World Health Organisation slashes recommended daily sugar intake

TIMES VIEW

Scientific method works

The UN's World Health Organization (WHO) is proposing new draft guidelines that recommend people should consume less than 5% of their total daily calories from sugar, down from 10% according to current guidelines. The new guidelines mean not more than 25 grams or 6 teaspoons a day for an adult of normal body mass index. WHO's advocacy on sugar is in response to the growing incidence of non-communicable disease and obesity. Its recommendations are based on collation of extensive research. This approach is based on the scientific method, which has been the basis for all improvements in human health outcomes in the last couple of centuries.

Advocacy on sugar intake comes from identifying behavioural risk factors to a healthy and productive life. An unhealthy diet is a key risk factor and the extent of sugar intake is closely linked to it. Increasingly, as processed food comes to exercise dominance over our diet, sugar is consumed in insidious ways. For instance, WHO says one tablespoon of ketchup contains as much as one teaspoon of sugar. This kind of information is not widely known and WHO's advocacy plays an important role in raising the level of public awareness.

Following a scientific method does not imply that guidelines are definitive. Research will continue to push the envelope and subsequent conclusions will depend on new findings. But in the meantime it is WHO's job to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge, even if this isn't to the liking of the food industry. Information is power. Advocacy based on research has had beneficial spin-offs. For instance, once public awareness increases, it may trigger a demand for enhanced transparency and finer detailing of ingredients in food products. It could also lead to the invention of healthier alternatives to sugar. This can only be for the public good.

COUNTERVIEW

Take it with a pinch of salt

The warning on the consumption of sugar and the need to cut down use of the stuff has to be taken with a pinch of salt. After all it is only the most recent in the long list of products of daily use that have been labelled dangerous. Of late it has become such a fashion for health authorities, multilateral agencies and even independent establishments to bring out innumerable warnings based on so-called scientific studies, that it has become impossible to take them seriously any more. Very often these studies made by different agencies bring out unconvincing and even contradictory results.

Thus we find that while some studies extol virtues of white wines over red another set would argue quite to the contrary. Similarly, while some bring out the positive health impact of having coffee many others would focus on the medicinal impact of drinking tea or the benefits of regular consumption of alcohol in small doses. The mess created by such unilateral pronouncements is best brought out in the case of GM food. In this case while the US Food and Drug Administration finds nothing harmful in its consumption, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine argues physicians to issue health warnings on its use while the World Health Organisation calls for safety assessments on a product by product basis.

While too many such warnings leave the consumer confused, crying wolf too often also ensures that there will be little vigilance when a real threat emerges. In many cases recurring warnings have an impact opposite to what is intended. Consumers habitually forewarned about intake of red meat, oil laced snacks, salty processed food, pesticide laden vegetables and fruits, alcohol, tobacco and soft drugs slowly develop immunity against alarmist views, consuming more of these very products with added gusto.