With the low-carb craze tapering off, another craze has now entered
the mainstream: low-sugar. As a result, food makers are rushing
to meet demand from consumers concerned with their waistlines and
healthier eating by offering a variety of new products including
Pepperidge Farm Sugar Free Milano cookies and General Mills 75 Percent
Less Sugar Cocoa Puffs.
Scientists, though, are unsure how positive this development is,
voicing concerns over whether or not the change will help people
lose weight and how "health-boosting" artificial sweeteners
really are.
No Signs of Slowing
Despite concerns, however, the boom of no- or low-sugar consumption
is becoming a major consumer focus. According to a Grocery Manufacturers
Association survey, almost half of all grocery store shoppers are
on the lookout for products with reduced sugar.
Moreover, consumer
research done by AC Nielsen found organic and no- or low-sugar
as the two most popular descriptors that will get new products noticed
by consumers and generate the strongest sales growth. And the new
products aren't just the typical diet sodas and sugarless gum, but
also:
- Bread and cereals
- Cookies and ice cream
- Fruit juices and bottled water
This low-sugar obsession was brought on, in part, by the increasing
popularity of the sugar substitute sucralose, or Splenda. In fact,
the food industry introduced over 2,000 sugarless and sugar-reduced
products in the United States in 2004 alone.
Sweet Skepticism
However, while McNeil Nutritionals claims sucralose consumption
is safe, a growing number of nutritional experts have a different
take. For example:
-
According to one expert who runs his own nutrition practice,
artificial sweeteners do nothing for a person's "overall
health" because they evoke cravings for sweets.
-
Another nutrition specialist and professor of public health
said that in his 15 years of treating patients he has observed
that people who consume an excess of artificially sweetened
foods also end up eating an overload of foods chock full of
regular sugar, and thus negating any savings in calories.
New
York Times May 15, 2005
|