Dr. Richard Jacoby | The Toxic Effects of Sugar

[ponda]

People who have a sweet tooth like me might find this interview interesting.






Dr. Richard Jacoby | The Toxic Effects of Sugar & The Corporate Food Conspiracy


From The Higher Side Chats (http://thehighersidechats.com/dr-richard-jacoby-sugar-crush/)

Published on Apr 6, 2016

On top of being the author of the great new book, Sugar Crush: How To Reduce Inflammation, Reverse Nerve Damage, and Reclaim Good Health, Dr. Jacoby is one of the countries leading peripheral nerve surgeons, the co-founder of the Scottsdale Healthcare Wound Management Center, and the former president of both the Arizona Podiatry Association and the Association of Extremity Nerve Surgeons.

Today he joins THC to discuss his research into just how toxic sugar really is, how it effects our nervous system, and how it may very well be the cause of many diseases and disorders not commonly associated with sugar or even diet at all. He also explains some of the history, data, and legislation behind how it goes this way, as well as what we can do to break these bad habits.

Check out the Sugar Crush Website for more info: http://sugarcrushthebook.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnT1ZJjTyss

[Bubu]

I have never known of anyone who can beat my sweetest tooth. However, while mother and 4 of my six siblings are diabetic, (cousins and uncles too). I have never been diagnose with HBS. not even once. Maybe its because I almost don't eat corporate foods and I perspire a lot. I get my sugars from fruits and natural sugar made by evaporating most of the water from cane juice.

sugar is probably the foremost substance that our taste buds crave for therefore it makes sense that the corporate bastardize it.

[Bill Ryan]

.
This is also highly recommended, here to download:

Sugar Blues, by William Dufty:

http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty.pdf

http://projectavalon.net/Sugar_Blues_William_Dufty_cover.jpg

[sunwings]

fzMXgnTN2w4

[Flash]

Hidden in Plain Sight

Added sugar is hiding in 74% of packaged foods

We tend to think that added sugar is mainly found in desserts like cookies and cakes, but it's also found in many savory foods, such as bread and pasta sauce. And some foods promoted as "natural" or "healthy" are laden with added sugars, compounding the confusion. In fact, manufacturers add sugar to 74% of packaged foods sold in supermarkets.1 So, even if you skip dessert, you may still be consuming more added sugar than is recommended.


How do I know if I'm eating added sugar?


Added sugar is hiding in foods that many of us consider healthy, like yogurt and energy bars. It is also added to savory foods, such as ketchup, breads, salad dressing and pasta sauce.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires food producers to list all ingredients in their foods. But added sugar comes in many forms – which is why it's so hard to find on the ingredients label.2

There are at least 61 different names for sugar listed on food labels. These include common names, such as sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup, as well as barley malt, dextrose, maltose and rice syrup, among others.

While product labels list total sugar content, manufacturers are not required to say whether that total includes added sugar, which makes it difficult to know how much of the total comes from added sugar and how much is naturally occurring in ingredients such as fruit or milk. That makes it very difficult to account for how much added sugar we're consuming.2,3


How much is ok?


Daily Added Sugar Limits Women: 6 tsp. (25g) Men: 9 tsp. (38g) Children: 3-6 tsp. (12-25g)

Unlike salt and fats that are added to foods, nutrition labels don't provide you with a daily reference value for added sugar.

However, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommends no more than 9 teaspoons (38 grams) of added sugar per day for men, and 6 teaspoons (25 grams) per day for women.5 The AHA limits for children vary depending on their age and caloric needs, but range between 3-6 teaspoons (12 - 25 grams) per day.

Even "healthy" foods can be high in sugar

With as many as 11 teaspoons (46.2 grams) of added sugar in some 12-oz. sodas, a single serving exceeds the AHA recommendation for men and is about twice the allowance for women and children. But sugar isn't only in beverages and sweet baked goods. Here are some healthy-looking items you might find in the supermarket that also have high sugar contents:

- One leading brand of yogurt contains 7 teaspoons (29 grams) of sugar per serving.

- A breakfast bar made with "real fruit" and "whole grains" lists 15 grams of sugar.

- A single cup of bran cereal with raisins, in a box advertising "no high-fructose corn syrup," contains 20 grams of sugar per serving.

