Transcript Presentation- Oct. 7 New Conversation Sweeteners- extended

THE NEW CONVERSATION
ABOUT NUTRITIVE
SWEETENERS
CHANGING CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS AND THE IMPACT
ON CONSUMER PURCHASE DECISIONS
International Baking Industry Exposition
October 2013
CAPRI SUN® and logo are registered trademarks of Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. GATORADE® and logo are registered trademarks of Stokley-Van Camp, Inc.. HEINZ® brands are registered trademarks
of H.J. Heinz Co. HUNT’S® brands are registered trademarks of ConAgra Brands Inc. MIRACLE WHIP® and logo are registered trademarks Kraft Foods, Inc. NUTRI-GRAIN® and logo are registered
trademarks of The Kellogg Company. POWERADE® and logo are registered trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company. SARA LEE® and logo are registered trademarks of Sara Lee™ Holdings used
under license.
TODAY’S SPEAKERS
Martin Concannon
Founder and Managing Director, Lafayette Associates
John S. White, Ph.D.
President and Founder, White Technical Research
FIRST & FOREMOST:
How can we continue to create food
and beverage products that consumers
will want to buy?
3
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
4
WHY WE ARE HERE:
To share 3rd-party research that will
answer those questions and help you
make informed business decisions
about sweeteners.
5
WHAT WE WILL COVER
Consumer Attitudes Toward Sweeteners & HFCS
The Science of Sweeteners
Sweeteners & Consumer Purchase Decisions
Sweetener Strategies
Summary & Looking Ahead
6
WHAT DO
CONSUMERS
THINK?
7
FIRST, WHAT DO YOU THINK
CONSUMERS ARE THINKING?
Is the media coloring your perception of consumer attitudes?
“You Really Can’t Eat Just One, and
Here’s the Reason”
Fructose changes brain to cause
overeating, scientists say
(3/17/13)
(1/2/13)
“High fructose corn syrup linked to
global diabetes crisis”
(11/27/12)
“Is Sugar Toxic?”
(4/01/12)
“Mom: High fructose corn syrup
caused diabetes”
(6/24/13)
“New Research Suggests High Fructose
Corn Syrup Triggers Addictive
Consumption Similar to Drugs”
(6/6/13)
8
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
9
THE BIG GAP: WHAT PEOPLE
SAY AND WHAT THEY DO
Responses to unaided questions reveal top-of-mind concerns,
true attitudes and likely behavior.
It’s the difference between what people say and what they
actually do – as conclusively shown in extensive research by
Mintel, NPD Group, and Nielsen.
Source: Mintel.
10
American
consumers are
much more
concerned about
total sugars in
their diet than
about any specific
sweetener.
11
In fact,
consumers avoid
added sugars
more than any
other ingredient.
12
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
13
HOW DO WE KNOW?
WE TALKED TO CONSUMERS.
Mintel research focuses on moms, the primary shopper.
MINTEL OCTOBER 2012 SURVEY:
• 2,400 primary household grocery shoppers
• Nationally representative, regionally balanced samples
• Methodology: Unaided and aided questions
HOUSEHOLDS:
+ Children under 18yrs
+ No children
INCOME RANGE:
< $35,000 through >$85,000
EDUCATION:
< High school through doctorate degree
Sample weighted by age and education prior to analysis. 75% of primary shoppers being women is within range of other studies.
Results accurate +/- 2.0% at a 95% confidence level..
14
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
How do I know that consumer research is relevant to my brand?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
15
SEGMENTATION BASED ON
COMBINATION OF AIDED AND UNAIDED
•
Q3. In the last six months, have there been any particular foods, beverages, or
specific ingredients that you and your family are trying to consume less of or avoid?
(Multiple responses accepted) *Includes HFCS & Corn Syrup (Unaided)
•
Q8. Which of the following statements best describes your beliefs regarding the foods
and beverages that you or your family consume? (Aided)
–
I/we limit or try to avoid high fructose corn syrup specifically
–
I/we have no real concerns with respect to the sweet content of the foods and/or beverages I/we consume
–
I/we limit or try to avoid sugar of any kind
–
It is the overall sugar content that matters more to me/us, not the high fructose corn syrup
Source: Mintel, October 2012; N = 2,400
16
CONSUMERS FALL INTO THREE
MAIN SEGMENTS.
• Sugars Avoiders: Say they avoid or limit sugars on an unaided basis.
– This segment includes HFCS Avoiders – those who mention HFCS specifically on
an unaided basis.
