Can Food Scientists Re-Invent Sugar? (msn.com) 102
The Wall Street Journal visits scientists at Harvard University's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering who are researching a "sugar-to-fiber" enzyme (normally used by plants to create stalks). They're testing a version they've "encased in spherical nanoparticles — tiny mesh-like cages made of pectin that allow the enzyme to be added to food without being activated until it reaches the intestine.
"Once there, a change in pH causes the cage to expand, freeing the enzyme to float through its holes and start converting sugar to fiber." The Wyss Institute's goal for its enzyme product was to reduce the sugar absorbed from food by 30%, though it has the potential to remove even more than that, says Sam Inverso, director of business development partnerships at the Wyss Institute. The enzyme's ability to turn sugar into fiber is also key, as most Americans don't get nearly enough fiber in their diet, says Adama Sesay, a senior engineer at the Wyss Institute who worked on the project...
The Wyss Institute is now licensing the technology to a company to help bring its enzyme product to market, a process that entails additional testing and work to secure regulatory approval. Inverso says that the aim is for the product to be available to U.S. food manufacturers within the next two years, and that other encapsulated enzymes could follow: products that reduce lactose absorption after drinking milk, or cut gluten after eating bread. For now the enzyme works better in solid food than in a liquid. Producing it in large quantities and at low cost is still a ways off — currently it's 100 times more expensive than raw sugar, Inverso says.
And the Journal notes they're not the only ones working on the problem: San Francisco-based startup Biolumen recently launched a product called Monch Monch, a drink mix made of fibrous, microscopic sponges designed to soak up sugar and prevent it from reaching the bloodstream. At mealtime consumers can blend a teaspoon of Monch Monch, which has no taste, smell or color, into drinks from water to wine. Once it has reached the stomach, the sponges start to swell and sequester sugar, reducing its burden on the body, says Dr. Robert Lustig, Biolumen's co-founder and chief medical officer... One gram of Monch Monch can sequester six grams of sugar, says Lustig... The product, introduced as a dietary supplement, can also be used as a food ingredient under a Food and Drug Administration principle known as "generally recognized as safe." Packets of Monch Monch are available for purchase online, and Biolumen says it is in talks with U.S. food manufacturers it declined to name about its use in other products...
Food companies are betting on other solutions for now. Cereal startup Magic Spoon uses allulose, a natural sugar found in figs and raisins that is growing in popularity, helped by FDA guidance that allows it to be excluded from sugar or added-sugar totals on nutrition labels. Ingredient company Tate & Lyle, which makes allulose from corn kernels, says the sweetener tastes like sugar and adds bulk and caramel color, but passes through the body without being metabolized... Chicago-based Blommer Chocolate recently launched a line of reduced-sugar chocolate and confectionery products made with Incredo, a sugar that has been physically altered to taste sweeter using a mineral carrier that dissolves faster in saliva and targets the sweet-taste receptors on the tongue. Incredo's use enables manufacturers to use up to 50% less sugar, the company says.
The article even notes that "researchers still working to reduce sugar are peddling new technologies, like individual sugar crystals modified to dissolve more quickly in the mouth, making food taste sweeter."
"Once there, a change in pH causes the cage to expand, freeing the enzyme to float through its holes and start converting sugar to fiber." The Wyss Institute's goal for its enzyme product was to reduce the sugar absorbed from food by 30%, though it has the potential to remove even more than that, says Sam Inverso, director of business development partnerships at the Wyss Institute. The enzyme's ability to turn sugar into fiber is also key, as most Americans don't get nearly enough fiber in their diet, says Adama Sesay, a senior engineer at the Wyss Institute who worked on the project...
The Wyss Institute is now licensing the technology to a company to help bring its enzyme product to market, a process that entails additional testing and work to secure regulatory approval. Inverso says that the aim is for the product to be available to U.S. food manufacturers within the next two years, and that other encapsulated enzymes could follow: products that reduce lactose absorption after drinking milk, or cut gluten after eating bread. For now the enzyme works better in solid food than in a liquid. Producing it in large quantities and at low cost is still a ways off — currently it's 100 times more expensive than raw sugar, Inverso says.
