Nohr 1

Emily Nohr
Professor Cynthia Hamlet
English 102 Section 15
4 October 2015
Fruct Up: Americas Undisclosed Sugar Addiction
The unsweet truth is that in 1822, the average American consumed 45 grams of sugar
every five days; we now consume this in just one can of soda. In 2012, Americans consumed 765
grams of sugar every five days, 17 times more than in 1822 (Nursing Your Sweet Tooth).
Through lobbying and the use of propaganda, the food industry has been marketing junk food as
health food, distorting facts, and deceiving the public as a means to increase sale and profits. At
the same time, the obesity epidemic, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease
are at their highest rates. The ways in which the corporate American food industry communicates
information about health and products is highly unethical, leaving consumers misinformed and
unaware about the massive amounts of sugar present in processed foods and its detrimental
consequences affecting the populations health. With Big Food having such a strong hold on the
different informational platforms throughout the nation, there is no doubt as to why Americans
are uninformed about todays food and the high volumes of sugar we are ingesting every day.
Before grabbing from the big bag of propaganda tricks, the food industry uses its power
and huge bank account to directly influence what nutritional information makes it into the
mainstream media. In 2002, the World Health Organization, or WHO, was in the process of
releasing a document which emphasized the restriction of sugar, directly associating it with
chronic metabolic diseases and obesity. The outraged sugar industry went straight to Washington
and successfully won governmental support. The US administration stated that such a document

Nohr 2
was too hard on the industry. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services at the
time, went to the World Health Organization in Geneva and shamelessly told them if the
document was published, the United States $406 million contribution would be withheld.
Subsequently the sugar recommendation was deleted from the published document (Soechtig).
The WHO still suggests lowering ones daily amount of consumed sugar, just in a more polite
manner. Participating in actions such as these shows the blatant disregard that the American food
industry has for the health of consumers. The goal of food companies is to sell product, and in
doing so nutrition is a factor not often taken under consideration.
The recommended sugar intake by the World Health Organization is no more than six
teaspoons of free sugar per day for women and nine for men, or ten percent of calories from
the daily diet. Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and
disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to food and drinks and sugars naturally
present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates (WHO). Despite this report, sugar
lobbyists recommend 25 percent, which is two and half times the scientific recommendations
from the WHO. Because these two numbers are largely different from one another and because it
is in the best interest of our government to protect the sugar industry, the nutritional label of
every product is missing key information. Nutritional labels include the governments
recommended daily amount of various nutrients listed as a percentage, except for in the sugars
field (Moss 22). This may seem strange and questionable, but the answer is very simple.
Processed food products and beverages contain so much sugar that if the consumer knew just one
soda exceeds the recommended daily sugar intake, sales would significantly drop. Deterring
from the amounts of sugar in products confirms that it must be something worth hiding, yet the
issue is continuously swept aside. As these corporations can only push so far within the

Nohr 3
legislation, the propaganda comes into play to further aide in the manipulation of consumers
about products and nutrition.
With a masters in English, Donna Woolfolk Cross has dedicated her lifes work to
informing others of how language is used as a tool to persuade and manipulate. Her essay
Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled gives way to the tricks propagandists use to coax
audiences. Many of the mentioned devices are evident in the food industrys own advertising,
labeling and nutritional information. Card stacking, a term defined in Crosss book is when one
selection of facts is used to support a claim without considering or mentioning all other
oppositions (Cross 217-18). When using such a device, there is no balance of the argument and
the audience can miss key information. Card stacking is being put to use when labels mention
claims such as Low-Fat or Made from Real Fruit. While these assertions may be true, the
entire picture is not being presented accurately.
The majority of the low-fat and fat-free products found on grocery store shelves contain
more sugar than the original product. When food began being re-engineered in the 1970s to
remove the fat, the resulting product was unpalatable that to compensate sugar was added to
maintain calories and flavor (Gameau). Since the low-fat craze started in 1970, Americans have
doubled their daily intake of sugar (Soechtig). Another popular statement made on labels is
Made from Real Fruit. Unfortunately there are not many regulations for using such claims.
Juice concentrate is made through an industrial process that is highly variable, including
peeling the fruit...extracting the juice from the pulpremoving the bitter compounds; adjusting
the sweetness through varietal blending; and evaporating the water out of the juice (Moss 134).
At the most extreme level, the fruit is turned into pure sugar, essentially making that cup of fruit
juice the same as a glass of soda. Card stacking is so prominent in how Big Food tricks people

