Maple, honey producers not sweet on Food and Drug Administration requiring added sugars label

[OriZ 3,157]

EAST MONTPELIER, Vt. — Producers of pure maple syrup and honey aren't sweet on a plan to label their pure natural products as containing added sugars.

They say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's upcoming requirement to update nutrition labels to tell consumers that pure maple syrup and honey contain added sugars is misleading, illogical and confusing and could hurt their industries.

"There are no added sugars. Maple is a pure product," said U.S. Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, the country's leading maple producing state.

Others from Vermont's congressional delegation joined Welch at a press conference Tuesday. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and a representative from Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders' office were also there with some maple producers to discuss their plan to fight the FDA requirement.

Welch said that many consumers don't want added sugars, which makes them think of corn syrup or other un-natural elements.

"They want pure products," the Democrat said, "nothing more so than maple syrup."

Tom Morse, of Morse Farm Maple Sugarworks in Montpelier, notes that maple syrup comes right from trees and producers refine it to keep the quality high.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/food/2018/05/01/maple-honey-producers-fda-added-sugars-label/571398002/

 

THEY WANT IT TO SAY 'ADDED SUGAR' EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO ADDED SUGAR IN IT 

 

When the government asks you to lie for it...

[Dashinka 24,653]

Nature added the sugars right?

 

[bcking 3,157]

There is also no "added" sugar because it is literally all sugar. 

 

Though I think the average level of nutrition education in the USA would make most of us quite sad. In Residency I worked in a community outreach program once a month in New York, it was an 8 week program for families focusing on healthy nutrition for their children. It was surprising how many people didn't understand that things like fruit juice is sugar.

Even now I cringe when I hear the adds for "juice cleanses" on the radio as if they are some super health craze. Drink all sugar for 5 days straight? Ya that's a great idea...

[OriZ 3,157]

56 minutes ago, bcking said:

There is also no "added" sugar because it is literally all sugar. 

 

Though I think the average level of nutrition education in the USA would make most of us quite sad. In Residency I worked in a community outreach program once a month in New York, it was an 8 week program for families focusing on healthy nutrition for their children. It was surprising how many people didn't understand that things like fruit juice is sugar.

Even now I cringe when I hear the adds for "juice cleanses" on the radio as if they are some super health craze. Drink all sugar for 5 days straight? Ya that's a great idea...

'contains natural sugar' would be a much more appropriate label. 'added sugar' is simply a lie. If people think the premium, authentic products have added sugar, they'll just buy the cheaper ones they already knew have added sugar, and the producers won't be able to charge a premium for a much better product. it's ridiculous imo.

Edited June 7, 2018 by OriZ

[Dashinka 24,653]

16 minutes ago, OriZ said:

'contains natural sugar' would be a much more appropriate label. 'added sugar' is simply a lie. If people think the premium, authentic products have added sugar, they'll just buy the cheaper ones they already knew have added sugar, and the producers won't be able to charge a premium for a much better product. it's ridiculous imo.

What I don't understand is why there is a need to use the verb "added" to the labeling requirements.  Simply state that an item contains sugar and the honey and syrup guys can also state their pure and natural adjectives and charge their premiums.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

What I don't understand is why there is a need to use the verb "added" to the labeling requirements.  Simply state that an item contains sugar and the honey and syrup guys can also state their pure and natural adjectives and charge their premiums.

 

      Many people want to know the difference between a product with naturally occuring sugar (ie. yoghurt with 5g of sugar per serving) and a product that has been artificially sweetened (ie. yoghurt with 15g of sugar per serving). It is important information for those who want or need to know it. That being mostly people who want or need to avoid excess sugar.

 

   To me, it seems kind of silly to label added sugars to a product that doesn't have any. There's enough BS labelling go on already. 

[Dashinka 24,653]

14 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      Many people want to know the difference between a product with naturally occuring sugar (ie. yoghurt with 5g of sugar per serving) and a product that has been artificially sweetened (ie. yoghurt with 15g of sugar per serving). It is important information for those who want or need to know it. That being mostly people who want or need to avoid excess sugar.

 

   To me, it seems kind of silly to label added sugars to a product that doesn't have any. There's enough BS labelling go on already. 

I don't disagree with that, but then have a "contains sugar" and "contains added sugar" callout to show the difference. 

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      Many people want to know the difference between a product with naturally occuring sugar (ie. yoghurt with 5g of sugar per serving) and a product that has been artificially sweetened (ie. yoghurt with 15g of sugar per serving). It is important information for those who want or need to know it. That being mostly people who want or need to avoid excess sugar.

