FLOTUS Focus On Sugar

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

The FDA is proposing new rules, championed by Michelle Obama, First Lady Of The U.S., focusing on sugar content of foods, including added sugar, calories and portion size.

The sugar industry is likely to oppose it, partially because they say it's impossible to differentiate between natural and added sugar, but the FDA says they can do it from records inspections.

Might hit high fructose corn syrup?

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140227/fdas-new-food-labels-would-focus-on-calories-sugar-content

[hardnox]

I imagine that any impact on human behavior will be slight and slow, I'll worry about it when Warren Buffett sells his Coca-Cola stake.

Over the fifty or so years that I've seen the latest and greates nutritional studies that have pointed fingers at a variety of foods

(which producer groups have some right to be angry about in many cases), it seems that the most moderate and consistent of experts have consistently said, "it's sugar, stupid."

People are actually smarter than we're given credit for. Sugar tastes good but the reason why we ate it as a dessert is because it doesn't do much harm in moderation and particularly when its mixed in on top of a whole bunch of real food matter. But alone or in excess it has 0 nutritive value, only calories and the body wasn't built to handle a large load of refined sugars.

Sugar is so cheap that we actually keep the price above the world price (a corn subsidy, as much as anything) and it still costs only a few cents more to sell a 64 oz Big Gulp fountain soda as a 16ouncer after you're already paying for the machine and the cup. So it's hard to figure your way around it.

But yeah, I think as a matter of public health if there's any message that is irrefutable it is to encourage less sugar consumption. The only downside is to those who directly benefit from current consumption habits.

[hardnox]

PS.

If anyone feels the need to fight every single battle on behalf of "Agriculture". then they must, I guess.

But I'd say that this is the one you probably shouldn't.

The meat, milk, egg wars have been won at this point, or at least brought under control to a degree whereby the mainstream now acknowledges that they are good foods that carry tons of important nutrients and thus are very good to include in a balanced diet.

The sense of grievance over those past insults may be justified along with whatever resentment against "science", the media or the government might go along with it.

But it doesn't mean you have a leg to stand on in arguing for sugar.

Actually, as a matter of nutritional policies that can change near term farm demand I think the trans-fat ban was probably a lot bigger deal.  And that is also pretty annoying in its own right just becasue there's probably no area where there's been more fad-of-the-month flipflopping. Rememeber when "tree lard" was deadly?  Now the tropical oils like coconut and palm are miracle foods. lol. Butter will kill you. Ok, maybe not.

But I'm thinking that in regards to trans fats they're probably getting closer to the truth than not and with biodiesel it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal for the soybean biz.

[Kay/NC]

Wasn't it the ancient Greeks who said, "All things in moderation"? 

Perhaps we are an immoderate population.