Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

andyarlo t1_j4amwao wrote

If people reduced their sugar consumption by 90% we could save billions in healthcare costs.

37

kirpid t1_j4deri4 wrote

Something else just as expensive would get them a few years later.

0

WimbleWimble t1_j4d6d5v wrote

the entire post is "what if we all became sugar-sorcerors and could make sugar somehow 500,000 billion times sweeter." ?

**Most nutrition experts today will agree on at least one thing: that sugar should be treated as a poison in every respect. ** Yes I remember the warnings. Even a single teaspoon of sugar in your tea causes you to explode with 3x the power of the Hiroshima bomb.

10s of billions of people explode every single day because of eating a mars bar, or licking the spoon when making a cake.

Final thought - if this university has "solved" sugar, why doesn't it sell the tech right now for 100s of billions in USD. Every single food manufacturer on earth would be in a bidding frenzy, as they'd essentially conquer the entire market for food within a few months.

−13

BroodPlatypus t1_j4anu4u wrote

Is no one here excited for this breakthrough? Sure it might only be a step in the process but it seems like the sugar problem is being addressed seriously by entrepreneurs which only leads to quicker and more iterative development of the technology space!

26

TheSecretAgenda t1_j4ca2p3 wrote

Corn and Sugar lobby will never allow it to see the light of day.

Cane sugar prices are already artificially high due to government corruption.

https://fee.org/articles/why-americans-pay-triple-the-world-price-for-sugar/

18

BroodPlatypus t1_j4d2kty wrote

I think it could go the same route as electric vehicles where it’s niche until every food company realizes it’s missing out on market share due to one superstar company. Also it could just reach America last. This company is in Israel, might be a little out of the clutches of American lobbyists.

6

TheSecretAgenda t1_j4dw2x0 wrote

American Crystal or ADM will just buy them,

1

BroodPlatypus t1_j4ecr86 wrote

If this was my company and my patent, I would recognize what I have and reject offers to stifle the company. Deciding the benefit to mankind outweighs a big pay day. I would think someone who moved from microprocessors into vitamins would also be altruistic enough to come to the same conclusion.

1

Orc_ t1_j4khid4 wrote

> Corn and Sugar lobby will never allow it to see the light of day.

And the oil lobby will never allow EVs!!! conspiracies! conspiracies all around me !!

nutjob, take your meds

0

cyberfugue t1_j49u9vs wrote

In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women.

18

SaiyanrageTV t1_j49vv0e wrote

The wild women, the wild women...the rippin' and the tearin', the rippin' and the tearin'.

2

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j49s23n wrote

No paywall, https://archive.ph/VJVs3

Most nutrition experts today will agree on at least one thing: that sugar should be treated as a poison in every respect. It’s addictive and its excessive consumption is considered one of the primary causes of a variety of this era’s most widespread diseases, notably diabetes and obesity. But what if it were possible to render food astonishingly sweet with the use of only a very small amount of sugar, just a few granules. What if the amount of sugar in familiar foods could be reduced by 90 percent or more, yet leave the sweetness unchanged. And what if that sweetness were produced without any chemical intervention, without artificial substances, without engineered components, with no fine print, and no aftertaste? Well, this product actually exists and is in fact manufactured in Israel.

5

basedmeds t1_j4b5gh6 wrote

This reads like a marketing piece.

>Most nutrition experts today will agree on at least one thing: that sugar should be treated as a poison in every respect.

Really? I sincerely doubt that. Glucose metabolism plays a critical role in things like brain function. Even though our brain accounts for only about 2% of body weight, it consumes about 20% of glucose-derived energy (source).

Yes, certain forms of sugar intake are proven to be harmful. Sugar-sweetened beverages can increase risk of (particularly rectal) cancer and diabetes. Fructose may be even worse than sucrose.

Instead of calling sugar the devil, people should receive more education about responsible sugar intake. Eating (or worse, drinking) something that is high in sugar but low in overall calories (especially by itself) can wreak havoc on our insulin sensitivity and lead to health issues down the line.

