SUGAR dumb, a source of diseaseSugar Dumbs Us Down
July, 2012 Omega-3s may reverse sugar’s brain damage.
Mainstream medicine is finally waking up to what the natural health community has known for quite a while. Sugar, particularly in the form of refined fructose, impairs one’s cognitive ability. So far the evidence is limited to rats. But it is very likely that the results apply to humans too.
In a recent UCLA study, rats spent five days learning how to navigate a new maze. Then they were kept away from the maze and divided into two groups and fed different diets: one rich in omega-3 fatty acids from flaxseeds and fish oil, and one deficient in omega-3s. In both groups, the rats’ drinking water was replaced with a syrup that was 15% fructose (most sodas are about 12% sugar). Six weeks later, the rats were put back into the maze to see how well they performed.
None of the rats were able to navigate the maze as quickly as they did six weeks earlier, though those on the high-omega-3 diet did significantly better than those in the other group.
The group fed fructose without omega-3s also had higher triglyceride levels, higher glucose levels, and higher insulin levels. In fact, they seemed to enter a state of insulin resistance. Their brains showed a decrease in brain energy metabolism and synaptic activity, which is important for learning and memory.
Insulin resistance, together with belly fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, low HDL, and high triglycerides, are precursors to Type 2 diabetes. Together these risk factors are known as metabolic syndrome.
The good news is that the UCLA study suggests that cutting out the sweet drinks and eating a diet rich in omega-3s may actually reverse the damage done by metabolic syndrome.
Besides improved memory function (making it vital for Alzheimer’s patients), omega-3s can also help prevent heart attacks, resolve depression, reduce pain, and even prevent prostate cancer.
Another recent study estimates that 68 million Americans had metabolic syndrome in 2006, up from 50 million in 1990—which the researchers primarily attributed to growing rates of abdominal obesity and high blood pressure. The most significant increases were in women between the ages of 20 and 39.
Of course, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is found in a lot of processed food; the average American consumes more than 60 pounds of it annually. The consumption of cane sugar and beet sugar, which also contain fructose, was only slightly lower.
There are many types of sweeteners besides fructose. And all of them have a direct impact on the way our body functions. As we noted in February, HFCS, fructose, sugar, aspartame, neotame, saccharine, and sucralose are all chemical sweeteners often added to processed foods at great risk to health with no benefits. There are a number of natural alternatives available, many of them rich with antioxidants and minerals, that health-conscious people should look into: raw organic honey, maple syrup, unsulfured raw sugarcane molasses, coconut palm sugar, and Lo Han Guo. But even these natural sweeteners should be used in moderation! Low-calorie alternatives include the South American herb stevia, inulin (a powder isolated from the Jerusalem artichoke), and sugar alcohols like erythritol (sugar alcohols should probably be used in moderation).
This UCLA study is extremely important. Mainstream medicine grudgingly acknowledges sugar’s negative effects on the body in general, but now has to admit there is probably a negative effect on the brain as well. The study also affirms the importance of omega-3 fatty acids to sustain one’s health.
Posted <*))))>< by
HARBINGER WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy
UPDATE May 2014
ZionsCRY NEWS with prophetic analysis
Mortality rate doubles for females eating refined white sugar - lab mice study rocks soda industry
NaturalNews) In what is arguably the most shocking food study conducted since the Seralini "GMO rats" study released last year, researchers at the University of Utah have found that even a small amount of refined sugar consumption resulted in a doubling of the death rate of female mice.
Fed merely the equivalent of three cans of soda a day, females experienced a 100% increase in death rates, and males experienced a sharp drop in fertility. Males were also found to have impaired ability to hold territory, according to the study authors.
"Our results provide evidence that added sugar consumed at concentrations currently considered safe exerts dramatic adverse impacts on mammalian health," the researchers explain. (SOURCE)
One of the study authors, James Ruff, explained that even though the mice did not show observable symptoms of obesity or diabetes, a careful monitoring of their behavior showed that they died more frequently and reproduced less frequently.
The study was brilliantly designed to mimic the real-world competitive living environment among mice, forcing them to compete for territory (nesting beds) and reproductive partners. Interestingly, the study found that the toxic effect of feeding the mice refined white sugar was equal to being inbred mice (i.e. offspring of first cousins).
Think about that for a minute: sugar makes mice dumber than if their parents were cousins!
(And if you really want to see some crazy death rates among the mice, feed 'em aspartame...)
Many Americans eat far more sugar, proportionally, than the mice were fed
The diets used in this study were "25 percent sugar-added" diets, meaning the mice were given 25% of their total daily caloric intake in the form of refined sugar (fructose and glucose). See
The obvious implication of this is that a huge portion of the American population already consumes more than 25 percent of its daily caloric intake in the form of refined sugars, including:
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
There is no question that the widespread consumption of all these sugars is a primary cause behind the epidemic of diabetes and obesity under which America is currently suffering. Aside from the obvious sources of sugar (sodas, sugary cereals, pastries, candy, etc.), refined sugar is also hidden in everyday grocery items like pizza sauce, salad dressing and even wheat bread.
Unless you make a concerted effort to avoid refined sugars, it's easy to intake large quantities on a daily basis. If this mice study proves to be correct in humans, consuming refined sugars may cause you to die early, become infertile or otherwise act in a cognitively impaired manner that vastly reduces your survivability. (Kinda sounds like half the population, doesn't it?)
Refined white sugar is devoid of nutrients
Why is refined white sugar so bad for your health? Because it's an "anti-food" that has been stripped of nearly all nutrition.
Sugar is refined from cane, a large species of grass. Raw cane juice is actually a dark green liquid with an incredibly sweet, full-spectrum flavor. Processing the raw cane juice into sugar involves removing nearly all the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients, leaving only empty white calories that are a lot like poison to mammalian biology.
That's why "dehydrated cane juice crystals" are actually good for you, even though "refined white sugar" is bad for you. Cane juice is a full-spectrum sweetener that provides all sorts of minerals and nutrients which help balance the blood sugar effects of consuming sugar in the first place.
Because refined white sugar is an anti-nutrient, people who eat it on a regular basis are stealing from their own nutritional stores to "process" the sugar, causing a net nutritional deficit in their bodies. Lacking the necessary trace minerals, vitamins and phytonutrients to maintain optimum health, body systems and organs start to fail. Medical doctors slap names on those symptoms, calling them things like "diabetes" or "ADHD" or "cancer." (Cancer cells love refined white sugar!)
But the real root cause of most disease is nutrient depletion thanks to the routine consumption of nutrient-depleted, processed refined foods.
If you want to stay healthy, avoid all these refined foods
These are all "foods of disease" that gave rise to the modern era of Big Pharma, degenerative disease and the for-profit cancer industry:
• White sugar
• White bread
• White salt
• White tortillas
• Snack chips
• Processed meats
• Homogenized, pasteurized dairy
• Sodas, sports drinks and energy drinks
• Fake juices made mostly with sugar
• Cake, candy, ice cream and sweets
If you currently crave these things, it's usually because you're utterly deficient in mineral nutrition. Your body is starving for minerals and tells you to keep eating until you get some. But because the foods you're eating have no real nutrition, you just keep packing on the pounds as the calories mount up. What you really need is real nutrition that turns off the hunger. That only comes from high-density, full-spectrum superfoods and food-based nutritional supplements.
That's why I can honestly tell you, without hesitation, that I gave up drinking soda well over a decade ago, and to this day, I do not ever crave soda. I don't crave ice cream, cake, donuts or any such sweets. This is important to understand because if you eat a diet like mine, you don't need any self control whatsoever to avoid sweets. Your body automatically doesn't want them. The reason I don't eat sweets, in other words, is because I don't feel like eating sweets, not because of some amazing form of self-discipline.
Often, successful dieting is not a matter of self control but a matter of strategic dietary choices and nutritional supplementation to make sure your body gets the nutrition what it needs so that your inherent nutritional hunger is satiated.
If you really want the kind of nutrition that satisfied your body's cravings for minerals, grow your own food in mineral-rich soils or buy food from your local farmer's market. You may also benefit from superfoods or mineral-rich food concentrate supplements, both of which have much higher nutrient density than run-of-the-mill grocery foods.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041629...ity_experiment.html#ixzz2coKXkBnY
Scientific team sounds the alarm on sugar as a source of disease
Is sugar making us sick? A team of scientists at the University of California in San Francisco believes so, and they're doing something about it. They launched an initiative to bring information on food and drink and added sugar to the public by reviewing more than 8,000 scientific papers that show a strong link between the consumption of added sugar and chronic diseases.
