The Secrets of Sugar - the fifth estate

(♪♪♪)

>> Gillian: It's sweet.

It's seductive.

Is it deadly?

Tonight the dangers of sugar.

>> I think that sugar is a

main contributing factor.

>> Gillian: Serious new

warnings from serious people.

>> The more I learn about it,

the more it scares me.

>> Gillian: Also tonight, what

the sugar industry has tried

to hide.

>> Strategies that I thought

the tobacco companies made up

back in the 50's, actually

some of those, the sugar

people had done even before

that.

(♪♪♪)

>> Gillian: When the Breedon

family goes shopping, like

most Canadians, they try to

buy healthy.

>> Let's go...

Up, up, up.

>> Gillian: But, like most

Canadians, they don't always

succeed.

They're busy.

Meals have to be quick.

And then there's keeping the

kids happy.

>> It's either Lucky Charms or

the Mini Wheat Chocolate?

>> No I want the Lucky Ones.

>> Okay, Lucky Charms?

Okay.

>> You want one that looks

like half a moon or you want

one that looks like a full...

>> Gillian: A lot of what they

eat is processed.

They assume it's nutritious

but they've never paid much

attention to what's in the

food they buy, have no idea

how much sugar is hidden in

it.

>> All right, guys, I want you

To kind of start by telling me

a little bit about some of the

groceries that you got today.

>> Gillian: Registered

dietician Jacelyn Pritchard is

about to help them figure it

out.

>> Have you guys ever taken a

look at any of the nutrition

labels or really paid

attention...

>> The label on this Nesquick

cereal says there are 10 grams

of sugar in 3/4 of a cup.

But who ever just eats 3/4 of

a cup?

>> How many of those would go

into your bowl to make up your

bowl of cereal?

>> For me?

Um...I'd say probably like 8

or 9.

>> 8?

Okay.

>> Gillian: That's a lot of

cereal....and as Jonathon

Breedon is about to find out,

an awful lot of added sugar.

>> So in your serving of

cereal of about 8 of these

servings, you're looking at

about 20 teaspoons of sugar

added.

Of non-nutritional value.

>> That's a lot.

>> Yeah.

>> Gillian: So let's start at

the beginning.

What do we mean when we say

sugar?

Well, whether it's the white

stuff you bake with, or the

brown stuff you sprinkle on

your oatmeal, whether it's

honey, molasses, syrup, maybe

the high fructose corn syrup

you've heard of.

There's a lot of that in

things like pop, chemically

it's all pretty much the same

thing.

And we do consume a lot.

On average in this country, 26

teaspoons of sugar per person,

per day.

That's 40 kilos a year, the

equivalent of 20 bags.

It's what sweetens the products

and spikes the profits of some

of the most powerful,

and familiar companies in

the world.

The food industry is one of

the biggest manufacturers in

North America, nearly a

trillion dollars in sales

every year, and it couldn't do

it without sugar.

(♪♪♪)

>> Sugar is one of the essential

basic ingredients used in 99%

of the processed foods out

there.

>> Gillian: Former industry

executive Bruce Bradley has

worked for some of North

America's biggest food

companies.

>> It's something that can

drive a lot of taste in the

products and a lot of appeal

for consumers, so it's one of

the basic building blocks.

>> Gillian: And make no

mistake, the amount of sugar

in our food is no accident.

The food industry goes to

great lengths to figure out

what makes us crave a

product -- the exact

combination of ingredients it

calls the "bliss point."

>> You know everybody asks

what is the bliss point?

Dr. Howard Moskowitz, he's a

long time food industry

consultant, known as Dr. Bliss.

>> The best way I can do it is

to give you an example.

Do you drink coffee with sugar

or with milk?

>> Gillian: With milk.

>> So if you add more and more

milk you like it more and more

up to a certain point where

you like it the most and then

add a little bit more milk,

and you say oh, it's too milky

and my gosh, and add a lot

more milk and it's horrid.

So it's Goldilocks, it's the

middle, it's the best one.

It's the level where you like

the product the most.