Nohr 4
into buying their products. No High Fructose Corn Syrup just means one of sixty other forms
of sugar has been used and the words Natural or Whole Grain are only included to divert
attention from the rest of the ingredients. For big businesses, adding these claims is only another
way to lure new potential customers, those trying to be healthy but are uneducated on the
subject. Trust is misplaced into the hands of the industry and while we assume they are watching
out for our health, the truth is they are only watching the money flowing into their accounts.
With the ways in which companies intentionally mislead consumers, it is not surprising
that Americans are consuming such high amounts of sugar. Following the WHOs suggested six
teaspoons a day of added sugars seems like a reasonably easy amount to maintain until you
realize that out of the 600,000 food products available on the shelves of markets across the
nation, 80% of them contain added sugar. Unfortunately, the daunting reality is that the average
American consumes roughly 41 teaspoons of sugar per day, nearly seven times the daily
recommended value (Soechtig). Maintaining such a minimal amount of sugar becomes difficult
when it is present in the most available and convenient foods. It can become even more
challenging when products are misrepresented through advertising or when health information is
improperly publicized through the mouths of these giant food corporations.
Testimonials, another propaganda tactic, influences what foods are bought and effects the
information that is delivered to the public. Many reports and scientific research done with results
that favor Big Food just so happens to also be funded by these same companies. Sponsors of
nutrition journals include such companies as Coca-Cola, Gerber, Nestle/Carnation, Monsanto,
Proctor & Gamble, Roche Vitamins, Slim-Fast Foods, and the Sugar Association (Nestle 113).
All of these companies produce questionable and highly controversial products, yet they are the
ones supporting nutritional journals which theoretically should be condemning what is being

Nohr 5
produced by these sponsors. In 2009 the American Academy of Family Physicians accepted a
$500,000 donation and partnered with Coca-Cola. While 20 doctors publicly resigned, many
others, such as Dr. David Allison continued their research. While accepting over $2.5 million
from Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the American Beverage Association it is no surprise that while
various other studies directly link sugary beverages to obesity, Dr. Allison has stated there is not
enough solid evidence showing such a relationship (Soechtig). In fact, the majority, if not all
industry-funded research shows the opposite of any study that negatively associates health and
one of the companys products. In using testimonials from those who are affected by the
corporations and the information released, academic and professional integrity is being corrupted
and so is the information that we are being taught about nutrition and food products.
Big Food intentionally overlooks sugar as the main culprit for obesity, putting the
blame on calories instead. Many food and beverage labels proudly announce the low amount of
calories found in any given product. This is all part of a marketing plan that involves yet another
propaganda trick known as Glittering Generalities. Donna Woolfolk explains glittering
generalities as [trying] to get us to accept and agree without examining the evidence (Cross
210-11). Glittering generalities are being used when we hear the slogans and phrases You Are
What You Eat, A Calorie is a Calorie or Energy Balance (calories in must match calories
out), all of which emphasize that calories count. This simply is not true. In the documentary That
Sugar Film, Damon Gameau replaces his whole foods diet with foods that are marketed as
healthy but contain large amounts of hidden sugar. He tested the theory of counting calories and
the results showed that he was actually consuming less calories per day than when on his regular
whole foods diet. Yet within six weeks, Damon had gained 15 pounds and at least eight
centimeters around his waist. Obviously not all calories are the same because nutrient rich foods

