Hubbry Logo
Added sugarAdded sugarMain
Open search
Added sugar
Community hub
Added sugar
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Added sugar
Added sugar
Added sugar
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

White sugar being weighed for a cake

Added sugars, also known as free sugars, are sugars added to foods and drinks during processing or preparation, as opposed to natural sugars which are present before processing and preparation.[1] Medical consensus holds that added sugars contribute little nutritional value to food,[1] leading to a colloquial description as "empty calories". Overconsumption of sugar is correlated with excessive calorie intake and increased risk of weight gain and various diseases.[1][2][3] Individuals who consume 17–21% of their daily calories from added sugar are reported to have a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to those who consume 8% of their daily calories from added sugar.[4]

Uses

[edit]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, added sugars may include sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup, both primarily composed of about half glucose and half fructose.[5] Other types of added sugar ingredients include beet and cane sugars, malt syrup, maple syrup, pancake syrup, fructose sweetener, liquid fructose, fruit juice concentrate, honey, and molasses.[5][6] The most common types of foods containing added sugars are sweetened beverages, including most soft drinks, and also desserts and sweet snacks,[2] which represent 20% of daily calorie consumption,[1] twice the maximum limit recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).[1] Based on a 2012 study on the use of caloric and noncaloric sweeteners in some 85,000 food and beverage products, 74% of the products contained added sugar.[5][7]

Sweetened beverages

[edit]

Sweetened beverages contain a syrup mixture of the monosaccharides glucose and fructose formed by hydrolytic saccharification of the disaccharide sucrose. The bioavailability of liquid carbohydrates is higher than in solid sugars, as characterized by sugar type and by the estimated rate of digestion.[8] There is evidence for a positive and causal relationship between excessive intake of fruit juices and increased risk of some chronic metabolic diseases.[9]

Guidelines

[edit]

World Health Organization

[edit]
See also: Sugar marketing § Influence on health information and guidelines

In 2003, the WHO defined free sugars principally by defining the term "carbohydrate" into elements that relate more directly to the impact on health rather than a chemical definition, and followed on from meta-studies relating to chronic disease, obesity, and dental decay related to the overconsumption of high quantities of added sugar in processed foods.[10] In tandem with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the WHO published a revised food pyramid that splits up the diet into more health-directed groups, recommending that a maximum of 10% of an individual's diet should come from free sugars.[11] Sugar companies disputed the WHO report for suggesting that consumption of free sugars within the food pyramid should only amount to a daily maximum of 10%, and that there should be no minimum sugar intake.[12][11][13][14]

In 2015, the WHO published a new guideline on sugar intake for adults and children as a result of an extensive review of the available scientific evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts. The guideline recommends that both adults and children reduce the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake.[15]

In 2016, added sugar was added to the revised version of the nutrition facts label and was a given a daily value of 50 grams or 200 calories per day for a 2,000 calorie diet.[16][17]

European Food Safety Authority

[edit]

In February 2022, scientists of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that sugar consumption is a known cause of dental caries, and that evidence also links to consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, juices and nectars with various chronic metabolic diseases including obesity, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and type 2 diabetes. EFSA stated: "We underlined there are uncertainties about chronic disease risk for people whose consumption of added and free sugars is below 10% of their total energy intake".[18]

American Heart Association

[edit]

In 2018, the American Heart Association recommended daily intake of sugar for men is 9 teaspoons or 36 grams (1.3 oz) per day, and for women, six teaspoons or 25 grams (0.88 oz) per day.[3] Overconsumption of sugars in foods and beverages may increase the risk of several diseases.[3]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Added sugar

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Added sugars are monosaccharides and disaccharides—such as , , dextrose, and syrups—intentionally incorporated into foods and beverages during processing, cooking, or packaging, including natural sweeteners like or fruit juice concentrates added beyond their intrinsic content, in contrast to sugars naturally occurring in unprocessed fruits, , and . In contemporary diets, particularly in industrialized nations, added sugars contribute substantially to total energy intake, with sugar-sweetened beverages, desserts, candies, and sweetened snacks comprising the predominant sources; for instance, , these account for over 40% of added sugar consumption among children and adults, often exceeding 13% of daily calories on average. Excessive intake has been causally linked in prospective cohort studies and meta-analyses to adverse metabolic outcomes, including elevated risks of , , , non-alcoholic , and all-cause mortality, primarily via fructose-driven hepatic de novo , , and visceral adiposity rather than mere caloric surplus. Regulatory bodies recommend limiting added sugars to less than 10% of total daily caloric energy—equating to no more than 50 grams (about 12 teaspoons) on a 2,000-calorie diet—with stricter thresholds like 25-36 grams proposed for cardiovascular , though compliance remains low amid debates over the precision of observational data and potential confounding by overall dietary patterns.

Definition and Classification

Distinction from Intrinsic and Natural Sugars

Added sugars consist of monosaccharides and disaccharides incorporated into foods during manufacturing, processing, preparation, or serving, encompassing syrups, , and concentrates derived from or vegetable juices that exceed levels found in equivalent volumes of 100% . This definition, established by the U.S. (FDA) in its 2016 nutrition labeling updates, explicitly excludes sugars inherent to the cellular matrix of raw s, vegetables, and products. The (WHO) employs a parallel concept in "free sugars," defined as added monosaccharides and disaccharides, including those naturally occurring in , syrups, juices, and juice concentrates, but not those bound within whole or structures. Intrinsic sugars, by contrast, are polysaccharides or oligosaccharides naturally embedded within the fibrous cell walls of unprocessed whole foods, such as apples or carrots, where they remain unextracted and integrated with the food's matrix. "Natural sugars" broadly encompass intrinsic forms alongside free sugars from sources like raw honey, yet regulatory frameworks distinguish added sugars based on intervention—treating even naturally derived concentrates, such as apple juice concentrate used in cereals, as added due to processing that isolates and intensifies them beyond their original context. Biochemically, added, intrinsic, and natural free sugars share metabolic pathways, undergoing to and before entering for energy production, with no inherent chemical disparity in their monomeric units. However, intrinsic and many natural forms typically occur alongside , , and micronutrients that modulate gastric emptying and intestinal absorption rates, unlike isolated added sugars which facilitate rapid delivery. Regulatory mechanisms reinforce this separation for labeling; since January 1, 2020, FDA-mandated Nutrition Facts panels require added sugars to be listed distinctly from total sugars, providing grams per serving and percent Daily Value (based on 50 grams or 10% of a 2,000-calorie diet), enabling differentiation from intrinsic contributions in whole foods. This applies even to products like with concentrate, classified as containing added sugars despite the juice's natural origin.