• Sugars Concerned: On an aided basis, say they limit all sugars, or
that total sugars matter more than HFCS.
– This segment includes HFCS-Concerned – those who say on an aided basis that
they limit or avoid HFCS specifically.
• Eaters: No concerns about sweeteners in foods and beverages.
Source: Mintel, October 2012; N = 2,400
17
“HFCS AVOIDERS” – WHAT PART
OF THE POPULATION?
Only 2.9% of consumers avoid HFCS specifically.
HFCS CONCERNED:
aided 23.1%
EATERS: 20.3%
HFCS AVOIDERS:
unaided 2.9%
SUGARS CONCERNED: 58.4%
SUGARS AVOIDERS 21.3%
aided
unaided
79.7% of consumers are concerned about total sugars.
Source: Mintel, October 2012; N = 2,400
18
WHAT ARE CONSUMERS
DEMANDING? LESS ADDED SUGAR.
In the last six months, have there been any particular foods, beverages, or specific
ingredients that you and your family are trying to consume less of or avoid? (UNAIDED)
Not avoiding or purposefully consuming less of anything
22%
Sugar, added sugar
21%
Fats/oils, hydrogenated fats
17%
Salt/Sodium
13%
Soda/carbonated beverages
8%
Carbohydrates/white foods
5%
Fast food
4%
High fructose corn syrup
3%
Processed/packaged foods
3%
Red meat
3%
Source: Mintel 2012; N = 2,400
Q3. In the last six months, have there been any particular foods, beverages, or specific ingredients that you and your family are trying to consume
less of or avoid? (multiple responses accepted)
* “HFCS” Includes HFCS and corn syrup
19
PRIMARY SHOPPERS DON’T
LOOK FOR HFCS ON LABELS.
Frequency of label-reading (UNAIDED)
Never
12%
Hardly
Ever
15%
Information sought on labels (UNAIDED)
38%
30% 28%
Regularly
48%
24%
13%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
Occasionally
30%
Source: Mintel 2012; N = 2,173
Q2. When you read labels, what information are you looking for? (multiple responses accepted)
* “HFCS” Includes HFCS and corn syrup
20
FEWER THAN 3% OF SHOPPERS SPECIFICALLY AVOID HFCS
IN 12 HIGH-VOLUME FOOD AND BEVERAGE CATEGORIES.
Category Shoppers Specifying HFCS as a Concern When Buying Products (UNAIDED)
2.7%
2.2%
2.1%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.3%
0.7%
Q11. You said that you consider sugar or other sweeteners when buying …… Please tell us why. (Open-ended response = “Avoid/dislike HFCS”)
Source: Mintel 2012; N = 2,008
21
SHOPPERS ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDED
SUGARS OVERALL THAN ABOUT HFCS SPECIFICALLY.
60%
56%
54%
52%
45%
43%
42%
36%
35%
29%
24%
21%
2.7%
2.2%
2.1%
2.0%
1.9%
1.9%
1.7%
1.5%
1.5%
1.3%
1.3%
0.7%
Category shoppers specifying HFCS as a concern when buying products
Category shoppers who consider sugar/sweeteners when buying products
Q10. Do you consider ….when buying ...?
Q11. You said that you consider sugar or other sweeteners when buying …… Please tell us why. (Open-ended response = “Avoid/dislike HFCS”)
Source: Mintel 2012; N = 2,008
22
HFCS IS A CONCERN FOR THREE OUT OF 100 FRESH/PACKAGED BREAD BUYERS.
Q10 Do you consider ….when buying ...?
80%
60%
76%
Fresh Packaged Bread
53%
46%
46%
40%
36%
36%
Fats
Sugar
20%
Response
0%
Vitamins Calories
Fiber
Protein
Limit/watch sugar/sweeteners
Avoid/dislike sugar/sweeteners
Q11 You said that you consider sugar or other
sweeteners when buying fresh packaged bread.
Please tell us why? (open ended)
2012 Base n =2,008
2012 Base n Buy Fresh/Packaged Bread =1,649
% of all
respondents
buying bread
Diabetic reasons/avoid diabetes
12%
5%
4%
Avoid/dislike added sugar/sweeteners
4%
Watching calories/weight/fattening
3%
Avoid/Dislike HFCS/Corn Syrup
3%
Like natural sweeteners/ingredients
2%
Sugar unhealthy/bad for teeth/junk food
2%
1%
0%
36%
Control carbohydrates
Prefer Diet/Sugar Free/Light products
Total
23
TWO IN 100 COOKIE/CAKE/PASTRY BUYERS MENTION HFCS AS A CONCERN.
