DIETITIAN SAYS – HEART FOUNDATION COMPLETELY IGNORES ADDED SUGAR WHEN PLACING THE ‘HEART FOUNDATION TICK’ ON PRODUCTSI hope you all loved the music by Nahko we shared last night (powerful stuff hey?)
Tomorrow Dr Terry Wahls will be sharing a post for you on here, where she talks about her specialised approach with MS using paleo and functional principles so please share this post far and wide.Today we are sharing a post by Joe Leech. Joe is a Dietitian and professional health writer. His nutrition advice is based on actual scientific evidence AND common sense; not just what someone else told him to believe. Over to you Joe…The famous Heart Foundation Tick.

Ever noticed how many high-sugar products have earned that Tick on their label?

It’s on all sorts of “healthy” foods, including cereals, snack bars and condiments that are between 30-70% sugar. For perspective, jams are around 60% sugar.

The reason these foods get the Tick is because the Heart Foundation DOES NOT consider excessive sugar intake a health risk.

Time to lift the lid.

It’s unorthodox, but I’m citing my scientific references in this post because some of the media are dismissing Pete’s Facebook posts as “pseudo-science”.

According to an exact quote from the Heart Foundation, “existing levels of evidence indicate that there is no direct causal relationship between added sugar and coronary heart disease, diabetes or obesity (with the possible exception of sugar-sweetened beverages).”

What an exceptionally strange statement. Basically they’re admitting added sugar is a health risk, but only if it’s bottled in a soft drink- not in a box of Tick-approved chocolate cereal or muesli bars.

Now I’m not sure where they are getting their “existing levels of evidence” from, but all the new research CLEARLY shows sugar has a direct impact on disease. And not just type 2 diabetes, but heart disease and obesity too (they’re all related).

Perhaps most famously in 2012, three US academics – one named Robert Lustig – reviewed the current literature and labelled sugar as more toxic than alcohol in its impact on public health. The study can be seen at –> http://bit.ly/1ptZJjd

Then a 2014 review study, which summarised the findings of 39 previous studies, found that regardless of your body weight, high sugar intake SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTS blood pressure. It also raises LDL “bad” cholesterol and lowers HDL “good” cholesterol- all strong markers of heart disease. Sugar impacts much more than just your blood sugar level. Here’s the study –> http://bit.ly/1mHq3pp
Another telling study published this year followed over 40,000 subjects for an average of 15 years. It found that those who consumed a diet of more than 21% added sugar had DOUBLE THE RISK OF DEATH from heart disease compared with those on a diet of 8%. In fact the risk TRIPLED for those with a diet of more than 25% added sugar. –> http://bit.ly/MVQ7kZ

Many studies have found a STRONG link between sugar intake and obesity too. The link seems especially strong in children, where each serving of soft drink is associated with a HUGE 60% increased risk of obesity –> http://bit.ly/1rHb7LL

Can we really still say that added sugar doesn’t warrant at least SOME restrictions? That’s what the Heart Foundation are saying with their Tick criteria.

And yes I have cited observational studies – “observation does not equal causation” – but it is telling data that cannot simply be ignored, like the Heart Foundation is doing. For those playing at home, there have also been animal studies looking at causation (clinical trials).
A 2013 study found that when mice ate a diet of 25% sugar – the mouse equivalent of having three cans of soft drink per day – females died at TWICE the normal rate, and men were 25% less likely to reproduce. While rodent studies can’t be compared to human trials, it’s still first-hand proof that consuming added sugar in proportions the Heart Foundation considers safe (in this case 25% of diet) is extremely harmful to mammals. –> http://bit.ly/1sPqy8c

There’s PLENTY more studies but space in this post is just too limited. You get the point though, there’s no shortage of new research- why are the Heart Foundation ignoring it?

So just what evidence do the Heart Foundation base their Tick recommendations on? This is the part where it GETS REALLY INTERESTING.

On their website they claim their advice is based on sound science, and they will “continue to review new scientific evidence as it becomes available.”

I just covered that they in fact don’t seem to do that. But they also DON’T CITE ANY STUDIES about Tick criteria on their website for consumers to check themselves (none that I could find in any case).

And here’s the BEST part.
They’ve also confirmed in an official statement that the Tick criteria includes nutrients the World Health Organisation deems important for maintaining good health (You can confirm everything they say here http://bit.ly/1x3HZA9).

But guess what?
The World Health Organisation have just CHANGED THEIR STANCE ON SUGARS. They’re in the process of OFFICIALLY changing their sugar recommendations from 10% of energy intake to less than 5%, because lower sugar intake has “additional benefits”. Quote. –> http://bit.ly/1hMsoy5
For the average Australian adult, 5% of energy intake is equivalent to about 25 grams (around 6 teaspoons) of sugar PER DAY. Some of the Tick-approved cereals have more than 25 grams in a SINGLE SERVING. And they’re cereals advertised to children, who should be having much less than 25 grams.

