Sugar is sugar, say bakers, our bodies don't distinguish between 'naturally occurring' and 'added' varieties

Should ‘added sugars' be listed on the Nutrition Facts panel?

American Diabetes Association: 'While it is true that naturally occurring sugars and added sugars have the same physiological impact, the difference is significant when considering dietary quality'

A row is brewing over the merits of including ‘added sugars’ on the Nutrition Facts panel, with critics arguing that our bodies don’t distinguish between ‘naturally occurring’ and ‘added’ sugar - and neither should food labels - and supporters saying it will help consumers identify foods with more empty calories.

The FDA - which is pondering the biggest overhaul of food labels in 20 years (click HERE ) - acknowledges that biochemically, sugar is sugar - whether it occurs naturally in foods such as fruits or is added to a product such as soda.

However, it believes that highlighting the added variety will “help individuals identify foods that are nutrient-dense within calorie limits and aid in reducing excess discretionary calorie intake from added sugars”.

Naturally occurring and added sugars have the same physiological impact, but the difference is significant when considering dietary quality

The American Diabetes Association - along with hundreds of dietitians who have responded individually via comments to the docket (click HERE to read them all) - agrees, adding: “While it is true that naturally occurring sugars and added sugars have the same physiological impact, the difference is significant when considering dietary quality. 

“Foods high in added sugars such as sodas and sweets are nutritionally inferior to foods high in naturally occurring sugar such as fruit and milk.

“Knowing how much added sugar a food or beverage contains is key in ensuring individuals are able to make dietary decisions to reduce their consumption.”

The American Heart Association also strongly supports the proposal on the grounds that added sugars are a “significant source of excess calories” , while Weight Watchers says “consumers need information that allows them to distinguish between naturally occurring sugars that are present in many nutrient rich foods, like milk, fruit, and vegetables, from sugars that provide no nutritional value.”

Bakers: It would be false and misleading to distinguish between added and naturally occurring sugar

However, other commentators have voiced strong concerns both about how the measure would work in practice (how easy would it be to calculate/define added sugar vs total sugar in a given product?) and whether it is misleading and unscientific to differentiate between ‘naturally occurring’ and ‘added’ sugar.

One of the proposal’s biggest critics is The American Bakers Association, which has filed a 31-page comment claiming it would be “false and misleading to imply, as a declaration of added sugars clearly would, that added sugars are distinguishable in any way from any other analytically quantifiable sugars from naturally-occurring sugars or from other sources in the product”.

The FDA, moreover, has failed to present any evidence to support its assertion that listing added sugars will help consumers make healthier choices, claims the ABA, which predicts a First Amendment challenge on the grounds that the measure would compel firms to include false and misleading information on labels.

Sugar Association: Sugars make many healthy foods palatable

The Sugar Association meanwhile, says what matters when it comes to weight management is calories, and calories from sugar are the same whether they are added or naturally occurring.

Similarly, an analysis of dietary intake data does not support claims made by the FDA or the American Heart Association that people with a diet higher in added sugars have lower micronutrient intakes, or a higher BMI, it claims.

It also observes that sugars aren’t just added to ‘junk’ foods, and that sugars make many healthy foods palatable - a point also made by The Cherry Marketing Institute and cranberry giant Ocean Spray, which say listing added sugar would unfairly discriminate against fruits that are nutrient dense but tart, and typically require some added sugar to improve palatability.

The ABA also claims that the measure will encourage manufacturers to reformulate by replacing sugars with fats or “bulking agents such as glycerol or maltodextrins” which “provide no nutritional benefit” and may increase a product’s overall calorie count.

ASN: Move could divert attention from calories  

Even nutrition scientists are not all on the same page, says Dr Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, noting in her Food Politics blog (click HERE) that The Union of Concerned Scientists is in favor, while The American Society for Nutrition is opposed.