The common belief until now was that sugar just makes us fat, but it's become clear through research that it's making us sick. For example, there's the rise in fatty-liver disease, the emergence of Type 2 diabetes as an epidemic in children and the dramatic increase in metabolic disorders.
Laura Schmidt, a UCSF professor at the School of Medicine and the lead investigator on the project, SugarScience, said the idea is to make the findings comprehensible and clear to everyone. The results will be available to all on a website (SugarScience.org) and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Added sugars, Schmidt said, are sugars that don't occur naturally in foods. They are found in 74 percent of all packaged foods, have 61 names and often are difficult to decipher on food labels. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires food companies to list ingredients on packaging, the suggested daily values of natural and added sugars can't be found.
The FDA is considering a proposal to require food manufacturers to list information on sugars in the same way they do for fats, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrates and protein. But because so much added sugar is dumped into so many products, one average American breakfast of cereal would likely exceed a reasonable daily limit.
"SugarScience shows that a calorie is not a calorie but rather that the source of a calorie determines how it's metabolized," said pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, a member of the SugarScience team and the author of "Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease." Lustig said that more than half of the U.S. population is sick with metabolic syndrome, a group of risk factors for chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and liver disease that are directly related to the excessive consumption of added sugars in the Western diet.
Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the category of heart attack/stroke as the leading cause of death in the United States. Every day, 2,200 Americans die of cardiovascular disease. That's about 800,000 a year, or one in three deaths.
The latest statistics from the American Diabetes Association show that 29.1 million Americans, or 9.3 percent, have diabetes. Of that number, 21 million have been diagnosed and 8.1 million have not, and the numbers continue to grow, according to the association.
It doesn't stop there. The American Liver Foundation says at least 30 million Americans, or 1 in 10, has one of 100 kinds of liver disease.
Clinicians widely believe that obesity is the cause of metabolic disease. Although it is a marker for these diseases, Lustig said, it's not the cause. "Too much sugar causes chronic metabolic disease in both fat and thin people," he said, "and instead of focusing on obesity as the problem, we should be focusing on our processed-food supply."
The average American consumes 19.5 teaspoons (78 grams) of sugar a day, substantially more than the amount recommended by the American Heart Association. The association sets these limits: 6 teaspoons (24 grams) for women, 9 teaspoons (36 grams) for men, and 3-6 teaspoons (12-24 grams) for children, depending on age. Just one 12-ounce soda contains 8 to 9 teaspoons (32-36 grams) of sugar.
Liquid sugar in sodas, energy drinks and sports drinks is the leading source of added sugar in the American diet. That represents 36 percent of all added sugars consumed, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. And because liquid does not include fiber, the body processes it quickly. That causes more sugar to be sent to the pancreas and liver than either can process properly, and the resulting buildup of sugar leads to heart disease, diabetes and liver disease.
Consuming too much sugar causes the level of glucose sugar in the bloodstream to increase. That, in turn, causes the pancreas to release high levels of insulin that cause the body to store extra calories as fat.
Too much insulin also affects the hormone leptin, a natural appetite suppressant that signals the brain to stop eating when full. But the imbalance of insulin levels caused by the intake of too much sugar causes lipid resistance, and the brain no longer gets that signal.
Another member of the SugarScience team, Dean Schillinger, is a professor of medicine at UCSF and a practicing primary care doctor at San Francisco General Hospital. He believes the overconsumption of added sugars is a social problem, not a problem of individual choice and freedom.
"People are becoming literate about the toxic effects of sugar," Schillinger said, "and have more understanding of the idea that high doses are bad for one's health." He sees evidence that those in a higher socioeconomic bracket are taking steps to limit intake of sugar when compared with poorer, less literate people.
Healthy food is expensive and less readily accessible in poorer neighborhoods, and because corn is so abundant and cheap, it is added to many food products. "Dumping high fructose corn syrup into cheap foods, sodas, sports drinks and energy drinks is toxic to the body, causing epidemic metabolic diseases and a serious health crisis," Schillinger said.