Common Types and Forms

, the most prevalent added sugar known as table sugar, is a with the C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁, consisting of one glucose bonded to one via an α-1,2-glycosidic linkage; it is extracted and refined from () or sugar beets (). High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is derived from through acid or enzymatic to , followed by enzymatic using glucose to convert a portion of the glucose to , yielding variants such as HFCS-42 (42% fructose, balance glucose and oligosaccharides) and HFCS-55 (55% fructose). In the United States, HFCS has historically comprised over 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages.
  • Glucose syrups (including corn syrup) are produced by partial hydrolysis of starches (typically corn, wheat, or rice) using acids or enzymes like α-amylase and glucoamylase, resulting in mixtures dominated by glucose (dextrose) with varying levels of maltose and higher saccharides, classified by dextrose equivalent (DE) values indicating hydrolysis degree (e.g., 20-60 DE for lower sweetness).
  • Dextrose is purified glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆), a monosaccharide obtained as the end product of complete starch hydrolysis, available in anhydrous or monohydrate forms.
  • Maltose is a disaccharide (C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁) formed by an α-1,4-glycosidic bond between two glucose units, generated during enzymatic breakdown of starch.
  • Invert sugar results from acid or enzymatic hydrolysis of sucrose, yielding an equimolar mixture of glucose and fructose that is sweeter and more soluble than sucrose due to the free monosaccharides.
  • Crystalline fructose is nearly pure fructose (C₆H₁₂O₆) in solid form, produced by further purification and crystallization from HFCS or corn-derived fructose streams, offering higher sweetness intensity (about 1.7 times that of sucrose on a weight basis).
Other added syrup forms, such as rice syrup or processed derivatives, stem from or and primarily contain glucose, , and trace when incorporated as sweeteners.

Historical Context

Early Human Consumption and Trade

(Saccharum officinarum) was domesticated from wild species in approximately 8000 BCE, initially consumed by chewing stalks for juice rather than as processed added sugar. Cultivation spread via Austronesian trade networks to and reached by around 500 BCE, where boiling cane juice to produce crude crystals—early forms of added —marked the first refining steps. In ancient , this kṣaudra () was traded domestically as blocks or powder for medicinal and culinary use, but production remained artisanal and localized. Persian refiners advanced techniques by the 4th–5th centuries CE, developing molds and clarification methods that yielded whiter, purer loaves, enhancing its value as a portable . Arab conquests from the onward disseminated cultivation and refining to , the , and Mediterranean islands like and , establishing as a key export along Silk Road extensions and maritime routes. These advancements positioned refined as a luxury good, distinct from natural fruit sugars, with trade volumes limited by labor-intensive harvesting and processing. Europe encountered sugar through Crusader contacts in the during the , where Frankish states briefly cultivated it before imports via Italian merchants dominated supply from Eastern sources. Valued as a equivalent to or a , sugar's —costing up to a laborer's annual per pound—confined it to and apothecaries, with per capita consumption across medieval under 2 pounds annually, often in confections or remedies rather than daily staples. This contrasts with modern per capita intake exceeding 150 pounds yearly in regions like the , reflecting pre-industrial trade's role in maintaining baseline exposure at elite levels only. Colonial ventures from the , including and Spanish plantations reliant on enslaved labor, began scaling supply but preserved sugar's status as a non-essential until broader adoption.

Industrial Production and Widespread Adoption

In 1747, German chemist demonstrated the extraction of from beet roots using alcohol, providing a temperate-climate alternative to tropical cane sugar and laying the groundwork for scalable European production independent of colonial imports. This breakthrough, refined by his student Franz Achard into the first in 1801, enabled surplus output during wartime blockades, such as Napoleon's , which prioritized domestic beet cultivation. The 1850s introduction of centrifugal machines revolutionized cane sugar refining by rapidly separating crystals from , boosting efficiency from labor-intensive manual methods to mechanized processes capable of handling large volumes. , post-Civil devastation of Southern cane plantations prompted protective tariffs, including the 1890 and subsequent duties, which shielded nascent domestic cane and emerging beet industries from foreign competition, fostering growth from negligible beet output in 1870 to over 1 million tons annually by 1900. Post-World War II advancements in culminated in (HFCS), with commercial HFCS-42 produced in 1968 by Clinton Corn Processing Company and scaled in the 1970s through enzymatic conversion of . U.S. corn subsidies under farm bills, which lowered feedstock costs by supporting , made HFCS cheaper than cane or beet , driving its integration into soft drinks and processed goods; by the late 1970s, HFCS usage surged, contributing to added sugars comprising over 18% of average caloric intake. This affordability, amid urbanization and supermarket expansion, propelled global per capita sugar availability from approximately 15 kg annually in 1961 to over 20 kg by 2000, per FAO estimates, as processed foods proliferated.

Mid-20th Century Research Influences

In the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), a trade organization representing the , initiated a program to influence scientific discourse on coronary heart disease (CHD) by research that downplayed sucrose's role while emphasizing s. Internal SRF documents reveal that in 1965, the organization paid Harvard nutritionists D. Mark Hegsted and Robert J. McGandy approximately $6,500 (equivalent to $48,900 in 2016 dollars) to conduct a and author articles aligning with these objectives. The resulting review, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 1967, concluded that evidence linking sugar to CHD was weak and inconclusive, while advocating reduced intake; the SRF and its role in shaping the review's focus were not disclosed to the journal or readers. This funded work contributed to a broader mid-century narrative prioritizing dietary fats over carbohydrates in CHD etiology, amid debates sparked by early animal and human studies suggesting sugar's potential harms. Concurrently, ' , with baseline data collected from 1958–1964 and key findings published in 1970, provided observational evidence correlating intake with heart disease rates across 16 cohorts in seven nations, but relied on selective country inclusion from an initial pool of 22 and did not fully adjust for confounders such as consumption or variations. Critics later highlighted methodological issues, including data cherry-picking to fit the fat hypothesis and failure to account for residual , which observational designs inherently risk without randomization. These influences manifested in policy shifts, notably the 1977 U.S. Senate Select Committee Dietary Goals for the United States, which recommended reducing overall fat intake from 40% to 30% of calories and saturated fats to 10%, drawing on the era's fat-centric research while advising moderation in refined sugars without equivalent emphasis. Industry responses to fat-reduction messaging spurred low-fat product reformulations, often increasing added sugars to maintain palatability, with U.S. per capita added sugar consumption rising from 119 pounds in 1970 to peaks exceeding 150 pounds by the 1990s amid such trends. A 2016 analysis of SRF archives underscored how these mid-20th-century efforts delayed scrutiny of sugar's CHD contributions until subsequent decades.