>> Gillian: A Harvard trained

mathematician Moskowitz uses

models to test people's

reactions to different

versions of a product.

Once he's found the bliss

point, the product hits the

shelves.

From soda pop to spaghetti

sauce, his magic makes money.

>> Everybody wants to sell

just a bit more.

How do you get that immediate

increase in acceptance?

Those in the know realize you

can add a little sugar.

>> Gillian: A little?

The first thing to know is

that 4 grams of sugar is one

teaspoon.

So with that in mind, let's

look at some products.

It's no surprise Coca Cola has

a lot of sugar.

40 grams a can.

That's 10 teaspoons.

But much of the sugar we eat

is hidden in foods we don't

necessarily think of as sweet.

This oatmeal, 3 and 3/4

teaspoons of sugar a bowl.

This vanilla flavoured yogourt,

nearly 5 teaspoons in just

half a cup.

You can find sugar added to

bread, soup, all kinds of

condiments.

Hot dogs.

This chicken dinner, labelled

Healthy Choice, has

5-and-a-half teaspoons of

sugar in every serving.

Is this the result?

There's no question as our

consumption of sugars has

grown so have our bodies.

Canada doesn't keep good

statistics so we've used

American ones.

And those stats raise the

troubling question: Are we

changing our evolutionary

shape.

Here's the line showing our

sugar consumption for the last

50 years.

Here's the number of people

who've become overweight and

obese.

Now look at this line, it's

for cases of type 2 diabetes.

And this one, diseases of the

heart.

Back in the '80s and '90s we

used to blame a lot of those

problems on dietary fat.

But then we started taking fat

out of our foods.

Did the incidence of disease

go down?

No.

So that got a lot of doctors

and nutritionists asking why.

The answer, according to an

increasingly vocal group,

is sugar.

>> Which was worse, the sugar

or the fat?

The sugar a 1000 times over.

>> Gillian: Robert Lustig,

doctor, author, medical

professor, and one of the

leaders of the anti-sugar

campaign.

>> The fact is, our food

supply has been altered and

adulterated under our very

noses and in plain sight over

the past 30 years.

>> Gillian: In addition to

treating obese kids Lustig is

a YouTube sensation.

His lecture on sugar has been

seen by nearly 4 million

people around the world.

And he doesn't pull his

punches.

>> The fat's going down, the

sugar's going up and we're all

getting sick.

>> Gillian: You use words, you

use poison, you use toxic.

>> Certainly I use those words

and I mean them, this is not a

hyperbole, this is the real

deal.

Everyone thinks that the bad

effects of sugar are because

sugar has empty calories.

What I'm saying is no,

actually there are lots of

things that do have empty

calories that are not

necessarily poisons.

>> Gillian: Poisonous, he says,

because of what too much

sugar does in our body.

So let's take a look at that.

Sugar is made up of two

molecules: One called glucose,

here in blue, the other

fructose, in red.

When they separate in our gut,

the glucose circulates

throughout our body feeding

our muscles and our brain...

but the fructose goes right to

our liver.

And its in the liver where all

kinds of problems begin.

>> When you metabolize

fructose in excess, your liver

has no choice but to turn that

energy into liver fat, and

that liver fat then causes all

of the downstream metabolic

diseases.

>> Gillian: We'll tell you

more about those diseases in a

moment.

But first let's talk about

your brain.

Too much fructose, says

Lustig, shuts down the part of

your brain that tells you when

you're full.

>> It doesn't get registered

by the brain as you're having

eaten.

So, if you take a kid and prep

him with a soft drink and then

let him loose at the fast food

restaurant, does he eat less

or does he eat more?

Turns out he eats more.

>> I think there's a long way

to go before, um, the

literature is sorted out.

>> Gillian: Phyllis Tanaka

speaks for the biggest food

companies in Canada.

She doesn't buy Dr. Lustig's

theories and doesn't think

consumers should either.

I think it's more important

that we step back and look at

how do we look for ways to

educate and help consumers fit

sugar into a healthy dietary

pattern.

>> Gillian: But the industry

sure doesn't make it easy.

Look at this breakfast bar.

