Big Sugar Company, War is start. Less calories for everyone.
We have repeatedly listen how sugar does bad health and how it can be among the causes of different pathologies, including diabetes, heart problems, and even cancer. It also promotes obesity and therefore the onset of related problems such as high blood pressure or stroke. American journalist Gary Taubes, a nutritionist, is the author of “Why It Makes Fat (And How To Avoid It)” from the emotional title “The Sugar Case” as the major cause of the abovemented pathology.
To reach this conclusion, Taubes has analyzed some data: over the last thirty years, the world obesity rate is duplicated, as does diabetes. Particularly interesting is the fact that obesity and diabetes have increased throughout the world and not just in Western countries; An example is China: in the 1980s, 1% of the population was affected by diabetes, while 11% of them were affected.
And what is this due to? Usually, it blames the fat, but according to Taubes the real culprits are the sugars, which are consumed in excess. According to the journalist, the danger of sugar is cut off by food companies and also by the scientific world, a silence paid for by money laundering with the aim of guilty of fat, which is also proclaimed by advertising.
Taubes then talks about a research conducted in the 1960s, which had already correlated sugar with the onset of metabolic syndrome, that is, a set of pathologies involving abdominal fat accumulation and a state of chronic inflammation in the body. This syndrome is caused by rising blood sugar levels due to the ingestion of carbohydrates and sugars that trigger the release of insulin and the sugar is moved where it can not burn.
The sugar we consume is sucrose and is composed of glucose and fructose; In particular, fructose in the liver is turned into fat and this leads the cells to become insulin resistant, which can cause metabolic syndrome and leads to an increase in the amount of fat in the blood, but also to the onset of diabetes Type 2, obesity, hypertension, heart disease and Alzheimer's.
But cancer is also associated with sugar: in fact, Taubes claims that a lower risk of developing cancer has been associated with the administration of a diabetes drug to lower insulin, highlighting a correlation between higher levels of insulin and the onset of tumors. Insulin, among the various effects, has the ability to stimulate tumor cells, which leads to reproducing them. As sugar associated with insulin, it can be seen that high levels of sugar could create a cancer-promoting environment.
But how to behave with sugar? Taubes does not really answer precisely because every person is a case to himself. Anyway, reducing sugar from our diet is a good idea.
A recent report by Rabobank points out that the abandonment of Sugar's use is attributable to several factors, including a significant increase in the number of people affected by obesity, government interventions, and producer commitment to reformulate Foods obtained from transformation by lowering sugar levels.
And emerging countries? Nor can they offer a viable alternative, as increasing incomes tend to provide a greater choice for consumers who can opt for products that are considered "healthier." "What is happening is going beyond what we might consider a banal fashion and refusing to use or consuming Sugar is becoming a real trend and this is something that will give a shock to the market: we are saying that's something you should not underestimate"
The trend described by Duff is also evident in everyday life, and we go to a supermarket anyway: the snacks we find on the shelves have become "healthier", people drink less drinks and the list of the ingredients of the various products shortens more and more ...
In the United States, it also operates at a tax level, and some cities (Oakland and Philadelphia are examples) started taxing sugary drinks, but this also applies to Mexico, a nation where two-thirds of the adult population is considered obese and The Mauritius, marked by an impressive industrial exposure to Sugar.
Companies, however, can only adjust to the market and therefore, we read in the press releases of Mars, Kellogg, Unilever and many others that the content of Sugar has been reduced. The rise in incomes in emerging countries is changing consumer habits and these regions go from being considered at a rapid growth rate of fast-to-moderate sugar consumption. According to Rabo Research, the overall growth rate of sugar consumption for the next 15 years will be lower than that of the past 15 years.
According to Duff's view, the current context seems to be invested by considerable uncertainty and in this uncertainty are found to operate the industry companies.
"We are not talking about a real reversal," Duff concludes, "but we will certainly have short-term turmoil and less long-term growth."
They believe that after gluten, saturated fats, red meat and palm oil, the next big enemy of healthy nutrition will be him, sugar. While the former enemies had been a revelation, if not a lightning strike, the history of sugar is different. And he's always been somewhat suspicious. A series of small obstacles prevent our common sense of considering sugar as a drug in all respects: it is not as exciting as coffee, grass or cocaine, and if it causes addiction we tend to see it as a childish desire, one thing Which is definitely bad if you eat too much but in the end no one ever died.
Just to sum up the topics on the agenda: No gluten? No saturated fat? No palm oil? No pork jelly or fish glue? Perfect, no problem, responds to the food industry. By carefully avoiding saying that removing all these things is equivalent to adding sugar. Because, it does not take long to understand it, sugar, especially when cooked at high temperatures, serves to preserve food (do you know, I know, jams?), But also not to crumble gluten free biscuits To smash smoked salmon and so on. Needless to say, sugar is not only in sweet foods: fructose syrup (which is obtained from corn) is in almost all ready-made foods, and in fairly grotesque amounts. (The child who likes candy will wonder why, therefore, ready-made foods are not all sweet: well, maybe because besides the sugar they also bring us a lot of salt? And so hypertension, cholesterol and so on).
There is no definite scientific evidence that sugar is a drug and it hurts, but the new warrior fighters claim that Big Sugar, which is objectively quite disturbing, has funded entire study centers and foundations for decades To produce scientific material in favor of sugar (or to conceal the compromising scientific material).
Then there is the fact that sugar is not only in the stuff where the food industry puts it, there is also in fruit, vegetables, beans, pasta. For example, to go back to the jams, there is a well-known Italian brand that emphasizes that it only works with "fruit sugars", which means that jams are cooked in refined apple juice. And refined apple juice is ... you understand. Everyone agrees that we should eat some sweet and fresh fruit, but the fact remains that the sweets and desserts are ready and the fruit unfortunately needs to be peeled off.
But really? Do you really need to say that virtually all ready-made foods are soaked with sugar? Is there still someone who did not know it? The most curious thing about this latter food anathema is that he charges an ingredient that in our hearts we know to be guilty since our baby mum left us ice cream alone on Sundays. The discouraging aspect is, however, from the strong feeling that the media and political battle against sugar is destined to not have great effects. Already there are reports and reports of reporters telling you to have spent a month without eating sugar-free, and they tell you the effect it does.
Meanwhile, I have begun to develop an unpublished desire to prepare sweet things, of course with little or no sugar: that vanilla ice cream so sweet that the vanilla flavor never ceases, sweet cous cous, pain goes away, whatever What with quince apples, maybe waiting for fashion lollipops.
An Italian school has decided that only "genuine foods" will be provided in its premises, ie low in salt and with little sugar. Fruit juices can not have added sugars, but only up to 1.2 grams per 100 product. In the distributors there are such fabulous fingers to dried seeds and fruits, some cakes and yogurt. In the Nutella region, the only great multinational with a head claiming to use palm oil for the exact reason it does not hurt, there will be no snacks with sugar and palm oil. Headmaster Paolo Romeo who has studied this discipline with the local Asl says: "No prohibition or ban. Kids can continue to take home or buy what they want out. " And we would miss it.
Of course the people thank you for the kind concession. We can put in our backpack a nice sandwich with jam, even home made, with a lot of sugar. Or a slice of grandma's donut: the one that provides 200 grams of milk, as much as flour and sugar, and a spoonful of chocolate. Here, nothing can be given to the Bonelli Institute because it is the devil. Guys rebel. At one time, the schools were doing the brainwashing with the grammatical culture hostile to manual labor, then the struggle against the popular Christian Democrat, always against the efficent reforms of public education, and now the new revolution has only one enemy: sugar. The cultural revolution now goes to Fiesta and Buondì brioche.
The Bonelli institute director and the teachers and parents and professors who shared this madness came out of The Circle of Eggers, all slaves of the new trend of the right sandwich. There is little to laugh about, it's a matter of time. And we will be overwhelmed by this new religion.