I feel like a lot of developments in dietary science are posited as cheap one-liners that find a way to make every macro nutrient beside protein into the devil, scaring people more towards disordered eating instead of a balanced diet.

4

craeftsmith t1_j4c0glt wrote

Overall, you are on the right track. I want to add that sucrose (table sugar) is made up of a glucose molecule attached to a fructose molecule. One of the things saliva does is to separate the glucose from the fructose.

Fructose is the main sugar found in fruit (thus its name). It isn't correct to uniformly say fructose is bad for you. It's the type of sugar people mostly consumed before sucrose became available.

Here is a reasonably reputable link that describes everything in more detail

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructose#absorption-and-use

At the bottom, they talk about how the presence of glucose increases the rate of fructose absorption, which is likely to be the actual problem, as opposed to fructose itself.

3

texas-playdohs t1_j4bh62l wrote

But it’s not high in sugar, low in calories. It’s the same sugar, just finely powdered, and mixed in oil. For sure it’s PR, but I think you might’ve missed the point of the article.

2

basedmeds t1_j4bk5ag wrote

I see their point - but it stands to reason that the global sugar problem is based on the volume consumed and the effects that has on the human ingesting it. The reason there is so much sugar in products is not because it tastes sweeter, but because it elicits a certain response from the human body in those volumes.

If it was just about taste, sauces might all contain sweeteners. They don't, because the sugar volume enhances the effect. The 'bliss point' manufacturers target won't shift thanks to this product because the underlying physiology the manufacturers are abusing are sensitive to the volume of actual sugar-like substances, not the perceived sweetness.

As such, I find the idea that this product could be some miracle solution sort of laughable. I'd love to be wrong on this one though, the effects of all of those additives really is a huge driving factor in global health problems.

I mean yes - if this could make lower-sugar foods more palatable, that could have great effects. They also allude to that in the article. My main gripe is that the entire article is written as if the inventor is some sort of mythical superhero who just fixed a global problem in one fell swoop.

2

texas-playdohs t1_j4bmvk2 wrote

I see your point. And I definitely concede it is definitely PR. Most of these articles on Futurology are. A lot of publications in this sphere are basically PR vehicles.

3

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j4brtwh wrote

> The reason there is so much sugar in products is not because it tastes sweeter, but because it elicits a certain response from the human body in those volumes. If it was just about taste, sauces might all contain sweeteners.

Tons of sugar are added to products for the taste.

The reason some sauces do not contain sweeteners is because those sauces aren't meant to taste sweet and will not taste good when used with certain foods. Not all foods are meant to taste sweet. There are four other types of tastes...

3

zaywolfe t1_j4es1u1 wrote

The article addresses this. It even names a few reasons to use sugar outside of taste like texture in pastries and as a preservative. The article is really detailed and goes through a number of different challenges

1

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j4bi5kj wrote

Sugar should be treated like a poison. So many people overconsume sugar when they will get enough from the foods they already eat.

2

SciFiSoldier_481 t1_j4cm31r wrote

Companies used to use fat (lard) to flavor foods. A health food movement pushed companies to reduce fat, so they added sugar. A health food movement is currently pushing companies to reduce sugar, so their adding artificial sweetners. The point is that people keep pushing companies to take out something bad, and they put in something worse.

3

andcal t1_j4ctgiy wrote

Corporations gonna corporate.

3

maretus t1_j4gqf7n wrote

More like regulators gonna regulate - even if it doesn’t make sense.

1

andcal t1_j4gwxqs wrote

Ok, I know the government does put out dietary guidelines for people to follow if they want to, but I’m not sure what regulations you are referring to.

When you say regulations, do you mean restrictions, or something that somehow penalizes companies that make food if they don’t follow certain rules? I was unaware of such things (outside certain states like the one where NY limited portion size on sodas, or something else rare and isolated like that).

1

DoktoroKiu t1_j4ih68x wrote

There is good evidence that during the low-fat craze most people did not actually change their diets overall, and they added these "healthy" low-fat products on top of their unchanged diets because they're "guilt-free".