To underscore the scope of the problem, he pointed out that during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 1,500 American soldiers lost a limb in combat. In that same period, 1.5 million people in the U.S. lost limbs to amputations from Type 2 diabetes, a preventable disease. "We have yet to mobilize for a public health war," he said, "but the time has come to do so."
Such a war would have to take on the root causes of the problem. As a nation, Schillinger added, we would need to look at our food policies, food pricing, availability of healthy foods, and the marketing being carried out by food and beverage industries to hook the public on unhealthy choices loaded with added sugar.
Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, is not a SugarScience researcher, but he agreed that the amount of sugar consumed by the American public is too high. SugarScience, he said, is being helpful by bringing the information about added sugar to public attention.
"It's just about impossible," Hu said, "to know from food labels what kinds and amounts of sugars are in a product." That's why he thinks the FDA should require food companies to list those amounts on all food labels so people know what they're eating, in what amounts they're eating it, and what amounts are safe.
Food labels are important, Schillinger said, and they need to be revised, but the most important change needed is to make the healthier choice the easier choice.
Sugared soda consumption, cell aging associated in new study
Sugar-sweetened soda consumption might promote disease independently from its role in obesity, according to UC San Francisco researchers who found in a new study that drinking sugary drinks was associated with cell aging.
The study revealed that telomeres—the protective units of DNA that cap the ends of chromosomes in cells—were shorter in the white blood cells of survey participants who reported drinking more soda. The findings were reported online October 16, 2014 in the American Journal of Public Health.
The length of telomeres within white blood cells—where it can most easily be measured—has previously been associated with human lifespan. Short telomeres also have been associated with the development of chronic diseases of aging, including heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer.
"Regular consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas might influence disease development, not only by straining the body's metabolic control of sugars, but also through accelerated cellular aging of tissues," said Elissa Epel, PhD, professor of psychiatry at UCSF and senior author of the study.
"This is the first demonstration that soda is associated with telomere shortness," Epel said. "This finding held regardless of age, race, income and education level. Telomere shortening starts long before disease onset. Further, although we only studied adults here, it is possible that soda consumption is associated with telomere shortening in children, as well."
The authors cautioned that they only compared telomere length and sugar-sweetened soda consumption for each participant at a single time point, and that an association does not demonstrate causation. Epel is co-leading a new study in which participants will be tracked for weeks in real time to look for effects of sugar-sweetened soda consumption on aspects of cellular aging. Telomere shortening has previously been associated with oxidative damage to tissue, to inflammation, and to insulin resistance.
Based on the way telomere length shortens on average with chronological age, the UCSF researchers calculated that daily consumption of a 20-ounce soda was associated with 4.6 years of additional biological aging. This effect on telomere length is comparable to the effect of smoking, or to the effect of regular exercise in the opposite, anti-aging direction, according to UCSF postdoctoral fellow Cindy Leung, ScD, from the UCSF Center for Health and Community and the lead author of the newly published study.
The average sugar-sweetened soda consumption for all survey participants was 12 ounces. About 21 percent in this nationally representative sample reported drinking at least 20 ounces of sugar-sweetened soda a day.
"It is critical to understand both dietary factors that may shorten telomeres, as well as dietary factors that may lengthen telomeres," Leung said. "Here it appeared that the only beverage consumption that had a measurable negative association with telomere length was consumption of sugared soda."
The finding adds a new consideration to the list of links that has tied sugary beverages to obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, and that has driven legislators and activists in several U.S. jurisdictions to champion ballet initiatives that would tax sugar-sweetened beverage purchases with the goal of discouraging consumption and improving public health.
The UCSF researchers measured telomeres after obtaining stored DNA from 5,309 participants, ages 20 to 65, with no history of diabetes or cardiovascular disease, who had participated in the nation's largest ongoing health survey, called the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, during the years 1999 through 2002. They found that the amount of sugar-sweetened soda a person consumed was associated with telomere length, as measured in the laboratory of Elizabeth Blackburn, PhD, professor of biochemistry at UCSF and a winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her telomere-related discoveries.
The hidden costs of sugar
Americans today consume nearly three times the recommended amount of sugar every day. That's an average of 66 pounds of added sugar per year.