And the Journal notes they're not the only ones working on the problem: San Francisco-based startup Biolumen recently launched a product called Monch Monch, a drink mix made of fibrous, microscopic sponges designed to soak up sugar and prevent it from reaching the bloodstream. At mealtime consumers can blend a teaspoon of Monch Monch, which has no taste, smell or color, into drinks from water to wine. Once it has reached the stomach, the sponges start to swell and sequester sugar, reducing its burden on the body, says Dr. Robert Lustig, Biolumen's co-founder and chief medical officer... One gram of Monch Monch can sequester six grams of sugar, says Lustig... The product, introduced as a dietary supplement, can also be used as a food ingredient under a Food and Drug Administration principle known as "generally recognized as safe." Packets of Monch Monch are available for purchase online, and Biolumen says it is in talks with U.S. food manufacturers it declined to name about its use in other products...
Food companies are betting on other solutions for now. Cereal startup Magic Spoon uses allulose, a natural sugar found in figs and raisins that is growing in popularity, helped by FDA guidance that allows it to be excluded from sugar or added-sugar totals on nutrition labels. Ingredient company Tate & Lyle, which makes allulose from corn kernels, says the sweetener tastes like sugar and adds bulk and caramel color, but passes through the body without being metabolized... Chicago-based Blommer Chocolate recently launched a line of reduced-sugar chocolate and confectionery products made with Incredo, a sugar that has been physically altered to taste sweeter using a mineral carrier that dissolves faster in saliva and targets the sweet-taste receptors on the tongue. Incredo's use enables manufacturers to use up to 50% less sugar, the company says.
The article even notes that "researchers still working to reduce sugar are peddling new technologies, like individual sugar crystals modified to dissolve more quickly in the mouth, making food taste sweeter."
Chemically similar to sugar (Score:4, Interesting)
Nearly-sugar is unlikely to be much different from sugar.
Say no to 'designer drug foods' (Score:4)
Let's just call this 'designer drug foods' since these are 'highly processed foods' which hide the negative connotation of being highly processed because of speculative beneficial effects.
The constructed in the lab of all natural ingredients, tested for a while with no major problems found on a small sample set of persons, is at best an educated guess.
On the face, it sounds good, yet it could be restated as 'new food additive lets you overeat ice cream and cake every day so that food companies can make more profits'.
I'd worry if 100,000 diabetics started using this as a way to cheat and eat a piece of chocolate cake every day.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"I'd worry if 100,000 diabetics started using this as a way to cheat and eat a piece of chocolate cake every day."
Worry about you.
"... tested for a while with no major problems found on a small sample set of persons, is at best an educated guess."
GRAS is far more than an educated guess "at best". Saying otherwise marks you as an idiot.
Re:Say no to 'designer drug foods' (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'd worry if 100,000 diabetics started using this as a way to cheat and eat a piece of chocolate cake every day."
Worry about you.
"... tested for a while with no major problems found on a small sample set of persons, is at best an educated guess."
GRAS is far more than an educated guess "at best". Saying otherwise marks you as an idiot.
It rather appears that YOU are the 'idiot' here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5737876/
https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/gras-hidden-ingredients-in-your-food/
Plus two other compelling and relevant links over which Slashdot's utterly shitty URL parser kicked a 'filter error' because it thinks the URLs are too long, when in fact they are perfectly valid.
IMO, GP didn't go quite far enough along the line he was following. With the foxes to a significant extent guarding the henhouse - when the foxes' primary motives are to cut costs and maximize short-term profits - we're not talking about mere educated guesses. We're talking about food companies effectively self-certifying food additives in a direct and blatant conflict of interest scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt a great disturbance in the Force (Score:2)
as if a 100,000 voices cried out that chocolate cake was not on their diet and suddenly stopped complaining.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? What's bad about being able to eat chocolate cake every day and not die?