 

   To me, it seems kind of silly to label added sugars to a product that doesn't have any. There's enough BS labelling go on already. 

People need to avoid excess sugar, whether it is added or naturally occurring. 

 

But yes I agree overall that honey and syrup should just say "contains naturally occurring sugar" or something.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

What I don't understand is why there is a need to use the verb "added" to the labeling requirements.  Simply state that an item contains sugar and the honey and syrup guys can also state their pure and natural adjectives and charge their premiums.

Exactly, in Israel most 100% juice has a label saying "contains natural sugar" that makes the most sense imo. Between totally asinine SEC regulations that make us the laughing stock of even the most liberal European countries, and silly FDA directives, it's clear the US government is completely out of control. Not sure what happened to small government and it doesn't even seem to matter which party is in charge. We need some real constitutionalists. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

38 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I don't disagree with that, but then have a "contains sugar" and "contains added sugar" callout to show the difference. 

   

  They already do that. The current nutritional guidlines list "sugars", followed by "added sugars". 

 

   The point they are making is something like pure honey does not have added sugar. It might be 100% sugar, but all the sugar is naturally occuring. The ingredients would still list the total amount of sugar. 

 

  On the other hand cereal might list 15g of sugar per serving, followed by 12g of added sugar, which tells you that the cereal itself has about 3g of naturally occurring sugar per serving, and the manufacturer adds 12g to sweeten it up.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

57 minutes ago, bcking said:

People need to avoid excess sugar, whether it is added or naturally occurring. 

 

But yes I agree overall that honey and syrup should just say "contains naturally occurring sugar" or something.

 

   Added sugars is often where they sneak the HFCS in. Generally when the value for added sugars is "0", you are getting sugar that occurs naturally in a product. With milk, for example, you are getting lactose occuring naturally. If there are no added sugars listed, you can be relatively confident that is what you are getting.

 

  Added sugars becomes more of a guessing game. You have to look down the ingredient list to see what they have added. I don't want sugar added to my milk, so a quick scan of the label tells me what I'm getting. Any value for "added sugar" goes back on the shelf.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Steeleballz

[bcking 3,157]

17 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Added sugars is often where they sneak the HFCS in. Generally when the value for added sugars is "0", you are getting sugar that occurs naturally in a product. With milk, for example, you are getting lactose occuring naturally. If there are no added sugars listed, you can be relatively confident that is what you are getting.

 

  Added sugars becomes more of a guessing game. You have to look down the ingredient list to see what they have added. I don't want sugar added to my milk, so a quick scan of the label tells me what I'm getting. Any value for "added sugar" goes back on the shelf.

Ya that's great and if every American did that I think we would be moving in the right direction in terms of healthier diets.

 

I just meant that we should really take it one step further. Just because there is "no added sugars" doesn't make something healthy. Healthier than something with added sugars? Sure, but sugar/carbohydrates are still the least nutritionally important component of our diet (compared to protein and fat).

 

100% juice can have "no added sugar", but that doesn't mean you should drink it all day.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

We as humans (and certainly more so as Americans) eat far too much sugar generally, I believe.  But if one just has to eat sweets, of course honey is healthier than processed sugar.  Digesting it uses more calories than sugar, and less is typically stored as fat when not needed. 

Natural honey is 100% sugar with nothing added, but is there really a need to put that on a label?

More:

Your body breaks food down into glucose in order to use it for fuel. The more complex a food — namely a carbohydrate — is, the more work it takes to break it down. Sugar is made of 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, the sugar typically found in fruits, and is broken down very easily, leading to a surge of blood glucose. What your body doesn’t use right away gets stored as fat. Honey is also made mostly of sugar, but it’s only about 30 percent glucose and less than 40 percent fructose. And there are also about 20 other sugars in the mix, many of which are much more complex, and dextrin, a type of starchy fiber. This means that your body expends more energy to break it all down to glucose. Therefore, you end up accumulating fewer calories from it.

 

Honey also has trace elements in it — stuff that bees picked up while going from plant to plant. These will depend on region, so depending on the source of your honey it could have varying small amounts of minerals like zinc and selenium, as well as some vitamins. And because honey doesn’t break down in nature, it doesn’t contain preservatives or other additives.

[bcking 3,157]

Sugar is not "made of 50% glucose and fructose" - Both glucose (dextrose) and fructose are both sugars.

 

I think you (or whatever you copy/pasted) meant table sugar, which is sucrose (a disaccharide composed of 1 glucose molecule and 1 fructose molecule).

Edited June 7, 2018 by bcking

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yes, the descriptive was delineating the difference between common sugar and honey. Which is exactly the ratio you re-posted.