The World Health Organisation even goes on to say much of the sugars we eat today are “hidden” in processed foods that we don’t even associate with sweetness. They then used tomato sauce as an example, stating 1 tablespoon typically contains “around 4 grams (around 1 teaspoon) of sugars”.
Can you guess how many cooking sauces, gravies, and condiments with added sugars have the Tick? See for yourself –> http://bit.ly/1vyigi2

Now I’m certainly no mathematician, but it seems rather IMPOSSIBLE to follow the World Health Organisation’s new recommendations if we continue to eat high sugar Tick-approved products.

The most ironic part of all this, however, is that both the BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION and the AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION have recently warned about the dangers linking heart health and sugar. The American Heart Association even published a statement titled “Added Sugars Add to Your Risk of Dying from Heart Disease.” Seriously, see it here –> http://bit.ly/1rT10Rw
I would LOVE to know what our Heart Foundation thinks about all of this?

Now these media-dubbed “rants” Pete has on here aren’t the first time the Heart Foundation have been criticised about the Tick program. (And I just wanted to bring this up so they can’t use it as a rebuttal).
In response to strong concerns from a colleague in 2011, Dietitian Rosemary Stanton, they claimed the Tick criteria excludes sugar because natural sugars (like in fruit and dairy) are no different from added sugars (like in ice-cream and soft drinks).
While they may not be chemically different, I can tell you right now, gram for gram, the QUANTITY and CONCENCTRATION of sugar found naturally in fruits or dairy is but a fraction of the amounts in processed foods.

What’s more, REAL foods like fruit and milk contain many beneficial nutrients alongside their natural sugars. Processed foods don’t.
This is what truly separates natural sugar from added sugar, and is the reason you cannot simply claim they are the same thing. They are clearly not.
In fact the HARMFUL EFFECTS of ADDED sugars are now so widely accepted in the scientific community that in the States, the US Food & Drug Administration has proposed ‘Added Sugars’ be shown on the new nutrition labels under that separate heading. Because they are DIFFERENT to natural sugars.
Of course, the big food companies are lobbying extensively to make sure this doesn’t go ahead! You can check it all out here –> http://reut.rs/1xYafD8

SO TO RECAP, all the new scientific evidence has found extremely strong links between sugar intake and disease.
You could even say the new evidence condemns added sugars.
And many of the biggest international health authorities have revised their recommendations to heavily restrict, if not ELIMINATE added sugars from your diet.
Including the World Health Organisation and Heart Foundations/Organisations in other countries.
And yet, our own national Heart Foundation continues to advise us that Tick-approved products – packed full of added sugars – are GOOD FOR US?

This has got to stop.

Fortunately, TOGETHER, we have the power to help force this change.

Our voices, COLLECTIVELY, can make a difference
And it wouldn’t be the first time the heart foundation caved into pressure- remember when the Tick program was at McDonald’s? (What on earth were they thinking by the way?)
The Heart Foundation removed all McDonald’s Ticks in 2010 because of strong consumer backlash and pressure.
They do listen to what we have to say.
Let’s just make sure we’re shouting it loud and clear.

Fortunately for the public to have our say has never been easier. Jessie Reimers has started a petition to Flick the Tick and now has over 30,000 signatures. The more signatures we get, the more likely the Heart Foundation will act on this issue!

Please take 30 seconds to sign the petition here –> http://chn.ge/1rkWWON <– and SHARE this post if you’re in!

On Tuesday week, the 14th October, they’re going to deliver the petition to the Heart Foundation in person.
And if you want to get in touch with Joe who wrote this article you can find him at www.thehealthcopywriter.me or twitter www.twitter.com/dietvsdisease

The ideas and suggestions written by Chef Pete Evans, on this page are provided as general educational information only and should not be construed as medical advice or care. Information herein is meant to complement, not replace, any advice or information from your personal health professional. These of course are observations, they don’t equal causation, but are pretty difficult to ignore. I’m sure the experts will agree. All matters regarding your health require supervision by a personal physician or other appropriate health professional familiar with your current health status. Always consult your personal physician before making any dietary or exercise changes.

Pete Evans Chef disclaim any liability or warranties of any kind arising directly or indirectly from use of this page. If any medical problems develop, always consult your personal physician. Only your physician can provide you medical advice.

Throughout this page are links to external sites. These external sites contain information created and maintained by other individuals and organizations and are provided for the user’s convenience. Chef Pete Evans does not control nor can they guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this information. Neither is it intended to endorse any view expressed nor reflect its importance by inclusion in this site.