Production and Sources

Manufacturing Processes

The manufacturing of added sugars from involves mechanical extraction followed by purification to isolate . Stalks are shredded and crushed in tandem mills to release containing 10-15% by weight, with multiple passes achieving up to 95-98% recovery from the fiber (). The raw is then clarified through lime sulfitation—adding and to precipitate impurities like waxes, fibers, and proteins—followed by heating, , and to produce clear of similar concentration. This is evaporated under vacuum to a thick (60-70% solids), which enters multiple-effect vacuum crystallizers for seeded boiling, yielding raw sugar crystals (96-98% purity) separated by , leaving blackstrap as a viscous containing residual sugars (45-50% total invert). Refining raw sugar dissolves it in hot , affines with wash to remove film, purifies via carbonatation or phosphatation for further impurity removal, filters through or , and recrystallizes to achieve 99.9% purity in granulated . Overall, one metric ton of typically yields 100-120 kg of refined sugar, with and as principal byproducts for energy generation or . Sugar beet processing parallels but adapts to the root's structure for diffusion-based extraction. Beets are washed, sliced into thin cossettes (V-shaped chips totaling 4-6% of beet weight), and immersed in countercurrent hot water (70-80°C) diffusers, extracting sucrose-laden at 12-16% concentration while depleting cossettes to under 0.5% residual . The green undergoes purification via cold liming and —adding lime to raise and milk of lime with to form chalk precipitates that adsorb non-sugars—followed by and sulfitation for color removal, yielding thin at 13-15% . concentrates this to thick (58-65% dissolved solids), which is mixed with crystals, boiled in pans, and centrifuged to separate white (99.8%+ purity) from low-green , recycled across multiple strikes to minimize waste (containing 50% sugars). Recovery efficiency reaches 85-90% of extractable , with one metric ton of beets producing 110-140 kg of , depending on root sucrose content (typically 15-18% fresh weight). High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a key liquid added sugar, derives from via enzymatic conversion for scalability and cost efficiency. Corn undergoes wet milling: kernels steep in dilute (32-34% moisture), then separate into germ, , , and fractions, with slurried at 30-40% solids. applies heat-stable alpha-amylase enzymes at 105-110°C to hydrolyze to dextrins (DE 10-15), followed by with glucoamylase at 55-60°C and pH 4.0-4.5 to yield (94-96% DE, nearly 100% glucose). Isomerization uses immobilized glucose isomerase in fixed-bed reactors to convert 42-50% of glucose to , producing HFCS-42; fractionation via or enriches select streams to HFCS-55 (55% fructose, 42% glucose). Final syrups are refined through carbon filtration, for demineralization, and to 71-80% solids, achieving high purity (>99% fermentable sugars) without , with steepwater and as byproducts. This process, optimized for liquid form, contrasts with by leveraging specificity for precise ratios.

Primary Global Producers and Supply Chains

dominates global sugar production, primarily from , with output estimated at 42.4 million metric tons (MMT) for the 2024/25 season, accounting for over 20% of worldwide supply. follows as the second-largest producer, focusing on , with production projected at approximately 29.3 MMT for the same period, influenced by domestic ethanol mandates and variable yields. The , reliant on , produced around 16.3 MMT in 2024/25, though forecasts indicate a decline to 14.8 MMT in 2025/26 due to reduced harvested area and weather variability. Other key producers include (around 10 MMT from cane) and the , where combined cane, beet, and (HFCS) equivalents total roughly 17-18 MMT annually, with beet sugar at 5.4 MMT and cane at 4.1 MMT for 2024/25 per USDA data.
Top Sugar Producers (2024/25 Season, MMT)Primary CropKey Notes
Brazil: 42.4SugarcaneLargest exporter; Center-South region dominant.
India: 29.3SugarcaneExport restrictions tied to domestic needs.
EU: 16.3Sugar BeetQuota-free since 2017; vulnerable to frost.
Thailand: ~10SugarcaneExport-oriented; drought-prone.
US: ~9 (sugar) + HFCS equiv.Beet/Cane/CornSubsidized corn distorts HFCS costs.
Supply chains for sugarcane-dominant producers like and involve large-scale farming in tropical regions, milling, , and bulk via ports, exposing them to risks such as the 2023-24 El Niño-induced droughts that reduced Brazilian yields by up to 5% in key areas. Beet-focused chains in temperate and regions face frost and disease vulnerabilities but benefit from mechanized harvesting and shorter supply distances to refineries. Government subsidies play a distorting role: U.S. Bill corn supports lower HFCS production costs, enabling ~8 MMT annual output and favoring domestic processed food use over imports, while historical beet protections (phased out post-2017) and Brazilian credit programs sustain . These interventions contribute to global price volatility, as subsidized surpluses flood markets. Global sugar trade volumes reached 65.7 MMT in 2024, with exports projected to rise to 68 MMT in 2025, dominated by (35-40% of flows) shipping raw centrifugal to importers in and . This commodity dependence heightens risks for developing economies, where reliance on exports (e.g., in ) amplifies vulnerability to weather shocks and trade barriers, as seen in India's 2024/25 export curbs to prioritize blending. Geopolitical factors, including U.S. tariffs and EU sustainability mandates, further influence flows, though USDA and FAO data indicate overall surplus production buffers short-term disruptions.

Applications and Consumption Patterns

Use in Processed Foods

Added sugars serve multiple functional roles in processed foods beyond sweetness, including acting as bulking agents to provide structure and volume in products like baked goods and cereals. In baking, sugars such as contribute to tenderness and moisture retention through their hygroscopic properties, which attract and hold water, preventing dryness; for instance, often contain 10-25% sugar by weight to achieve desired spread, crispness, and aeration during baking. Additionally, sugars facilitate the —a non-enzymatic browning process between reducing sugars and under heat—producing desirable flavors, aromas, and golden hues in items like breads, cakes, and breakfast cereals. In confections and fruit-based preserves, added sugars enable preservation by osmotic dehydration, where high concentrations (typically 60-70% in jams) draw water from microbial cells and fruit tissues, reducing below levels supportive of bacterial or mold growth (aw < 0.85). This mechanism, combined with thermal processing, extends without refrigeration, as seen in traditional jam formulations requiring minimum soluble solids of 65% for gelling and stability via pectin-sugar interactions. Sugars also enhance and in these products, preventing syneresis (weeping) by stabilizing networks. Prevalence data indicate added sugars appear in approximately 68% of individual processed food items in U.S. supermarkets, spanning categories like snacks, sauces, and dairy alternatives, often undisclosed until recent labeling mandates. Post-2015 implementations of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in regions like the and prompted some reformulation in solid foods, such as partial replacement with polyols or fibers in cereals and bars, yet full elimination remains limited due to irreplaceable roles in texture and flavor balance; for example, Colombian processed foods saw modest sugar reductions averaging 10-15% in non-beverage categories after 2016 taxes, but sensory appeal often necessitated retention. These challenges highlight sugars' integral contributions to product integrity, where substitutions can compromise crunch in extruded cereals or browning in pastries.

Role in Beverages and Regional Differences

Added sugars serve primarily as sweeteners in beverages, enhancing palatability in products such as sodas and energy drinks, where predominates in formulations like , which contains 39 grams of sugar per 12-ounce serving. In sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), sugars also contribute to viscosity and , balancing bitterness from other ingredients like in energy drinks, thereby improving sensory texture without relying solely on alternative sweeteners. Globally, SSBs represent a key vector for added sugar intake, with consumption patterns varying widely; in high-income nations, they historically supplied substantial caloric contributions, though exact percentages differ by study methodology. In the United States, beverages accounted for 36.1% of total added sugar intake among adults, encompassing sodas, fruit drinks, and energy drinks, based on national survey data from the early 2010s. This share has declined amid nutritional labeling requirements implemented in the mid-2010s and voluntary industry reductions, with overall added sugar from all sources dropping 21% from 1999–2008 levels to later periods, partly attributable to lower SSB consumption. Average daily SSB intake among U.S. adults reached 113 kilocalories in 2011–2014, equivalent to approximately 28 grams of sugar, with higher figures among younger demographics. Regional disparities reflect cultural preferences and economic factors; SSB intake is highest in the (1.9 servings per day) and , contrasting with the lowest levels in (0.2 servings per day), where unsweetened teas predominate over carbonated options. In the U.S., soda-centric consumption drives higher per capita SSB exposure compared to , where added sugars more commonly appear in localized forms like sweetened milk teas, though overall SSB prevalence remains lower in East and . These variations persist despite global increases in SSB servings, with showing the steepest rises from 1990 to 2021 due to and marketing.

