You'd think the insidious dangers of sugar had just been discovered. John Yudkin was warning about them in his book :- 'Pure, White and Deadly' in 1972 And in the US, Robert Lustig in his books :- 'Fat Chance' and 'Beating the Odds Against Sugar'
Let's hope thay this time round, the processed food and drink industries are forced into the sort of warning labels we see on cigarettes.
Jim Hawkins
En el artículo , Jim Hawkins escribió:
Some processed food already has advisory labels giving the amount of fat and sugar. Some even go as far as to have a 'traffic light' system showing read for elevated levels of same.
It's a good idea that needs to be taken further, regularised (different suppliers present the information in different ways) and made mandatory for all processed foods and fast food outlets.
All this "low-fat" stuff is a con (e.g. low fat yoghourt). Just look at the amount of sugar they welly in instead.
Taste buds are stimulated by either sugar or fat. Remove both and the food tastes of nothing.
The effects of sugar and carbs are also spelled out in "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. It seems dieticians took a wrong turn in the 1960's and falsely thought sugars were harmless energy. I remember being dosed up with Glu***ade as a kid.
Rusty
+1
They used to sell it in chemists as a "Tonic". The bottles were covered in a yellow cellophane film you had to strip off I remember.
Quite right. Bacon, sausages, fizzy drinks, salt & sugar should all have graphic images of fat bastards on the packages, should be kept behind shutters, limited to over 21's - and if you want to eat them, you should be made to stand outside.
"Glucozade" was first manufactured in 1927 by William Owen, a chemist from Newcastle who experimented for several years to provide a source of energy for those who were sick with common illnesses, like the common cold or influenza. It became available throughout Britain for use in hospitals under the name Glucozade. This was changed to Lucozade in
1929, and Beecham's acquired the product in 1938.Lucozade was sold in a glass bottle with a yellow Cellophane wrap until
1983, when Lucozade was rebranded as an energy drink to shift the brand's associations away from illness. The slogan "Lucozade aids recovery" was replaced by "Lucozade replaces lost energy".
Yudkin's research and book has indeed been around for a long time, but the Lusting book (the two titles you mention are one and the same, I think) onl y came out in the last year or two.
There have been plenty of other sources of this information in the interven ing years, including the Gary Taub books. I read 'The Saccharine Disease', by T.E.Cleave, well over twenty years ago (it was published in the ...40s?) , and Richard Macarness wrote 'Eat Fat and Grow Slim' in the sixties or so.
The information has been out there, you've just been relying on the wrong s ources. FWIW there has also been radio programs broadcast on the deleteriou s effects of sugar on eg. Radio 4's 'The Food Program'.
Most Government-sourced publications are well behid the times, true. One of the interesting things Gary Taubes' 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' indicate s is how the tension between the uncertainties of a partially-understood sc ience, and the government need to DO SOMETHING, results in policy. It is of course not just in this area that this can be seen...
As for warning labels etc. - why not just educate yourself? Create your own internal warning label 'signs'...
Jon N
Couldn't find a green crayon to write that with, eh?
:-)
Sugar sandwiches were commonplace when I were a lad, with enough butter to stop the sugar falling out
IME some of the best bacon sarnies come from lay-by cafes, so you usually do eat them outside.
Colin Bignell
Ah yes, the old "CHEMICALS" scare.
Isn't one of the current panics about fructose, which is, er, so-named because it is found in fruit?
That was surely Lucozade, no 'G' on the front.
Since the only things the brain consumes are glucose and oxygen, any specification of "insidious danger" is already overstated.
There was a comedian who summed the /actual/ problem up quite well: "This hole here [points at mouth] is bigger than this hole here [points at backside]."
And if the DM brigade get really excited by the whole sugar-is-bad thing, they'll be priapic with pleasure when they discover just how much worse artificial sweeteners are when they're in everything.
Ooooo,, yuuummmmmm..... yeah.
I think I might just go and have one.
It's bad for business if we do the sensible thing and just eat less, so this ridiculous discussion resurfaces every January.
And foul stuff it is as well, I tried some once took a mouthful, could hardly tolerate the "flavour" and threw the rest of the bottle away.
6 teaspoons of sugar and a teaspoon of salt in 1 l of water has a nicer taste.
When the result of everyone doing as they please is widespread health problems requiring the expenditure of large amounts of public money, then its time for government action.
Jim Hawkins
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.