Declaration of "added" sugar on the label of packaged foods -What are the implications?

Rightly or wrongly white sugar has been considered as one of the culprits responsible for some of the worst life style disorders including diabetes and obesity. Though there is no unanimity as to the minimum daily need for sugar in human beings, the fact is that it is a major contributor of calories directly or indirectly through both added sugar as well as derived sugar from carbohydrates consumed as a part of the diet. It is more or less agreed that there is a significant difference between empty calories as represented by sugar, HFCS and refined carbohydrates and nutrient dense calorie sources like sugars present in fruits, whole grains, legumes and other natural foods.  Therefore making a distinction between added sugar by the manufacturers during processing and naturally present sugar makes eminent sense. Presence of about 50 grams of added sugar in the food we consume daily is considered harmless by many health experts and therefore asking the industry to make declaration about it in the label will help the consumer to exercise better discretion regarding the purchase of processed foods. This issue is now coming to the fore and whether the industry will voluntarily agree to this just demand remains to be seen. Here is a take on this new development in the labeling area and its implications on consumer well being. 

"Americans have a sweet tooth, and the obesity and diabetes rates to prove it. The best way to help people eat less sugar is to let them know how much of it is in their foods. Yet a sensible plan to inform consumers about the amount of sugar added to packaged products is under fire from the food industry and politicians. The Food and Drug Administration should stand strong and stick with the plan when it issues its final rules later this year. The FDA has proposed requiring a new line in the nutrition label for "added sugars"— just below the line for total sugar. The label may also specify how much of the recommended daily allowance of added sugars the product contains, out of a maximum of roughly 12 teaspoons. Added sugar deserves a line of its own because it's empty calories. Many nutritious products contain natural sugars: A cup of cherries or grapes can have more than 15 grams, and a cup of 1 per cent milk has 13 grams. Yet this sugar comes along with essential nutrients; that glass of milk contains 16 per cent of the protein a healthy adult needs each day, and 30 per cent of the calcium. In contrast, refined cane sugar, corn syrup and the like that are added to foods and drinks during processing (also called "free sugars") offer no additional nutrients. Americans now get about 13 per cent of their daily calories from them, largely through soda and other beverages, breakfast cereals and frozen desserts. A can of Coca-Cola has more than 9 teaspoons (39 grams) of added sugars. But even products not considered sweet contain them; a tablespoon of ketchup has about 4 grams. A study of 80,000 products on supermarket shelves found that 58 per cent contained added sugar. And while total US consumption has declined in recent years, only 30 per cent of Americans eat less added sugar than the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend. The food industry has three objections to the labelling requirement. The first is that Americans won't know what to make of the information about added sugar. That may be true, but neither were many Americans familiar with trans fats when they were added to nutrition labels in 2006. And since that rule was passed, thanks also to greater media attention and information campaigns, people cut their consumption of trans fats by more than 75 per cent. (Last year the FDA decided to ban them altogether.) In any case, if most consumers won't pay attention, what do food manufacturers stand to lose from the disclosure? Food makers also argue that the science suggesting that added sugars should be limited is not settled. And it's true there's not a lot of good data on added sugar's connection to health problems. But there's significant evidence that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked with obesity. And after reviewing the evidence on added sugars, the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee found there was a strong correlation with diabetes and obesity, and a moderate correlation with hypertension, stroke and dental problems. Finally, food makers object that almost all packaged-food labels already list added sugars. That's technically true, but the industry engages in all sorts of tricks to hide them, for example by including several different types in a single product so that they appear as low as possible in the ingredients list, which is organized by weight in descending order."

It appears the food safety authorities in the US are considering revamping of the present label content on packaged foods so as to include a provision to declare how much sugar has been added by the manufacturer. This hopefully will make the consumers aware of the same for better selection of products during their visit to the market. The logic is that consumers would shy away from those products containing high levels of sugar prompting the industry to modify the product formulations to reduce added sugar. However such an exercise will have no meaning if the consumers are not informed as to the maximum daily sugar intake that is ideal from the health angle. The highly hostile reaction by the industry can be understood because of the challenge thrown at them to come up with products containing less and less sugar. But in the interest of the well being of the consumer. Industry must fall in line if it has to overcome the trust deficit that is evident to day. Afterall the present technological base is so strong that there is nothing which cannot be accomplished and reformulation of many sugar containing products to reduce the added sugar will not be a major technical problem. One uncertainty is how the regulators can distinguish between natural sugar and added sugar in a product when it comes to regulatory protocols. This issue needs to be considered more carefully before making such label changes mandatory.  
 
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Added sugar in foods- Can it be the villain for unhealthy society?

