How much added sugar thread

RebelButtMunch

Hi

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread that calls out how much added sugar is in our food. It's not explicitly labeled anywhere and takes a little bit of working out.

Full Fat regular yogurt: 4 tsp per pot

Mellor

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

It's not explicitly labeled anywhere and takes a little bit of working out.

Every nutritionally label I've ever seen explicitly lists grams of sugar.

"Added" sugar. Is a marketing term. It doesn't really exist from a nutritional point of view. All of the sugar in a product was added in some form of another

caviardreams

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Hi

I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread that calls out how much added sugar is in our food. It's not explicitly labeled anywhere and takes a little bit of working out.

Full Fat regular yogurt: 4 tsp per pot

This very much depends on the yogurt also, and also what a 'pot' is.

Looking at natural full fat yogurt, a typical one made includes 6g per 100g e.g.
http://glenisk.com/products/organic-wholemilk-yogurt
which is from naturally occurring milk sugars rather than the addition of extra sugar as an ingredient as such.

There are lots of yogurts out there that do add sugar as well though.

RebelButtMunch

caviardreams wrote: »

This very much depends on the yogurt also, and also what a 'pot' is.

Looking at natural full fat yogurt, a typical one made includes 6g per 100g e.g.
http://glenisk.com/products/organic-wholemilk-yogurt
which is from naturally occurring milk sugars rather than the addition of extra sugar as an ingredient as such.

There are lots of yogurts out there that do add sugar as well though.

Excellent point. My example would be more appropriate to something like a Yoplait Strawberry yogurt. Also, now that I see your numbers, I realize I was basing my sums on full fat milk lactose content. Which is around 5%. It looks like they make yougurt from dairy product of around 6% lactose.

Anyhoo. Yoplait have there information here on their page which is handy enough
9g of added sugar into a strawberry pot. Thats 2 teaspoons added.

http://www.yoplait.ie/brand/fruityogurt/fruit-yogurt-single

rubadub

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

9g of added sugar into a strawberry pot. Thats 2 teaspoons added.

http://www.yoplait.ie/brand/fruityogurt/fruit-yogurt-single

The ingredients say its 9% sugar, not 9g. The pot is 125g so its 11.25g.

You have to look out for other things too, e.g. the chocolate one has Glucose-Fructose Syrup: 10% - Sugar: 7.3%
Both of those are added sugars, but as it does not tell you the water content of the syrup you cannot be sure of the amount. Breakfast cereals can have loads of different names for sugars.

Skimmed milk usually has more naturally occuring sugar than full sugar lilt or cidona. Apple & orange juice have the same as coke, some people seem to think just because its "natural" that it's a free for all.

RebelButtMunch

rubadub wrote: »

The ingredients say its 9% sugar, not 9g. The pot is 125g so its 11.25g.

You have to look out for other things too, e.g. the chocolate one has Glucose-Fructose Syrup: 10% - Sugar: 7.3%
Both of those are added sugars, but as it does not tell you the water content of the syrup you cannot be sure of the amount. Breakfast cereals can have loads of different names for sugars.

Skimmed milk usually has more naturally occuring sugar than full sugar lilt or cidona. Apple & orange juice have the same as coke, some people seem to think just because its "natural" that it's a free for all.

It's nigh on impossible to figure out. We really need a disclosure of added sugar on the labels.

Mellor

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

It's nigh on impossible to figure out. We really need a disclosure of added sugar on the labels.

Nutrition labels detail sugar content under carbs. There's no way to distinguish added sugar, from any other kind from a nutritional point of view.

How would you decide which is added sugar, and which sugar isn't. (Is there name for this sugar?)

ford2600

While I agree limiting added sugar for most people is a good idea is it not a case of focusing too much on one nutrient rather than the diet as a whole.

If you eat clean, and primarily avoid processed foods (be it eating out or at home) added sugar is almost a non issue.

Food companies employ a lot of smart people and adding sugar isn't by a distance the only trick they have to make their foods appealing and lead us to over consume.

Australia from memory is eating less sugar than it used to but getting fatter at a pretty shocking rate.

US researchers in the 70's I think we're looking for fat lab rats and came up with a novel solution; feed them junk food. They over eat just like us and ignore their normal food. It works really well.

We diverged from rats a long time ago, so that's pretty ancient hardwiring in our brains for food companies to exploit; strip out fibre and protein and add the fat/sugar/sweeteners/salt in what ever combination works.

RebelButtMunch

Mellor wrote: »

Nutrition labels detail sugar content under carbs. There's no way to distinguish added sugar, from any other kind from a nutritional point of view.

How would you decide which is added sugar, and which sugar isn't. (Is there name for this sugar?)

It wouldnt be a decision for me to make at all. It's the manufacturer saying ' I added 10g of sugar"

It would mean the difference between natrual sugar (lactose in milk) and anything added to make it more palatable.

RebelButtMunch

ford2600 wrote: »

While I agree limiting added sugar for most people is a good idea is it not a case of focusing too much on one nutrient rather than the diet as a whole.

If you eat clean, and primarily avoid processed foods (be it eating out or at home) added sugar is almost a non issue.

