James Fischer wrote:

>   ...association is attacking WHO's report on scientific grounds. He noted
>   that the National Academy of Sciences issued a report last fall saying
>   added sugars could amount to as much as 25 percent of a person's daily
>   diet without harming one's health..."

The writer of the article that Jim quotes got it a bit wrong or at a
minimum, was misleading. What both WHO and the sugar board are arguing
about is sugars added to the diet over what is already in the diet.
Neither (including NAS) is arguing to have sugar constitute either 10%
or 25% of the total diet. So if you get x grams of sugar in your diet,
you can add either 10% (WHO) or 25% (Sugar) to the diet with no ill
effects (I.E. 100 grams sugar in whole diet = either 110 grams or 125
grams.)

The other problem with the article is it makes it appear that WHO is
talking cane sugar/sucrose (the Sugar people) while WHO was all sugars
and was more interested in colas and "junk food" and the like which use
corn syrup and other sugars. (Coke is not "junk food" but a staple,
essential to life. Keeps me alert on long trips.)

WHO's statement was the opinion of a bunch of contributors and not
policy. They want to keep the added sugar (all kinds) down to no more
than 10% additional. It also, if you read it that way, includes foods
that are converted to sugar, which means starches, fruits and
vegetables, and carbohydrates in general, which complicates matters even
more.

So there is a lot of smoke in the article. There is more science on Big
Sugar's side than WHOs; more common sense dietary moderation on WHO's
side than big sugar; and a lot of confusion as to just what both sides
are talking about. Which tends to sell more papers than facts do.

Bill Truesdell (who, every time he posts to Bee-L, gets a ton of SPAM.)
Bath, Maine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::