The debate whether sugar is the real villain of peace when it comes to the spread of diseases like diabetes, CVD, hypertension, kidney ailments etc will go on in this world as long as conclusive and unanimous view emerge from the scientific community. But food industry seems to be "convinced" that sugar is innocent as a food adjunct used by them and its addition to millions of processed products make them palatable and enjoyable. Of course it has a right to demand for proof that sugar really does any harm to human beings if and when consumed in "moderate" quantities. There lies the rub! What is moderate quantity? Is there any definitive view regarding what is moderate consumption? The tendency of the industry to add sugar at levels far more that is really called for getting the sweet taste does not help its cause either. The emerging view that naturally present sugar and added sugar in the products while processing makes a difference cannot be brushed away easily. In almost all cases naturally occurring foods like whole grains, whole fruits and others are far superior in terms of health value to their processed counterparts and white refined sugar also must be viewed from this perspective. Probably this is the basis of the move in some countries to restrict the extent of added sugar during processing to no more than 10% of total calories in the daily diet. Though this is being stoutly resisted by the industry, this new suggestion will find acceptance among the consumers world over. Here is a take on the new guidelines being considered for nutrition labeling in the US.  

"But lately, the message has gotten a lot more specific and comes down to this: If you are getting more than 10% of your calories from "added sugars" — everything from the sugar in your coffee to the high-fructose corn syrup in your ketchup —  you are getting too much. Some experts say even 10% is probably excessive, given the links between sugar and obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The latest authority to endorse the 10% or less idea: the Food and Drug Administration. Under a proposal it announced this summer, food labels would have to say how close each serving comes to providing 50 grams, or 200 calories, of added sugar — the 10% mark for a typical 2,000-calorie diet. That's 12 teaspoons of sugar. So what does that mean for your eating and drinking day? If you are a soda drinker, it's huge: 50 grams is the amount in one sugar-sweetened 16-ounce bottle, meaning if you gulp one down, the rest of your day should be an added sugar-free zone. That might be tough in a world where even pasta sauces and bread have added sweeteners.(Note: the sugars naturally found in milk and fruit don't count). "It's really worth keeping your eye on the major sources," says Michael Jacobson, president of the nutrition watchdog group Center for Science in Public Interest. "The culprits are obvious." According to a recent report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the expert group that recommends U.S. dietary guidelines, the major sources of added sugar in the U.S. diet are: • Beverages: 47%. Those include soft drinks (25%), fruit drinks (11%), sweetened coffee and tea (7%), sport and energy drinks (3%) and alcohol (1%). • Snacks and sweets such as cakes, pies and cookies: 31%. • Everything else, including condiments and dressings: 22%. The report says average consumers now get 13.4% of their calories from added sugar, but that is based on what people admit to government researchers, Jacobson says. Other data suggest average intake might be 20% or higher, he says. Either way, "we have a long way to go," says Rachel Johnson, a nutrition professor at the University of Vermont and spokesperson for the American Heart Association. Even without new labeling rules — opposed by some food industry groups — consumers can cut added sugars now, she says. "The first step is to think about your drink," she says. After that: • Use current labels, which list total sugars, to estimate added sugars. "If there's no milk or fruit in it, assume all the sugar is added sugar," she says. • Look for the "ose." If an ingredient ends in those letters — sucrose, fructose, maltose and dextrose — it's a sugar. • Buy unsweetened versions of healthy foods such as oatmeal and yogurt and sweeten them yourself. Whether you use sugar, honey or maple syrup (Johnson, as a Vermonter, favors that), you probably will use less than a food company would. For further reading, refer below cited reference:"

This is a welcome development in the area of health science and the sensitivity this has created among the policy makers is noteworthy. There is lot of logic in the argument that if sugar addition in quantities more than that demanded by the taste and flavor angles can be justified only if technologically it is a necessity. In sugar preserves sugar addition serves a different purpose viz to preserve the product through the osmotic pressure exerted by high concentration of sugar on pathogenic organisms thus achieving extended shelf life and safety. Also logical is the argument that even if sugar present in a packed product is less than what is perceived to be right by individual consumers, it can always added before using at home. It is certain majority of the consumers will accept lower levels of sugar which can make a big impact on consumption of white sugar in the long term and hopefully will lead to a more healthy world.

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Infant foods becoming less and less healthy? An alarming trend.

Sugar is in the news for all wrong reasons. Though it is a taste maker for beverages and all sweetish products, its role in causing some diseases has made it a great villain. In fact to day's obesity epidemic is being attributed to greater consumption of white sugar. Whether there is universal agreement or not, sugar is considered by many as an addictive substance and its continued use is difficult to curbed because of this fact. It is for nothing that health experts are advocating putting restrictions on levels of added sugar present in processed products realizing the damage of potential of this "white demon"! though food industry is being pressured to cut down on added sugar in their product portfolio, such voluntary efforts cannot bring any dramatic results. From the industry view point consumer liking forms the basis of their product formulations and in a fiercely competitive market all players have to agree to restrict sugar levels in their products. What is alarming is that even children's foods are not spared when it comes to addition of sugar in their formulations. almost 30-35% of the products targeted at infants and young children have more sugar than necessary, obviously to attract more and more of their targets to their products. Even healthy products containing many nutritive ingredients are rendered unhealthy due to loading with sugar. Here is a take on this alarming situation in a country like USA where reliable data is available

A new CDC study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, tells us something about infants and sugar that is worrisome, though not especially surprising if you've been following the food industry's efforts to mislead the public and influence the science and policy on added sugar. The study examined the salt and sugar content of commercial infant and toddler food in the U.S. Researchers looked at a 2012 dataset of 1074 infant and toddler foods and beverages. Among infant products, they found that 41 of 79 mixed grains and fruits—i.e. healthy seeming items—contained more than one added sugar; in 35 infant items, more than 35 percent of calories came from sugar. Among toddler products, the researchers found that 72 percent of dinners and most cereal bars, breakfast pastries, fruit, snacks, desserts, and juices contained more than one added sugar. Given the American Heart Association's recommendations on added sugar, it's pretty clear from the CDC study that many very young children are getting too much.  How do parents know how much is too much?
The study concludes with advice to pediatricians. Namely, counsel parents to pay attention to labels on the food and drink products they buy for their infants and toddlers and try to limit the added sugar.  An added sugars declaration on the Nutrition Facts label would empower consumers with knowledge of how much sugar has been added to foods. Currently, the Nutrition Facts label does not provide parents with enough information to truly make informed decisions. Total sugar is listed in grams—not the more familiar teaspoons—and neither the amount of added sugar nor the percent daily value are provided. So parents, who may be trying diligently to follow their pediatricians' science-informed advice, cannot know how much sugar has been added to the foods and beverages they are feeding their infants and toddlers—or how much is too much.
As the FDA considers its proposed rule to update the Nutrition Facts label to include added sugar, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services are concurrently developing the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. A forthcoming report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee—an independent scientific body tasked with providing guidance to the agencies—is expected to contain recommendations on limiting added sugar to a maximum of 10 percent of daily calories and including added sugar and percent daily value on the Nutrition Facts label. It would be an important, science-based step forward not only for parents of young children but for all Americans if the agencies decide to adopt the DGAC's recommendations on limiting and labeling added sugar.

The fact that early childhood eating practices have an important bearing on the body weight when they grow up, it is necessary that the nutritional standards of children's foods, especially infant foods are made stiff so that industry is not allowed a free hand in making and marketing whatever they feel like doing. When new guidelines are made there should be restrictions regarding use of the two white "poisons" viz, sugar and salt so that the future generations are not exposed to unnecessary dangers during their evolution into adulthood. Strict compliance must be insisted upon in stead of leaving them as just guidelines because voluntary efforts in a fragmented industry like food processing does not work as shown by past experience.

 V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

NUTRITION LABELING-TIME FOR A REVISIT?

The purpose of printing nutrition information about a particular food product on the pack is to help consumers understand the health value of the food inside. It must be admitted that the food labeling vis-a-vis nutrients present in a food has helped millions of consumers to make right choice based on their limited understanding of the science of nutrition and health. According to one survey almost 50% of the buyers in the US regularly read the nutrient profile on the pack before making their choice which is remarkable considering that the shopping time and number of trips to the market are progressively decreasing because of their economy driven life style. FDA of the US is a role model for many countries in fashioning their regulatory regimes and therefore the attempt by this premier agency to overhaul the labeling system after 20 years will have a chain effect across the world. Details about the intention and plans of FDA can be had from the excerpts referred below.

"Nutrition FDA may revise 20-year-old standards for food and drink nutrition labels The Food and Drug Administration says knowledge about nutrition has evolved over the last 20 years, and the labels need to reflect that. As the agency considers revisions, nutritionists and other health experts have their own wish list of desired changes. The number of calories should be more prominent, they say, and the amount of added sugar and percentage of whole wheat in the food should be included. They also want more clarity on how serving sizes are defined. "There's a feeling that nutrition labels haven't been as effective as they should be," says Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "When you look at the label, there are roughly two dozen numbers of substances that people aren't intuitively familiar with." For example, he says, most of the nutrients are listed in grams, the metric system's basic unit of mass. Jacobson says people don't really understand what a gram is. Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods, says 20 years ago "there was a big focus on fat, and fat undifferentiated." Since then, health providers have focused more on calories and warned people away from saturated and trans fats more than all fats. Trans fats were separated out on the label in 2006. The nutrition facts label "is now 20 years old, the food environment has changed and our dietary guidance has changed," says Taylor, who was at the agency in the early 1990s when the FDA first introduced the label at the behest of Congress. "It's important to keep this updated so what is iconic doesn't become a relic."

