3 ms·
Interpret the term "sugar" to be "free sugar" as defined by the WHO[1] and things will make a lot more sense: > “Free sugars include monosaccharides and disacc
by metaphor 7y ago
Interpret the term "sugar" to be "free sugar" as defined by the WHO[1] and things will make a lot more sense:
> “Free sugars include monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods and beverages by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates"
In other words, the natural sugar in apples technically wouldn't be applicable.
[1] http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549...
- perl4ever 7y agoWhat is the theological explanation of why sugar cane, beets, and corn are tainted with original sin and the other plants are not? Many bottled fruit juices have their bulk made of juice from a cheaper fruit that doesn't match the label...but it's not sugar cane, beets, or corn. Does this make them ok?
- metaphor 7y agoTo your question, I honestly don't think the WHO would base their definition of "free sugar" on anything with theological underpinnings outside the domain of sound science.