FRUCTOSE, THE VILLAIN FOR OBESITY- NEW RESEARCH FINDINGS

The fructose vs glucose controversy surrounding obesity development is of a relatively recent origin. If a poll is taken on this issue probably the result may be evenly balanced with 50% condemning fructose while the other half doubting its role in over weight problem! What is the truth? If the latest report on the subject is to be believed, fructose definitely behaves differently. first because of its ability to cross brain barrier and the second due to its influence hypothalamus which controls the appetite. Here is a take on this subject which provides interesting insight into the on going controversy. 

Subjects showed substantial differences in their hypothalamic activity after consuming the fructose-sweetened beverage versus the one sweetened by glucose within 15 minutes. Glucose lowered the activity of the hypothalamus but fructose actually prompted a small spike to this area. As might be expected from these results, the glucose drink alone increased the feelings of fullness reported by volunteers, which indicates that they would be less likely to consume more calories after having something sweetened with glucose than something sweetened with more fructose.Fructose and glucose look similar molecularly, but fructose is metabolized differently by the body and prompts the body to secrete less insulin than does glucose (insulin plays a role in telling the body to feel full and in dulling the reward the body gets from food). Fructose also fails to reduce the amount of circulating ghrelin (a hunger-signaling hormone) as much as glucose does. (Animal studies have shown that fructose can, indeed, cross the blood-brain barrier and be metabolized in the hypothalamus.) Previous studies have shown that this effect was pronounced in animal models.

It is always an intriguing situation considering that the common sugar which is a chemical combination of fructose and glucose was being consumed by mankind for centuries and the obesity problem as being seen to day was never an issue of the old society. The coincidence between the commercialization of cheap high fructose syrup (HFCS), a product containing predominantly fructose and quantum jump in the obese population in the US cannot be wished away simply and the study brings out the stark reality that scientifically HFCS with high fructose proportion can influence appetite in a way that in spite of no need for food, consumers are "forced" to eat mechanically by the brain due to its negative influence on two hunger controlling hormones, insulin and ghrelin. These findings must spur further research to confirm the results which are indeed disturbing.

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

NON-SUGAR SWEETENERS-BECOMING A MAINSTREAM INGREDIENT?

The labeling rules are framed to make the ingredients used in a product known to discerning consumers so that informed choices are made during the shopping trip. There are different requirements in different countries but universally label information must reveal some of the nutrients, ingredients in descending order (possibly by percentage), negative aspects like allergens, trans fats etc. Also food regulations stipulate that additives used must be from the permissible list while proprietary products can use safety cleared substances or GRAS additives after getting permission from competent authorities. Artificial sweeteners are not additives that are permitted in all food products but can be used in health oriented foods at levels prescribed in the statute books. However keeping in view the prevalent obesity epidemic in many countries, main stream industry is increasingly using artificial sweeteners along with sugar for reducing the calorie levels to some extent. Though presence of these sweeteners is declared in the ingredients list, many consumers miss this information resulting in their unintended consumption. It is a dilemma food safety agencies face, with sugar manufacturers clamoring for more prominent declaration on the label that will attract consumer attention. It is interesting to watch future developments on this vexed issue.

"If you're the sort of grocery shopper who likes to avoid artificial sweeteners, you may want to bring along a magnifying glass on your next trip to the supermarket. That's because lots of products you wouldn't expect are secretly sweetened with aspartame, sucralose and other chemical sugar-replacers. And this trend, underway for some time, may only accelerate because of recent negative attention heaped on sugar. In a recent NYT Magazine story, science writer Gary Taubes suggested that sugar (a catch-all term that also includes high fructose corn syrup and other caloric sweeteners) may be the main culprit in causing obesity and diabetes. And last week the government issued strict (yet voluntary) guidelines on foods that can be marketed to kids, setting a limit of no more than 13 grams of added sugar per serving.The Sugar Association, which represents growers and producers of old fashioned sugar, has been nervously watching the stealth sweetener trend for some time and has petitioned the FDA to require food manufacturers to clearly note on the front of packages their use of artificial sweeteners. But it doesn't appear that the FDA considers this to be a pressing issue. The group's initial petition was filed five years ago. It's not hard to see the benefits of a clearly visible label for many shoppes. The presence of hidden sweeteners shows up in products that don't appear to be 'lite' or 'low calorie' and don't even reveal hints like 'reduced sugar.' Many of them would like you to think that they're quite healthy, such as Pepsi's (PEP) Quaker High Fiber Instant Oatmeal, sweetened with sugar and the chemical sucralose, which is so buried in the ingredient list that many people probably wouldn't notice it even if they were looking:"

While reducing sucrose in food products is definitely a good thing, use of artificial sweeteners in hundreds of main stream products can be worrisome also because of the potential for exceeding the ADI levels cumulatively through these foods. Probably this issue needs in-depth look by the food safety agencies and if necessary regulatory steps must be put in place to control the use of non-sugar sweeteners indiscriminately by the food industry. It must be borne in mind that what effects those products containing different sweeteners will have on human health is some thing not known to day. Individually ADI figures have been worked out for most of the synthetic sweeteners but data on the effect of combinations of various such sweeteners on human body are yet to be generated. With safety questions raised about many of the chemical sweeteners, it is better that there are appropriate restrictions regarding their use in at least some of the staple food products consumed frequently in high quantities every day.

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