Re: (Score:2)
please, let me eat cake
Re: (Score:2)
hmm was going for a historical reference but it oddly sounds weird, sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is there a belief that something so chemically similar to sugar that it fools the tongue wont also come with the same properties as actual sugar?
Why shouldn't it? Tongue has chemical sensors, that can be fooled. GLP-1 agonists fool the satiety sensors, for example.
Re:Chemically similar to sugar (Score:4)
Indeed. The only smart way to deal with this is to go "less sweet". Try it and after a while, you get used to it. Personally I only use sugar these days for some Korean cooking (in reduced amounts) and I do not use sweeteners at all. It takes some initial discipline, as it flies in the face of instant gratification. But the benefits are numerous and obvious. That does not mean you cannot have sugar, just make it the exception, make it special. Consuming a lot of sugar all the time is really bad for you, as is consuming a lot of salt.
Re: (Score:3)
Then this approach is not for you. Imagine that there might people that feel differently?
Sugar is difficult to avoid unless you prepare 100% of your own meals with whole ingredients. A huge portion of the population does not consider that an option, regardless of your condescensing opinions.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, pointing out that people like you are in denial of reality is not "condescending". That claim is a common, although completely invalid "defense". This also has absolutely nothing to do with how you "feel" about it. This is a rational, fact-based topic and if you deny the facts then you simply become a victim. In your case, one with Stockholm Syndrome.
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with avoiding sugar 100% of the time. I actually buy and eat what I like. But once you have curbed your sugar-depend
Re: (Score:2)
I agree mostly with what you said. But In some diet contexts, LOTS of fat is beneficial to health and well-being. LCHF diets have demonstrably shrunk and hardened arterial plaques, restoring nearly full blood flow and drastically reducing the likelihood of heart attack and stroke.
Also, people who are stuck in 'food deserts' may well know how to eat better and may desire to do so; but lack of funds and/or lack of access to 'real' food condemns them to shitty diets.
It's worth noting that there's something ser
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. What I usually say about fat is that it seems to be non-problematic, as long as you go for quality. That seems to be about the current state-of-the-art. So no margarine, use real butter. Tastes better anyways. Quality cooking oil. Do not overheat. Be aware that additives to fat may be problematic. And so on. But quantity consumed seems to be mostly irrelevant.
And yes, there may be special scenarios like the one you describe. Of course you cannot conclude this applies to a lesser degree to regular fa
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you suffer from epilepsy, you should steer clear of the ketogenic diet. What you say is the exact opposite of what science say, you may want to find a better source of information. https://www.health.harvard.edu... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Except that's completely wrong, and there's something called science that you can use to study it.
Re: (Score:3)
> Why is there a belief that something so chemically similar to sugar that it fools the tongue wont also come with the same properties as actual sugar?
Because it doesn't. Taste bud receptors do not work anything like the metabolic pathways that convert sugar to ATP for energy and fats for storage.
> Nearly-sugar is unlikely to be much different from sugar.
I don't think it's possible to be more wrong in so few words [wikipedia.org]
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Did you think that you were shooting down a message?
Time for you to read more than a single "confirming" sentence from your supposed "citation" which is just wikistupidia
Re: (Score:1)
Time for you to read more than a single "confirming" sentence from your supposed "citation" which is just wikistupidia
You're going to need to pick a lane here. Either he should read more of the article, or you can make really stupid insults against Wikipedia ("wikistupidia"? that was low-effort and low-intelligence even for you.) Calling it stupid while simultaneously saying he should read more of it is some seriously unformed nonsense.
Because it's true. (Score:3)
Artificial sweeteners exist today. They fool the tongue, but come with a very different set of properties than actual sugar.
And anyway this article isn't talking about artificial sweeteners, but about a chemical that turns actual sugar into actual fiber inside your body, after you have tasted it but before your body absorbs it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Insulin itself is obesogenic. That's the problem with it. If it's something that affects you, you should definitely do better research than just whatever you've already read telling you about insulin.