A growing body of science suggests that all this sugar isn't just making us fat; it may also be making us sick. That's one of many conclusions of SugarScience, an educational initiative and a comprehensive review of more than 8,000 scientific papers studying added sugar and its impact on health.
"It's already, from my perspective, a public health crisis," said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, director of the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations at San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, and member of the SugarScience team. "To see geriatric issues in kids, like diabetes, is extremely alarming. The numbers are staggering: 10 years ago, one out of 10 teens had pre-diabetes; right now, one out of four teenagers have pre-diabetes."
The goal of the national education initiative is to bring this scientific research out of the medical journals and to the public in an empowering way In addition to the team of UCSF, UC Davis and Emory University School of Medicine health scientists, SugarScience is partnering with outreach programs in health departments across the country.
"There really is a lack of an objective, authoritative voice on what the science actually is," said Bibbins-Domingo. "The goal behind SugarScience is to get this information out to the public, and we hope people can act on the information in the way that seems most appropriate to them."
In addition to links between sugar and chronic disease, such as diabetes and heart disease, physicians also are seeing new diseases they previously didn't have a name for, and hadn't seen in children, including Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. This is a disease of the liver similar to what is seen in alcoholics, and, if left unchecked, it can progress into cirrhosis of the liver.
That's because liver processes sugar – specifically fructose – very similar to alcohol.
"The fastest rising cause of liver transplantation in Americans is Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease," said Laura Schmidt, PhD, a professor in the UCSF School of Medicine and lead researcher on the project. "You don't see changes like that in such a short period without a major change in environment."
A big part of that change is sugar consumption. Sugar is hidden in 74 percent of processed foods, including innocuous-seeming products like ketchup and salad dressing, according to research identified through SugarScience.
"It used to be a condiment, now it's a diet staple," said Robert Lustig, MD, MSL, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco and a member of the SugarScience team.
"As pediatricians, we had evidence of the connection between sugar and diabetes, heart disease and liver disease for years, but we haven't had this level of definitive scientific evidence to back up our concerns," said Lustig.
Despite the overwhelming negative findings associated with sugar consumption, the good news is that the knowledge can empower people to change their habits. The most important step, the scientists said, is understanding how much we eat, as well as where in our diet that sugar comes from.
Bibbins-Domingo noted that just reducing one's intake of sugary drinks alone – such as energy drinks and soda – would cut out 25 pounds of sugar annually for the average American.
"What we hope is that people will use the information to make their own changes in their diet, and to think about that for their families," she said.
More information about how to spot hidden added sugars, the latest sugar research and resource kits to share with schools or churches or community centers are all available at SugarScience.org.
SUGAR: THE HIDDEN MENACE AND BEYOND!
Americans consuming dangerous amounts of highly-addictive sugar
Reporting from the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, Rex Jones breaks down one of the most addictive and dangerous substances consumed by Americans every single day – sugar.
A staple in nearly every processed food, the average American consumes more than 156 pounds of sugar every year according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Of that, only 29 pounds comes from traditional sugar, most commonly found in foods such as fruit.
Major university studies on lab rats have found that foods using processed sugar are often even more addictive than illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin.
“Our research supports the theory that high-fat/high-sugar foods stimulate the brain in the same way that drugs do,” Neuroscientist Joseph Schroeder wrote in 2013. “It may explain why some people can’t resist these foods despite the fact that they know they are bad for them.”
Similar research published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2013 also found processed sugar to be one of the main causes behind the spread and growth of cancerous tumors.
In an attempt to suppress growing public knowledge, companies have begun relying on other substances such as aspartame and neotame in an attempt to fool the public.
Fortunately, CONTINUED exposure on the subject as well as the public’s shift towards organic food has served to slowly chip away at the power of the sugar-industrial complex.
Eating too much sugar is really unhelthy.
FDA On Sugar: Not So Sweet
The agency reverses itself—and capitulates to the sugar lobby. Action Alert!
Recently, the FDA announced a proposal to include a daily recommended value (DRV) for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label of packaged foods and dietary supplements.