There's sugar near the top of

the ingredient list.

But there's four more

sweeteners.

Did you know that chemically

they're all the same?

Then there's this tomato soup.

who knew it would have added

sugars too?

How is a consumer supposed to

know that healthy, old, tomato

soup has three-and-a-half

teaspoons of sugar in a cup?

>> Well, how did you figure it

out?

By the nutrition facts table.

>> Gillian: I figured that out

because I've spent a lot of

time recently learning about

what a gram of sugar is and

how to read these labels.

Do you think most people know

how to do that?

>> In the last couple of

years, we engaged with Health

Canada on a campaign called

the nutrition facts education

campaign in large part as a

commitment to help Canadians

understand how to go into the

grocery store and make

informed choices.

>> Gillian: But surely there

is a way to warn people who

might be interested in this

that a cup of this, of this

soup, brings you

three-and-a-half teaspoons of

sugar.

>> To what end though?

>> Gillian: Well, if they have

decided that as part of their

healthy diet they want to eat

less sugar.

>> Well, let me see.

Then they would use this same

label.

>> Gillian: The only

information on the label is 14

grams of sugar in half a cup.

Do you know what that means?

You shouldn't have to be a

dietitian to figure out how

much added sugar you're

eating, but it helps.

Jaclyn Pritchard has added up

all the sugar Jonathon eats in

a week.

It's pretty scary.

>> This is your week's worth

of sugar intake then.

So this is equivalent to 245

teaspoons of sugar.

>> That's a lot of sugar.

>> Gillian: When we come

back, what all that excess

sugar might be leading to.

(♪♪♪)

(♪♪♪)

>> That's two grams of sugar.

>> Gillian: Having discovered

just how much sugar is in

their food, the Breedon family

is on a purge.

>> Okay, the Kraft Zesty

Italian has one gram of sugar

in this one...

>> Gillian: They're still

surprised at the kinds of

Products that contain sugar.

But they're also determined,

all of it, out it goes.

Of course, they still have

to eat.

So to help them learn about

life beyond processed foods,

we've made them a deal.

For three weeks we'll provide

all of their meals

professionally made without

any added sugar.

They'll stick to the diet and

submit to medical tests.

>> Lucky Charms ain't so lucky

any more.

>> Gillian: They're only in

their mid-twenties but

according to medical standards

both Jonathon and Anna are

technically obese.

Five-year-old Ruby is hovering

on the edge.

We started our experiment by

having their blood

tested and analyzed by

obesity specialist, Dr. Dan

Flanders.

The family, he says, is

heading for trouble.

>> Looking at these results,

I would say that I'm very

concerned.

Quite frankly, if they don't

make meaningful change to

their lifestyle relatively

soon, there's a higher chance

that they're heading for a

life of lousy quality of life

and early death.

>> Gillian: Like most of us,

getting fatter and sicker,

the Breedon's might be

forgiven their nutritional

ignorance.

But the food industry has

known, and discussed, links

between processed food and

disease for decades.

It was Minneapolis.

1999.

Obesity was only an emerging

problem back then, when the

heads of America's biggest

food companies arrived for a

rare meeting.

Among them, the heads of

Kraft, Nabisco, Nestle,

Coca-Cola and General Mills.

>> These are executives, who

normally are fighting each

other for space on the grocery

store.

They don't get together

very often.

But, in '99, they got together

to talk about obesity.

>> Gillian: Reporter and

author Michael Moss.

He described the Minneapolis

meeting in his best-selling

book.

>> And they had been pulled

together by a cabal of

insiders within the industry,

who had increasingly become

concerned about, um, both the

industry's responsibility for,

and culpability for, being

blamed for obesity.

>> Gillian: They gathered at

the Pillsbury Company

headquarters, 31st floor.

The message they got was

uncompromising.

And it was delivered by two of

their own: Michael Mudd, a top

executive at Kraft, and Jim

Hill a leading nutrition

researcher.

In a slide presentation

obtained by the Fifth estate

the two men gave it to the

bosses straight.

>> A national epidemic.