The food version of climate change abatement hacks (Score:2)
So if this is the food version of shortcuts to climate change abatement, is this the carbon-capture-and-sequester to allow continued burning of fossil fuels, or is this the emit-all-the-CO2-you-care-to-but-we-will-dump-iron-shavings-into-the-ocean or pump-sulfur-dioxide-into-the-stratosphere-to-cool-the-Earth version of continuing to eat sweets?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is there a belief that something so chemically similar to sugar that it fools the tongue wont also come with the same properties as actual sugar?
Drinking Monster zero sugar/zero calorie pushed me into type 2 diabetes. My blood sugar levels were off the charts and I was about to enter a diabetic coma. My doctor, from Syria, turned whiter than his lab coat and escorted me immediately down to the emergency room. I had to take meds and inject insulin. I was told I could never eat another grape or drink another Coke again.
I think your line of questioning is very valid. (I am no longer type 2 diabetic and no longer need to take meds. Hurray!)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge of chemistry and biology. Oh, and actually looking to see what happens. A while ago we invented this pretty nifty thing called science that sort of replaced bearded old men sitting on rocks pontificating about ducks and quacking as a means of generating knowledge. It works really well.
Also, this story is about actual sugar that tastes like sugar because it is, plus an enzyme that converts it to fibre in the stomach, that wouldn't "fool the tongue" at all, but doesn't have to because it's in the st
Sounds like a formula for gas to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I never had any problems with beans.
Re:Sounds like a formula for gas to me (Score:5, Funny)
But those around you do. We all know you love the smell of your own farts.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, let me be direct: You obviously have some personality development issues. I advise you to seek help for them. It may do wonders for your life.
Odd thing is (Score:2)
that many of the commenters you interact with have the same personality development issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Only Funny comment? Best Slashdot can do these years? Ripe story, but...
Don't look at me to fill the breach. All I could think of were a few variations of "What could possibly go wrong?" jokes.
scientists didn't stop to think if we should. (Score:2)
Let me get this straight.
This food additive converts sugar in your stomach into fiber, using the same process by which plants take sugar and convert it into plant stalks.
What is to prevent bean vines from starting to grow out your nipples?
Re: (Score:2)
Reply not to me?
Sorry (Score:2)
Was in a hurry posting this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe these new substances will necessitate the revival of that Olestra-era food warning label - "may cause anal leakage".
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a thought: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's too easy. Besides, sugar is cheap and covered up the other flavors they have processed out. Apparently they have conditioned too many people to super sweet food.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
'Muricans must eat as if they had free healthcare. Freedom!!
Re: (Score:2)
People with free healthcare don't eat like Americans.
That's because, along with free health care, we have regulations that limit the kind of toxic bullshit that the food industry can get away with. And they are enforced.
American governments and business interests are doing their best to slowly whittle away our laws and our national sovereignty through so-called "Free Trade Agreements"...which aren't "agreements" so much as "requirements", certainly aren't about freedom and definitely not about trade either
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Get rid of corn subsidies and there might be less of that HFCS stuff in your food.
Better still, get rid of tariffs on imported sugar that are in place to the price domestic sugar from lower-priced foreign sugar. Domestic companies use HFCS (mainly) because it's cheaper than domestic sugar.
Sugar Import Program [usda.gov]
Candy-Coated Cartel: Time to Kill the U.S. Sugar Program [cato.org]
For decades, the federal government has been operating a program to control the production and importation of sugar. One of the program’s main purposes is to ensure minimum price levels for sugar that are typically significantly higher than those found on international markets, leading to higher costs for U.S. consumers.
Any sugar imported beyond the quota amount, meanwhile, is subject to a tariff of 15.36 cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 16.21 cents per pound for refined sugar. To put this in context, the world price of refined sugar in 2017 generally fluctuated between 17 cents and 25 cents per pound.
Re: (Score:3)
Get rid of corn subsidies and there might be less of that HFCS stuff in your food.