It's also a big assumption that they're always adding something worse. It's a hard sell to claim we somehow get further away from knowledge of health with every discovery.

And plenty of people in alt health circles are swinging the pendulum hard back to high-fat low-carb products and diets, and just ignoring all the evidence that led us away from this in the first place.

1

FuturologyBot t1_j49vkv3 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/MilkshakeBoy78:

No paywall, https://archive.ph/VJVs3

Most nutrition experts today will agree on at least one thing: that sugar should be treated as a poison in every respect. It’s addictive and its excessive consumption is considered one of the primary causes of a variety of this era’s most widespread diseases, notably diabetes and obesity. But what if it were possible to render food astonishingly sweet with the use of only a very small amount of sugar, just a few granules. What if the amount of sugar in familiar foods could be reduced by 90 percent or more, yet leave the sweetness unchanged. And what if that sweetness were produced without any chemical intervention, without artificial substances, without engineered components, with no fine print, and no aftertaste? Well, this product actually exists and is in fact manufactured in Israel.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10bem1g/solving_the_global_sugar_problem/j49s23n/

1

kalesandwichsincity t1_j4c9ol0 wrote

You can’t change habits. The best you can do is add new patterns. The obesity problem will be solved with appetite-regulating medicines when they become cheaper than eating food. If you save people money at no discomfort, you have their attention.

1

paboi t1_j4d1v7j wrote

Isn’t this what Stevia does? Are there adverse health effects from stevia? I just assumed it was the corn industry that kept people from adopting stevia use.

1

MaleHooker t1_j4ikx3y wrote

There was some evidence that stevia harms the liver, but when I googled it just now apparently it's beneficial for some liver disease. Who knows. I just personally hate the metallic aftertaste.

2

beef_is_here t1_j49wrts wrote

It sounds like the solving of the sugar problem is much father off and most likely will be reserved for those with enough money to afford the more expensive foods created with it.

The salt applications seem to be closer to widespread adoption, however.

0

MilkshakeBoy78 OP t1_j49y8bn wrote

i just can't want for chocolate spreads like nutella to have way less sugar.

6

inannaofthedarkness t1_j4a3b86 wrote

https://minimalistbaker.com/4-ingredient-nutella-vegan-gf/

make yer own, add as much sugar as you want

3

texas-playdohs t1_j4bgmmk wrote

I’m not an expert here, but having read the article, the problem with mixing sugar with fats is that you have to add a lot more sugar in order to taste it, vs mixing in water. This mixture makes it so you have to use a lot less. So, rather than just making it less sweet, you can have the same level of sweetness with a lot less sugar. And, for what it’s worth, it’s not exotic chemicals at work. It’s a flavorless oil and extremely finely ground sugar. I can’t say how well this works, having not tasted it myself, but the idea of having Nutella that tastes exactly as sweet as what you can buy now, only with a fraction of the sugar sounds like great news.

6

inannaofthedarkness t1_j4bywp2 wrote

you can buy it with reduced sugar. at target they have “good and gather” reduced sugar hazelnut spread. Nutella is just a brand name, many different brands with no/lower sugar if you want to buy it.

1

texas-playdohs t1_j4bzll3 wrote

But, it’ll taste like it has less sugar. This article claims this will make it taste the same using less sugar. There’s a difference.

2

RonPMexico t1_j4aqg4v wrote

Used to be fat. Now it's sugar. Can't wait to find out what's really killing us next.

−2

ickda t1_j4bepni wrote

It was never fat. That was a lie. It was a lie paid for by big suger. Was one guy who know better, he was slandered and ignored.

22

Gitmfap t1_j4cwi1j wrote

This is accurate. Fat has not been the problem.

5

froggz01 t1_j4c7m35 wrote

Stoves. Gas stoves is the next boogie man.

−3

kirpid t1_j4deko5 wrote

Artificial sweeteners are not news. Sugar is not a problem. Self control is.

−2