- A cranberry/pomegranate juice product, also advertising "no high-fructose corn syrup" and "100% Vitamin C," contains 30 grams of added sugar per 8 oz. serving. Some of the sugar is naturally occurring, but some of it has been added.

Changing labels to help consumers


Americans consume
66
pounds of added sugar each year, on average.

Making healthy food decisions requires having complete information on the food label. When sugars are hidden unrecognizably in most packaged foods, it's a difficult choice to make.

To address this, the FDA is considering revising the current label design, including changing the way a serving size is measured and possibly adding a separate line item highlighting the amount of added sugar.4

There is active discussion right now in public health circles about how to make nutrition labels easier to read and the need for clearer recommendations on how much added sugar is safe to consume. Stay tuned to SugarScience.org as we follow this discussion and interpret its impact for consumers.
http://www.sugarscience.org/hidden-in-plain-sight/#.WDRock3ruM8

.................

[Flash]

The corporate lies, again and again




Sugar industry paid scientists for favourable research, documents reveal

Harvard study in 1960s cast doubt on sugar's role in heart disease, pointing finger at fat
The Associated Press Posted: Sep 13, 2016 8:39 AM ET| Last Updated: Sep 13, 2016 8:39 AM ET
Newly uncovered correspondence between a sugar trade group and researchers at Harvard University in the 1960s shines more light on how food and beverage makers have attempted to shape the public's understanding of nutrition.
Newly uncovered correspondence between a sugar trade group and researchers at Harvard University in the 1960s shines more light on how food and beverage makers have attempted to shape the public's understanding of nutrition. (iStock)

Related Stories

■ Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
■ Coke's lower sugar level in Canada may not affect sweetness
■ How 'toxic' is sugar?
■ 10 things to know about sugar
■ Why taxing sugary drinks could pay off for public health


The sugar industry began funding research that cast doubt on sugar's role in heart disease — in part by pointing the finger at fat — as early as the 1960s, according to an analysis of newly uncovered documents.

The analysis published Monday is based on correspondence between a sugar trade group and researchers at Harvard University, and is the latest example showing how food and beverage makers attempt to shape public understanding of nutrition.
■Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics
■the fifth estate | The Secrets of Sugar


In 1964, the group now known as the Sugar Association internally discussed a campaign to address "negative attitudes toward sugar" after studies began emerging linking sugar with heart disease, according to documents dug up from public archives. The following year the group approved "Project 226," which entailed paying Harvard researchers today's equivalent of $48,900 US for an article reviewing the scientific literature, supplying materials they wanted reviewed, and receiving drafts of the article.

The resulting article published in 1967 concluded there was "no doubt" that reducing cholesterol and saturated fat was the only dietary intervention needed to prevent heart disease. The researchers overstated the consistency of the literature on fat and cholesterol, while downplaying studies on sugar, according to the analysis.
■ANALYSIS | Why Coke is lowering its sugar levels in Canada

"Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print," wrote an employee of the sugar industry group to one of the authors.

The sugar industry's funding and role were not disclosed when the article was published by the New England Journal of Medicine. The journal did not begin requesting author disclosures until 1984.

USA/
Harvard researchers were paid today's equivalent of $48,900 for an article that concluded there was 'no doubt' that reducing cholesterol and saturated fat was the only dietary intervention needed to prevent heart disease. (Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)

'No appreciable relationship'

In an editorial published Monday that accompanied the sugar industry analysis, New York University professor of nutrition Marion Nestle noted that for decades following the study, scientists and health officials focused on reducing saturated fat, not sugar, to prevent heart disease.

While scientists are still working to understand links between diet and heart disease, concern has shifted in recent years to sugars, and away from fat, Nestle said.

A committee that advised the federal government on dietary guidelines said the available evidence shows "no appreciable relationship" between the dietary cholesterol and heart disease, although it still recommended limiting saturated fats.
■How 'toxic' is sugar?
■Dietary guidelines in U.S. crack down on sugar, eases on cholesterol


The American Heart Association cites a study published in 2014 in saying that too much added sugar can increase risk of heart disease, though the authors of that study say the biological reasons for the link are not completely understood.