The interesting thing about the sugar subsidies is that the CEO of ADM lobbied for them. Sugar producers in the U.S. thought that they had an ally, but high fructose corn syrup was more expensive than imported sugar, but less expensive than U.S. produced sugar. Without the subsidies, high fructose corn syrup would likely still be a novelty.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Treating the symptoms gets you a repeat customer. Treating the cause gets you a lost customer. Yes, there are too many crappy people in this world that go for the first option without hesitation.
Re: (Score:2)
All that sugar is added because that makes the product sell better.
If you want low-sugar or sugar-free food, you can get it. There is plenty of it available right at your grocery store already. You might have to read a few labels to find it, and you might have to do a little more food prep than you are used to before eating it, but it's there. It just doesn't sell as well as the stuff that is loaded with sugar because, well, it doesn't taste as good.
Re: (Score:2)
The subsidies that really matter are sugar subsidies (sugarcane and sugar beets). They amounted to 63.5% of the value of total sugar production in 2017, compared to only 4.4% for corn. https://usafacts.org/articles/... [usafacts.org] (bottom of page)
Anyone want to take bets on how this goes wrong? (Score:2)
A: Future studies determine it doesn't actually help people reduce their caloric intake.
B: Unforeseen long-term negative health impacts.
C: Causes gastrointestinal distress in some folks.
D: Tastes like ass.
F: Causes cancer (but only in California).
Re: (Score:2)
Is your blood type B-negative?
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly you haven't been keeping up with the latest bad news on various sugar substitutes, or that time they (food scientists) decided it was a brilliant idea to sell potato chips fried in an indigestible cooking oil (that one made some people shit themselves).
Look, I'm human like the rest of ya'll and I'd love me some culinary hedonism without consequences, but it's starting to seem like an immutable law of the universe that if it tastes good it's ultimately going to be bad for you, in one way or another.
Re:Anyone want to take bets on how this goes wrong (Score:4, Informative)
This had the effect of making the warnings useless because they were everywhere.
More often than not if you see something that's fucked up it's because some dipshit opportunistic lawyer found a way to make money doing nothing. If we had a proper judicial system those kind of cases would get thrown out very quickly but we don't.
Enzymes are often used in food, not always wisely (Score:2, Informative)
I shop at Costco, and for a while I was buying their croissants to make sandwiches with, since that's approximately what they're good for. But the reason they're that lousy is that instead of folding them enough times and using enough butter (which would obviously cost more) they add an enzyme that gives them texture and loft. Unfortunately they don't have to list which enzymes they are using, so the label just says "enzymes" which I think is fairly unfortunate. But I can't come up with any other reason why
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your body makes amylase. That's probably not it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything that tricks your body is bad as it screws with your bodies regulation mechanisms. You cannot really compensate for that yourself. It might be better to limit sweet stuff, but go to real sugar for all of it.
The croissant story is pretty horrible though. The US food industry is really messed up.
Re: (Score:1)
Costco in particular is going down the shithole. Speaking of shithole, you know how we wash eggs in the USA? Apparently Costco is skimping on THAT now. I got an egg with a big shitstreak on it out of the carton this morning, I had to give it another wash before I could use it. They are also obviously malnourishing their chickens, because the shells are super weak and the yolk color is poor, so they're not getting enough calcium or protein.
Instead of raising the prices on their cooked (rotisserie) chicken, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"And that other is looking more and more problematic."
No, it's looking more and more targeted by smear campaigns. The problem is how good it is. There are also really good alternatives to those sweeteners.
Complex food additives, or ... (Score:5, Informative)
Simply eat less sugar and more fiber. Start with whole fruit and vegetables, most of which are pretty yummy.
Highly recommend this 90-minute lecture: Sugar: The Bitter Truth [youtube.com]
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin.