Q10 Do you consider ….when buying ...?
Cookies/cakes/pastries
50%
44%
43%
43%
45%
40%
35%
Response
30%
Fats
Sugar
Calories
Q11 You said that you consider sugar or
other sweeteners when buying cookies,
cakes and pastries
Please tell us why? (open ended)
2012 Base n =2,008
2012 Base n Buy Cookies, Cakes and Pastries= 1,024
Totals equal more than 43% due to multiple responses
% of all
Respondents buying
Cookies, Cakes and
Pastries
Limit/watch sugar/sweeteners
Family member likes it/All Other
15%
11%
Avoid/dislike sugar/sweeteners
6%
Watching calories/weight/fattening
Like natural sweeteners/ingredients
Diabetic reasons/avoid diabetes
Avoid/dislike added sugar/sweeteners
5%
3%
3%
Sugar unhealthy/bad for teeth/junk food
3%
2%
Avoid/Dislike HFCS/Corn Syrup
2%
Prefer Diet/Sugar Free/Light products
Control carbohydrates
Total*
1%
1%
49%
24
LOW SEARCH VOLUME FOR “HFCS”
INDICATES LOW INTEREST.
Search volume for “Sugar” is more than 60x greater than for “HFCS” – a clear sign of
what matters more to consumers.
80
70
68
Search Index
60
53.6
50
40
42.2
42.9
"Soda"
47.1
"Stevia"
30
20
10
0
1.4
July
2009
July1,2009
"Sugar"
1.3
July
2010
July1,2010
1.3
July
2011
July1,2011
*”High Fructose Corn Syrup” search combines commonly used terms, “High Fructose Corn Syrup and “Corn Syrup”
Source: Google Trends, Scale is based on the average traffic in US only from January 4, 2004
1.2
July
2012
July1,2012
1
"High Fructose
Corn Syrup"
July
2013
July1,2013
25
SOCIAL MEDIA “BUZZ” DOES
NOT REFLECT HIGH INTEREST.
“…We need to take into account the motivations of some commentators seeking to
create false controversies. A high volume of comments on sites such as Facebook
and Twitter does not necessarily translate to high consumer interest.”
K.D. Paine, CEO, KDPaine & Partners
>60% of posts about HFCS are by
people who post only once or
twice a year – clearly not a high
priority issue for them.
Source: KDPaine & Partners, 2011
Base: 301,497 comments, posts and published conversations
Additional 15% of posts from
people paid to post & from
automated “bots.”
Actual conversation:
Mainly on forums and
personal blogs by people
heavily engaged in activities
such as organic farming and
body-building.
26
KEY TAKEAWAY
CONSUMER ATTITUDES:
Research shows that consumers
are focused on added sugars
overall, not on the sweetener type.
Unaided questions reveal top-of-mind concerns, true attitudes,
and likely behavior.
27
THE
SCIENCE OF
SWEETENERS
28
HFCS IS MORE THAN JUST A
SWEETENER.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintains freshness in condiments
Promotes browning of baked goods
Enhances fruit and spice flavors in marinades
Aids fermentation in breads and yogurts
Retains moisture in breakfast bars and cereals
Makes high-fiber baked goods and cereals more palatable
Maintains consistent flavors in beverages
Keeps ingredients evenly mixed in salad dressings
29
CLEAR SCIENTIFIC AGREEMENT
HFCS and table sugar are safe …
… with no nutritive difference.
30
IS HFCS NATURAL? YES, UNDER FDA POLICY.
HFCS meets the Food and Drug Administration’s
test for use of the term “natural.”
HFCS is made from corn, a natural grain product,
and enzymes used in production of HFCS are
found in nature.
Source: Letter from Geraldine June, FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, to Audrae Erickson, President of
the Corn Refiners Association, July 3, 2008.
31
HFCS USE DECREASED
AS OBESITY RATES
CONTINUED TO RISE.
Data for the last 10 years do not support
the HFCS hypothesis.
350
300
40%
250
30%
HFCS
20%
200
150
OBESITY
100
10%
50
0%
0
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
Data: USDA Economic Research Service (U.S. per capita loss-adjusted food availability: “Total Calories”); Flegal et al, JAMA, 2010; Flegal et al, JAMA, 2012.
2006
Calories per person per day
Percentage of population obese
50%
2009
32
HFCS is not a significant part of the calorie increase.
OBESITY =
EXCESS CALORIES
Average Calories Consumed
Daily Per Capita (U.S.)
1970
Percentage of Caloric Growth
2010
All other
3%
2,076
2,534
+458 Calories
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA (U.S. per capita loss-adjusted food availability: “Total Calories”)
Flour/cereal
products
37%
Added
sugars
7%
Added fats
53%
33
It’s not the type of added sugar that matters
to consumers; the issue is total sugar
consumption.
THE SWEETENER
CONVERSATION HAS
SHIFTED.
USDA 2010 dietary guidelines
emphasize total caloric intake;
industry labeling initiatives are in
sync, highlighting
total sugar content.
34
CONFUSION ABOUT HFCS
MISCHARACTERIZED
Some nutritionists and researchers have erroneously suggested a direct and
unique causation between the consumption of HFCS and obesity.
MISUNDERSTOOD
Consumers have been told that sugar is a more natural substitute for HFCS.
MISALLOCATED
Some companies have begun to replace HFCS with other sweeteners in their
brands for marketing purposes.
35
KEY TAKEAWAY
There is widespread agreement among health and science experts that
There is no meaningful nutritional
difference between HFCS and sugar.
36
SWEETENERS &
CONSUMER
PURCHASE
DECISIONS
37
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
38
RETAIL SCAN DATA SHOWS WHAT
SHOPPERS ARE REALLY DOING.
Nielsen scanner data tracked sales performance of brands that switched from
HFCS to sugar: more than 3,200 SKUs across 25 leading brands in three
major product categories.
BEVERAGES
BAKED GOODS
PREPARED FOODS
Soft Drinks
Fresh Bread
Canned Soup
Ready to Drink Teas
English Muffins
Condiments
Juice Drinks
Bagels
Syrup
Sports Drinks
Rolls
Granola
Refrigerated Yogurt Drinks
Buns
Snack Crackers
Source: Nielsen
39
NUTRI-GRAIN BREAKFAST BAR SHARE
($) OF TOTAL BREAKFAST BAR MARKET
Nutri-Grain brand dollar sales share has not increased with recent reformulation to
HFCS-free.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
HFCS
Sugar
40
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
SARA LEE BREAD SHARE ($) OF TOTAL
FRESH BREAD MARKET
Product reformulation to HFCS-free in 2010 has not increased brand dollar share. The uptick in sales
the last four months is likely due to retail promotions.
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
HFCS
Sugar
Low / No Sugar
41
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
KEY TAKEAWAY
CONSUMER PURCHASE DECISIONS:
The overwhelming majority of consumers
don’t respond to strategies based on
promoting single type of sweetener.
42
SWEETENER
STRATEGIES
43
SWEETENER STRATEGIES VARY
WIDELY ACROSS BRANDS.
New data emerging on performance of brands with different approaches. Many
have already switched back to HFCS – including “Mom & Kid” brands.
APPROACH
DESCRIPTION
Replace
Reformulate brand without promotion
Extend
Offer HFCS-free line extension
Promote
Reformulate brand with heavy promotion (including
package label call-outs)
Reduce
Offer lower-sugars line extension
Maintain
Stay with HFCS
44
REPLACE: MIRACLE WHIP
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
1/1/2013
10/1/2012
7/1/2012
4/1/2012
1/1/2012
10/1/2011
7/1/2011
4/1/2011
1/1/2011
10/1/2010
7/1/2010
4/1/2010
1/1/2010
10/1/2009
7/1/2009
4/1/2009
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
1/1/2009
HFCS
Sugar
52 wk trailing
$ Sales (Millions)
52-week sales trend shows no sales gain from either sweetener change.
45
TOP QUESTIONS FROM F&B
INDUSTRY PROS
•
Why do I read or hear that a large percentage of consumers are concerned
about HFCS?
•
How do I know that research that says different applies to my consumers?
•
If consumers say they want to avoid “sugar,” don’t they really mean HFCS?
•
Isn’t it true that consumer attitudes about HFCS drive their purchase
decisions?
•
If nothing else, isn’t “HFCS-Free” a niche market for incremental volume
and share?
46
EXTEND: HEINZ GIVES UP AS
MUCH AS IT GAINS.
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
Mar-13
Jan-13
Nov-12
Sep-12
Jul-12
May-12
Mar-12
Jan-12
Nov-11
Sep-11
Jul-11
May-11
Mar-11
Jan-11
Nov-10
Sep-10
Jul-10
May-10
Mar-10
Jan-10
Nov-09
Sep-09
Jul-09
May-09
Mar-09
Sugar
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan-09
HFCS
Market Share, $ Sales
Low-salt, HFCS-free SKUs cannibalized about 7% share from their
existing base.
47
PROMOTE: HUNT’S BRAND
REFORMULATION DIDN’T PAY OFF.
HFCS
Sugar
“Overall, consumer demand for HFCS-free ketchup was not as
strong as expected.” - Hunt’s spokesperson, May 31, 20121
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1. Source: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Market/ConAgra-switches-back-to-HFCS-in-Hunt-s-ketchup-citing-lackluster-demand
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
48
CAPRI SUN SALES: GAINS FROM PROMOTIONS, NOT FROM
SWITCHING SWEETENER.
12%
HFCS
Sugar
24 wk trailing
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
1/1/2013
10/1/2012
7/1/2012
4/1/2012
1/1/2012
10/1/2011
7/1/2011
4/1/2011
1/1/2011
10/1/2010
7/1/2010
4/1/2010
1/1/2010
10/1/2009
7/1/2009
4/1/2009
1/1/2009
0%
49
CAPRI SUN “ROARIN’ WATERS”: HFCS-SWEETENED, AND
LOWER-TOTAL-SUGARS STRATEGY BOOSTS SALES.
Success of HFCS-sweetened Roarin’ Waters reflects the fact that lower sugars overall, not a specific
type of sweetener, is what matters to primary shoppers (moms) – which Capri Sun purposely leveraged.
$7
Consolidated sales:
$259.9 million
$6
HFCS
52wk trailing
Millions
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
1/1/2013
10/1/2012
7/1/2012
4/1/2012
1/1/2012
10/1/2011
7/1/2011
4/1/2011
1/1/2011
10/1/2010
7/1/2010
4/1/2010
1/1/2010
10/1/2009
7/1/2009
4/1/2009
1/1/2009
$0
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
50
MAINTAIN: POWERADE GAINS
ON GATORADE
Source: Nielsen US Retail Sales All Outlets Combined (including Walmart). March 2013.
3/1/2013
1/1/2013
11/1/2012
9/1/2012
7/1/2012
5/1/2012
3/1/2012
1/1/2012
11/1/2011
9/1/2011
7/1/2011
5/1/2011
3/1/2011
1/1/2011
11/1/2010
9/1/2010
7/1/2010
5/1/2010
3/1/2010
1/1/2010
HFCS (No change)
11/1/2009
Sugar
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
9/1/2009
HFCS
Market Share, $ Sales
Gatorade share was flat (up .3%) over this period. Staying with an
HFCS formulation, Powerade share rose from 9.5 % to 11.5 %.
51
KEY TAKEAWAY
SWEETENER STRATEGIES:
A “reduce” strategy (reduction of total sugars) is
aligned with current consumer needs.
Consumer purchase data confirms HFCS-free as a
brand point of difference does not impact market
share.
52
SUMMARY &
LOOKING
AHEAD
53
WHY DO COMPANIES
SWITCH FROM HFCS?
Most cite one reason:
“Our consumers are demanding it.”
54
THIRD-PARTY RESEARCH TELLS
A DIFFERENT STORY.
Consumers care more about total sugars, not about
which nutritive sweetener is added.
55
THE SWEETENER LANDSCAPE
IS CHANGING.
F&B companies have focused on changing the type of sweetener they use.
•
But sales data clearly show that changes in the type of sweetener have no
significant positive effect on sales.
By taking a new look at consumer attitudes about sweeteners and healthier
eating, we now understand:
•
•
How consumer attitudes translate into purchase decisions.
How leading brands are leveraging a successful sweetener strategy.
56
LOOKING AHEAD: THE ISSUE OF
TOTAL ADDED SUGARS
Key questions for food and beverage manufacturers:
1.
Are you incurring unnecessary costs to develop or promote
HFCS-Free products that few of your consumers care about?
2. Instead, should you consider lowering added sugars overall in
your products, in response to changing consumer needs?
57
Who else in your company
needs to know?
58
THANK YOU
For more information, visit
or call 1-877-825-6635.