Food companies employ a lot of smart people and adding sugar isn't by a distance the only trick they have to make their foods appealing and lead us to over consume.

Australia from memory is eating less sugar than it used to but getting fatter at a pretty shocking rate.

US researchers in the 70's I think we're looking for fat lab rats and came up with a novel solution; feed them junk food. They over eat just like us and ignore their normal food. It works really well.

We diverged from rats a long time ago, so that's pretty ancient hardwiring in our brains for food companies to exploit; strip out fibre and protein and add the fat/sugar/sweeteners/salt in what ever combination works.

While I don't disagree with you, it's a bit of a strawman argument. The thread is about added sugar, not how relative it is to lifestyles or other additives.

rubadub

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

It would mean the difference between natrual sugar (lactose in milk) and anything added to make it more palatable.

I think Mellor is asking for a legal definition, one that the manufacturers could not weasel out of. They could call unrefined cane sugar natural if they could get away with it. Muselis are loaded with dried fruit which many do not consider very nutritional, or honey.

Whenever I see threads about banning "junk food" I similarly ask for a legal definition and never saw a good one, just "ah you know fine well what I mean", yeah I do, but it has to be defined properly if it is to be enforced.

I am not sure about the Irish sugar tax proposal but in other countries there was to be no restriction on refined fruit juices, which many consider little better than soft drinks, and of the same sugar content, possibly worse for your teeth.

RebelButtMunch

rubadub wrote: »

I think Mellor is asking for a legal definition, one that the manufacturers could not weasel out of. They could call unrefined cane sugar natural if they could get away with it. Muselis are loaded with dried fruit which many do not consider very nutritional, or honey.

Whenever I see threads about banning "junk food" I similarly ask for a legal definition and never saw a good one, just "ah you know fine well what I mean", yeah I do, but it has to be defined properly if it is to be enforced.

I am not sure about the Irish sugar tax proposal but in other countries there was to be no restriction on refined fruit juices, which many consider little better than soft drinks, and of the same sugar content, possibly worse for your teeth.

Ah right, I get ya. Its a minefield

Mellor

ford2600 wrote: »

We diverged from rats a long time ago, so that's pretty ancient hardwiring in our brains for food companies to exploit;

It's not really "hardwiring" being exploited. It's the the very reason animals (inc humans) developed a sense of taste. It's to help use identify sugars, fats, proteins and other forms of energy. Animals are simple going to stockpile when they get an abundant source. It's not that they prefer junk food, its that it's the higher energy source.

The situation where supply exceeds needs is a relatively recent one. It's not surprising that we are fatter than hunter gathers or those living in the middle ages.

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

It wouldnt be a decision for me to make at all. It's the manufacturer saying ' I added 10g of sugar"

As Rubadub said, I was talking about a specific definition to hold them to. How do you define added sugar? Also, on what grounds do you single out one sugar verses another when they are both identical nutritionally.

It would mean the difference between natrual sugar (lactose in milk) and anything added to make it more palatable

If it was a case of plain milk verses sweetened milk, or yogurt. That's simple sure.

What about, say a glazed ham? Is the sugar glaze "added sugar" or not? It's obviously added to the ham, but without it, it would be a different product?

What about an old fashion sponge cake, like granny used to make. Just flour, eggs, butter, milk and sugar. Added sugar or not? It's a necessary part of the recipe, otherwise its just bread.

RebelButtMunch

Mellor wrote: »

As Rubadub said, I was talking about a specific definition to hold them to. How do you define added sugar? Also, on what grounds do you single out one sugar verses another when they are both identical nutritionally.


If it was a case of plain milk verses sweetened milk, or yogurt. That's simple sure.

What about, say a glazed ham? Is the sugar glaze "added sugar" or not? It's obviously added to the ham, but without it, it would be a different product?

What about an old fashion sponge cake, like granny used to make. Just flour, eggs, butter, milk and sugar. Added sugar or not? It's a necessary part of the recipe, otherwise its just bread.

I think in the case where adding the sugar makes it a fundamentally different product then there would be a question around the need for labeling. Cake or bread, vs youghurt or sweetened yogurt are probably quite polar examples.

I'd like to see some more effort of protection to consumers though. If they want to eat chocolate or cake, grand, we all know thats a treat, but eating something that we like to think is healthy, but laden with sweetener is different

Mellor

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

I think in the case where adding the sugar makes it a fundamentally different product then there would be a question around the need for labeling. Cake or bread, vs youghurt or sweetened yogurt are probably quite polar examples.

But it illustrates the point that its impossible and pointless trying to quantity "added sugar". The vast majority of sugar in products out there, is simply part of the recipe. The only place that added sugar is tangible is in the case of products minimally process from whole foods. So dairy products, fruit juices/products etc.

I'd like to see some more effort of protection to consumers though. If they want to eat chocolate or cake, grand, we all know thats a treat, but eating something that we like to think is healthy, but laden with sweetener is different

With a product that appears healthy, but is laden with sugar, that will be reflected on the nutritional label. If health is your concern, current system has you covered.