The basic premise for revisiting the labeling regulations is that the nutrition science and health science have brought out a plethora of new information which in many cases run counter to the present precepts and practices. One of the most pressing needs is to meet the anxiety of consumers regarding the sugar content in a product though total sugar declaration is part of the present label rules. What is distinctly to be brought out is the extent of sugar added by the manufacturer to make the product and clarify what type of sugar has been added. The implication of HFCS in obesity related diseases is well known to the laymen and such distinction can allay the fears while buying a sugar sweetened product. Similarly a distinction is necessary between natural dietary fiber and added fiber as there is a significant difference between these two categories when it comes to its effectiveness. In many wheat based products invariably the refined flour with practically no nutrients left after milling, is used  where as the consumer would like to know from the label how much whole wheat flour is added in such products, if at all. It is difficult to meet the entire aspirations of the consumer and health activists as limited space is available for printing all the details. But an earnest attempt must be made to make the label as informative and transparent as possible. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com 

FOOD LABELING-SUGAR CONTENT UNDER ATTACK

The front of the pack labeling regulations are supposed to help the consumers to understand better about many aspects of the contents inside including nutritive value. However due to practical reasons there is a limit as to how much information can be loaded on the labels and there are doubts regarding the effectiveness of the present regulations. In a country like India such declaration printed in English has very little value as majority of the population are English illiterate and the information provided probably does not serve the consumer community much. Still the current labeling practices do serve a purpose in documenting the nature of the product for quality and safety agencies to administer food laws. Having established beyond a shadow of doubt regarding the role played by sugar in progressively deteriorating health status of human beings in many countries, knowing the sugar content in a product helps the consumer to pick and choose those with least sugar levels among processed food products. One of the new proposals now being considered to improve the effectiveness of labeling involves declaration of "added sugar" in the product during processing. Whether this will serve any purpose or how added sugar can be distinguished from naturally present sugar are issues which require to be deliberated before implementing the same. Here is a take on this new rumblings in the food processing sector with a potential to polarize the stakeholders further in the coming months. 

The American Bakers Assn. objects to the plan, saying (among other things) that since added and natural sugars are chemically the same, to enforce the labels the FDA would have to be able to inspect companies' recipes and they don't have the authority to do that. At the FDA website, you can read about the FDA's proposal and view comments that have been submitted. The National Dairy Council says such labels could lead to consumer confusion and unintended consequences, such as people avoiding nutritious foods that have sugars added to make them more tasty. They note that you can already see how much sugar is in food from the info on food packages right now. The National Milk Producers Federation worries about consumer confusion too. The Sugar Assn. recommends the study is not done, for a variety of reasons: They say the effect of added sugar on obesity is overstated, the FDA wouldn't have the regulatory power to act on this info, and that "it is in the public interest that FDA maintain its focus on the prominence of calories, maintain its science-based positions regarding added sugars labeling, and not further confuse consumers by adding unwarranted information to the [Nutrition Facts Panel]." And so it goes on … the National Confectioners Assn.opposes the research, the American Beverage Assn. opposes it.......while......on the flip side, the American Heart Assn."strongly supports the inclusion of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label" and writes that "In addition to the AHA, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, MyPlate.gov, and countless other sources of dietary guidance recommend that consumers limit consumption of added sugars. Yet this can be difficult to do because added sugars are not currently included on the Nutrition Facts label. While 'sugars' is listed, the Nutrition Facts label does not distinguish between naturally occurring sugars such as those found in fruit or milk, which are associated with other important components inherent to foods such as vitamins and minerals, and added sugars, which are not." The Center for Science in the Public Interest is for the study, The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity at Yale University is for the study too. It is, of course, true that people can be misled if they overly focus on one particular facet of a food and that current labels on food packages are very good at helping us get confused that way. "Low-fat" items can contain just as many calories as higher-fat foods, and "organic" processed foods can be just as junky as any other kind, and just because Lucky Charms are made with whole grains, that does not make them a health food.

In a society where daily diet is made of processed foods as high as 70-80%, extent of sugar added by the industry during formulation may be critical and is controllable either voluntarily or by mandate. In such an environment declaration of added sugar can at least make the processor sensitive to the level of sugar incorporated and there is a possibility that voluntary reduction can be achieved. This is already happening with respect to salt and there is no reason it cannot happen with sugar too. It is not understandable as to why sugar needs to be added in high concentrations when many products can be still palatable at sugar levels of 10-15%. The current proposal to force the processors to declare the extent of sugar added can even set in motion competition among the processors to reduce added sugar as much as possible to gain consumer patronage. Technically it may be difficult to estimate in a finished product how much sugar has been added but as the processor knows the truth he can be forced to declare the same. While voluntary declaration of added sugar can be immediately enforced, monitory regime can be thought of later when reliable and simpler techniques are available for differentiating between natural and added sugar.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com