With added sugars -- and especially sugar-sweetened beverages -- continually coming under scrutiny within the public health realm, it is fair to say the writing is on the wall for soft drink giants like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. That is not to say they wont employ every tool in their arsenals to deny and spin mounting concern. First up, consider this Understanding Caloric Sweeteners & Health page (beverageinstitute.org/article/understanding-sugars-health/) from Coca-Colas Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness website (FYI: last year the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics quietly switched out Coca-Cola as one of their partners for the companys wellness institute). In an attempt to deflect blame and make soda appear in any way wholesome, Coca-Cola makes the following claims: 1) Studies show that under some circumstances, intake of sugars can boost performance on cognitive tasks. DFPI ADDS: Its quite interesting how Coca-Cola is always quick to point out that sugar is found all over the food supply (i.e.: dont blame soda for sugar intake!), yet when it comes to the benefits of carbohydrates, they sure are quick to take full credit. We would much prefer people get their sugars from whole fruits. What a concept! 2) The U.S. Institute of Medicine found that very high and very low intakes of added sugars were associated with lower micronutrient intakes. The report suggested an intake level of 25% or less of calories (energy) from added sugars in the total diet based on data showing decreased intake of some micronutrients in some population groups exceeding this level. DFPI ADDS: Fear-mongering at its worst. This is, essentially, Coca-Cola misleadingly and irresponsibly warning visitors to the website that cutting back on added sugar could hinder their nutrition. Lets look at what the Institute of Medicine actually says: Added sugars should compromise no more than 25 percent of total calories consumed. Added sugars provide insignificant amounts of vitamins, minerals, or other essential nutrients. Major sources include soft drinks, juice drinks, pastries, candies, and other sweets. (iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx) Note that the Institute of Medicine does not mention a minimum daily recommended amount for added sugars. 3) The causes of diabetes continue to be a mystery. DFPI ADDS: Not really. While a multitude of factors can increase risk for the development of Type 2 diabetes, nutrition research has clearly demonstrated that increased intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to a higher risk of developing various chronic diseases, including Type 2 diabetes (sciencedirect/science/article/pii/S0031938410000600). At the bottom of the page, visitors are encouraged to learn more on the issue by reading documents from the International Food Information Council -- a food industry front group that Coca-Cola (and other food companies) help fund. Alas, education via institutes and front groups is not the only tactic Big Soda is employing. Last week we pointed to a blog post written by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff on sponsored tweets (in case you missed it, you can find it here: weightymatters.ca/2014/07/7-nutrition-hashtags-you-need-to-be.html) Today, Dr. Freedhoff posted a sequel of sorts. He writes: So the other day saw New Haven congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduce a national soda tax bill in the US House of Representatives. The SWEET Act, if passed, would see every teaspoon of added sugar in a beverage you purchase cost you one additional shiny penny at the register. Youd think that RDs across the country would be rejoicing, and yet...check out these tweets from [a handful of] registered dietitians posted within hours of congresswoman DeLauros SWEET Act introduction in the House, [opposing the proposed tax]. On what planet would an RD feel so strongly about a soda tax that he or she would not only privately think to him or herself that it wont work or isnt wise but also broadcast their opposition to it to the world via social media? On the planet where tweets from RDs can be purchased or so it would seem. Have a peek at the ending of each of those tweets. The first 6 end with #Client disclosures, while the last (from the president of the Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) ends with the totally insufficient and undecipherable (and likely illegal) #client short form of #cl. Those hashtags are meant to inform readers that the authors views therein are paid for or influenced by their clients - presumably arms of the food industry that would be unhappy if a soda tax ever passed (which in the case of these 7 RDs include PepsiCo., Coca-Cola, The American Beverage Association, and the Corn Refiners Association, among many others). You can read Dr. Freedhoffs post here: weightymatters.ca/2014/08/meet-7-registered-dietitians.html PS: Here is what Dietitians For Professional Integritys Strategic Director Andy Bellatti, MS, RD told Food Navigator US about the SWEET Act: foodnavigator-usa/Trends/Sugar-reduction/House-SWEET-Act-would-mandate-soda-tax
Posted on: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 17:27:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015