>> Gillian: There were too

many warnings Mudd told

them, before drawing a

parallel designed to make them

uncomfortable.

Tobacco companies had recently

settled a massive lawsuit in

face of evidence their product

caused disease.

Did the food industry, he

asked, want to be next?

>> If anyone in the food

industry ever doubted there

was a slippery slope out

there, I imagine that they're

beginning distinct sliding

sensation right about now.

>> Gillian: Graphics drove

home the point.

Maps showing obesity rates

rising and spreading across

the country like a rash.

>> What are the health

implications of all this?

Studies show that obese

individuals are at a higher

risk of developing chronic

diseases such as diabetes,

heart disease, hypertension

and cancer.

>> Gillian: Topping the list

of contributing factors: The

ubiquity of inexpensive,

good-tasting, super-sized,

energy-dense foods.

In other words, the very foods

the C.E.O.s were in charge of

selling.

The two men were hoping for

money to study the link

between food and obesity.

Instead they got a

tongue-lashing, starting with

Stephen Sanger, the head of

General Mills.

>> He was rather furious at

Mudd for bringing this to them

and blaming them for this, and

his defence was, "Look, we

already offer consumers a

choice.

If they want low fat this or

low sugar that, we have those

products in the grocery store.

We feel we're already being

responsible, both to consumers

from a health perspective, um,

but also to Wall Street.

>> Gillian: In other words,

they didn't want to know.

Now, it's one thing to silence

troublesome voices in their

own companies.

Michael Mudd eventually left

the food industry out of

frustration.

But the people who profit from

sugar have proven themselves

very adept at crushing

dissenting voices everywhere,

including in the halls of

science.

>> In front of us day by day

are increasingly more and more

very tempting foods.

>> Gillian: His name was John

Yudkin, a British nutritionist

who in 1972 wrote a book the

sugar industry did not like.

"Pure White and Deadly" was a

culmination of decades of

research, according to his son

Michael, that led Yudkin to

what were then controversial

conclusions.

>> He started to wonder and

late in the 1950s whether

sugar might be a culprit in

the increase in heart disease.

>> Gillian: More significant

than fat, which was the

prevailing opinion at the time?

>> Certainly more significant

than fat, certainly more

significant than fat, but that

sugar was also involved in a

number of other undesirable

conditions, particularly

diabetes and obesity.

>> Gillian: That thesis soon

put Yudkin in direct conflict

with big sugar's biggest

apologist.

This man, American

nutritionist, Ancel Keyes.

Keyes would later be exposed

as having been funded by the

industry, but not before he

helped destroy John Yudkin's

reputation.

>> And as early as the 1950s

he had started producing

publications suggesting that

dietary fat was a problem.

>> Gillian: Award winning

science writer and author Gary

Taubes.

>> Keyes successfully managed

to taint Yudkin with this smell

of quackery.

And then on in, anyone else for

the next 20, 30 years who did

research on sugar was accused

of being just like Yudkin.

>> There was a systematic

campaign to discredit or

ignore his work.

>> Because of the actions of

the sugar industry in the 70s

virtually no research was

funded.

You have this idea that if you

study sugar, you're just like

Yudkin and he was a quack.

>> Gillian: But that's

remarkable.

I mean, what you're saying is

scientific investigation into

the link between sugar and

disease ground to a halt?

>> It ground to a halt.

>> Gillian: When we return,

the science is back.

What happens when you take

healthy students and feed them

too much sugar?

(♪♪♪)

(♪♪♪)

>> Gillian: It's week one of

"The Fifth Estate" Sugar

Challenge.

>> Just look at recipes that

actually help reduce the sugar

in your diets.

>> Gillian: And the Breedons

are getting a cooking lesson.

Chef James Smith is teaching

that real food, all the fruits

and vegetables and grains of a

healthy diet, can also be fast

and delicious, without any

added sugar at all.

>> They use specific

ingredients that will change

up and that will lower the

sugar and lower the processed

foods in your diet.

>> Gillian: And that may prove

a good thing, because after

decades of silence there is

new scientific research

linking sugar to all kinds of

chronic disease.

