History shows how Big Sugar has fought against us

Sugar is bad. As much as it pains us to say it, we all know it is true.

More and more studies show the adverse effects that sugar has on the human body. Obesity, Type 2 diabetes, gout, dental cavities, and cancer, among many other so-called “Western diseases,” have continued to steadily rise at the same rate as sugar consumption within societies around the world.

The research on the effects of sugar have not gone without opposition, however. There are forces at work behind the scenes, ones that move money around to support specific agendas, that place specific individuals on important boards and councils, and head up publicity campaigns that stand on scientific evidence that is questionable at best. In his book, The Case Against Sugar, Gary Taubes seeks to peel back the curtain and expose the truth behind Big Sugar and how the sugar industry has not just shaped American society, but has woven its way into the worldwide cultural narrative.

Taubes does his part, as every book on sugar should, of explaining the science behind the way sugar affects the body and the many ramifications that come with the consumption of what could very well be labeled a “toxic” substance. What sets his book apart from many others, though, is the time he spends looking at the history of the sugar industry, or “Big Sugar,” in the same way a prosecutor might examine the evidence and its connections to the prime suspect. Taubes says as much in his authors note: “If this were a criminal case, The Case Against Sugar would be the argument for the prosecution.”

From the birth of the Sugar Institute, the first sugar industry association, in 1928, the goal of Big Sugar has always been to increase sugar consumption. The means by which they would go about this would be constantly adjusted to remain culturally relevant. At first, this meant advertising sugar as a health food.

“In the winter and spring,” Taubes writes, “the Sugar Institute advertisements pitched sugar as a means to build up the immune system and fight off colds; in the summer, sugar was pitched as an enhancement of the iced beverages that keep us cool. In the fall, sugar was the solution to mid-afternoon fatigue.”

With the start of World War II, however, the sugar industry would find itself on the defensive.

The war brought about a sugar shortage, and the U.S. government prepared its citizens for this with anti-sugar propaganda. Following the popular theory that sugar is just an empty calorie—no better or worse than another calorie—the government informed citizens that no diet needed sugar and that they should instead focus on the “basic seven” food groups that would provide essential vitamins and nutrients. In 1943, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) would be founded and would spend the war years developing ways to educate Americans on the “merits” of sugar so that sugar consumption would return—or perhaps even increase—once the war was over.

The war was just one of many hurdles the sugar industry would need to clear. They would have to begin fighting bad press while at the same time funding research that would hopefully come to its defense. The dieting craze that began in America in the 1950s sent the industry scrambling. Low calorie foods were hitting the market, sweetened with artificial sweeteners. Saccharin and cyclamates, the two artificial sweeteners used at the time, were viewed as a direct threat to the industry. The sugar industry’s response was twofold: convince the public that sugar was an essential part of a healthy diet and mount an attack against artificial sweeteners.

The first was achieved through the use of bad science. Nutritionists at the time believed that all calories were equal, therefore a healthy diet was based on the amount of calories being consumed, not what type were being consumed. It was also believed that hunger was a result of low blood sugar, and if this was the case, sugar had the ability to quickly raise blood sugar, therefore staving off hunger and allowing a person to eat less.

The second response required a much more political approach. This was achieved by forcing the Food and Drug Association to enact the Pure Food and Drugs Act (an act meant to safeguard Americans against potentially harmful additives and pharmaceuticals), specifically the Delaney clause, which stated that a food will not be considered safe if found to cause cancer in either humans or animals.

Initially, saccharin and cyclamates were considered safe by the FDA. However, in 1970, researchers found that high quantities of cyclamates caused bladder cancer in rats. What was not stated was that these rats were fed quantities of cyclamates that would equal drinking 500 cans of diet soda a day. While saccharin and cyclamates were eventually exonerated from being carcinogenic in the early 2000s, the sugar industry had succeeded in smearing them in the public’s eyes.

This type of media, political, and scientific manipulation would continue, and still continues to play out today. While it is true that authorities have connected sugar to obesity and Type 2 diabetes, it is in a way that bases itself on old, “bad” science. This is that sugar is an “empty” calorie, therefore obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and many other associated diseases are a result of how much we eat, not what we eat. This is a convenient argument for the food industry—especially Big Sugar—as they can “play their part” by encouraging smaller portion sizes and exercise while still promoting their own products. For example, in 2015, Coca-Cola gave researchers money to fund the Global Energy Balance Network, a foundation that shifts the blame for obesity away from bad diets and on to low activity level.

Taubes dives even deeper into the controversy, mystery, and politics surrounding the sugar industry, tracing the part in things such as the tobacco industry and the low-fat/saturated-fat-causes-heart-disease craze. He also spends a significant amount of time tracing the rise of sugar consumption across the world and the consequences that followed. If these consequences are indeed caused by sugar consumption, he continues, then where does that leave us? How will our bodies change to accommodate more and more sugar in our diet? How much sicker will we continue to get before society “wakes up”?

Perhaps there is a lower awareness of the dangers of sugar because the consequences of eating it are not immediately apparent.

“Sugars like sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup,” Taubes says, “are fundamental causes of diabetes and obesity. … It’s not because we eat too much of these sugars—although that is implied merely by the terms ‘overconsumption’ and ‘overeating’—but because they have unique physiological, metabolic, and endocrinological (i.e., hormonal) effects in the human body that directly trigger these disorders.”

It is because of these qualities, Taubes claims, that sugar cannot be considered a short-term toxin. It is one that does damage over years, decades, and possibly generations.

This leaves us with one important question: “How little is too much?” Taubes readily acknowledges that we will probably never know. Our food is so saturated with sugar and preservatives that even if we were to break away from processed foods and eat clean, we would be getting away from many other possible harmful additives too.

Ultimately, he says, it’s a personal decision. Just like many other decisions, we have to become as informed as possible and then decide how that information will affect our life. Many people can’t imagine their lives without sugar. He says, however, that “until we try to live without it, until we try to sustain that effort for more than days, or just a few weeks, we’ll never know.”