Among other things, it details how the body metabolizes glucose vs. fructose noting that while glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body, fructose can only be metabolized in the liver, and is metabolized in a similar fashion to alcohol, with one major difference, alcohol consumption is self-limiting, fructose consumption isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with whole fruit and vegetables
Hmm. Which is good?
with one major difference, alcohol consumption is self-limiting
Bartender usually throws me out, so not entirely self-limiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with whole fruit and vegetables
Hmm. Which is good?
Nope, it's bad. Yes, whole fruits contain fructose, but it's locked up with fiber, slowing its release and digestion...
Re: (Score:2)
Start with whole fruit and vegetables
Hmm. Which is good?
Nope, it's bad. Yes, whole fruits contain fructose, but it's locked up with fiber, slowing its release and digestion...
More clearly, sorry. Fructose being metabolized only in the liver is bad. Whole fruits are good ...
Re: (Score:2)
Recent research shows that fructose is more active in metabolism than previously thought. And that is far worse. If only fructose were only metabolized in the liver, it would merely be terrible.
Worse yet, the body can make it's own fructose, then metabolize it for bad reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Why does that body manufacture fructose? To sustain metabolic syndrome, of course. It's to drive descent into obesity, a survival mechanism, or so it's speculated.
so does eating fiber do the same thing as this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Which is good?
Didn't originally occur to me that could be read two ways: (1) That is good? or (2) Which one is good?
I initially answered it as #1, then self-replied as #2. (*sigh*) Sorry for any confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
You criticize the solution being researched in the article, then link to a video from the very same researcher? Why don't you submit your informed opinion to Lustig directly?
Re: (Score:2)
You criticize the solution being researched in the article, then link to a video from the very same researcher? Why don't you submit your informed opinion to Lustig directly?
If you watch the video you'll see that it's not my opinion, it's his; I'm just restating it -- eat less sugar, more fiber. I imagine he's pursuing this alternative because people apparently don't have the discipline to follow his original, simpler advice.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine he's pursuing this alternative because people apparently don't have the discipline to follow his original, simpler advice.
That may have been too harsh. People may not have the economic (or other) opportunity/ability to eat healthier.
Added sugar (Score:2)
Hey, how about this idea? Stop adding sugar to everything. American "whole wheat" bread bought at supermarkets tastes like cookies. A typical slice of Oroweat bread contains 3g of sugar. How much of that is listed on the nutrition label as "added sugar"? All of it. Eat two slices, and you've ingested about as much sugar as 1/5 of a 12oz can of Coke. And this is supposed to be the nutritious option to white bread ... yet a slice of Wonder Bread only contains 2g of added sugar.
Supermarket packaged food, in ge
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, how about this idea? Stop adding sugar to everything. American "whole wheat" bread bought at supermarkets tastes like cookies.
Yes, absolutely incredible. I cannot even eat that stuff, it is so disgusting. Know how much sugar or substitutes go into a proper bread? None at all.
Supermarket packaged food, in general, contains so much added sugar that there's no wonder so many Americans are obese and diabetic.
Indeed. Sugar for that, salt for a lot of other bad effects. Interestingly, fat seems to be not a problem as long as it is high quality.
Re: Added sugar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
" And this is supposed to be the nutritious option to white bread ... "
You fell for it.
Re: (Score:2)
How about just stop messing with the foods at all, and go back to the traditional ingredients that have been around for hundreds of years.
The reason you have so much sugar in things these days is partly because of previous drives to decrease other things (eg fat and salt) and partly from the commercial drive to decrease costs.
Today they are pushing for less sugar, so sugar will be replaced with something else that may well turn out to be worse than sugar.
Sugar in itself is not bad, neither is salt or fat. T
How about⦠(Score:2)
"no". Mankind has survived for centuries with cane and beet sugar as main sources of sweeteners. Then came the industry with frutose (from corn) and things started to go downhill. Now there are n/ chemical alternatives, all with unknown (or none, as they prefer to say) side effects (although none are really beneficial) and they keep trying to poison us.
Sugar is not bad, if you consume in small amounts. Just like about everything else from mother nature sources. You would be much better avoiding pr
Re: (Score:2)
Moderate consumption of sugar (and fat, and salt) is not profitable.
Excessive consumption means more profits, so the drive of anyone producing a food is to increase consumption of it. As they are starting to realise the health implications of this the obvious thing to do would be to reduce consumption, but that's not happening precisely because they don't want to lose sales. Instead they will try to convince you that excessive consumption is perfectly fine so long as it's some artificial sweetener and not s
L-sucrose (Score:2)
The L-sucrose process patents are close to expiration so hopefully these will be unnecessary soon-ish.
Still needs investment. Oddly we'll spend everything on war and disease treatment but nothing on basic research to prevent either.
Psychos everywhere...
How about adding less sugar? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a few years ago there was pressure to remove salt and fat from these products. When you remove key ingredients like that the food tastes shit, so sugar was added to make it taste good again.
Encouraging people to eat less was never an option because that would reduce profits. Excessive consumption is highly profitable, so any food producer wants that.
They won't discourage excessive consumption this time either, instead they are looking for ways to replace the sugar so you can continue consuming exces
So far, No. (Score:2)
The only problem with real sugar is over consumption.
High fructose corn syrup is bad, another over processed alternative to sugar. Corn is for cows. Corn is also not for fuel. Speaking of which why would anyone want to consume a processed food that is also a 'good' source of combustible fuel. The corn lobby is ridiculous in this country, even just growing corn wears out the soil for future use.
Re: (Score:2)
"Speaking of which why would anyone want to consume a processed food that is also a 'good' source of combustible fuel."
That argument also applies to wheat, rice, and potatoes.
As to the other, corn silage is good for cows. Shelled corn is not so good for cows, but it's actually better for them after you ferment the excess starch away and dry the leftovers.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber... [usda.gov]
As for the high fructose corn syrup, it's 55% fructose. Table sugar is 50% fructose. Not as much difference as people seem
Re:So far, Yes. (Score:2)
Food industry and sugar droids (Score:2)
Basically, the food industry has created a western culture populated with sugar addicted droids. I am one. I go from sugar fix to sugar fix. Its impossible to quit the sugar cold turkey. Satiety wanes almost immediately after eating health meal that only a sugar desert can quench the appetite.
There’s skepticism passing the stomach for sugar to be broken down in intestine as fiber seems a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. I have damage in that part of the intestine responsible for breaking down sugar. My sugar passes onl
Re: (Score:2)
>Its impossible to quit the sugar cold turkey.
Not impossible, I did it. Sugar causes appetite swings and it's easier to lose weight when you aren't coming off a sugar high causing your body to feel like it's starving.
It's a pain adjusting to unsweetened beverages, but you can do it. Once you have, the amount of sugar most people add to things will start to repulse you rather than attract.
Tomorrow’s health risks being created today. (Score:2)
The good new is, my diabetes is gone! (Score:1)
Anything but what's obvious (Score:2)
Some people will inject Borg nanites if they think it can let them keep drinking soda without health impacts.
Metabolize nanoplastics please (Score:2)
TBH I would like to see money go to these biochemists to figure out a way to metabolize nanoplastics so we can get them out of our organs etc. And then a way to metabolize fat.. oh wait.. so yeah the U.S. is the country where this will sell, other countries not so much. A fat melter pill would undoubtedly sell well and sugar companies will love it too..
Headline 10 years later (Score:2)
"That and that is shown to cause elevated risk of cancer"
I am not saying that the research is bad, but there seems like very little non-natural additives are good for you. And too much of anything is per definition bad for you, as in the meaning of "too".
Turns out sugar is worse than fat when it comes to cardio-vascular. Most sweeteners cause cancer, when sugar doesn't, and you don't see fat people getting thinner drinking non-sugary drinks (probably because what they drink is a drop in a bucket compared wh
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is reduced consumption, but reduced consumption directly translates to reduced profits so the food lobby avoids this at all costs, including people's health.