Metabolic Mechanisms

Digestion, Absorption, and Energy Provision

, the predominant form of added sugar, undergoes primarily in the by the sucrase-isomaltase, cleaving it into equal molar proportions of glucose and ; minimal occurs in the oral cavity due to the absence of significant sucrase activity in . Glucose is absorbed across the apical membrane of enterocytes via the sodium-glucose linked transporter 1 (SGLT1), which couples to sodium influx, followed by across the basolateral membrane primarily via GLUT2; under high luminal glucose concentrations, GLUT2 can also translocate to the apical membrane to enhance absorption capacity. absorption occurs via facilitative transport through GLUT5 on the apical membrane and GLUT2 on the basolateral membrane, independent of sodium gradients. Post-absorption, glucose enters the and elevates blood glucose levels, triggering an insulin response from pancreatic beta cells to facilitate cellular uptake and utilization via and subsequent , providing approximately 4 kcal per gram of energy. Sucrose ingestion yields a of approximately 65, resulting in rapid but moderated blood glucose spikes compared to pure glucose ( 100), offering quick energy mobilization distinct from the slower release associated with complex . Fructose is preferentially taken up by the liver via GLUT2, where it is phosphorylated by fructokinase to fructose-1-phosphate, bypassing the regulatory step of and entering as intermediates for , , or further ; this pathway generates as a byproduct through purine degradation during rapid ATP depletion and AMP deaminase activation. At physiological intake levels, these processes integrate into normal homeostatic energy provision without inherent toxicity, as monosaccharides serve as fundamental fuels evolved for dietary utilization.

Differential Effects of Sugar Types

Glucose is metabolized systemically after absorption, entering cells primarily via transporters in insulin-responsive tissues such as muscle and adipose, where it fuels and is stored as when energy demands are met; this process is tightly regulated by phosphofructokinase-1 (PFK-1), preventing unchecked flux. In and the , glucose provides direct energy without substantial conversion to fat under normal conditions, as hepatic processing is minimal compared to peripheral utilization. Fructose, however, undergoes near-complete first-pass metabolism in the liver via GLUT2-facilitated uptake and fructokinase-mediated to fructose-1-phosphate, circumventing PFK-1 and enabling rapid, unregulated glycolytic entry; this hepatic exclusivity promotes futile , transient ATP depletion, and production at high fluxes. Excess fructose directs carbon toward de novo (DNL) through activation of sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SREBP-1c) and carbohydrate response element-binding protein (ChREBP), synthesizing triglycerides more efficiently than glucose, with human studies showing elevated hepatic DNL at isolated intakes exceeding 50 g/day. Comparisons between (HFCS, typically 55% ) and (50% , 50% glucose) reveal negligible differences in acute metabolic responses, including postprandial glucose, insulin, and excursions, per randomized controlled trials; a meta-analysis of isoenergetic substitutions confirmed equivalent effects on cardiometabolic markers, attributing similarities to comparable loads. Mechanistic variances notwithstanding, from sugars aligns with caloric surplus principles, wherein excess intake—irrespective of composition—drives net accretion via thermodynamic constraints, as validated in controlled feeding models emphasizing intake-expenditure imbalance over source-specific partitioning.

Health Impact Evidence

Short-Term Physiological Responses

Ingestion of added sugars, especially in liquid forms such as beverages, triggers rapid elevations in blood glucose and insulin concentrations owing to accelerated gastric emptying and intestinal absorption unhindered by , , or . In contrast, sugars consumed in solid foods with accompanying macronutrients produce more attenuated glycemic and insulinemic excursions, as these components delay and absorption. These acute responses typically peak within 30-60 minutes post-consumption and return toward baseline within 2 hours, varying by sugar type and dose. Fructose, a common component of added sugars like , imposes an immediate hepatic burden by bypassing regulation in , directing flux toward de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride synthesis. Studies demonstrate that a single oral load of fructose, comprising a significant portion of energy intake (e.g., equivalent to 20-30% of daily calories), elevates very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides within 4-6 hours through enhanced hepatic reesterification and reduced oxidation. This contrasts with glucose, which primarily stimulates peripheral insulin-mediated uptake rather than acute intrahepatic accumulation. Short-term appetite regulation following sugar intake involves transient suppression mediated by rising glucose levels and insulin release, which activate hypothalamic signals and reduce energy intake for up to 2 hours. However, this effect is modest and fleeting, particularly with liquid sugars, due to minimal gastric distension and weaker activation of gut peptide hormones like GLP-1 and PYY compared to isocaloric solid foods. Consequently, postprandial often rebounds without sustained inhibition of subsequent feeding. In scenarios of high metabolic demand, such as prolonged endurance exercise, glucose supplementation mitigates and sustains performance by replenishing muscle and supporting fuel needs. Doses of approximately 30 grams per hour during activity have been shown to extend time to exhaustion and improve cognitive function under , with benefits evident within minutes of uptake. These ergogenic effects stem from maintained euglycemia rather than unique sugar properties, though combining glucose with can enhance oxidation rates beyond glucose alone.

Long-Term Associations from Observational Data

Observational studies, including large cohort analyses and cross-sectional surveys, have reported associations between higher added sugar intake and increased risk of and mellitus (T2DM), often exhibiting dose-response patterns. A 2023 umbrella review of meta-analyses found consistent evidence linking high sugar consumption to elevated relative risks (RR) of (RR 1.23-1.55 for highest versus lowest intake categories across studies) and T2DM (RR 1.20-1.50), particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), though these estimates were derived after adjustments for total energy intake and (BMI) in many underlying cohorts. Similar dose-response relationships were observed in prospective cohorts meta-analyzed for intake, where each 25 g/day increment correlated with a 10-20% higher T2DM incidence, independent of but potentially confounded by overall quality and levels. These associations hold primarily in populations with high baseline rates, such as Western cohorts, where added sugars contribute disproportionately to excess caloric intake, but residual from socioeconomic factors and dietary reporting inaccuracies persists, precluding . For (CVD) markers, and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data indicate that added sugar intake correlates with adverse lipid profiles including increased LDL cholesterol, decreased HDL cholesterol, and elevated serum triglycerides, as well as levels, proxies for and . In NHANES analyses from 2005-2012, higher quintiles of added sugar consumption were positively associated with concentrations (beta increase of 0.1-0.3 mg/dL per quintile in adolescents), linked mechanistically to metabolism, though this effect diminished after BMI adjustment in adults. elevations (e.g., 10-20 mg/dL higher in high-sugar groups) similarly appear in cross-sectional NHANES subsets, but longitudinal CVD event data show inconsistencies, with weaker links in low-obesity Asian populations where sugar intake remains modest despite rising . For instance, cohort studies in report minimal independent sugar-CVD ties after controlling for total energy and adiposity, contrasting stronger Western associations. Some large-scale observational data yield null or attenuated findings after extensive confounder adjustment, underscoring non-causal interpretations. The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study (2017), spanning 18 countries including low- and middle-income regions, found high total intake (often sugar-heavy in refined forms) linked to modestly higher CVD mortality (HR 1.28 for highest ), but specific added sugar subsets showed negligible independent effects post-adjustment for energy, fats, and lifestyle factors like smoking and exercise.32252-3/fulltext) These discrepancies highlight how and total caloric surplus, rather than sugar isolation, drive many outcomes, with reverse causation (e.g., prediabetics seeking sugary comfort foods) and measurement errors in food frequency questionnaires further complicating attributions. Overall, while patterns suggest harm at intakes exceeding 10% of calories, population heterogeneity and preclude establishing added sugar as a direct long-term driver without experimental validation.

