Non-science writer pretends to understand sugar

A political writer describes how important it is to eliminate every gram of added sugar in the diet, because it is causing just about every disease currently feared.

 

He also advises readers to eliminate all the prepared mustards and soup stocks that contain sugar. The reality is mustards and broth/stocks either contain none, or no more than 1 or 2 grams of sugar -- a very trivial amount. He should focus instead on the foods that get all their calories (and a significant amount of calories) from sugar (soda, hard candies, gelatin, etc.), because eliminating those will do about 90% of the job of eliminating "unnecessary sugars."  He also may not realize that you (and even food companies) can't very easily or accurately quantify how much sugar is "added" (vs. "natural"); moreover this info is still not required/provided on all packaged food products. Additionally, some foods that appear to be lower in "sugar" really aren't, due to scientific terminology and other complications of food science and labeling. Then there is the use in many food products of dates and other very sweet "whole foods" that really contain little else but sugar, are not classified as added sugar, but do add more to the price than plain sugar would. 

Basically, this is misinformation from a writer with very little background in food, nutrition and science in general. Unfortunately, it is part of a growing trend of nutrition misinformation and scaremongering. 

Copyright © 1997-2017, Palate Works 
 

website security

JoomSpirit