This Post Might Help Save Your Life Today-- Sugar Really Does Kill

When I was diagnosed with cancer, the very first thing my doctor told me was that he could save my life but that I had to stop eating sugar. He asked me if I was willing. I agreed. There was a lot more after that, but stopping sugar consumption was the first step. Good news: there are healthy sweeteners-- replacements-- that are just as good, if not better: stevia, honey, fruit, agave... Bad news: like the tobacco industry, the sugar industry isn't giving up without a fight. Yesterday Business Insider covered a new report you might want to read before sitting down to dinner tonight.

For decades, sugar lobbyists have been taking aim at studies linking sugar and cancer.

When a study last year found that mice on sugar-heavy diets were more likely to develop breast cancer, the Sugar Association, one of the biggest sugar lobbying groups in the US, called it “sensationalized.” The group insists that “no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established.”

But doctors and researchers claim the sugar industry may have been intentionally keeping research about that link from getting published.  A new study in the journal PLOS Biology reveals how the Sugar Association worked to suppress scientific findings on the harmful effects of table sugar on rodents nearly 50 years ago.

The report details the results of two unpublished studies, known as Project 259, which were funded by the sugar lobby in the late 1960s. Both involved research on the effects of feeding sugar to rats.

In the first study, one group of rats was fed a balanced diet of cereal, beans, fish and yeast, while the other rats were given a high-sugar diet. The researchers found that the sugar eaters were at greater risk for strokes, heart attacks and heart disease, and had higher-than-normal levels of fat (triglycerides) in their blood.

The second study compared sugar-fed rats with starch-fed rats and found that the sugar-eating rodents were more likely to have elevated levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer in humans.

None of that rodent research saw the light of day, though. The Sugar Research Foundation cut Project 259 short and didn’t publish any of the results.

"Our study contributes to a wider body of literature documenting industry manipulation of science," the researchers, who hail from the University of California San Francisco, wrote in their report.

In a statement, the Sugar Association denied that allegation, saying the new study is just "a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry."

"We reviewed our research archives and found documentation that the study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings: the study was significantly delayed; it was consequently over budget; and the delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring," the group said.

Not cocaine, not heroin-- more dangerous

But this is not the first time we’ve learned that ‘big sugar’ has gotten in the way of science. L ast year, some of the same researchers  found that the Sugar Research Foundation-- the former name of the Sugar Association-- paid off three Harvard scientists in 1967 to make sugar seem less unhealthy and suggest that fat was the problem in our diets instead.

"The kind of manipulation of research is similar to what the tobacco industry does," study co-author Stanton Glantz said in a release.

Decades of research on sugar since Project 259 have linked sugar consumption to a glut of serious health problems, including high cholesterol, heart disease, and kidney disease, to name a few.  Recent research also suggests that sugar may play a role in tumor growth, but scientists don't think it makes cancer grow faster, and still aren't certain whether sugar consumption has any link to cancer formation.

After years of fueling up on high-sugar, low fat foods, consumers are finally becoming wise to the problems with sugar that were hidden for so many years. And t he US Food and Drug Administration is, too-- by  2021 , all nutrition labels will have to include the percent daily value of added sugars for the first time, while the "calories from fat" column will get scrubbed.

Healthy eating, especially in schools, shouldn't be a political hot potato. But it is... very much so. Anyplace where vested interests and big money collide with progress you can count on an explosion. And few groups short of Wall Street, the Medical Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Complex have been as adapt as AgriBusiness in molding public policy to its own special interests. Since 1990 Big Sugar-- one component of AgriBusiness-- has poured $44,757,434 into congressional races. In addition, Big Sugar has spent an astronomical $8,895,736 on lobbying this year alone! And they're very strategic with their investments. Although they're on both sides of the aisle, most of their money goes to Republicans, Blue Dogs and other corrupt conservative Democrats. Big Sugar's contributions, thinly veiled bribes, have amounted to $25,136,746 for Democrats and $19,370,071 for Republicans. The bribes taken since 1990 by the ten biggest sugar whores currently serving in the House:

• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $476,877
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $291,500
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $261,000
• Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $233,750
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $222,050
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- $197,299
• Sandy Levin (D-MI)- $174,521
• Tim Walz (D-MN)- $161,500
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $157,400
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $148,450

So far this cycle, Big Sugar has added 9 members to their list of the biggest congressional bribe takers: Donald Bacon (R-NE), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Jason Lewis (R-MN), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Rodney Davis (R-IL).

Sugar Kills-- But Congress Is Addicted To Sugar Industry Bribes, So...

