Sugar-Fat Seesaw: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Sadler, Michèle; McNulty, Helene; Gibson, Sigrid

doi:10.1080/10408398.2011.654013

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nutrient analysis revealed that calorie reduction in the formulation was rather insignificant(less than 10%), because the fat proportion increased in the end product. This sugar‐fat seesaw effect has also been shown through a systematic review of dietary intake studies for countries with cultural similarities: United Kingdom, Ireland, other European countries, United States, and Australia (Sadler and others ). This review demonstrated there is a strong and consistent inverse association between total sugars and total fat intakes expressed as percentage energy.…”

Section: Issues With Replacing Added Sugarsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Why Sugar Is Added to Food: Food Science 101

Goldfein

Slavin

2015

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Avoiding too much sugar is an accepted dietary guidance throughout the world. The U.S. Nutrition Facts panel includes information on total sugars in foods. A focus on added sugars is linked to the concept of discretionary calories and decreasing consumption of added sugars or free sugars as a means to assist a consumer to identify foods that are nutrient-dense. On March 14, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposed that including "added sugars" declaration on the Nutrition Facts panel would be another tool to help consumers reduce excessive discretionary calorie intake from added sugars. Through deductive reasoning, labeling added sugars is one tactic to potentially curb the obesity epidemic in the United States. This review discusses the functions of sugar in food and shows that the methods used to replace added sugars in foods can result in no reduction in calorie content or improvement in nutrient density. Without clear benefit to the consumer for added sugars labeling, this review highlights the complex business obstacles, costs, and consumer confusion resulting from the proposed rule.

show abstract

Section: Issues With Replacing Added Sugarsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Why Sugar Is Added to Food: Food Science 101

Goldfein

Slavin

2015

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, in the 1980s and 1990s low-fat diets were frequently recommended to tackle the growing obesity crisis. However, low-fat foods tend to be higher in added sugars, and there is an inverse relationship between the proportion of dietary calories obtained from fat and from sugar (Nguyen, Lin, & Heidenreich, 2016;Sadler, McNulty, & Gibson, 2015). Similarly, herbal tonics are seen as a preferable alternative to animal products but this overlooks the possibility that the plants used may themselves be threatened, for example, species in the genus Coptis are considered an acceptable traditional medicine alternative but at least one is classified as Endangered (Feng et al, 2009;Saha et al, 2015).…”

Section: Success With Alternatives Is Not Guaranteedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking a more nuanced look at behavior change for demand reduction in the illegal wildlife trade

Thomas‐Walters

Veríssimo

Gadsby

et al. 2020

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The illegal wildlife trade threatens the future of many species, and undermines economies and livelihoods. Conservationists have largely responded with supply‐side interventions, such as antipoaching patrols, but these often fail to stem the tide of wildlife trafficking. There is now increasing interest in demand‐side interventions, which seek to lower poaching pressure on sought‐after species by reducing consumer's desire for, and purchase of, specific wildlife products. Individual behavior change approaches, from environmental education to social marketing, have been widely advocated by academics, practitioners, and policy makers. However, this is an emerging field and we lack the breadth of evidence needed to understand and predict the potential outcomes of demand reduction interventions. To help us gain broader insights, we examine the literature from public health and international development on the effectiveness of behavior change interventions, and critique the current conceptualization of strategies for reducing consumer demand in the illegal wildlife trade. We show that behavior change is difficult to achieve and interventions may have unintended and undesirable consequences because of unaddressed systemic, cultural and environmental drivers, and limited resourcing. We conclude that some sections of the conservation community are advocating a shift from one reductionist approach based on limiting supply, to another based on limiting demand, and argue that conservationists should learn from the public health and international development projects that have integrated systems thinking. By accounting for the multiple interactions and synergies between different factors in the wildlife trade, we can develop more strategic approaches to protecting endangered species.

show abstract

“…18 However, only two of the studies examined the relationship in terms of the absolute energy intake derived from sugar and from fat, and both studies showed a positive association. 19,20 The correlation demonstrated (r=0.37) was relatively weak; 20 consistent with our findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%