78 MEN’S HEALTH S CO U
making it harder to fight off viruses,
leaving you less inclined to exercise
and more likely to become obese. People
don’t realise type 2 diabetes is a killer.”
How on earth, then, could a cola can
- along with biscuits and chocolate bars –
find a place on UK government-approved
models for healthy eating? The answer,
many argue, is lobbying. In 2015, the
British Medical Journal exposed what it
called a “web of influence” spun by sugar
and other large food companies seeking
to shape policy. The government’s leading
adviser on obesity and chair of the Public
Health Responsibility Deal, Professor
Susan Jebb, was forced to deny that her
independence had been compromised,
despite being one of several scientists
who have received a reputed £1.4m from
companies including Coca-Cola and Mars.
“I call it the Irresponsibility Deal,”
says Harcombe. “It is ridiculous that
Jebb can continue as the government’s
those from added sugars. The cause and
solution to obesity is complicated and
the role that diet plays certainly isn’t as
simple as focusing on one ingredient.”
Harcombe refutes this. “It’s simply
not true. Sugar bought from packets in
supermarkets may be declining, but
overall sugar consumption continues
to rise, thanks to hidden sugars in ready
meals and other processed foods.”
“We have been conditioned for years
into thinking that fat is the enemy,”
adds Plowman, suggesting that the
truth is more insidious. “Brands like
Diet Coke market themselves as the
‘healthy’ alternative but they, and
big supermarkets, have been preying
on society’s ignorance for years. For
instance, many mothers buy the leading“We have been
conditioned into
thinking that fat
is the enemy”obesity tsar while her
department draws
funding from fake
food. The industry
plainly has no
interest in solving
the obesity crisis:
its job is to return
money to its shareholders. Any scientist
advising the government for dietary
recommendations should be banned from
taking money from Big Food.”
Naturally, the sugar industry itself
does not see the harm in this. A common
line of defence is that it is not what we
eat that affects our health, but our overall
calorie consumption. A ‘calories in versus
calories out’ model of eating, it is often
argued, would not only help us maintain
a healthy weight, but make for happier
and healthier individuals. As recently as
2015 Coca-Cola had been funding studies
that sought to claim “energy balance” (ie
calorie input and expenditure) is more
important than the kind of foods we eat.
Steven Blair, a nutritional scientist
and the vice president of the Coca-Cola-
funded Energy Balance Network has said:
“Most of the focus in the popular media
and in the scientific press is [on] blaming
fast food, sugary drinks and so on. And
there’s really virtually no compelling
evidence that this is, in fact, the cause.”
The conspiracy, it is implied, lies at the
feet of the media.
Meanwhile, the Sugar Association
claims that, “per capita consumption
of added sugars has declined by 15%
since 1999,” and goes on to add that,
“calories from fats and grains have
increased by five times as much as
children’s yoghurts- but a tiny pot
contains 12g of
sugar. Likewise,
a majority of
people still
subscribe to the
notion that fruit
juice is healthy, but a glass of orange
juice holds 21g of sugar.”
THE SWEET SPOT
In a statement responding to the
Sugar Papers, the Sugar Association
admitted that the industry “should have
exercised greater transparency in all of
its research activities”, while insisting
that sugar “does not have a unique
role in heart disease”. According to the
WHO, cardiovascular disease accounts
for almost a third of all mortalities. Any
public recommendation that could
delay or prevent heart disease in large
groups of people could naturally have
enormous benefits. Similarly, failing to
offer the best advice could lead millions
into an early grave. The need for “greater
transparency” could not be higher.
Working with the government and
several food and drinks companies, Public
Health England aims to remove 20% of
the sugar in the food chain by 2020. Most
large food companies, a spokesperson
said, are “more than happy” to sign up.
In an anomalous move, drinks – both of
the fruit juice and soft variety – will not
fall under the guidelines. The hope is that
George Osborne’s ‘Sugar Tax’ will regulate
this sector when it comes in 2018, by
adding an extra 8p to every can the £46bn
Coca-Cola company and its competitors
import. Fruit juices, however, will not be
covered by the tax, or the PHE initiative.Speaking to Men’s Health, a PHE
spokesperson echoes the idea that
pinning the blame for our collective
health issues on a single ingredient is
both unfair and unhelpful. The focus
should instead be on maintaining
a healthy, balanced diet – including the
occasional bar of chocolate. But many
see this as pussyfooting: whereas, for
instance, certain types of fat can be as
beneficial as others can be harmful,
there is no evidence to suggest sugar
has any substantial benefit. Meanwhile,
mountains of studies prove its damaging
effect on our bodies. So would a stronger,
focused campaign on the dangers of sugar
be effective? “Education is important,ADVICE ON FATS HAS COME
FULL CIRCLE, BUT SUGAR
IS LEFT IN THE DARK AGES