New nutrition labels will reveal how much sugar you’re actually eating

Illustration for article titled New nutrition labels will reveal how much sugar you’re actually eating
Photo: Magone (iStock)
Hot LinksHot LinksWe spend way too much time on the internet

You’ve probably seen the new Nutrition Facts label, which was introduced in 2016. But it’s about to become mandatory, starting on January 1, 2020. The new label emphasizes certain bits of information, like serving sizes and the number of calories per serving. It includes more nutrients; and, most crucially, now includes a listing of “added sugars.” Per the FDA, “Added sugars includes sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such (e.g., a bag of table sugar), and also includes sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices.”

Advertisement

This poses a problem for food manufacturers who won’t be able to hide extra sugar anymore. For example, now a 20-ounce bottle of regular Coca-Cola is considered one serving with 65 grams of added sugars, or 130% of a day’s dose of added sugars. As Chemical And Engineering News reports, “To avoid cringe-worthy labels, food companies are trying to lower sugar levels without using the synthetic sweeteners that consumers have come to distrust.”

C&EN describes a number of other artificial sweeteners food companies have been using to cut down on their use of sugar. It predicts that in the next few years, we will all be consuming a lot more stevia, although since its chemical composition is different from sugar, food manufacturers still have to figure out ways to compensate for the change in structure. A solution may be a new sweetener called allulose that occurs naturally in figs and raisins. The FDA says it won’t be considered a sugar or an added sugar; instead it will appear in the Total Carbohydrates line.

Advertisement

The C&EN story is optimistic about the future of artificial sweeteners. But it seems like if there’s a loophole for nutritional regulations, Big Food will find it. Is it too much to hope that maybe our palates will simply adjust to less sugar?

Aimee Levitt is associate editor of The Takeout.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

boggardlurch
Lurch of the SoCal

Given several more generations, we should see the practical effects of the giant biochemical experiment we’ve embarked upon.

Evolution works. If processed foods, high meat diets etc. all create the drastic mortality rates through cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autism etc. for which they are frequently blamed, the populations that make those the center of their diets should die off at faster rates than those that do not. Those that die do not reproduce further past that point.

Either the ‘crap’ eaters will die off and be replaced by the parts of the population that do not indulge in it, or they won’t. Either way, I’m pretty sure we’ve irrevocably set ourselves on that path.

Of course this may run into some objective interference caused by the simultaneous experiment we’re running with global climate change - THAT one doesn’t isolate by McDonald’s consumption unfortunately, so it may warp the results.