April 7 is World Health Day. It is paradoxical that this year we will celebrate it confined due to a global pandemic. However, although #Istayhome, life goes on and we cannot let our guard down when it comes to health.
Each of us associates the fact of being at home with different habits: some to tranquillity and rest, others to domestic tasks, others to family. Whatever your situation, there are no excuses to do it in a healthy and active way.
Let’s put ourselves in situation with some data from the 2019 health profile in Spain published by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development):
Spain is the EU country with the highest life expectancy: 83.4 years in 2017, which is 2.5 years above the EU average. Spaniards today can expect to live an additional 21.5 years after reaching the age of 65, 1.5 years more than the EU average. This increase in life expectancy was mainly caused by a considerable reduction in mortality rates from cardiovascular diseases, although mortality from Alzheimer’s disease increased as a consequence of the increase in life expectancy.
Spain has some of the lowest mortality rates from preventable and treatable causes, indicating that public health and healthcare interventions are, in some cases, effective. However, much remains to be done as estimates suggest that more than a third of deaths in Spain can be attributed to risk factors associated with behavioural habits, including tobacco use, poor diet, alcohol consumption and sedentary lifestyle (see figure).
Figure: Percentages of deaths in Spain and in the EU attributed to behavioural risk factors. Source: IHME (2018), Global Health Data Exchange (estimates correspond to 2017)
In the case of smoking, an anti-smoking law was adopted in 2005 and was strengthened in 2010. The 2010 law strengthened the rules on the retail and advertising of tobacco products; increased protection for minors and non-smokers by expanding smoke-free zones to all public places; and promoted the application of smoking cessation programs, especially in primary care. At the same time, taxes on cigarettes were increased, by 3% per pack of cigarettes in 2013 and by 2.5% more in 2017, along with a 6.8% increase in taxes on rolling tobacco. All these measures have contributed to the fact that smoking rates have decreased in the last fifteen years. However, more than one in five Spanish adults (22%) continued to smoke daily in 2017, representing a higher proportion than the EU average (19%).
Regarding overweight and obesity, the data is even more alarming. In 2005, the NAOS Strategy, managed by the Spanish Agency for Consumption, Food Safety and Nutrition, aimed to curb the increase in obesity in the Spanish population. This was reinforced by the Food Safety and Nutrition Law adopted in 2011, also with the aim of reducing overweight and obesity in children, prohibiting foods and beverages with a high content of saturated fatty acids, salt and sugar in schools and, more broadly, tightening the regulations on children’s menus. Recently, work has been carried out to establish a set of indicators that allow evaluating progress in their application and for the execution of health promotion activities in the area of nutrition, physical activity and obesity prevention (AECOSAN, 2019). In 2018, the Ministry of Health, Consumption and Social Welfare announced new measures to reinforce the NAOS Strategy and, among them, an initiative on a new labelling on the front of packages using the Nutriscore model. Using an easy-to-understand colour code (based on a “traffic light” approach), this initiative aims to provide citizens with more accurate information on the nutritional quality of food, although this measure has not yet been applied. In early 2019, the Ministry also signed an agreement with almost four hundred food companies that committed to reducing the content of saturated fatty acids, salt and added sugars in their products. However, the effects so far seem modest. In fact, the obesity rate has increased among adults, which may hinder progress in reducing cardiovascular mortality and other related causes of death: one in six Spaniards suffered from obesity in 2017 (17%), a increase compared to the figure of one in eight in 2001, also above the EU average (15%). This increase is related to poor physical activity among adults, as well as unhealthy nutritional habits: only about 35% of adults reported eating at least one vegetable a day. The same situation is found in the child-youth population. According to the PASOS study (2019), 14.2% of the child-youth population is overweight and obese as measured by BMI and 24.5% have abdominal obesity. The prevalence of childhood obesity has grown in the last two decades: 1.6% according to BMI and 8.3% according to abdominal obesity.
We cannot ignore the data. A healthy and active lifestyle contributes to our quality of life expectancy. Some basic recommendations:
Move, live an active life: go up the stairs, go to work on foot or by bike whenever possible, choose games that involve movement to do with your children, dance, etc.
Eat calmly: follow your feeling of satiety and not your emotions (avoid eating due to boredom, anxiety, etc.). Limit ultra-processed food (you can read further in the post: Realfood, fad or is it here to stay?). Include fruits and vegetables in all your intakes. Give priority to whole carbohydrates over refined ones. Vary the food every day. Eat quietly and if possible, in company.