Nohr 6
and vegetables contain fiber and other essential properties that allow food to be processed more
efficiently within our bodies. So when Coca-Cola released an advertisement stating that All
calories count, no matter where they come from, including Coca-Cola [beverages] they are
clearly stretching the truth, selling a message contrary to the science (Soechtig).
Misrepresenting critical nutritional information as such should be a crime, not just a selling
point.
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, protection is granted to
ones freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Since corporations are considered to be legal
persons, the first amendment has been the alleged rationale for reluctance to regulate
marketing of junk foodFor decadesthis protection [has applied] to commercial speech
advertising and marketingas much as to political, artistic, and religious speech (Nestle 383).
While corporations are allowed to exercise freedom of speech they should be doing so in an
ethical manner, promoting products which are truly healthy and giving honest nutritional advice
that does not conflict with leading scientific expertise. Freedom of speech is not the only
argument used to justify corporate actions, because consumers also have the freedom of choice.
It is easy for the industry to put the blame for obesity directly on the consumer; they are
the ones purchasing and eating themselves into oblivion, correct? They play this card that it is
the individuals fault for being fat and lacking the self-control to eat junk food in moderation. It
becomes a conflicting message when avoiding these products is nearly impossible due to the
billions of dollars spent every year in advertising which literally tells us to do the opposite and
indulge. The truth of the matter is that sugar has been found to be eight times more addictive
than cocaine. Studies have shown that the human brain lights up with sugar similarly to how it
does with drugs such as heroin and cocaine. In one study, which was conducted over a fifteen

Nohr 7
day period, cocaine addicted laboratory rats were given the option of either more cocaine or
sugar water. 40 of the 43 lab rats chose the water over cocaine. Other studies have shown that
rats on sugar water diets display immediate and obvious signs of addiction, including binging,
craving and withdrawal (Soechtig). As more sugar is being added to products all across grocery
stores, people are unknowingly becoming addicted to processed food. Consumers are not solely
to blame for obesity, for the industry has much more control and responsibility in the matter than
they like to take credit for.
As Americas rate of sugar consumption increases, so do the adverse health effects
wreaking havoc on the population. Sugar is not the only culprit in todays health issues, but it has
been identified as the major one. Evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars
have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is
associated with a weight increase. In addition, research shows that children with the highest
intakes of sugar-sweetened drinks are more likely to be overweight or obese than children with a
low intake of sugar-sweetened drinks (WHO). Eating vast amounts of sugar also leaves you
feeling continuously hungry and craving more, which is why so many individuals are overfed.
Overeating causes its own set of health problems; it deranges metabolism, makes people
overweight, and increases the likelihood of chronic diseases coronary heart disease, certain
cancers, diabetes, hypertension, stroke and [many] others (Nestle 3). In 1980, the number of
adolescents with Type 2 Diabetes was zero, in 2010 is soared to over 57,500 (Soechtig). If
paying attention, it all becomes so obvious sugar is playing a part in this epidemic and it needs
to be attended to.
Consumers do have the freedom of choice, and it is time that freedom is used more
wisely. While some of the tricks being used to seduce us are subtle, awareness is key in being

Nohr 8
able to not fall for them (Moss 346). Everything is engineered and presented to be more alluring
and thinking critically is the most important defense we have in staying healthy. The ways in
which food industry practices distort what Americans are told about nutritionand compromise
food choicesraise serious issues that are worth consideration by anyone concerned about
nutrition and health (Nestle XIV).

Nohr 9
Works Cited
Cross, Donna Woolfolk. "Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled." Language Awareness:
Readings for College Writers. Ed. Karen S. Henry. 11. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's,
1977. 209-219. Print.
Fed Up. Dir. Stephanie Soechtig. Perf. Katie Couric. Atlas Films. 2014. DVD.
Moss, Michael. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. New York: Random House,
2013. Print.
Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Print.
Nursing Your Sweet Tooth. onlinenursingprograms.com. Web.
That Sugar Film. Dir. Damon Gameau. Madman Production Company. 2014. DVD.
WHO. WHO Calls On Countries to Reduce Sugars Intake Among Adults and Children. 4 March
2015. Web. 19 September 2015.