Not cocaine, not heroin... but just as deadly

Lamb's Grill in Salt Lake City bills itself as "Utah's Oldest Most Famous Restaurant," which it is. At the time the Mormans massacred Christians at Mountain Meadows there were no restaurants in the territory that 4 decades later became the sugar-addicted Beehive State. It wasn't for another couple decades after that that Lamb's was founded (1919). It's menu is as American as apple pie, which they serve ($2.25, add $1.25 for a la Mode). They serve old classics that have largely disappeared from restaurant menus-- Finnian Haddie with a boiled potato, Fresh baby Beef Liver, 2 Jumbo Frankfurters with a choice of potato salad, home-style baked beans or sauerkraut... and desserts to die for, especially a 5-layer chocolate cake. And if you eat enough of it, you will die. It's full of sugar, probably the biggest cause of death among Americans, bare none. Not just Utahns. It's especially bad for the poor Mormons who can't drink alcohol, tea or coffee and wind up overdoing it in the sugar department big time. If you know anyone in Mormonville you probably know someone insane about candy-- as well as someone with severe if not debilitating candidiasis.

The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.

The "glycemic index" is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.

One of sugar's major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.

An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body's blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you're making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.


...Here's a list of ways sugar can affect your health:

• Sugar can suppress the immune system.

• Sugar can upset the body's mineral balance.

• Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.

• Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.

• Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.

• Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).

• Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).

• Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.

• Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.

• Sugar can cause kidney damage.

• Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.

• Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.

• Sugar can cause copper deficiency.

• Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.

• Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.

• Sugar can promote tooth decay.

• Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.

• Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children.

• Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.

• Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.

• Sugar can increase total cholesterol.

• Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.

• High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

• Sugar can contribute to diabetes
.
• Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis
.
• Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity
.
• Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.

• Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.

• Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.

• Sugar causes food allergies.

• Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.

• Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.

• Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.

• Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.

• Sugar can cause atherosclerosis
.
• Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.

• Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.

• Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.

• Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.

• Sugar can cause depression.

• Sugar can increase the body's fluid retention.

• Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.

• Sugar can cause hypertension.

• Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.

• Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves, which can alter the mind's ability to think clearly.

• Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of blood clots and strokes.

• Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.

• Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon.

In the western hemisphere approximately 75% of females are affected at some time in their life with candida, a yeast infection usually associated with too much sugar. There's no reason to assume that men are any less impacted.

You've probably guessed by now that we're not big Obama fans here at DWT-- as Krugman articulated so well over the weekend, the Incredible Shrinking President seems "willing, even eager, to join up with Republicans in cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age so he can look-- for the jackasses and vultures Inside-the-Beltway-- like a "Very Serious Person." Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is someone we do admire around here. She's not trying to look like a Very Serious Person (the way right wing nutjob Katie O'Beirne is. She's just trying to do the work of one-- saving America's school children from the sugar scourge.

Over the weekend my favorite follower of the cash in politics, OpenSecret.org did a little look at what the Sugar Industry does with it's political money. I felt like Christmas had come early!

Sugar is the only industry in the entire agribusiness sector that has consistently supported Democrats during the past two decades. Sugar cane is grown in southern states such as Florida, while sugar beets are primarily grown in the upper Midwest and Great Plains and converted into a number of sugar products.

Individuals and political action committees associated with the sugar industry have contributed nearly $32.8 million since 1990, with about 60 percent going to Democrats. During the 2008 campaign cycle, the industry contributed more than $4.2 million, with 65 percent going to Democrats.

The top contributor by far was American Crystal Sugar, whose PAC contributed about $1.8 million to federal candidates during the 2008 cycle, with more than 60 percent going to Democrats [overwhelmingly to Blue Dogs].

On the lobbying front, the sugar industry spent $7.5 million in 2009, up from $4.5 million just two years before. The majority of the sugar industry’s lobbying expenditures come from three groups, and much of the increase in the industry’s lobbying can be attributed to their spending habits.

...One of the most important issues to the industry is U.S. trade policy, particularly treaties like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which the industry claims cause it serious economic harm. Sugar producers have also been fighting the imposition of government subsidies, unlike much of the agribusiness sector. Currently, sugar is still profitable without subsidies, and the industry fears it may lose political clout if it receives government assistance.

The top 10 recipients currently serving in the House of thinly disguised bribes from Big Sugar include 5 Blue Dogs, 3 Republicans and 2 normal Democrats:

Charlie Melancon (defeated Blue Dog-LA)- $269,017
Earl Pomeroy (defeated Blue Dog-ND)- $268,428
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $261,595
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $172,250
Allen Boyd (defeated Blue Dog-FL)- $163,735
Dave Camp (R-MI)- $149,030
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- $139,450
Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $135,750
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- $130,299
Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $122,000

As I've said many times before, the Blue Dog caucus has controlled food policy in America for a very long time, much to the detriment of Americans. In the 2010 cycle almost all the biggest recipients of Sugar sugar are either extremely conservative-- like Blanche Lincoln, Dave Camp and Walt Minnick-- or extremely corrupt-- like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

I just stumbled across this. It's the best anti-candida video evah... and so much better than this limp Republican garbage: