Snooze Button Dreams
Snooze Button Dreams
Snooze Button Dreams
August 27, 2004
Good news! Sugar doesn't make you fat!
(Category: News & Notes )

The new federal dietary guidelines have been submitted for approval. Salt and alcohol are still bad for you but fortunately sugar is still A-okay!

The recommendations included noncontroversial language advising consumers to choose their fats and carbohydrates "wisely" and to limit salt and alcohol.

The experts stopped short of directly urging Americans to cut down on soft drinks, cakes, cookies, pies, candy and other sugar-filled food, saying more research was necessary.

Record numbers of kids are clinically obese and up to two thirds of adults are overweight to some degree or another. Diabetes rates have skyrocketed, riding in tandem with soft drink sales. More research is necessary to see if eating junk food contributes to weight gain?

Consumer groups had hoped the panel would bluntly recommend that Americans limit their consumption of soft drinks and other sugary foods, a view sharply opposed by beverage makers and the sugar industry, who say weight gain is due to many factors.

Sure it's due to many factors. One of the biggest is what you're eating. That's the whole purpose of the bloody federal dietary guidelines. But oh, beware the sugar barons. We must not offend the grand sweet lobby by plainly stating that the monstrous overconsumption of refined sugar by the American people is linked to their massive collective weight problem.

Soft drink makers and the sugar industry contend it is unfair to link diabetes to soft drink consumption. They said an unhealthy lifestyle, not a particular food or beverage, increased an individual's risk of developing diabetes.

Bull. Shit. The single biggest factor in adult onset diabetes is consistently high blood sugar. Nothing makes that happen like refined sugar. Soft drinks are the ultimate delivery vehicle for refined sugar.

"The concept of sugars being in unhealthy foods or only being in foods that you should eat in moderation is kind of misleading. There is sugar in a lot of healthy foods," Cheryl Digges, director of public policy for the Sugar Association.

Also bullshit. Peaches have a goodly amount of sugar in them but that sugar is fructose, not added refined white sugar. There is a big difference between biting into some fresh fruit and snarfing down fruit salad in syrup. Just because some healthy foods have sugar does not mean sugar is good for you, especially not in the high concentrations found in our snack foods, deserts and beverages.

Consumer groups have expressed concern in the past that the USDA, which promotes agricultural products, has a major role in developing federal dietary guidelines.

Last year, they requested the government remove seven of the 13 panel members because of their close ties to the food industry. None of them were removed.

This is the equivalent of putting representatives from Phillip Morris in charge of the Surgeon General's Office. Politics as usual.

Campaign promise: All of these people will get axed when the Flying Pig party takes office.

Posted by Jim | Permalink
Comments

According to the Flying Pig Party platform, all of these groups, including the USDA, will be cut off from goverment and forced to fight it out in a no-holds-barred jell-o cage match.

I'm putting money on the Sugar Association. Those kids are fast!

Posted by: Trey Givens at August 27, 2004 01:34 PM

They don't call it "toddler crack" for nothing!

Posted by: Jim at August 27, 2004 01:38 PM

Truly retarded, yes. Not that I'm any kind of example to anyone (what'd I eat last night? Oh, that's right: patty melt, fries, and a salad), but you know, even I can figure out that in general, the more "refined" a food is, the lower the nutrient/calorie ratio dips. I know damn well I'm better off with a serving of broccoli than a serving of chocolate chip cookies--and yes, even a serving of canned peaches is better; at least you're balancing out the sugar with some freakin' fiber. Can't really say THAT for Toll House cookies.

One of the things I hated about the low-fat "revolution" a decade ago was how every low fat product compensated for the decline in flavor by adding . . . sugar. You'd be better off using less (full fat) Ranch dressing than glopping on half a cupful of low-fat, and don't even get me started on the merits of developing a love of olive oil vinaigrettes instead. It turns out fresh vegetables actually have this thing called flavor . . . .

And while we're bashing on the sugar lobby, let's remember what a bunch of protectionist bastards they are. I trust Flying Pig will be doing something about our sugar tariffs once in office?

Posted by: ilyka at August 27, 2004 02:29 PM

Tarrifs? We won't need no stinking tarrifs.

Posted by: Jim at August 27, 2004 02:33 PM

I like my Toll House cookies dipped in Ranch dressing.

Posted by: DeAnna at August 27, 2004 02:56 PM

That should be fine, as long as its not "Lite" Ranch.

Posted by: Jim at August 27, 2004 02:58 PM

"Lite" is not in my vocabulary.

Posted by: DeAnna at August 27, 2004 05:44 PM

I've already ordered a sign for the White House lawn that says, "Ask about our Tarriffs!"

I intend to use it to find out who tar and feather first.

Posted by: Trey Givens at August 28, 2004 06:23 PM
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/42854

This site sponsored by a Jew or two.

Powered by Movable Type 2.64 | This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License. | Creative Commons License