uses sugar to make some of its products. The company even sells sugared Dr Pepper over the Internet, to diehards who favor it over drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup.

"Sugar tastes better," Kloster said. "I've got thousands of consumers who will argue that point."

Taste test

You'd get an argument on that from those in the corn business. Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said there is "really no difference" in how the sweeteners taste.

The Sugar Association, meanwhile, is delivering a not-so-sweet message to a big player in artificial sweeteners. Dec. 10, the group sued McNeil Nutritionals, a unit of Johnson & Johnson that sells a popular artificial sweetener sold under the name Splenda. The Sugar Association claims McNeil has misled consumers in describing Splenda as being made from sugar.

Price supports

Such a fight aside, sugar might be more widely used in the United States if price supports didn't keep costs high. Soft drink bottlers, which rank as huge users of sweeteners, started switching to high-fructose corn syrup in the late 1970s when sugar became costly.

Whether pro-sugar forces can turn the tide on sugar's image remains to be seen. Michael Jacobson, of the Washington activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest, notes the industry already has shrunk quite a bit.

But Jacobson wouldn't want to see over-the-top ads for sugar. "It would be troubling if the sugar industry mounts a major campaign to try to persuade people that there's no problem with sugar," he said. "It certainly contributes to America's caloric intake."

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grand...ws/10586055.htm

There is nothing nutritious about sugar and yet so many negative aspects. I can't believe they are worried about losing money when sugar is still used in practically everything!!!

What is the story behind this? Anyone know? As far as I know splenda is just another manufactured chemical, it is not sugar as some claim it to be.

Splenda is chemically altered sugar. One of the molecules is replaced with chlorine. Which results in a sweet taste and good baking qualities, but the body does not process it as a carbohydrate.

Whether or not an artificial sweetener is "safe" has come down to a personal decision. I occasionally have lemonade or something candylike with Splenda, and my body has no problem with the taste, while NutraSweet always tasted off to me.

I would agree they may have a point--I have a markedly different, and worse, reaction to HFCS than I do to real sugar. Given the enormous increase in the presence of HFCS in foods, going back to "real" sugar might have a small impact in the lives of people who still eat all that stuff.

Agreed, though, no body needs to be eating that stuff in the first place.

I think they have a point. Occasional use isn't necessarily bad for a lot of people. American's have always eaten some sweets. Now they're overused and overadvertised. And not only replacing but ousting healthier choices. And I, personally, think HFCS has more adverse effects.

Do you know the exact ingredients of Splenda? Would sugar be listed as an ingredient then? I don't know if I trust that artificial sweeteners are made from real sugar. Anyone know?

The only things in the "ingredients" list are what is actually IN the product. Splenda is altered before it's released--it's not sugar anymore, once it's splenda.

Whether you can trust a packaged food product is a whole different problem, but if you can eat any of them, then this particular one isn't going to be any different. You MAY have a reaction to splenda--some people get insulin reactions to sweet tastes alone, regardless of calorie or carb content. Also, the carrier that gives volume to powdered Splenda has a carb content.

YMMV.

I'd rather see more use of sugar over HFCS. I'd REALLY rather they stop or at least cut back on sweetening everything we eat....but if they have to use it, I'd rather real sugar.

I bought whole wheat bread the other day....local food store brand. I deemed it better than Arnold's and Pepperige Farm because it has no HFCS and no trans-fats. It was the ONLY loaf in the store that didn't have both.

As for splenda et al, I don't trust them, but use them on occasion. Lately I've been eating more trying to get over a smoking quit. Over 25 days I've been able to not smoke and continue to loose by eating jello and popsicles and an occasional hard or chewy candy. Once I get over thie tho, I'll go back to my true occasional use....no more than 2-3 times/week max.

My goal is as natural as possible. If it's altered, I want to be the one who does it, not some faceless company located god knows where!

Well, good luck with quitting smoking CindySue! It sounds like you are making progress which is great news. Its not easy! Jello sounds good right now..heh.

A few weeks ago I was under the impression that Splenda was an all-natural product, but as you said, it doesn't appear to be. Its just another chemical. I started looking around the web and found some interesting articles. The whole "It's made from sugar so it tastes like sugar" tagline seems to be causing an uproar.