The findings published Monday are part of an ongoing project by a former dentist, Cristin Kearns, to reveal the sugar industry's decades-long efforts to counter science linking sugar with negative health effects, including diabetes.

The latest work, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, is based primarily on 31 pages of correspondence between the sugar group and one of the Harvard researchers who authored the review.

In a statement, the Sugar Association said it "should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities," but that funding disclosures were not the norm when the review was published. The group also questioned Kearns' "continued attempts to reframe historical occurrences" to play into the current public sentiment against sugar.

Food KitchenWise English Muffins
Though scientists are still working to understand links between diet and heart disease, concern has recently shifted to sugars, and away from fat. (Matthew Mead/Associated Press)

Thinly veiled marketing

The Sugar Association said it was a "disservice" that industry-funded research in general is considered "tainted."

Companies including Coca-Cola Co. and Kellogg Co., as well as groups for agricultural products like beef and blueberries, regularly fund studies that become a part of scientific literature, are cited by other researchers, and are touted in news releases.

Companies say they adhere to scientific standards, and many researchers feel that industry funding is critical to advancing science given the growing competition for government funds. But critics say such studies are often thinly veiled marketing that undermine efforts to improve public health.
■IN DEPTH | 10 things to know about sugar
■Sugar intake should be reduced to 5-10% of calories, WHO says


"Food company sponsorship, whether or not intentionally manipulative, undermines public trust in nutrition science," wrote Nestle, a longtime critic of industry funding of science.

The authors of the analysis note they were unable to interview key actors quoted in the documents because they are no longer alive. They also note there is no direct evidence the sugar industry changed the manuscript, that the documents provide a limited window into the sugar industry group's activities and that the roles of other industries and nutrition leaders in shaping the discussion about heart disease were not studied.

Coca-cola cans
Companies including Coca-Cola Co. and Kellogg Co. regularly fund studies that become a part of scientific literature, are cited by other researchers, and are touted in news releases. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

'Public health extremists'

Nevertheless, they say the documents underscore why policy makers should consider giving less weight to industry-funded studies. Although funding disclosures are now common practice in the scientific community, the role sponsors play behind the scenes is still not always clear.

In June, the Associated Press reported on a study funded by the candy industry's trade group that found children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who don't. The National Confectioners Association, which touted the findings in a news release, provided feedback to the authors on a draft even though a disclosure said it had no role in the paper. The association said its suggestions didn't alter the findings.

In November, the AP also reported on emails showing Coca-Cola was instrumental in creating a non-profit that said its mission was to fight obesity, even though the group publicly said the soda maker had "no input" into its activities. A document circulated at Coke said the group would counter the "shrill rhetoric" of "public health extremists."

Coca-Cola subsequently conceded that it had not been transparent, and the group later disbanded.
■Taxing sugary drinks could help cut consumption, researchers say


© The Associated Press, 2016
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sugar-harvard-conspiracy-1.3759582

[Flash]

Sugar industry as bad as the tobacco industry in its planned research hidings, but with a twist the tobacco industry did not have: they stop the research they do not like, they do not allow research to proceed, so there is little traces of misdeed, while the tobacco industry had a whole trail of hiding.




Sugar industry's secret documents echo tobacco tactics

Sugar Association's intent to use science to defeat critics uncovered by dentist

By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Mar 08, 2013 11:53 AM ET| Last Updated: Mar 08, 2013 1:28 PM ET

When Cristin Couzens went on the hunt for evidence that Big Sugar had manipulated public opinion, she had no idea what she was doing. She was a dentist, not an investigative reporter. But she couldn't let go of the nagging suspicion that something was amiss.

Her obsession started in an unlikely place, at a dental conference in Seattle in 2007 about diabetes and gum disease. When one speaker listed foods to avoid, there was no mention of sugar. "I thought this was very strange," Couzens said. And when a second speaker suggested sugary drinks were a healthy choice, she chased him down at the end of the conference to make sure she'd heard him correctly. "How could you possibly recommend sweet tea as a healthy drink?" she asked the speaker, who paused just long enough to say, "There is no evidence that links sugar to chronic disease," before he bolted out the door.

mi-couzens-cristin-300-webe
Cristin Couzens publicized secret documents in a magazine article titled Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies. (Eric Weber)

"I was so shocked by that statement," she said, "I felt obligated to do a little bit of research, thinking perhaps the sugar industry had somehow had an influence over the lack of advice to limit sugar intake to prevent and control diabetes. That's what set me off."