According to the UCS - comprising high profile scientists, physicians, and public health officials - “Many food and beverage manufacturers add excessive amounts of sugar to their products, including those that they market as healthy options… Many people are unknowingly and unavoidably consuming excess sugar.”

But the ASN worries that highlighting added sugars on labels “may divert attention away from total calories and other important contributors to weight gain” and fears it may “create the perception that naturally occurring sugars are somehow more beneficial because they are ‘natural’.”

Says Dr Nestle: “I wonder how much of the ASN membership agrees with this position? I certainly don’t.”

Click HERE to read comments from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is in favor of including added sugars on the panel (which is says should be expressed as teaspoons as well as grams), but notes that the FDA "did not propose a Daily Value for added sugars, which would make it impossible for consumers to know how much of a day’s worth of added sugars a food contained".

Related News

The American Bakers Association described the FDA's proposed dietary fiber definition as 'misleading' and 'confusing'

US Nutrition Facts Panel: ABA concerned over fiber, added sugars and time

Does vitamin D belong on the Nutrition Facts panel?

Does vitamin D belong on the Nutrition Facts panel?

Bayer Healthcare: FDA proposals will 'deter rather than support the inclusion of beneficial fiber ingredients'

Dietary fiber proposals in Nutrition Facts overhaul will create bureaucratic nightmare, warn industry commentators

22% of consumers cannot identify the amount of total sugar in a product featuring the new look Nutrition Facts label, vs 7% for the existing label, says Kellogg

Kellogg: Including ‘added sugars’ on Nutrition Facts panel will just confuse shoppers

Guiding Stars backs move to list added sugar on Nutrition Facts panel

Guiding Stars: How can consumers cut down on added sugar if it’s not listed on food labels?

Study debunks fears added sugar on Nutrition Facts confuses consumers

Study debunks manufacturer fears labeling added sugar would confuse consumers

Sugar can be “powerful tool” to improve children’s diet, AAP

Sugar can be “powerful tool” to improve children’s diet, AAP

Soda should come with a warning label, say lawmakers in CA, NY

Soda should come with a warning label, say public health scientists, researchers

Mars backs proposal to list added sugars on Nutrition Facts panel

Mars supports FDA proposal to list added sugars on Nutrition Facts panel; move is ‘refreshing’ says CSPI

Picture: Istockphoto: i frontier

FDA proposes including DV for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel

Picture: Istockphoto, i_frontier

General Mills blasts ‘unprecedented’ FDA added sugars proposal: ‘We respectfully ask FDA to pause’

Kellogg, Post & General Mills sued over sugar content in cereals

Kellogg, Post & General Mills hit with wave of lawsuits as plaintiff’s bar turns up the heat on sugar

Professor Kessler: 'To the harried shopper hoping to make some healthy choices, this label would offer a quick way of identifying high-calorie, obesity-inducing food'

Former FDA commissioner: Nutrition Facts overhaul doesn’t go far enough

Could new serving sizes on Nutrition Facts label backfire?

Behavioral scientists: Changing serving sizes on Nutrition Facts label could have unintended consequences

Betty Campbell, EAS Consulting: "You have to ask yourselves and your companies: How will changes in Daily Values, RACCs and serving sizes affect claims you’re making on your product?" Pictured, left to right: the current, proposed and alternate Nutrition Facts panel

Is your product ready for nutrition label changes?

Related Products

See more related products

Comments (7)

Gordon Brown - 28 Aug 2014 | 09:29

Its like making the distinction between Al-QUeda and ISIS

Its like making the distinction between ALQaeda and ISIS. A distinction without a difference. Sounds like our business schools have finally infiltrated the FDA

28-Aug-2014 at 21:29 GMT

Levi Andersen - 12 Aug 2014 | 04:42

Who to listen to

Fancy degrees don't always impress me. Now, if there was a picture of the person next to their quote so I could see how healthy they are and what they have to say... that would be more helpful.

12-Aug-2014 at 16:42 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.