On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:49:39 -0600 Bob Harrison <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hello James & All,
>
> Thanks to James for presenting the sugar lobby
> point of view.

What he posted would better be described as the science and nutrition lobby
point of view.

>   If  I
> believed that the use of refined sugar over a
> long period of time was not
> harmful I might have posted the same
> information as my friend James.

Belief is the operative word, but I think it would be better to stick with
what we *know*.

There are a lot of things about the sugar cane industry that make it an easy
target, they are hardly angels.  But getting back to the original question:
can you tell me why the sugars in table sugar are inferior to the sugars in
honey.  Can you tell me what this alteration brought on by refinement is?

> I respect Jim & Keith's opinion but believe the
> opposite. I am sure we can
> "agree to disagree".

We can always do that!  That is how people get on in this world.  But this is
an interesting discussion, and it bears on what is, or is not, ethical to
claim when one describes the benefits of honey over sugar.

It also has bearing on what we feed to bees.  On one of the other lists there
was the position put forward that honey was an inherently superior bee feed,
and that were one to feed bees sugar syrup (even organic sugar syrup), that
the honey that came from that hive later could not be called organic.  It was
also contended that feeding honey would sustain a colony for a longer period
of time than sugar syrup, all things being otherwise equal.  No data was
presented, but there was a "belief" and a desire that this be true.  It might
sound better, might feel better to some, but the question really is - is it
actually better?

> The refined sugar debate is similar to
> cigarettes as far as science goes.

Not even close.

> example:
>
> The highest incidence of lung cancer is in
> people which smoke cigarettes.
>
> Science (and the tobacco lobby AT ONE TIME
> SAID) says "there is NO PROOF
> smoking causes lung cancer".

Science ended that story long before the fine folks of the tobacco industry.

"Science" (can sience actually say anything?) is also not saying that eating
ridiculous amounts of simple sugars is not bad for you.  No one on this list
is saying that.  What some are debating is your contention that were those
sugars from honey, the impact would be reduced.  Me, I am asking how you came
to that conclusion, and what your evidence is.  I am not even interested in a
reference at this point - merely some realistic, nutritional, physiologic, or
biochemical explanation.  How is it that the perfectly natural sugars from
cane juice, become "bad" when refined by people, whilst the perfectly natural
sugars in nectar are somehow untainted when refined and processed by the bees?

> The highest incidence of diabetes is in people
> who consume refined sugar.

Generally speaking the incidence of diabetes also follows the reduction in
physical exercise that members of our society gets, the increase in readily
available calories in our society and a net change in the calories in,
calories out equation.  Sugar plays a role as it is rich in energy (calories)
is easily assimilated, but provides little other nutrition. There are an
enormous number of variables.  To ignore them all is to delude oneself, come
to the wrong conclusions, and hamper the search for a cure.

Heck, one could argue that the movement from and agrarian to industrial to an
information-based economy has done more to increase diabetes rates than any
sack of sugar.

> Science (and the sugar lobby) say (for now)
> "there if no proof the use of
> refined sugar causes diabetes.

I have never heard anyone put it quite that way, and again, you are grossly
oversimplifying.  Any diabetologist will tell you that over consumption of any
readily assimilated calorie rich foodstuff, with a concomitant lack of
exercise, can lead to diabetes in those individuals prone to it.  Sucrose
factors in here, but it is not inherent in the nature of sucrose, or the
processing thereof - it is in the way it is used.  You can do the same thing
with other simple sugars, like those found in honey, corn syrup, maple syrup
etc.

> The refined sugar business is huge compared to
> beekeeping and the sale of
> honey (and those sugar barons plan on keeping
> the Lion's share of the
> business).

Virtually every business strives to command the lion's share of the market -
let is not start down the sugar conspiracy road . . .. ;)

>Rough estimate from recent figures:
>
> AVERAGE American  ingests  100 pounds of
> refinned sugar per year.
>
> Average American use of honey is about one
> pound per year.

So, why do you think that is?  Could it be that it is simply far more
available, easier to use in baked goods (for most people), that there is a
cultural preference for a granulated product, that sucrose is relatively bland
aside from the sweetness and this allows one sweeten a food without changing
the flavor?  Many, many reasons for this.  Lets not forget the biggie - it is
far far easier to produce a 10lb sac of sugar than a nice 10 lb jar of honey.
So it is more available, and is used more, that simply does not prove that
sugar is inherently deficient in some way based on its level of refinement.

> I would like to see the refined sugar and pure
> honey average use  reversed.

Sure, nice thought, but the market would never bear it.  Also, despite the
fact that I know you have already chosen not to believe this, I would suggeest
that it would make little difference.  What needs to happen is that the
overall caloric intake of the American people has to be reduced, and they need
to live more active lifestyles.  I am certainly included in this as I type
while sitting on my duff.

> 100 pounds of honey use and one pound per year
> of refined white sugar use
> would in my opinion be a healthier choice.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.  I might ask though, on what
facts do you base this assertion?

> Take a five pound bag of sugar and pour out
> about half the bag. Quite a load
> for your body to handle EACH WEEK!

Yes, it is - and it would be no different if you were slugging back 2.5 lbs of
honey per week, from a nutritional point of view.

Again, may I ask (and get this discuccion back on the origional track), what
changes are wrought by refinement that make sugar A) inferior, and B) more
diabetogeneic than honey?

Keith "not a member of the sugar lobby, just a little ol' zoo veterinarian"
Benson

> Ps. Please do not get me started on Apartame
Ø       use in diet drinks.

OK - you have a deal.