Hydrate yourself regularly throughout the day.
Exercise daily: dedicate at least 30 minutes a day to the physical activity that you like the most and vary it.
Rest and sleep between 6 and 8 hours a day.
Spend time on activities you like: reading, walking, writing, dancing, painting, photography, movies, meditating, talking to someone who inspires you, etc.
Maintaining healthy lifestyle habits should be an ever-present motto in our lives, but it becomes essential in difficult situations like the one we are experiencing. It is at these times when initiatives like #AlimentActivos from FIAB (Federation of Food and Beverage Industries) take on special relevance. It is a website where they give us tricks and ideas, pose challenges for us and provide us with scientific data and information to lead a healthy and active lifestyle.
Do not forget that, through social networks, you can follow a multitude of profiles that inspire us in matters of healthy eating and cooking, physical exercise at home, how to maintain good mental health, as well as stay positive and relaxed.
#ZeroHunger is the motto for the World Food Day that is celebrated on October 16 leaded by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) worldwide. #ZeroHunger is also part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Achieving #ZeroHunger is not only about feeding hungry people, but also about doing it in a healthy and sustainable way. Food safety in our times is not only a matter of quantity, but also of quality. Unhealthy diets have become the first risk factor for disease and death worldwide and that is why we need to reach the entire population a sufficient variety of safe, nutritious and affordable foods, while caring for the health of the planet on which we all depend. World Food Day asks us to take action in all sectors to reach #ZeroHunger, 100% nutrition.
But what is a healthy and sustainable diet? FAO itself determines that a healthy diet is one that provides nutritional needs to maintain an active life and reduce the risk of contracting diseases through the consumption of safe, nutritious and diverse foods. And a sustainable diet supports entrenched solutions to food production with a low level of greenhouse gas emissions and a moderate use of natural resources such as soil and water, while increasing food diversity for the future.
What is the current situation?
The high consumption of dishes rich in sugars, refined starches, fats and salt have become the basis of food for developed countries, limiting the consumption of traditional dishes made with vegetables, legumes, whole grains, etc. We cook less, move less and consume more prepared dishes. The result is that we are malnourished. Do you find it alarming? Don’t you think it’s for so much? Let’s see some figures:
Currently, there are already more people with obesity and overweight in the world than those who are hungry: almost 800 million people (672 adults and 124 children) in the world suffer from obesity and another 40 million children are overweight. However, it is estimated that there are about 820 million people who suffer from hunger (approximately one in nine).
Unhealthy diets along with sedentary lifestyles have overcome smoking as the main risk factor for disability and death in the world.
Approximately 2 billion euros are spent each year to treat health problems related to obesity.
These are some of the conclusions reached by FAO related to hunger and malnutrition but they are not the only ones. Our way of feeding ourselves is also having environmental consequences:
The environmental damage caused by the food system could increase from 50 to 90%, due to the higher consumption of processed foods, meat and other products of animal origin in low and middle income countries.
Of some 6,000 species of plants grown for food throughout the history of mankind, today only three species (wheat, corn and rice) supply almost 50 percent of our daily calories. We need to consume a wide variety of nutritious foods.
Climate change threatens to reduce both the quality and quantity of crops, reducing crops. Rising temperatures are also exacerbating water scarcity, changing the relationship between pests, plants and pathogens, and reducing marine resources.
The current food system – which includes farming, animal husbandry, processing, packaging and transportation – is responsible for 37% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions generated annually, and losses and food waste also collaborates with 8-10% of the total sum. Belén Blanco tells us in more detail in the post “Tell me what you eat… and I’ll tell you if it’s good for the planet”.
For all this, because they are realities, all together we must raise awareness of the problem of hunger, malnutrition, food waste, climate change, etc. FAO calls on all people to get involved in implementing some measure to achieve the #ZeroHunger.
Who are the actors involved in this change taking place? The answer is all. Modify the way of producing, supplying and consuming food. The involvement of the industry in limiting saturated and trans fats, added sugars and salt. Eliminate advertising and promotion in unhealthy foods and especially those aimed at children and adolescents. Implement educational programs on nutrition and health. Actions from all levels are necessary.