Controlled Trials and Causal Inferences

Randomized controlled trials provide stronger causal evidence than observational associations for added sugar's health effects, isolating variables like dose, form, and to discern mechanisms beyond mere . In feeding studies, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) consistently increase voluntary intake and promote due to incomplete compensatory reduction in solid food consumption. A of prospective cohorts and RCTs confirmed that SSB intake causally contributes to excess adiposity in both children and adults, with intervention arms showing greater weight accrual when sugars are freely available compared to water or low-energy alternatives. This effect aligns with sugars' hyperpalatability, driving overconsumption independent of nutritional signaling from solids, though total calories remain the proximal cause of fat storage per principles. Isocaloric substitution trials further clarify that added sugars do not exert unique adverse effects when energy intake is matched to other macronutrients. For example, RCTs replacing sugars with starches or proteins under controlled caloric conditions yield no differential impacts on body weight, fat mass, or metabolic markers, underscoring that harms arise from surplus rather than sugars' molecular structure. Low-carbohydrate versus low-fat diets, often varying sugar content, similarly show equivalent weight loss outcomes over 12 months when calories and adherence are equated, with or insulin secretion not altering this neutrality. These findings critique narratives of sugar as a singular "," as intervention data reveal no independent causation for or absent caloric excess. Fructose-specific overfeeding RCTs highlight dose-dependent hepatic effects but refute blanket toxicity claims. Trials providing 25% of energy as for 10 weeks induced de novo and intrahepatic accumulation, elevating liver fat by 150-200% versus glucose-matched controls, linked to fructose's preferential hepatic bypassing regulation. However, at intakes below 10% of total energy—typical in moderate diets—no such accrual occurs, even in at-risk populations, with effects confined to hypercaloric contexts. This contextuality emphasizes causal realism: fructose amplifies fat storage risks in overfeeding via portal delivery to the liver, but population-level inferences must prioritize experimental thresholds over extrapolated associations, avoiding overstatement of inherent harm. Overall, RCTs converge on energy imbalance as , with sugars facilitating but not uniquely driving cardiometabolic perturbations. Intervention trials assessing the cessation or marked reduction of added sugar intake reveal metabolic improvements consistent with reversed adverse effects. Quitting added sugars enhances insulin sensitivity, improves blood sugar control, and lowers the risk of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. These changes are accompanied by potential weight loss, reduced liver fat accumulation, and broader enhancements to metabolic health via decreased chronic inflammation and diminished consumption of empty calories.

Dietary Guidelines and Policy Responses

International Standards

In 2015, the (WHO) issued a guideline recommending that adults and children reduce their intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake, with a conditional suggestion for further reduction to below 5% to provide additional health benefits. Free sugars are defined as monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods and beverages by manufacturers, cooks, or consumers, plus sugars naturally present in , syrups, fruit juices, and fruit juice concentrates. This strong recommendation for the 10% limit stems from moderate-quality evidence associating higher free sugar consumption with increased risks of noncommunicable diseases, particularly dental caries and excess or adiposity. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, administered jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO, establishes international food standards that support these intake recommendations through harmonized labeling and composition requirements. Adopted in 1999 and amended subsequently, Codex Standard 212 applies to sugars for direct consumption, specifying purity and contaminant limits to ensure safety in global trade. The 2019 Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (updating the 2003 version) mandate declaration of total sugars on packaged foods, enabling consumers and regulators to track contributions to free sugar intake, though added sugars disclosure remains under discussion as of 2024. WHO has reaffirmed the 2015 guideline in subsequent reviews, including 2023 interventions on non-sugar sweeteners that reinforce prioritizing free sugar reduction over alternatives for body weight control. These standards influence global policy by providing evidence-based benchmarks for reducing sugary beverage consumption, a primary free sugar source, with modeling indicating potential prevention of millions of cardiovascular disease cases through adherence.

National Recommendations and Variations

The , 2020-2025, recommend limiting added sugars to less than 10% of total daily calories, a threshold aimed at reducing risks of , , and based on epidemiological patterns in the U.S. population. The advocates a stricter limit of no more than 6% of calories from added sugars—equivalent to no more than 25 grams (6 teaspoons or 100 calories) for most women and 36 grams (9 teaspoons or 150 calories) for most men—to better protect against heart disease, drawing from clinical data on glycemic impacts and profiles. In , the European Food Safety Authority's 2022 scientific opinion, reaffirmed in subsequent guidance, supports keeping intakes of added and free sugars as low as possible within a balanced diet, aligning with U.S. and WHO thresholds but emphasizing minimal consumption due to associations with excess energy intake and dental caries in regional cohorts. The United Kingdom's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, in its 2015 report, sets a more stringent target of no more than 5% of total energy from free sugars (including added sugars and those in honey, syrups, and fruit juices), informed by UK-specific data on and prevalence. National variations reflect local epidemiology and economic contexts; for instance, Brazil's Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population lack a precise limit for added s, instead advising minimal use—such as avoiding for children under 2 years and restricting ultra-processed foods high in sugars—consistent with the country's role as a major exporter and differing obesity drivers compared to high-income nations. Implementation differs by region, with the European Union's voluntary front-of-pack labeling system incorporating content into an A-E grading to guide consumer choices amid variable national adherence to low- targets. U.S. compliance remains low, with average added sugar intake at approximately 13% of calories (or 17 teaspoons daily for adults), per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyses of national surveys, exceeding guidelines and correlating with higher cardiometabolic risks in population studies, which informed 2025 advisory updates urging stricter enforcement.

