4 ms·

I started to notice that sugar content has increased in sodas. I used to work in a grocery store 12/13 years ago, and I remember stacking sodas on the shelves.

I started to notice that sugar content has increased in sodas. I used to work in a grocery store 12/13 years ago, and I remember stacking sodas on the shelves. The sugar content was 35g. I stacked them everyday so as far as I remember this was the norm at the time for a one serving in California. Only a couple months ago, I started looking at the labels of sodas again. The content varies from 39g to 55g in California. I was recently in Utah, and I took a picture of label of ginger ale. I compared it to the exact same can in California, the one in CA has less sugar content.

nradov 8y ago
Are you sure that's adjusted for serving size?
- Puer 8y ago
  I would also be interested in this. Many soft drink recipes are well-established and rarely adjusted because even small, well-intentioned changes can damage the brand and customer loyalty. Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that producers would increase sugar content by as much as 1.57 times because that would inherently cost them significantly more money over time.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    Well it’s also the type of sugar. Before the 70’s HFCS didn’t exist and it didn’t hit mainstream until the early 80’s. Soft drinks are now predominately made with HFCS which includes multiple sugars, some that are broken down in the liver and others that go into the blood steam and require insulin. Keep in mind one of the reasons most foods include HFCS is because it’s subsidized and cheaper than say cane sugar, so they could probably add 1.57 times the HFCS and still save money compared to cane sugar.
    - Puer 8y ago
      You're right, but the aforementioned "12/13" years ago was only 2006. I don't think many significant changes have been made in that period, but I may be wrong.
    - nradov 8y ago
      There is no actual proof that HFCS is more harmful than other types of sugar.
      - will_brown 8y ago
        That’s a strange reply...I never suggested HFCS was different or more harmful than any other sugar, I only mentioned that it contains both sugar that is processed by the liver and sugar that is released into the blood stream triggering insulin. Although now that you bring it up...if one were to choose it’s probably better to have only a single one type of sugar processed by the liver or released into the blood triggering insulin...rather than both.
        DanBC 8y ago
        HCFS contains fructose and glucose. Sucrose contains fructose and glucose (50% of each). HFCS and sucrose are broken down in the same way. HFCS comes in different formulations, but the most commonly used is close to sucrose at 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. Huge portion sizes, total amounts of sugars and fats, and sedentary lifestyle is probably more important.
        will_brown 8y ago
        >HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. You’re right about portion being a big issue, which reinforces my earlier point that HFCS is cheaper than other sweeteners so it’s opted for and in higher amounts. That said I’d say it is a problem. Look at children, there wasn’t a medical diagnosis of childhood type2 or childhood non alcoholic fatty liver disease, now both are a problem and childhood fatty liver disease is diagnosed at even higher rates than type2. So medically I think it is a problem. And saying it’s a portion/life style issue I agree with 100% and these chronic diseases can be prevented in most cases without cutting out 100% of sugar, but i don’t know why layman can’t echo the medical science and admit cutting 100% of sugar can prevent 100% of these medical cases. In other words you can be sedentary and eat huge portions (you will have other health issues for sure which likely include liver issues) but you won’t get type 2 so long as there isn’t any insulin spiking sugar in the diet. Edit: Fructose is sent from the blood directly to be processed in the liver and over consuming results in deposits of fat in the liver cells (aka fatty liver disease). Glucose goes straight to the blood and is only sent to the liver to convert to glycogen if the body needs it (but most people’s glycogen stores are already full) and glucose is converted to fat in fat cells (no liver processing). In short glucose and fructose are not processed the same.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Does the US not have a section telling you the nutritional content per-100g (or 100mL or whatever "standard" measurement you folks have) so you can compare products? Or is everything given in serving sizes (which can be arbitrarily chosen by the producer)?
  - nradov 8y ago
    The nutritional content label for individual size soft drinks is usually for the whole container. It's not standardized to 100mL.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    55g of sugar per 100ml of product would be insane. Coca Cola has about 10-12g per 100ml. Starbucks Mulled Fruit Drink (widely reported in the UK as a very sugary drink) has about 14g per 100ml.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      That wasn't my point -- I was confused that there isn't a standard way to compare food content in the US. In Australia, by law, nutritional information contains a column with the "serving size", and a column for 100g or 100mL of the product so you can compare similar products much more easily) I can only imagine how difficult it would be to compare the nutrition between two different drinks or foods if they have different container sizes. In other words, you could easily track the change in sugar content over the years if you paid attention to the "per 100{g,mL}" column without having to do any maths.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Sorry, yes, I agree with you.
- foxfired 8y ago
  For soda cans, the regular size in the US 355ml and serving size is 1.

nradov 8y ago

Are you sure that's adjusted for serving size?