And I, as a consumer, what can I do? As a consumer, as a citizen, as a human being on this planet, you can. Think about how you consume, how you eat and act on your own, individual level and with the people around you. Here are a series of measures that can guide you:
World Food Day is not the only forum in which it strives to improve food security, but FAO also participates with WHO and other agencies in the implementation of the United Nations Decade of Nutrition Action (2016-2025). It aims to strengthen joint action to reduce hunger and improve nutrition worldwide and assist all countries in their specific commitments. The SOFI report is published annually to provide information on the progress made to eradicate hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition. The last one was published on July 15, 2019.
On World Food Day, FAO launches a strong message: we can end hunger and all forms of malnutrition to become the #ZeroHunger generation. But this will entail the joint action of all, from the commitment of each one of us in the change in the way we feed ourselves, to the cooperation between countries for an efficient transfer of technology, for example, through the correct decision-making of governments or by the involvement of private companies and the media.
We are increasingly aware of the food that we eat, the nutrition intake that food brings and the impact of our shopping and consumption habits have on the planet. That is as it should be.
The food we consume, that is, ourdietary habits, contributes in one degree or another, to our health, but also, to the planet health by leaving a climatic footprint. Specifically, food production contributes to the effect on global warming through cultivation system, how animals have been raised, how they have been stored, processed, packaged and transported to the different markets around the world.
The current world food production system is affecting the terrestrial and marine ecosystems in a significantly way, thus contributing to the obvious climate change. It is not about being an alarmist, but is about becoming aware of a reality that is already happening.
On 8 august, the new report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 107 experts from 52 countries) on “Climate Change and Earth”. The figures speak in this report and show that the current food system – which includes farming, animal husbandry, processing, packaging and transport – is responsible for the 37 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that are generated annually and that, food losses and food waste also collaborates with 8-10 % of the total.
The consequences of these emissions are directly related to the increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the increase in the temperature of the planet, the climatic disasters or the rise in the sea level, which turn into a clear threat to the quality and quantity of current crops. Therefore, affecting food security for the population, for the inhabitants of the planet, for all of us.
It is necessary to address the risks that are already present and reduce vulnerabilities in food production and distribution systems and land management.
According to the data from the IPCC report, climate change will affect food security by limiting access to certain foods, reducing nutritional quality and increasing their prices. The effects will be much more marked in low-income countries.
The Report stated that is necessary limiting global warming to 1.5 oC instead of 2 oC … And yes, this difference of half a degree is crucial on the effects on the soil, marine species and ecosystems and, also about the benefits that this would bring in nature for all humans; fishery, water supply and food insurance, in addition to health, safety and economic growth.
To limit warming, a reduction in CO2 and other GHG emissions is required by 45 % by 2030 (compared to the levels of 2010) and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. This requires a profound change and a rapid action in reducing these emissions in all sectors (energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, industry) so is necessary a greater investment in the application of new strategies and technology breakthrough.
With the focus on these actions aimed at adapting and mitigating the effect of climate change, the report indicates as better opportunities; an urgent change in human diet to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions linked to food production, an improvement in livestock and farming production systems to reduce the energy and water consumption currently used and, a reduction, to get eliminate, losses and food waste.
A healthy and sustainable diet includes foods with a lower carbon footprint so that, such diet, would be based on the consumption of vegetables, legumes, cereals, nuts and seeds as essential foods and foods of animal origin produced in resilient, sustainable and low GHG emission systems.
The report expressly states that, currently, livestock systems for meat and meat products production demand more water and soil and generate higher emissions of gases compared to those of cereal and seed production. This effect is greater in developed countries where breeding is carried out intensively and is urged to produce them in a sustainable manner.
In the study carried out by Poore & Nemecek (2018) it was also evidenced that the environmental impact of the production of food of animal origin exceeds that of plant production, highlighting the need to reformulate the practices carried out in this activity . They also showed that, although producers are a vital part of the solution to this problem, their ability to reduce environmental impact is limited. These limits mean that the same product can have a greater impact than another nutritionally equivalent and therefore, they also urge a change in the pattern of the diet.
The need to adapt our diet to the limits of sustainability aspects is evident and, so much so, that the IPCC refers to it as “low-GHG carbon diet”.
Low-greenhouse gases emission diets are balanced diets that require less water and less land use and cause less GHG. These are diets with more foods based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables nuts and seeds and foods of animal origin produced in a sustainable way.