Critiques of Guideline Evidence Bases

A systematic review of nine major dietary sugar guidelines, including those from the and , found that none met the AGREE II criteria for trustworthy recommendations, with supporting rated as low to very low quality, primarily due to reliance on observational studies prone to factors such as overall diet quality and variables. Observational often implicate added sugars in adverse outcomes like and cardiometabolic disease, but these associations may reflect sugars as markers for ultra-processed foods rather than causal agents, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently show no independent harm from sugars when total energy intake is controlled. For instance, meta-analyses of isoenergetic RCTs substituting sugars with other macronutrients demonstrate neutral effects on body weight, lipid profiles, and glycemic control, indicating that excess calories, irrespective of source, drive metabolic perturbations rather than sugars' content or . Thresholds like the WHO's recommendation to limit free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake derive from dose-response modeling of observational associations with dental caries and body weight, rather than direct evidence from long-term RCTs establishing harm below specific levels. This modeling approach overlooks dose-dependent nuances, such as potential benefits from moderate sugar intake in nutrient-dense contexts, and has been critiqued for arbitrariness, as no trial validates a precise cutoff like 10% for preventing or across populations. Historical guideline emphases on reducing fats without equivalent scrutiny of increases may have inadvertently elevated sugar consumption by promoting high-carb diets, exacerbating energy surplus in rebound scenarios. The Sugar Association, in response to the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report, argued that added sugar limits should prioritize caloric balance and nutrient density over isolated targets, questioning the disproportionate focus on sugar-sweetened beverages amid broader dietary patterns that include processed foods and sedentary behavior. This perspective aligns with RCT evidence emphasizing total energy over macronutrient composition, though industry sources warrant scrutiny for potential conflicts, underscoring the need for independent from intervention studies to refine guidelines beyond consensus-driven modeling.

Controversies and Debates

Sugar Industry's Role in Nutrition Science

In the mid-1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), a trade group representing sugar producers, provided $6,500 in funding to scientists Mark Hegsted and Robert McGandy to conduct a on the dietary causes of coronary heart disease (CHD). This review, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, selectively emphasized and as primary culprits while downplaying emerging evidence linking consumption to CHD risk, without disclosing the SRF's financial involvement or its predefined objectives to counter anti-sugar narratives. Internal SRF documents, uncovered and analyzed in a 2016 JAMA Internal Medicine report, revealed that the foundation had initiated this project in 1965 amid growing scrutiny of sugar's health effects, using the funded work to shape early nutrition discourse toward fat blame. The non-disclosure violated contemporary ethical norms for transparency in sponsored research, though such practices were common in industry-academia collaborations of the era, where funding often influenced topic selection without overt . Subsequent SRF efforts included sponsoring rodent studies in the late to explore sugar's effects on and other conditions, again with limited public acknowledgment of the source, as documented in archival analyses. These activities contributed to a where sugar's potential harms were systematically underrepresented in influential reviews, aligning with the industry's economic incentives amid rising competition from alternative sweeteners. The revelations prompted retrospective critiques of how undisclosed sponsorships may have delayed scrutiny of added sugars, though defenders note that the era's scientific standards prioritized affiliation over granular details, and similar influences pervaded , pharmaceutical, and other food sectors without implying coordinated malice. In contemporary contexts, organizations have against sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes, submitting position papers to bodies like the (WHO) that highlight risks of consumer substitution to higher-fat alternatives, potentially undermining overall dietary improvements. For instance, beverage trade groups have opposed tiered excise taxes on SSBs in multiple jurisdictions, arguing they disproportionately affect low-income consumers and fail to address broader caloric intake, as evidenced in global tax implementation reports. These efforts mirror standard interest-group advocacy, comparable to pharmaceutical lobbying on drug pricing or input on emissions policies, reflecting aligned incentives rather than exceptional deceit, though they often leverage partial evidence to preserve market share. Such engagements underscore ongoing tensions between commercial imperatives and policy, with transparency mandates evolving but not eliminating influence in science funding and guidelines.

Sugar-Fat Paradigm Shift and Reassessments

The U.S. dietary paradigm underwent a significant shift in 1977 with the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by Senator , issuing Dietary Goals for the United States, which recommended reducing intake to 30% of calories, emphasizing s as the primary energy source, and limiting s and based on emerging epidemiological associations with heart disease. This framework, formalized in the 1980 , drew from ' (initiated in 1958), which correlated higher consumption with elevated serum and coronary heart disease rates across populations, promoting a lipid-heart hypothesis that prioritized restriction over other macronutrients. The guidelines encouraged increased consumption, often from refined sources, amid limited (RCT) evidence for causality, coinciding with a rise in U.S. adult prevalence from approximately 15% in 1976–1980 to 23% by 1988–1994, alongside a decline in as a percentage of energy intake from 41% to 37%. Subsequent reassessments have challenged this low-fat orthodoxy. The 2015 eliminated the prior 300 mg daily limit on dietary , reflecting accumulated evidence from RCTs and meta-analyses indicating no consistent link between cholesterol intake and blood levels or cardiovascular outcomes in most populations. The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, a large prospective cohort involving over 135,000 participants from 18 countries published in 2017, found that higher intake (above 60% of energy) was associated with a 28% increased of mortality, while total , , and unsaturated fats showed no significant association with or (CVD) mortality; instead, higher fat intake correlated with lower .32252-3/fulltext) A 2023 PURE analysis extended these findings, linking diets higher in fats (including saturated fats from whole-fat ) and lower in refined carbohydrates to reduced CVD and mortality risks across 80 countries. These shifts highlight debates over macronutrient balance, with some analyses of RCTs suggesting that moderate added sugar intake (e.g., <10% of ) does not independently elevate CVD or metabolic risks when total calories and overall diet quality are controlled, attributing harms primarily to excess rather than sugar uniquely. However, PURE and related cohorts underscore greater risks from high-carbohydrate diets, particularly refined sources, compared to fats, prompting reevaluations that exonerate moderate consumption from direct CVD causation in diverse populations.32252-3/fulltext)

Public Policy Interventions and Economic Critiques

In , a 10% on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) implemented on January 1, 2014, resulted in an initial 10% reduction in SSB purchases during the first year, with declines of 9-10% among lower-income households and corresponding increases in purchases of 2%. Subsequent analysis indicated fading effects, with a 4.4% reduction in SSB purchases over four years post-tax. In , a similar 1-cent-per-ounce SSB tax effective , , led to a 9.6% drop in taxed SSB sales and a 52% decline in sugary drink consumption among low-income residents by 2018, though evidence on sustained body weight reductions remains limited, with no clear causal link to long-term declines in evaluations through 2019. By 2023, national SSB taxes were in place in 103 countries and territories, covering 51% of the global population, yet has been confined to local levels due to principles limiting national mandates. Economic critiques emphasize regressivity, as SSB taxes impose a higher proportional burden on lower-income consumers who purchase more such beverages , despite observed greater purchase reductions in these groups. Taxes are often fully passed through to consumers via price increases, minimizing direct industry absorption, while alternatives like targeted education campaigns or behavioral nudges (e.g., point-of-sale warnings) achieve similar consumption shifts at lower administrative costs, estimated at fractions of yields such as $0.01 per gram models. Broader regulations face resistance over liberty and economic trade-offs, including potential employment disruptions in sugar-dependent sectors; the U.S. sugar industry supports over 12,000 jobs in states like North Dakota alone, and existing federal protections already contribute to 17,000-20,000 annual job losses in confectionery manufacturing due to elevated domestic sugar prices. Empirical reviews find no net job losses from SSB taxes at local levels, countering industry claims of widespread harm, but critics argue such interventions overlook substitution effects and fail to address root causes like overconsumption drivers, imposing paternalistic costs without proportional health gains.