She quit her job, exhausted her savings and spent 15 months scouring library archives. Then one day she found what she was looking for, in a cardboard box at the Colorado State University archives.

"The first folder that I opened jumped right out at me," she said. "It was on the Sugar Association letterhead which is the trade association in Washington for cane and beet sugar producers. And the word "confidential" was right under the letterhead. So the first document I saw was a confidential Sugar Association memo talking about their PR strategies in the 70s."

What Couzens found was something food industry critics have been seeking for years — documents suggesting that the sugar industry used Big Tobacco tactics to deflect growing concern over the health effects of sugar.

"So I had lists of their board reports, their financial statements, I had names of their scientific consultants, I had a list of research projects they funded, and I had these memos where they were describing how their PR men should handle conflict of interest questions from the press," she said.

The documents survived in the Colorado University Library Archives only because they helped explain a photograph of three men and a trophy. When the Great West Sugar Company went out of business in the 1980s, someone put the files in a box so that librarians would know who the men were and why they were being honored. So who were they?

"That was a picture of sugar industry executives being awarded the Silver Anvil, which is like the Oscars of the PR world," Couzens said. In the 1976 photo, the president of the Sugar Association and its director of public relations smile as they pose with their prize for their successful campaign "forging public opinion," in the face of mounting consumer and government concern over the health risks of sugar.

"It's a little bit shocking to me that an industry would be rewarded for manipulating scientific evidence," Couzens said. "At the time the award was given in 1976, there was a controversy. Many people thought sugar was harmful, the sugar industry wanted to turn public opinion toward thinking sugar was safe so they forged public opinion on how the public viewed the effects of sugar," she said.

As Couzens sorted through the documents, the full extent of that campaign to forge public opinion emerged. The documents describe industry lobby efforts to sponsor scientific research, silence media reports critical of sugar, and block dietary guidelines to limit sugar consumption.

The Sugar Association's president reported to the Board of Director's meeting in October, 1976 that, "in confronting our critics we try never to lose sight of the fact that no confirmed scientific evidence links sugar to the death-dealing diseases. This crucial point is the life blood of the association."


Part 1: Food cravings engineered by industry

And the Sugar Association was clear about its intention to use science to defeat sugar’s critics. To support "our desire to maintain research as a main prop of the industry's defence," the member companies were told that $230,000 was being reserved to fund scientific research, according to a report from the Sugar Association's annual meeting of the board of directors, in Chicago in 1977.

At the next meeting, a year later in Washington, the Sugar Association updated the board of directors on the research program, listing 17 different scientists at some of the world's most prestigious universities, including M.I.T., Harvard, and Yale, receiving sugar industry money

Some of the money was supplied by "contributing research members," heavy sugar users including "Coca-Cola, Hershey, General Foods, General Mills and Nabisco" who contributed the funds specifically for the lobby group's scientific effort. The document reports that those companies each "contributed $10,000 to our general research fund."

Targeting media coverage

The documents also reveal efforts to manipulate media coverage. The Sugar Association had been stung by a New York Times headline: "The Bitter Truth About Sugar," written by a prominent nutritionist in June 1976. "It's bad for the health, bad for the teeth, and we eat more of it than we think", the article declared.

The Sugar Association president warned the board of directors that this "shoddy piece" was being followed up by "naive writers working for other papers around the country." But the association had saved the day. Thanks to an inside tip, they were able to keep Reader's Digest from running a condensed version of the same article.

"Thanks to friendly sources who alerted us, a progressive approach to research by the Digest and persistence on our part, we were able to persuade them to cancel the story," the document reports. "We did it in two stages. We failed in our initial conversations, but succeeded when we took our case to the editor-in-chief. Our telegraph to him is included in your folders and might be helpful should you be confronted by criticism."


The documents Couzens found in that cardboard box also reveal that the Sugar Association was busy trying to block dietary guidelines that would recommend limits on sugar consumption. At the time, the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, headed by Senator George McGovern, had released "Dietary Goals for the United States," which recommended that Americans should reduce their sugar intake by 40 per cent.