Natural as possible is what I try to follow as well...

High-fructose corn syrup is evil and must be stopped, just like trans-fats. I put sugar in the same league as potatoes and white rice, a high carb I don't really need but not evil.

Someone asked...

Ingredients: Dextrose, Maltodextrin, and the synthetic sweetening compound 4-chloro-4deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranosyl-1, 6dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranoside

SPLENDA
Sucralose (“Splenda”): This artificial sweetener is produced by taking regular white sugar (sucrose) and replacing three of its methyl groups with chlorine atoms. Chlorine, as you know, is toxic. Splenda, as you know, is legal in this country. The theory goes that the sucralose isn’t metabolized: it goes in one end, and out the other, so you don’t have to worry. There are indications, however, that it is damaging to diabetics. And according to the FDA, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay." Ask any biologist: if it’s mutagenic, it’s carcinogenic, too. Avoid!

Research in animals has shown that consuming sucralose (SPLENDA) comes hand in hand with a plethora of health problems including:
Shrunken thymus glands
(up to 40 percent shrinkage)
Enlarged liver and kidneys
Atrophy of lymph follicles
in the spleen and thymus
Reduced growth rate
Decreased red blood cell count
Extension of the pregnancy period
Aborted pregnancy
Diarrhea

Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose) by chemically altering the structure of the sugar molecules. The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pure the other 2% of ingredients turn out to be heavy metals and other potentially dangerous toxins: Lead, Arsenic, Methanol and Chlorinated Monosaccharides & Disaccharides.

Sucralose is a possible immunosuppressant, neurotoxin , anti fertility agent and psychological depressant.


SWEET N LOW
Saccharine (“Sweet ‘n’ Low”): The FDA actually tried to ban this one in 1977, because of some scary studies with cancer in rats. But since saccharine was the only non-caloric sweetener at the time, and people liked their diet sodas, Congress actually overruled the FDA.

After studies in the 1970s found it caused bladder cancer in rats, The Law Requires products containing saccharin had to carry warning labels. "Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals."

The National Cancer Institute ran studies and found that saccharine (Sweet n low) was connected with bladder cancer. People who drank only 2 cans or more a day of diet soda had an increased risk.


EQUAL, NUTRASWEET
Aspartame (“Nutrasweet,” “Equal”): This artificial sweetener had been the subject of more adverse effects reports than any food additive in the history of the FDA. A lot of studies show it to be safe; a lot insist that it isn’t. Why that discrepancy, I wonder... Well, in 1996, Ralph G. Walton, a medical doctor, professor, and Chairman of the Center for Behavioral Medicine at Northeaster Ohio University analyzed 164 studies on aspartame – 74 that were sponsored by the aspartame industry, and 90 that were not. Of the 74 studies sponsored by the industry, every single one claimed that no safety issues were found. However, of the 90 studies not sponsored by the aspartame industry, there were only 7 that didn’t find at least one problem – and of those 7, 6 were conducted by the FDA!

Aspartame (NutraSweet®) was first approved in 1974. It was then taken off the market in 1975 due to many health complaints. The financial backers of the toxic sweetener then forked out $310,000,000 dollars in 1981 to SLIDE it by the FDA under the new name NutraSweet®.

Is made up of three chemicals and a genetically engineered enzyme. It breaks down into formaldehyde (embalming fluid) and Methanol (wood alcohol) and glutamic Acid (Ninety nine percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid)) in the body. Aspartame has been implicated in many diseases (The number of people who have recognized toxicity reactions or damage from chronic aspartame ingestion is well over one million people in the U.S.). Minor side effects of Aspartame include dizziness epileptic-like seizures, blackouts and vision problems. Aspartame has been implicated in pilot blackouts and at least one major airline crash. AIR FORCE PILOTS HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM USING IT BEFORE FLYING.

In the early 1800's an average of 12 pounds a year was consumed by one individual.

In 1980 - 124 pounds

In 1997 - 152 pounds

4-chloro-4deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranosyl-1, 6dichloro-1, 6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranoside = sucralose I take it?

Where did you get that info? thanx.