Recent Developments and Alternatives

Post-2020 Research Findings

A 2023 umbrella review published in The BMJ synthesized evidence from meta-analyses and systematic reviews, finding that high dietary sugar consumption—particularly free sugars—is associated with adverse health outcomes across 45 categories, including 18 endocrine/metabolic conditions (such as , , and ) and 10 cardiovascular outcomes (like and ). The review highlighted dose-dependent risks, with stronger associations at intakes exceeding 10% of total energy, though it noted limitations in due to reliance on observational data rather than randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subsequent analyses in 2024 reinforced links between added sugars, especially from beverages, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence. A cohort study in Frontiers in Public Health reported that higher added sugar intake from sweetened beverages correlated with elevated risks of seven CVD subtypes, including ischemic heart disease and stroke, attributing effects partly to overeating and caloric surplus rather than sugar-specific mechanisms alone. Similarly, prospective data indicated that liquid forms of added sugar, unlike solid sources, independently predict all-cause mortality and CVD events, with relative risks increasing nonlinearly at higher doses. Nuanced findings emerged regarding societal and excess calorie contexts. A 2024 Frontiers in Nutrition editorial on added sugar consumption emphasized that while excessive intake contributes to non-communicable diseases and economic burdens, harms stem more from overall overconsumption than sugar type per se, with policy interventions targeting liquids showing variable efficacy. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, maintained the recommendation to limit added sugars to less than 10% of daily calories, citing consistent evidence of cardiometabolic risks without endorsing stricter thresholds amid ongoing debates over evidence quality. Long-term RCTs remain scarce, limiting definitive causal claims beyond observational associations. Pandemic-era observations linked spikes in added sugar intake to weight gain, but causality was confounded by lockdowns and stress. U.S. surveys from 2020–2023 documented increased sweet food and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adults, correlating with average weight gains of 0.5–2 kg, though multivariate models attributed variance more to reduced activity and emotional eating than sugar isolation. These patterns underscore behavioral drivers over isolated sugar effects, with no high-quality RCTs disentangling contributions during COVID-19 disruptions. In response to growing consumer demand for reduced-calorie and lower-glycemic options, the global sugar substitutes market expanded from USD 8.36 billion in 2023 to an estimated USD 8.89 billion in 2024, projecting a (CAGR) of 7.88% to reach USD 16.31 billion by 2032. This shift is propelled by heightened awareness of added sugar's links to , , and cardiovascular risks, alongside regulatory encouragements for reformulation in packaged foods and beverages. High-intensity sweeteners such as and have seen particular uptake, with stevia-based products gaining favor due to their natural origin and zero-calorie profile, comprising over 20% of the substitutes segment in 2024. Market data indicate a parallel surge in low- and no-added-sugar product lines, exemplified by the sugar-free food sector, valued at USD 45.32 billion in and forecasted to grow at a CAGR of 6.27% to USD 83.20 billion by 2034. Beverages dominate this category, accounting for the largest revenue share, as manufacturers replace with blends of and monk fruit extract to maintain sensory appeal without caloric impact. , reduced-sugar food and beverage sales grew at a 9.2% CAGR from onward, driven by label claims like "no added sugars" that align with guidelines limiting intake to 25-36 grams daily for adults. Non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) have increasingly substituted added sugars in global packaged products, with a 2023 analysis of sales data from 185 countries revealing a 10% average decline in added quantities since 2005, correlated with a 36% rise in NNS volumes, particularly in high-income regions. Natural alternatives like allulose—a rare approved by the FDA in 2019 for broad use—have accelerated this trend, with North American rare markets expanding from USD 586.18 million in 2024 to a projected USD 809.39 million by 2033, owing to its minimal metabolic effects compared to traditional sugars. However, artificial sweeteners face scrutiny; for instance, aspartame's 2023 classification as "possibly carcinogenic" by the WHO's IARC prompted some brands to pivot toward plant-derived options, though overall substitution persists amid stagnant in developing markets. These shifts reflect causal drivers beyond mere marketing, including empirical evidence from longitudinal studies linking excessive added sugar to metabolic dysregulation, prompting food giants like and to reformulate over 80% of their portfolios by 2025 to meet voluntary sugar reduction targets set by bodies like the UK's Department of Health. Yet, total sugar market growth persists, with U.S. consumption projected to rise from USD 20.54 billion in 2024 to USD 32.49 billion by 2033, underscoring that substitutions often occur in premium segments while commodity sugars dominate bulk applications.