Other actions aimed at diversifying the food systems proposed in the report in relation to the form of food generation are; the implementation of integrated production systems, the improvement of broad-genetic resources, more intelligent and integrated agricultural systems, best livestock production practices and the reduction of fertilizers use. All of them, in order to reduce the environmental impact through better soil management as a strategy to achieve sustainable use and, therefore, quality food production.
Regarding the reduction of food waste, it is aimed at curbing the need to produce more and, therefore, to reduce the overexploitation of the soil and the consumption of water and nitrogen-based fertilizers, deforestation of areas to convert them into agricultural land and, in the cycle in which we are currently, worse crops are getting worse, poorer in nutrients and the consequent and foreseeable increase in the cost of cereals.
There is no one ideal solution, but a sum of many different actions.
We need to rethink our current food system and find new solutions to feed ourselves on a planet that continues growing. We are facing the challenge of finding effective solutions to produce food in a sustainable way. The way we produce food matters, in other words how we select what we are going to eat matters since it can face climate change and with the reduction in the pressure we are exerting on the land.
What we eat has a story to tell us … and that story makes us responsible and complicit in those effects. It is important to take a step forward in our diet and start thinking about what we eat beyond the hedonic aspect, since our consumption actions affect the productive capacity of the soil and, therefore, the quality of what is produced and even to the nutritional value of food. On the other hand, raising awareness of a more sustainable diet, in addition to collaborating in mitigating the effects of climate change, probably offers significant positive benefits on human health in the medium term.
From the creators of “What doesn´t kill you makes you fatter or is a sin” and “You don´t know what to eat” appears “Take care if you like overcooking!” and “Nightmare in the kitchen, there is acrylamide in your food“.
For years it was known that acrylamide was a toxic substance present in tobacco smoke and in industrial processes such as paper manufacturing, metal extraction, textile industry, colorants and other processes such as cosmetic additives or in water treatment. What nobody could imagine was that it also appears naturally when we are cooking foods such as potato crisps, French fries, biscuits and coffee.
It was first detected in foods in 2002 in Sweden when this chemical was found in starchy foods. According to experts, acrylamide is converted in the body into a chemical compound called glycidamide, which causes mutations and DNA damage that could initiate a cancerous process. The main chemical process that causes this is known as the Maillard Reaction; between sugars and amino acids (mainly one called asparagine) that are naturally present in many foods. It is the same reaction that ‘browns’ food (consequence of some pigments called melanoidins) and affects its taste and smell (due to substances such as furans). For this reason, the color could be a very practical guide for detecting acrylamide in foods.
Following, there is a summary of the evolution of the acrylamide topic according to the opinion of experts and different authorities in food safety:
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): classifies it as probable carcinogens in humans (group 2A). This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. For this reason, the authorities recommend that exposure to acrylamide should be as minimal as possible.
World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/WHO): admits that there are many doubts about the mechanism of action of acrylamide and also about the estimation of the maximum recommended intakes or how the data obtained in animals have been extrapolated to humans. They insist especially on the need for more research on topics such as the associated risks in humans, quantification of acrylamide in diets other than European ones and identify the speed of the human body to neutralize acrylamide. In 2009 FAO/WHO published a code of practice for the reduction of acrylamide in food. A large amount of information on acrylamide is located on the FAO/WHO portal ‘Acrylamide Information Network’.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): it is still not clear whether the consumption of this component has an effect on the risk of developing cancer in humans. In the following link you can find all the information published by the EFSA related to acrylamide since 2002. Industry (Food and Drink Europe) has developed a document called ‘toolbox’ containing measures that can be applied by the different sectors of food industry to bring its levels down.
European Commission: in November 20th, 2017 the Reglament (UE) 2017/2158 is published containing mitigation measures and benchmark levels for the reduction of the presence of acrylamide in food. The Regulation establishes mandatory mitigation measures for food companies (industry, catering and restoration). At the moment, there are only levels of reference but everything indicates that in the future they will become maximum limits.
Spanish Agency of consumption, food security and nutrition (AECOSAN): is in full campaign of information to diminish the exhibition of acrylamide among consumers and to sensitize the population on the health risks of it. The motto of the campaign: ‘Choose dorado, choose health’. In the following video and link you can find simple recommendations to control the formation of acrylamide when cooking at home.
