• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Oct 22, 2015 Leave a Comment

The Evidence for Sugar Reduction

While the food industry continues to battle something as innocuous — and necessary — as added sugar labeling on the Nutrition Facts Panel in the United States, some good news out of the United Kingdom: a new report by Public Health England (an operationally autonomous executive agency of the Department of Health) titled “Sugar Reduction: The Evidence for Action.”

Highlights from the executive summary:

  • “Sugar intakes of all population groups are above the recommendations, contributing between 12 to 15% of energy. Consumption of sugar and sugar sweetened drinks is particularly high in school age children.”
  • “Food is now more readily available, more heavily marketed, promoted and advertised and, in real terms, is much cheaper than ever before. All of these nudge us towards over consumption.”
  • “The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has concluded that the recommended average population maximum intake of sugar should be halved: it should not exceed 5% of total dietary energy. SACN also recommended that consumption of sugar sweetened drinks should be minimised by both adults and children. By meeting these recommendations within 10 years we would not only improve an individual’s quality of life but could save the NHS, based on a conservative assessment, around £500m every year.”
  • “Children in England are exposed to a high volume of marketing and advertising in many different forms both old (eg TV advertising, radio, cinema, press and billboards) and new (eg advergames, social media, online advertising), as well as through sponsorship by food and drinks companies of TV programmes, public amenities and events. Available research evidence shows that all forms of marketing consistently influence food preference, choice and purchasing in children and adults. “
  • “Research studies and impact data from countries that have already taken action suggest that price increases, such as by taxation, can influence purchasing of sugar sweetened drinks and other high sugar products at least in the short-term with the effect being larger at higher levels of taxation.”

While this is very encouraging to read, it’s also a stark reminder of how toothless the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ messaging is in comparison (i.e.: “there are no good or bad foods”). Food industry front group IFIC, which is quite cozy with AND, continues to downplay concerns about added sugar — and don’t forget about the presence of both The Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners at AND’s annual conference expo floor.

AND leadership avoids this topic with a ten-foot pole, most likely because it doesn’t jive with the organization’s current sponsors. Yet another reason why sponsorship reform is so necessary.

Kudos to Public Health England for prioritizing public health and not being afraid to take a stand.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Academic Research, Recommended Reads, Reports Tags: Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Corn Refiners Association, FNCE, IFIC, marketing to children, policy, Public Health England, Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, sugar, The Sugar Association

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2021 Dietitians for Professional Integrity