References

  1. https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/added-sugars-nutrition-facts-label
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4676859/
  3. https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/php/data-research/added-sugars.html
  4. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/26_Sources%2520of%2520Added%2520Sugars%2520in%2520Children%27s%2520Diet_1516.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10074550/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9966020/
  7. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%2822%2903109-4/fulltext
  8. https://www.fda.gov/media/135299/download
  9. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/sugar/added-sugars
  10. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/librariesprovider2/euro-health-topics/obesity/sugars-factsheet.pdf
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9024444/
  12. https://share.upmc.com/2019/03/are-all-sugars-the-same/
  13. https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/changes-nutrition-facts-label
  14. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Sucrose
  15. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Biological_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_%28Biological_Chemistry%29/Carbohydrates/Disaccharides/Sucrose
  16. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7178463/
  18. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%2822%2903883-7/fulltext
  19. https://www.cargill.com/food-beverage/emea/sweeteners/sweetness-explained
  20. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002444.htm
  21. https://www.ift.org/career-development/learn-about-food-science/food-facts/food-facts-food-ingredients-and-additives/sugars-a-scientific-overview
  22. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/nutrition/sugar-salt-and-fat/names-for-sugar-infographic/different-names-for-sugar
  23. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/56-different-names-for-sugar
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3526242/
  25. https://sugarnutritionresource.org/the-basics/sugars-on-food-labels
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9483297/
  27. https://westbatonrougemuseum.com/DocumentCenter/View/1667
  28. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/godproposesmandisposes/we-were-the-first-to-spread-sweetness-around-27387/
  29. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sugar-cultivation/
  30. https://www.suedzuckergroup.com/en/company/history/history-of-sugar
  31. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/sugar/
  32. https://sacredfootsteps.com/2022/09/07/as-sukkar-azucar-the-bitter-inheritance-of-andalusi-sugar/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421126/
  34. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andreas-Sigismund-Marggraf
  35. https://ragt-seeds.com/sugar-beet-and-solutions/
  36. https://evolution.earthathome.org/grasses/andropogoneae/sugarcane-history/
  37. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-12-18/u-s-sugar-industry-is-exhibit-a-of-tariff-favoritism
  38. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/40532/50517_aer382a.pdf
  39. https://www.sosland.com/hfcs-history-shows-challenges/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1247588/
  41. https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/sugar-consumption-per-capita/world/
  42. https://openknowledge.fao.org/3/cd0991en/sugar.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11123895/
  44. https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/keys-scientific-abandon
  45. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article-pdf/2/3/278/341391/2-3-278.pdf
  46. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/srhonors_theses/490/
  47. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/c9s10-1a.pdf
  48. https://www.sugar.org/blog/refining-and-processing-sugar-cane/
  49. https://www.purolite.com/index/core-technologies/industry/food-and-beverage/sugar-refining-applications/cane-sugar-production
  50. https://www.fao.org/4/x6930e/x6930e07.htm
  51. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/c9s10-1b.pdf
  52. https://suchaquality.com/sugar-cane-vs-sugar-beet/
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/high-fructose-corn-syrup
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S236996982200024X
  55. https://www.chinimandi.com/statistics/major-sugar-producing-countries/
  56. https://think.ing.com/articles/global-sugar-surplus-depends-on-india/
  57. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Sugar%2520Annual_Brussels%2520USEU_European%2520Union_E42025-0004
  58. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/outlooks/113158/SSS-M-444.pdf?v=63397
  59. https://www.tradeimex.in/blogs/top-10-sugar-producing-countries
  60. https://saxtrading.com/blog/sugar-supply-chains-under-pressure-climate/
  61. https://www.worldstopexports.com/sugar-exports-country/
  62. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/india-sugar-semi-annual-9
  63. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/sugar.pdf
  64. https://www.sugarnutritionresource.org/the-basics/functions-of-sugars-in-food
  65. https://bakerpedia.com/processes/maillard-reaction/
  66. https://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/sugars-from-a-food-technology-perspective
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996901002009
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/oct/03/science-magic-jam-making
  69. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/upshot/it-isnt-easy-to-figure-out-which-foods-contain-sugar.html
  70. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-025-04215-7
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12147061/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221479932100014X
  73. https://www.coca-cola.com/us/en/about-us/faq/how-much-sugar-is-in-coca-cola
  74. https://www.beveragedaily.com/News/Promotional-features/Low-and-no-sugar-soft-drinks-with-FMPs-for-improved-sweetness-and-mouthfeel/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4733620/
  76. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.687643/full
  77. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%2823%2902461-9/fulltext
  78. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db270.pdf
  79. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124845
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4526649/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12239271/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC292710/
  83. https://sugar.ca/sugars-health/carbohydrate-digestion-and-absorption
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24587162/
  85. https://diabetesjournals.org/diabetes/article/54/10/3056/13769/Apical-GLUT2-A-Major-Pathway-of-Intestinal-Sugar
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2652499/
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041312100423X
  88. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/interactivenutritionfactslabel/assets/InteractiveNFL_Total&AddedSugars_October2021.pdf
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9881888/
  90. https://www.sugarnutritionresource.org/sugar-health/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-2
  91. https://www.sugarnutritionresource.org/news-articles/what-is-the-glycemic-index-of-sugar
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7352635/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0753332220309884
  94. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK576428/
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24370846/
  96. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2023.1198578/full
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10083579/
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5813289/
  99. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.647600/full
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9551185/
  101. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%2822%2900069-7/fulltext
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9071483/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11329689/
  104. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22472
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31054268/
  106. https://www.jci.org/articles/view/96702
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2991323/
  108. https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-511X-10-20
  109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14522748/
  110. https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165%2822%2903403-7/fulltext
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3627933/
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9736485/
  113. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/10.1152/ajpcell.00583.2024
  114. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/5/918
  115. https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj-2022-071609
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12145082/
  117. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01114-5
  118. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.972166
  119. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/added-sugar-intake-and-metabolic-syndrome-in-us-adolescents-crosssectional-analysis-of-the-national-health-and-nutrition-examination-survey-20052012/FF8E7DBFD7E9320832F5DBDECCEFDE2D
  120. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.107.091041
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11294752/
  122. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23966427/
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3210834/
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322008614
  125. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2673150
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4454806/
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7851818/
  128. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/
  129. https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/added-sugar/art-20045328
  130. https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-and-children
  131. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285538/
  132. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549028
  133. https://www.fao.org/input/download/standards/338/CXS_212e_u.pdf
  134. https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/sh-proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%25253A%25252F%25252Fworkspace.fao.org%25252Fsites%25252Fcodex%25252FMeetings%25252FCX-714-48%25252FLinks%25252FFull_ReplyTo_CL2023_94.pdf
  135. https://www.who.int/tools/elena/interventions/free-sugars-adults-ncds
  136. https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline
  137. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf
  138. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dietary-reference-values
  139. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-carbohydrates-and-health-report
  140. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf
  141. https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/en/nutri-score
  142. https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-weight-growth/be-sugar-smart/index.html
  143. https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/
  144. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M16-2020
  145. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-019-0407-z
  146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831322009127
  147. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00332-4
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10464488/
  149. https://www.sugar.org/resources/releases/sugar-association-responds-to-release-of-2025-2030-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee-scientific-report/
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5697802/
  151. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/09/404081/sugar-papers-reveal-industry-role-shifting-national-heart-disease-focus
  152. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240084995
  153. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2023.2251913
  154. https://www.advocacyincubator.org/program-areas/food-and-nutrition/countering-industry-interference/sweetened-profits-the-industrys-playbook-to-fight-sweetened-beverage-taxes
  155. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4314929-the-sugar-lobbys-up-to-its-old-tricks-again/
  156. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/about-dietary-guidelines/history-dietary-guidelines
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3910043/
  158. https://bcmj.org/articles/ancel-keys-and-lipid-hypothesis-early-breakthroughs-current-management-dyslipidemia
  159. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2021.748847/full
  160. https://www.shelleyrael.com/blog/obesity-rates-usa
  161. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743
  162. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20160331.683121/
  163. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2560/7192512
  164. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/sugar
  165. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28864332/
  166. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5525113/
  167. https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/sugar-sweetened-beverage-purchases-declined-in-two-years-after-mexican-soda-tax-passed/
  168. https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/3/1/e001524
  169. https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/02/21/three-years-into-soda-tax-sugary-drink-consumption-down-more-than-50-percent-in-berkeley/
  170. https://www.globalfoodresearchprogram.org/berkeley-ssb-tax-evaluation/
  171. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802843
  172. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/policy
  173. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/global/sugar-tax-soda-tax-ssb/
  174. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10270974/
  175. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/560831592452414769/pdf/Countering-Common-Arguments-Against-Taxes-on-Sugary-Drinks.pdf
  176. https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/files/717/sugar-report.pdf
  177. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/candy-coated-cartel-time-kill-us-sugar-program
  178. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4025719/
  179. https://p3rc.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/561/2021/10/Rvw-of-Lbr-Mrkt-Impcts-of-Local-SSB-Taxes-in-US_Rsrch-Brf-No.-122_Sept-2021.pdf
  180. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1452085/full
  181. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39307279/
  182. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1379946/full
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10222205/
  184. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/2/671
  185. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/sugar-substitutes-market-100261
  186. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/sugar-substitutes-market
  187. https://www.towardsfnb.com/insights/sugar-free-food-market
  188. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/horizon/outlook/reduced-sugar-food-beverages-market/north-america
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10346066/
  190. https://www.marketdataforecast.com/market-reports/north-america-rare-sugar-market
  191. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-states-sugar-market-forecast-103200711.html
  192. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2023/12/07/Sugar-reduction-in-2024-How-consumer-demands-health-policies-will-influence-product-launches/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.