Hi @njfking,
At the moment, not all scientists and researchers agree, but the majority (including the World Health Organisation) think that the problems occurring are not specific to fructose. From the meta-analysis:
“The fructose moiety is singled out to be the primary driver for the harms of sugars due to its unique endocrine signal and pathophysiological role. However, this is only supported by ecological studies, animal models of overfeeding and select human intervention studies with supraphysiological doses or lack of control for energy. The highest level of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials has not shown that fructose-containing sugars behave any differently from other forms of digestible carbohydrates.”
Dr Lustig is the main proponent advocating a focus specifically on fructose, especially High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) which is commonly added to foods in the US and is at the centre of his research. However, in Australia, we rarely see HFCS as an added sugar and the composition of added sugars is different than in the USA. Here are some articles about added sugar in Australia and artificial sweeteners.
Regardless of the source and composition though, added sugars may still contain fructose and for some this is the core of the problem, if not the only problem. In theory, if CHOICE were to ignore the above and successfully target fructose specifically, then food manufacturers would likely start doing things like altering sugar cane output (though processing or GMO) or limiting added sugar to other sources of sweetener. Again, from the meta analysis above:
“A lesson we can learn from the fat paradigm is that there can be unintended consequences of focusing singly on one nutrient. When saturated fat was deemed harmful, the industry responded by producing low-fat products, with no resultant appreciable calorie change, as in these products calories from fat were replaced with calories from other sources, e.g. starches and other sugars like maltodextrins. The public perception changed as ‘low-fat’ products were deemed ‘healthy’, and a concomitant increase in availability on the supermarket shelf likely led to the overconsumption of such ‘low-fat’ products. Not surprisingly, the expected reduction in cardiometabolic disease with the ‘low-fat’ food was not seen, and instead, we saw an unprecedented increase in incidence of overweight/obesity and diabetes.”
So, rather than go down that same road, CHOICE is focusing on labelling for all added sugar, which will also encompass fructose and the harm that it causes. It’s not to say that we disagree with the notion that fructose is a problem, but we consider that it’s not the only problem. In fact, it would likely be much easier to pick a single target such as fructose and advisable from a PR point of view, but we do not believe this would achieve the best health outcomes in the long run.
I think we’ve also addressed the ‘fructose is poison’ claims earlier in this thread, but to reiterate, the organisation does not take this position in the contemporary sense of the word (as this could be construed to indicate that fruit is also poison or at least somewhat poisonous, as fruit contains fructose). This normally leads into a ‘whole diet’ discussion, which is of course very important, but the focus here is added sugars.
To move away from the fructose debate for a moment, what we were originally talking about is a manageable indication for the average consumer to make good dietary decisions at a glance in real-world scenarios (packed shopping aisle, screaming kids and so on) rather than try to list everything at once. This also doesn’t mean all ingredients shouldn’t be labelled somewhere, so that consumers can make informed choices (for example, so that those with, preferences, allergies or an intolerance can still get the info they need). We’re seeking feedback on the best ways to do this on this thread.
Hope that helps. We welcome continued debate on fructose, but we also ask that people refrain from re-posting the same information multiple times in the interests of keeping this as a space for meaningful discussion.