The “added sugars” designation has nothing to do with the amount of sugar that already occurs naturally in the food. “Added sugars” are any sugars (sucrose, fructose, etc.) that are added during processing. So while the sugar found in an apple would be considered naturally occurring, agave—a sweetener isolated from cactus—added to another product would be considered an added sugar, as would sugar or high-fructose corn syrup. (If a product contains an entry for added sugars, that’s an immediate indicator that it’s a highly processed food.)
The agency proposes that the daily intake of calories from added sugars not exceed 10% of total calories. Their “general nutrition advice” is 2,000 calories a day for adults and children 4 and above (meaning that, according to the government, a 5-year-old girl and an athletic 25-year-old man should both be fed the same amount). Under this new proposal, each should also consume 50 grams of added sugars every day. For children under 4, who might get 1,000 calories per day, this is 25 grams of added sugar. There is no current (or proposed) DRV for sugars in general, only the proposal for added sugars.
The FDA’s press announcement represents a somewhat surprising departure from previous messaging by the agency. Last year, the FDA proposed that the nutrition label declare how much added sugar a food contained but refused to establish a DRV, claiming that there was no “sound scientific basis for the establishment of a quantitative intake recommendation [from] which a DRV could be derived.” This was correct: to imply that we need any amount of added sugar is false and misleading.
The agency now claims that the scientific evidence presented by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has convinced them that there is indeed a “sound scientific basis” for an added sugar DRV. Really? A “sound scientific basis” for eating processed food that contains 200 calories of high fructose corn syrup every day, in addition to whatever sugars are already in the food naturally? Food companies, and of course the general public, will regard this DRV as a recommendation to consume added sugar! Did this really come from the dietary committee—or from lobbying efforts by Big Food?
It’s generally good that consumers have more information about the nutritional content of their food—ANH-USA supports the inclusion of data about sugars on nutrition labels. But creating a DRV for added sugars is a tacit federal approval of putting extra sugars in processed foods, and that’s something we don’t need. The federal government already subsidizes sugar with import quotas and crop subsidies. The FDA—an agency charged with protecting public health—shouldn’t become yet another sugar sales agent.
Let’s also keep in mind that the average American already consumes three pounds of sugar every week. It has been estimated that this has led to chronic diseases whose treatment cost an extra $1 trillion in healthcare spending between 1995 and 2012.
Some consumers mistake products with added sugar as healthy snacks when they are anything but. For example, many brands of yogurt, especially low-fat yogurt, have more sugar than a Twinkie. Or take Vitaminwater: one 20 oz. bottle contains as much sugar as three Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Many “gluten free” products are especially loaded with added sugar. It seems to us that marketing these junk food products as health foods represents a form of fraud. The FTC is supposed to police fraud, but it looks the other way on these.
Further, the myriad dangers and health conditions caused by sugar—and the rather abysmal track record of nutritional advice offered by the federal government—are enough to tell us that the FDA shouldn’t be approving a 10% DRV number for added sugar. Particularly since the World Health Organization slashed its recommendation last year for daily total sugar intake, including from fruit, from 10% of total calories to 5% of daily calories.
Any integrative doctor or nutrition professional worth his or her “salt” will advise patients (in most cases) to strictly limit their sugar intake, and to eliminate added sugar completely—in particular artificial sweeteners and highly processed forms like high fructose corn syrup. Dr. David Williams doesn’t mince words: “I can’t put it more plainly: sugar kills.” (Alternatives Newsletter, June 2010).
(You can review some of our past articles on natural, healthier forms of sugar that are preferable to other sweeteners—but these should be used rarely, and in moderation.)
Even with a DRV for added sugar, it will still be difficult for consumers to know how much is too much sugar. Just because sugar naturally occurs in most fruits doesn’t mean we should eat them in abundance. Dr. Mercola, for instance, advises consumers to limit their intake of fructose from healthy fruits to 15 to 25 grams a day.
We should also keep in mind that DRVs in general are flawed. Each person has different requirements for different nutrients, and consumers should consult a nutritionist or an integrative physician to determine the ideal balance of nutrients specific to his or her own body. But it is also true that the Nutrition Facts panel is the only information that most people use to make decisions about their diet and health. In an ideal world, we would recommend that the government indicate not a recommended amount for natural sugar but rather a maximum, and drop the DRV for added sugar to zero, But Big Food political pressure would likely make anything the Feds come up with deeply flawed.