Undoubtedly, the issue of acrylamide will continue to give much to talk about over the next few years. In CARTIF we have just launched the COLOR Project: “Acrylamide reduction in processed foods” approved in the FEDER INTERCONECTA 2018 call. In this Project, the companies GALLETAS GULLÓN, CYL IBERSNACKS and COOPERATIVA AGRÍCOLA SANTA MARTA will join efforts to achieve the following objectives:
To reduce acrylamide in biscuit products and chips.
To obtain olive oils capable of counteracting the formation of acrylamide in processed foods.
To develop an indirect analytical method to quantify acrylamide more quickly, easily and economically than conventional analytical methods by measuring the COLOR of foods. In the Project we have the collaboration of the Institute of Science and Technology of Food and Nutrition (ICTAN-CSIC) and the Research Group, Food Quality and Microbiology (GRUPO CAMIALI) of the University of Extremadura.
Entomophagy, or insect consumption by humans, is not a novelty to anyone. Diets based on insects and arthropods are fully accepted in many countries and cultures, especially in South America, Asia or Africa. Even they are a real delicacy for some gourmets experts, for which they pay very high prices. There are markets for edible insects, at prohibitive prices, in cities such as New York, Tokyo, Mexico or Los Angeles, and some of the most famous international chefs include them in their famous recipes.
They do not have a single fault, nutritionally speaking. They are a balanced and healthy food, with high protein content, rich in essential amino acids. They are an important source of unsaturated fatty acids and chitin, besides of having vitamins and minerals beneficial for our body.
However, it is true that these ‘bugs’ have attracted the attention of the media, research institutions and members of food industry in recent months. Why now?
Experts say insects can provide a part of the necessary calories in countries where the consumption of some foods is limited. The Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO) expects the world population will increase by 2050 in 9700 million people, about 24% people more than now, so there will be a greater need to supply food. Therefore, it could be a solution to help reducing the levels of hunger in the world.
On the other hand, agriculture and livestock, as we know them today, are primary activities that emit greenhouse gases. In comparison, insect could be produced with lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. Therefore, the incorporation of these new ingredients to our market list can also improve the situation of the planet in the climate change’s fight, as well as contributing to the circular economy process due to insects can feed with agrifood waste.
In addition to these reasons, on January 1st, Regulation (EU) 2215/2283 come into force, which includes insects within the category of ‘novel foods’, which is a big step to simplify the authorization process.
And, if eating insects have so many advantages, why are they not consumed regularly in Spain and in many other Western countries?
Because, in spite of legislation, there is an emotional and cultural rejection to include them in our plates. In other words, they make us feel sick!
This argument has been demonstrated by a pioneering experiment through blind tasting of different foods prepared with insects and monitored with neuroscientific tools, carried out in the context of GO_INSECT and ECIPA projects. These are two innovative initiatives related to the breeding of insects for food as an alternative and sustainable source of proteins. CARTIF takes part in the first one, a Supra-autonomic Operative Group, which has the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply.
This blind tasting has served to demonstrate that taste is not the reason why we do not choose insects for eating. The main reason is the appearance of them, knowing what they are, being aware that we are going to eat something disgusting for us.
How did the experiment carry out?
28 people participated in the tasting, which took place at the Veterinary School of the University of Zaragoza, while the electrodermal activity of us was recorded. Previously, we were warned products of the tasting could contain lactose, gluten, nuts, crustaceans and insects.
Participants tasted four dishes with insects in their composition, and a fifth dish without them, which served as base of comparison. In three of those that contained insects, they were processed and were not visible directly to the eye. In the fourth, insects were easily recognizable.
All these options were carefully elaborated and tested in advance in order to avoid mistakes in the evaluation. Bitbrain Company’s technology measured sensory responses, both when visualizing the food and when eating it. At the end, they evaluated with and individual survey the satisfaction to each elaboration.
And the results?
The non-conscious emotional response to the three first dishes, which have insects in their composition in a non-visible way, fell within the normal parameters to the tasting of the rest. That is, the fact that a plate contains insects does not influence negatively in the taste and is not detected at the physiological level either.
On the other hand, the emotional impact of the participants when we tasted the whole insect (small dry larvae of Tenebrio molitor or flour worm) was much higher than in the resto of the dishes. Even, the emotional impact was greater during the visualization than during the intake. That is to say, what produces that impact is the knowledge of knowing that what we have before us is an insect, not so much the consumption.
At a conscious level, the average score given to the dishes in which the insects were incorporated as flour was 7’6. Only one participant did not agree to taste the plate of the whole insect. Those who taste it marked a 5’9 of average grade.