The Sugar Association had been warned by a committee insider that "the final conclusions would hang sugar," the association's president reported to the board in 1977. And now that the committee's report had been released the results "certainly bear this prediction out," he added.

But the lobby group had a plan. "The McGovern Report has to be 'neutralized'" that document reports, assuring the members that the Sugar Association would fight back, because "the consequences of losing this battle and permitting dietary goals to become a basic reference are too grave to be taken lightly."

Sugar industry committed to sucrose consumption

When Couzens approached the sugar industry for comment, she was told the documents were ancient history. "They gave a comment like, that was in the past and does not reflect the mission of the sugar association currently," she said. But then she found one more document, an internal Sugar Association e-newsletter from August, 2003 that announced "the Sugar Association is committed to the protection and promotion of sucrose consumption. Any disparagement of sugar will be met with forceful, strategic public comments and the supporting science."


'It's very, very difficult to find those kinds of …[documents]


, so it was a real treasure.'

— Marion Nestle

Couzens said that document showed "the sugar industry is still very active in nominating scientists to serve on the dietary guidelines advisory committee, and it is still publishing research through connections with the World Sugar Research Organization, based in London. These scientific reviews that are published by the sugar industry are still considered in the evidence review for the dietary guidelines, so they’re still serving to balance out the evidence," she said.

Armed with all of these documents, Couzens' next challenge was to make them public somehow. She sought out author Gary Taubes, an American science writer who has reported extensively on the health effects of sugar. He listened to her story and offered to help her get the documents published in the independent news magazine Mother Jones, under the provocative title "Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies." What happened when this bombshell was finally revealed, after months of research and sacrifice? Nothing, Couzens said. The story failed to be picked up by the mainstream media.

Couzens blames it on Hurricane Sandy. The media was distracted. But, she said, the story "has gotten particular attention from food policy folks here in the U.S. and also from researchers who had been studying the tobacco industry who see the parallels," she said.

"I thought it was just wonderful and I got in touch with her right away," said Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, a professor at New York University and vocal food industry critic. "Those kinds of things are very, very hard to come by. One of the things that brought down the cigarette companies was finding enormous documentation of the efforts of cigarette companies to cover up the fact that they knew that cigarettes were unhealthful. It's very, very difficult to find those kinds of things, so it was a real treasure."

When CBC News asked the Canadian Sugar Institute for comment on the revelations that the sugar lobby group influenced science and public opinion, it didn't answer the question. Instead we received this reply: "The Canadian Sugar Institute (CSI) is the national, non-profit association representing Canadian sugar manufacturers on nutrition and international trade affairs. I am providing you with a summary of the scientific consensus on some common misconceptions about sugars and health."

Chiara DiAngelo, the Canadian Sugar Institute's coordinator of nutrition communications, also offered the names of several university professors to talk to for more information about industry-sponsored research.

This is the second of two special features by CBC health reporter Kelly Crowe on how industry designs food so that we crave them.
With files from CBC's Brigitte Noel

[conk]

Now, look into how processing of sugar cane damages the environment. It's bad.

[lunaflare]

The sugar industry seems more nefarious than the tobacco industry.
There are no warnings about the probability of addiction, digestion disorders and mood swings. Manufacturers also bear no legal responsibility; one can suck down a Pepsi cola, chew chocolate bullets or slurp a Slurpee at any age.

As children we are readily hooked: the marketing is crafty and seduces with brightly coloured wrappers and gimmicky names (who could resist Wagon Wheels, Caramelo Koalas, Freddo Frogs?).

I recall the thrill of buying bulging bags of mixed sweets at the corner shop for ten cents.
I especially loved the chewy sets of false teeth.
Yeah, the irony...

[Flash]

The Queen doctor and other doctors explaining the truth on research statistics for statin usage etc, and the sugar killing fraud - i bet anything that given time those doctors will be ban on social media as vaccine opponent actually are.

Those guys are putting their butts on the line of fire. The least we can do is to listen to their videos filled with information.

Very good to listen, well explained although a bit scientific.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcnd3usdNxo