As Bloomberg mayor settled in his office, he made a ban. Much more correct than Trump: it was the so-called Sugar Ban. In the Big Apple could no longer be used large soda drink in glasses of more than 16 ounces. Everything against sugar. There were exceptions to the sale of extra-large packages: they concerned milk shakes, supermarket discounts and alcohol. Yes, you understand well, New York restaurant owners could not sell a Coca Cola cup, but they were allowed to do it if the contents were of vodka. If you do not believe in the chef of this soup, go to any American newspaper site (between 2012 and 2014) with the Sugar Ban keyword and you will find everything. These are crazy. A court in 2014 then rejected the Bloomberg idea, with the plain motivation that it is not business in the city's health department to decide what New Yorkers can drink.
Yesterday the Daily Mail, the popular English tabloid, reported on the front page some of the negative effects of this sugar-fever. Meanwhile, food multinationals, who have no heart but correctly think of their facts, are organizing in advance to replace sugar and at least pretend to have done so. They quote the case of Nestlé and Kit Kat: boh, we do not know. And remember how some studies on how some sugar substitutes eventually end up being more harmful and also fuel more obesity than sugar itself.
There is a red thread linking Cuneo, New York, and Great Britain: religion. It feeds on dogma but also on myth. And especially for us Catholics on a subtle guilt. Food religion would be of little interest to us. Most respect for vegans, melarians (those who only eat apples), anti-sugar or what the hell you want to ingest. Most respect, but when a public institution decides what is good for our children, then things change. We have fought for a secular school, and today we find it a confessional: it only replaced one goddess to another. If you allow, we prefer the traditional Divinity.
Nestlé, the world's largest food company, announced this week that it is able to cut 40 percent sugar content into its chocolate without altering its flavor. The Kit Kat, the Smarties, perhaps even the Kisses Perugina will be less sugary, but their taste, announced by the Swiss parent company, will not change. This is thanks to a newly patented industrial process that the company prefers not to reveal too much detail.
It's remarkable scientific progress and a great achievement for Nestlé, who hopes to be able to market the new chocolate in the coming years. But the fanfare of the announcement hides hypersensitivity and some general nervousness on the sugar issue. The fact is that, after saturated fats, palm oil and sodium glutamate, sugar has become the new target of healthy phobias around the world. We've always known that too much sugar is bad. We also know that, when it comes to nutrition, excesses always hurt: even drinking too much water, experts say, can be harmful. And for this reason sugar, sweets and chocolates have always been said: consume them, yes, but in moderation.
Things have changed recently when, in fact, sugar has been introduced into the genius of healthy paranoia. The reason for the scandal is a New York Times article in September, which tells how, from the 1960s and for decades, the American sugar lobby plotted with priceless scientists and inadequate administrators to scrape Fat) the accusation scientifically proved that his product is an important cause of heart disease. Finding a lobby that works in the shadows is a key step to creating a healthy spawn. Sugars have been spoken for many years in the West, but only relatively recently in popular culture, sugar replaced saturated fats as the number one enemy of human health. Social networks roam the terrifying post on how many tablespoons of sugar contains a glass of Coca-Cola, and famous comedians like John Oliver in America devote their monologues to the damage of white powder (Oliver, as genial as he deployed, told a scientist That sugar has on the brain the same effect as cocaine). The new food war has begun.
The "Mexi-Coke" becomes the anti Trump symbol of hipster and latinos. If you drink Coca-Cola does not vote for Donald Trump, if it is Mexican Coca-Cola you are ready to go to war trenches against the US president. In trench, of course, so to speak. Tam tam, animates hipster communities and America's most fashionable restaurants, where the drink invented by John Stith Pemberton is served at the tables of young American good bourgeoisie, unknowingly that a few decades before Trump's arrival White House the silhouette of the label symbolized Washington's oppression and supremacy (especially in Latin America). Today, instead, drinking Coca Cola is synonymous with anti-banalism, challenge to isolationism and the protectionism of "The Donald." And if the Coca-Cola bottle "hecha in Mexico" ("produced" in Castilian), a country on which the White House's obsessive-compulsive resentment has shed more than others, costs up to five dollars more to offset Exhaustion comes to the sensation of having done the right thing, politically and morally. And also on the nutritional and aesthetic one.