After knowing that all the products we had tested contained insects, secured we would eat them again. Only one of the participants confirmed in the survey will not buy products that had been fed with insects.
So, at least, we should give them a chance, even if they are masked. More than 2 billion people already incorporate them into their diet, so a quarter of the world’s population cannot be wrong.
Last July, EFSA published a protocol that sets out the strategy to follow for the collection of data that will be used for the development of a Scientific Opinion that establishes the maximum tolerable level of sugar intake. I know it could seem confusing, let me explain…
Tons of tweets and images often appear on social networks that show the amount of sugar that certain processed foods have. Associations such as sinazucar.org have been actively promoting it for some time. Thus, this topic is not new at all. The novelty is related to the publication by EFSA of a protocol that sets the strategy to follow in the collection of scientific data that will be carried out prior to the publication of the Scientific Opinion on the reference dietary level of intake of sugarsfor the European population that EFSA plans to publish.
This document will represent an update of the Scientific Opinion published in 2010 regarding reference dietary values for sugars, carbohydrates and fiber (EFSA NDA Panel, 2010a). With the data available up to 2010, there was no conclusive evidence linking an effect of sugars on micronutrient density, insulin response to glucose, body weight, type 2 diabetes or dental caries significant enough to establish limits of maximum tolerated intake, adequate intake or reference intake of sugars. After 2010, several organizations have published recommendations on the recommended intake of sugars; however, quite disparate among them. For example, the World Health Organization recommends reducing the consumption of free sugars in life. For both adults and children, the consumption of free sugars should be reduced to less than 10% of the total caloric intake. A reduction below 5% of the total caloric intake would produce additional health benefits. Now, EFSA intends to evaluate the scientific basis that has emerged from 2010 to the present and to check if there is enough new evidence to establish a reference dietary level.
This request to EFSA, which comes from the competent authorities in the field of nutrition and health of 5 European countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), will not only respond to the need to update the existing evidence but also will constitute an act of consensus of terms referring to the sugars present in food. Currently, each one calls, labels and understands the sugar content of food at free will, which makes it difficult to study the literature, label food and establish conclusions about the cause-effect relationship and recommendations for the population. Some companies only express the total sugar content in the nutritional labeling of their food, others consider that what is really important is to know the content in “added” sugars, while others demand consensus to label and make recommendations about “free” sugars. Do you know the difference between the three terms?
Total sugars: all mono and disaccharides that are part of a food, whatever its origin.
Added sugars: all mono and disaccharides that are not part of the food naturally but have been added during processing, whether by the manufacturer, the cook or consumers.
Free sugars: all mono and disaccharides except those that naturally form part of whole fruits or vegetables (whether intact, dried or cooked).
That is to say, all the added sugars are free sugars but not vice versa. The key difference between added sugars and free sugars is that the free sugars also contemplate the sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates; while the added sugars do not contemplate them. Sugars naturally occurring in whole fruits and vegetables are not included as free sugars since there is no evidence that they have an adverse effect on health. In other words, free sugars would be synonymous with total sugars in all foods except fruits and whole vegetables.
A practical case to help us clear up this mess, please! For example, the sugars naturally present in a carrot juice in brick would be considered as free sugars; while the sugars naturally present in baby carrots packed in a modified atmosphere ready to eat, would not be considered.
Currently in Europe, most companies label their sugars in the form of total sugars. The USA was the first country in 2016 to establish regulations to force the declaration of all added sugars in the labeling of all foods. On the other hand, the Canadian health agency recently published a document in which it proposes to label foods rich in sugars, saturated fats and sodium as “high food in …” In the case of sugars, Canadians propose this declaration to be included in all foods that contain free sugars (not only added), so that this rule also affects fruit and vegetable juices and purées; while only dairy and whole fruits and vegetables stay out of this mandatory declaration.
Needless to say that if this lack of consensus affects the good understanding among professionals and experts in nutrition, even more it will confuse consumers. So in addition to this task of matching key terms to establish recommendations for intake and common labeling standards, education and consumer communication campaigns on the interpretation of nutritional labeling of foods are also necessary.
From CARTIF, we are committed to the dissemination of consumer education on nutrition and food issues, so we will remain aware to the publication of the Scientific Opinion of EFSA and of course, we will inform you of its conclusions in a clear and understandable way.