Copyright 2012 Corn Refiners Association
59
APPENDIX
60
DR. ROBERT LUSTIG &
THE EB2012 “SUGAR SHOWDOWN”
Experimental Biology 2012 conference in San Diego
“Dr. Robert Lustig, of University of California, San Francisco, who is famed for sensationalizing the
position that sugar is "toxic" in media coverage and the scientific literature, was seriously challenged
by not only speakers, but also by fellow scientists (from industry and non-industry alike) in the
crowd during the question-and-answer period.”
“One of those scientists was Dr. John Sievenpiper, of St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto,
who told me in an interview after the event, ‘Having both sides better represented was far more
balanced than what came out of his two-million hit sensation on YouTube and a lot of the media
coverage.’”
http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.com/2012/06/videos-of-eb2012-sugarshowdown.html?elq=aca3b504ae564602a45bae581f1acfbf&elqCampaignId=46
"Videos from the EB2012 Sugar Showdown and a Few Comments from Dr. Lustig,“ David Despain, Evolving Health: Food, Nutrition,
and Medicine, June 8, 2012.
61
JAMA STUDY: MISLEADING CLAIMS ON
EFFECTS OF FRUCTOSE ON HUNGER &
WEIGHT GAIN
-
“Exploratory” study in Journal of the American Medical Association
-
Conclusions based on test conducted on just 20 people fed massive doses
of sugar in a manner not consumed in real life.
“When consumed together, as they are almost always are, fructose and glucose balance
each other out and would likely have no effect on normal hypothalamic blood flow. […]
Any suggestion that this artificial experiment has implications for human nutrition or
obesity is unwarranted speculation.”
Sources
Page KA et al. Effects of fructose vs glucose on regional cerebral blood flow in brain regions
involved with appetite and reward pathways. JAMA 2013;309:63.
http://cornnaturally.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-news/press-releases/dietary-habits/
Dr. James Rippe
Founder, Rippe Lifestyle Institute
Professor of Biomedical Sciences
University of Central Florida
62
NEITHER HFCS NOR TABLE SUGAR
INCREASES LIVER FAT UNDER “REAL
WORLD” CONDITIONS
Recent study published by Dr. James Rippe in
Journal of Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism (JAPNM)
•
Provides compelling evidence that HFCS and sucrose consumed at levels consistent with average
daily consumption do not increase liver fat in humans, a leading cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver
disease.
•
Supports the well-established body of science that shows HFCS and table sugar are nutritionally
and metabolically equivalent.
Implication for food and beverage manufacturers is clear – as companies
formulate safe, nutritious products, consumers are more concerned about total sugar
consumption than about which type of sweetener is used.
Source: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322
63
STANFORD DIABETES STUDY: DATA
“SIMPLY INSUFFICIENT TO THE TASK”
Recent study published by PLOS ONE suggests sugar may have a direct,
independent link to diabetes.
“[It] seems more to confirm what dietitians and the medical community have known for
years; over-consumption of calories, combined with a sedentary lifestyle, leads to obesity
and obesity related diseases such as type-2 diabetes.” –Dr. James Rippe
“Some of the data go against the basic conclusion. For example, the five highest increases
in diabetes were in countries where sugar availability went down.” –Dr. Richard David
Feinman
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/february/sugar.html
Basu, S., Yoffe, P., Hills, N. and Lustig, R.H. “The Relationship of Sugar to Population-Level Diabetes
Prevalence: An Economic Analysis of Repeated Cross-Sectional Data,” PLoS One. 8:2(2013).
(http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057873)
64
“AN INCOMPLETE STORY CAN LEAD READERS
TO DRAW INACCURATE CONCLUSIONS.”
Mark Kern, PHD, RD, CSSD, Professor of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences at San
Diego State University, analyzed the concepts presented in Fat Chance, by Robert H.
Lustig, MD.
“Fat Chance…is the product of one individual’s point of view – a perspective that is not supported
by the vast majority of scientific research on nutrition and metabolism” (1).
“Numerous scientific authorities, including the Academy for Nutrition and
Dietetics, have acknowledged that the most effective way to achieve and sustain
a healthy weight is to exercise regularly and eat a balanced, nutrientdense diet that allows for the enjoyment of all foods within individual calorie
limits” (10).
Source: “Scientific Review of Robert Lustig’s Fat Chance”
http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf
65
THE BODY ABSORBS
HFCS JUST AS IT
DOES TABLE SUGAR.
66
Melanson et al, 2007, Nutrition
67
Melanson et al, 2007, Nutrition
Zukley et al, June 2007, Endocrine
Soc Program Abstract #P2-46.
Lowndes et al, June 2007,
Endocrine Soc Program Abstract
#P2-45.
68