If you’ve been following the war on sugar at all over the past few years, you’ll have heard of Robert Lustig.
Much like IQS founder and director Sarah Wilson here in Aus, the paediatric endocrinologist has been a key voice leading the charge against the sweet stuff over in the States.
We caught up with Robert when he was Down Under recently to talk all things fructose, fatty liver and the future of Big Food. Here’s what he had to say.
You don’t need sugar to live (nope, not even glucose).
“The people who say you need sugar to live? They work for the food industry,” says Robert.
Sugar, or more specifically what Robert’s talking about when he says sugar, is just not necessary for us humans to keep on ticking.
“Fructose is COMPLETELY, totally, absolutely unnecessary.”
“When I talk about sugar I’m talking about the sweet stuff – sucrose or high fructose corn syrup, both a combination of glucose and fructose,” says Robert.
“Fructose is COMPLETELY, totally, absolutely unnecessary. It’s vestigial. There’s not one biochemical reaction in any eukaryotic cell on the planet that requires dietary fructose for ANY purpose… we just happen to like it.”
Technically, you don’t even need to eat glucose to live, Robert says.
“You need blood glucose to live. But you don’t need dietary glucose to live. The reason for this is that your liver is very adept at turning proteins and fats into glucose.”
Fructose is a big fat problem.
But while glucose is okay to eat in moderation, vestigial fructose is, without a doubt, making us fat and sick.
“We now have the pathway, the mechanism, to know that fructose is driving the current epidemic of chronic metabolic disease,” says Robert.
“Non-alcoholic fatty liver now affects 40 per cent of the U.S population.”
Take non-alcoholic fatty liver, a disease that wasn’t even diagnosed before 1980.
“Non-alcoholic fatty liver now affects 40 per cent of the U.S population,” says Robert. “You want to talk about epidemics?! That is the single biggest epidemic in the history of mankind!”
And the primary driver of non-alcoholic liver fat? You guessed it. Fructose.
Bought and paid for.
So why are we only just finding out that sugar is such an issue? Surely scientists should have figured it out earlier?!
“It was kept from us,” says Robert ominously.
He is, of course, talking about that time in 1967 when the sugar industry PAID scientists to downplay the role of sugar in cardiovascular disease. And point the finger at saturated fats.
“We are still, to this day, suffering under the weight of that determination,” says Robert. “And it was wrong. And it was bought and paid for. And it was a big frigging lie!”
Dollars and votes.
With all the research, why aren’t governments cracking down on added sugar?
“Because they’re making money,” says Robert matter of factly. “As long as there’s more dollars than votes, don’t expect governments to turn around too quick.
“As soon as there are more votes than dollars, that’s when things will change. But you can’t have more votes until you have education.” Too right!
Big Food’s future.
But the tide is turning. Slowly.
“The first company to endorse the WHO guidelines for added sugar? The candy company MARS,” says Robert. “Even the candy companies get that sugar is a problem! And sugar’s their stock and trade!”
This year, Big Sugar giant Coca Cola also came out in favour of the guidelines. Over at Nestlé, a plan to phase out fructose is afoot.
“Even the candy companies get that sugar is a problem!”
“Nestlé has apparently developed a new technology (we have no idea how it works) using a laser beam to hollow out sugar crystals,” explains Robert. “Sugar with half the fructose! It’s kind of cool actually, if it’s true.”
Point is, the industry knows what’s going on. And with pressure from scientists and consumers mounting, they’re having to make clear where their allegiances lie.
“I expect that this will be a painfully slow exodus of added sugar as the primary component of processed food,” says Robert. “But not fast enough to help people today.”
0 comments :
Post a Comment