Mexican Coca-Cola is made with cane sugar. Exactly as up to 30 years ago when the introduction of state aid for corn syrup production led to a transformation in beverage ingredients, which in turn resulted in an imperceptible but substantial change in American taste. In addition, it is sold in the historical bottle, born in 1915, recalling the sinuous shapes of a Hollywood diva, and which was prophesied in 1943 by Salvador Dalì in Poetry of America and only in 1962, nearly two decades later, by Andy Warhol, the modern songwriter of the American Way of Life.
"Originally asked by the Latinos immigrants," Ruben Amon explains about El Paisso by the Yankees of the last three or four generations, "Mexi-coke today encapsulates and preserves the taste and design of the" American dream ". The Mexi-coke American fever is not new. She has been playing for at least a couple of years. Today's agreement with the Mexican bottler made by Arca Continental for production in the southeastern United States was preceded by the one that, long before the Trump presidency, had been called the "War of Sugar", where Mexico City And Washington played in reversed roles today. The clash led the World Trade Organization to condemn the abolition of duties imposed in 1997 and 2002 by the Latin American country in corn syrup, that is, the same behavior that Trump administration has today put into the neighbor's house, guilty of leaving To penetrate thousands of migrants in American territory and not to pay for building the wall to stop them.
The context was different, profoundly different, not ideological. In danger, for many, it is the American way of life. The war between "The Donald" and Coca-Cola has lasted for a long time, and it had its thrilling show on Superbowl's Day, February 5, when the Atlanta company resumed 2014 advertising campaigns that drew a drink suitable to unite all Ethnies with 'optimism, inclusiveness and humanity', or anything that does not seem to mark the American presidency. And Andy Warhol himself might go back in time to remove at least one character from the 1975 quote in The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, explaining why he had chosen the Coca-Cola bottle as the symbol of par excellence in mass culture.
"The great thing about this country - he wrote - is that America was the beginning of the tradition that richer consumers are basically buying the same things as the poorest. You can watch the TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the president drinks Coca-Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca-Cola, and you can do it too. A Coca-Cola is a Coca-Cola and no amount of money can give it a better one than the one who is drinking the bum on the corner. All Coca-Cola are equal and all are good. "
This year Coca-Cola Italy celebrated the ninety years of opening the premises. During its long existence, the most famous carbonated drink that has been able to follow trends and reinvent itself to the need.
Talking about tastes, besides the original in our country we have the Life, the Zero, even Lemon, Light and Coca Cola without caffeine. Life, however, the version with Stevia in place of the sugar launched in 2014, given the sales results, seems to be destined to remain in the catalog for a while.
The Atlanta House, in fact, revived before the summer a revised version of Zero, Sugar Zero, baptized whose emphasis is on public number one.
But it does not seem to be enough. After the summer launch, in fact, the public's feedback on the web was not thrilled. The problem does not seem to be the name, not just mention the lack of calories before and sugars then. What matters, in the end, is always and only taste.
Evidently substituting sugar with sweeteners such as Aspartame and Acesulfame K did not solve the problem. And, taste apart, the health trend has worsened things for all the producers of carbonated drinks.
In recent years, the sales of sugary drinks in the United States are steadily declining, thanks also to measures such as
The Sugar Tax or the Soda Tax, implemented as an extreme ratio against the alarming phenomenon of obesity but strongly opposed by producers.
The solution is not to raise prices, according to Coca-Cola, but to find alternatives to healthy sugars and that do not compromise the taste of the drink.
For this, the company launched a contest of ideas with a $ 1 million final prize open to anyone with the right idea. Published on the Herox platform, the Sweetner Challenge competition offers proposals until January 18, 2018 and is open to all, small chemists and ordinary people. The winner will be proclaimed October 3, 2018.
I hope you will eat free processed sugar, only natural fresh and dried fruits.
Sincerly,