Puer 8y ago
I would also be interested in this. Many soft drink recipes are well-established and rarely adjusted because even small, well-intentioned changes can damage the brand and customer loyalty. Furthermore, it seems counterintuitive that producers would increase sugar content by as much as 1.57 times because that would inherently cost them significantly more money over time.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Well it’s also the type of sugar. Before the 70’s HFCS didn’t exist and it didn’t hit mainstream until the early 80’s. Soft drinks are now predominately made with HFCS which includes multiple sugars, some that are broken down in the liver and others that go into the blood steam and require insulin. Keep in mind one of the reasons most foods include HFCS is because it’s subsidized and cheaper than say cane sugar, so they could probably add 1.57 times the HFCS and still save money compared to cane sugar.
  - Puer 8y ago
    You're right, but the aforementioned "12/13" years ago was only 2006. I don't think many significant changes have been made in that period, but I may be wrong.
  - nradov 8y ago
    There is no actual proof that HFCS is more harmful than other types of sugar.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      That’s a strange reply...I never suggested HFCS was different or more harmful than any other sugar, I only mentioned that it contains both sugar that is processed by the liver and sugar that is released into the blood stream triggering insulin. Although now that you bring it up...if one were to choose it’s probably better to have only a single one type of sugar processed by the liver or released into the blood triggering insulin...rather than both.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        HCFS contains fructose and glucose. Sucrose contains fructose and glucose (50% of each). HFCS and sucrose are broken down in the same way. HFCS comes in different formulations, but the most commonly used is close to sucrose at 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. Huge portion sizes, total amounts of sugars and fats, and sedentary lifestyle is probably more important.
        will_brown 8y ago
        >HFCS vs sucrose probably isn't the problem. You’re right about portion being a big issue, which reinforces my earlier point that HFCS is cheaper than other sweeteners so it’s opted for and in higher amounts. That said I’d say it is a problem. Look at children, there wasn’t a medical diagnosis of childhood type2 or childhood non alcoholic fatty liver disease, now both are a problem and childhood fatty liver disease is diagnosed at even higher rates than type2. So medically I think it is a problem. And saying it’s a portion/life style issue I agree with 100% and these chronic diseases can be prevented in most cases without cutting out 100% of sugar, but i don’t know why layman can’t echo the medical science and admit cutting 100% of sugar can prevent 100% of these medical cases. In other words you can be sedentary and eat huge portions (you will have other health issues for sure which likely include liver issues) but you won’t get type 2 so long as there isn’t any insulin spiking sugar in the diet. Edit: Fructose is sent from the blood directly to be processed in the liver and over consuming results in deposits of fat in the liver cells (aka fatty liver disease). Glucose goes straight to the blood and is only sent to the liver to convert to glycogen if the body needs it (but most people’s glycogen stores are already full) and glucose is converted to fat in fat cells (no liver processing). In short glucose and fructose are not processed the same.
cyphar 8y ago
Does the US not have a section telling you the nutritional content per-100g (or 100mL or whatever "standard" measurement you folks have) so you can compare products? Or is everything given in serving sizes (which can be arbitrarily chosen by the producer)?
- nradov 8y ago
  The nutritional content label for individual size soft drinks is usually for the whole container. It's not standardized to 100mL.
- DanBC 8y ago
  55g of sugar per 100ml of product would be insane. Coca Cola has about 10-12g per 100ml. Starbucks Mulled Fruit Drink (widely reported in the UK as a very sugary drink) has about 14g per 100ml.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    That wasn't my point -- I was confused that there isn't a standard way to compare food content in the US. In Australia, by law, nutritional information contains a column with the "serving size", and a column for 100g or 100mL of the product so you can compare similar products much more easily) I can only imagine how difficult it would be to compare the nutrition between two different drinks or foods if they have different container sizes. In other words, you could easily track the change in sugar content over the years if you paid attention to the "per 100{g,mL}" column without having to do any maths.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Sorry, yes, I agree with you.
foxfired 8y ago
For soda cans, the regular size in the US 355ml and serving size is 1.