(wind blowing)

>> Gillian: Jonathan's blood

work suggests he may be on the

verge of getting one.

Dr. Dan Flanders.

>> His results suggest that

he's pre-diabetic.

That his levels have been high

and that if we don't make some

changes to his lifestyle soon,

diabetes is coming.

>> Gillian: Today in North

America it's estimated more

than 100 million people are

diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Dr Robert Lustig is quite sure

he knows why.

>> So I can actually

categorically say to you that

sugar is the proximate cause

of diabetes worldwide and we

have hard and fast data to

show that.

>> Gillian: His data come from

his own study, done over a

decade, comparing diabetes

rates in 175 countries with

peoples' diets.

>> And we asked the question:

When you adjust for all of

the factors that we know are

relevant, what about the food

supply predicts diabetes

rates, worldwide?

Answer: Sugar.

And only sugar.

>> These studies are generally

considered a weak level of

evidence.

A lot of other things have

happened at the same time.

>> Gillian: Toronto researcher

Dr. John Sievenpiper.

He argues Lustig's methodology

is seriously flawed.

>> Methodologists would tell

you there's a lot of potential

bias, I could give you one

example.

Over the same time as sugar

has gone up, so has bottled

water, but there's no real

biological plausibility in the

link between bottled water and

overweight and obesity.

So it's not a, I don't think,

a sound finding.

But we have to be careful in

putting too much of the

biological plausibility in

wanting to believe patterns

that we see.

>> Gillian: His point is it's

hard to know what causes

diseases.

And ethically can't induce it

to find out.

But you can test for markers,

warning signs that disease may

be coming.

And that's what they're doing

here, at the University of

California at Davis.

(♪♪♪)

(wind blowing)

>> Gillian: In this lab,

students are the guinea pigs.

The scientists are feeding

them sugar to figure out if it

raises the markers for heart

disease.

That drink contains 25 percent

of her daily calories, as high

fructose corn syrup.

>> Look at this...

>> Gillian: Every time they've

run the test, says Dr. Kimber

Stanhope, the results have

been the same.

>> We saw increases in

visceral adiposity, that means--

>> Gillian: What's that?

>> That's the fat within the

abdominal region.

This is the fat surrounding

the liver and the intestines,

and the kidney.

This is the fat that is

associated with increased risk

for diabetes and

cardiovascular disease.

>> Gillian: The Breedons know

that fact.

Anna and Jonathon have already

been diagnosed as having fatty

livers, which puts them at

risk for raised insulin and

triglyceride levels.

That's the fat in our blood.

When Dr. Stanhope tested the

blood of her college guinea

pigs, healthy kids with

healthy livers, she was

shocked by how quickly they

saw problems.

>> We definitely in two weeks

see increases in the risk

factors for cardiovascular

disease in the blood.

>> Gillian: Just in two weeks?

>> In two weeks.

>> Gillian: But those kinds of

studies don't impress

everyone.

After surveying a number

of studies, including

Dr. Stanhope's, that look at

sugar and heart disease,

John Seivenpiper sees no reason

for alarm.

>> What we find when we look

at those trials very carefully

is that as long as you match

for calories, fructose does

not behave differently than

does any other form of

carbohydrate, namely starches

or refined starches and

glucose.

Now, that's not to say that

they're benign, because I

don't think we should be

having a lot of refined

starches or glucose.

But it's not behaving any

differently.

>> Gillian: Stanhope can't

speak to the other studies but

says she tested for all kinds

of things, and it was only the

fructose that caused the

problems.

>> If I had results as strong

with regard to a food

additive, a brand new food

additive and then I started

producing these results, they

would -- that additive would

get pulled pretty quickly.

>> Gillian: That's how strong

these results are?

>> I think they are.

(wind blowing)

>> Gillian: In the world of

cancer research, Lewis Cantley

is a rockstar.

Five years ago the Cornell

University professor was

chosen to head a scientific

dream team.

A group of America's top

cancer specialists brought

together to supercharge the

search for a cure.

His findings may not be

embraced by everyone but in

the cancer world, when Cantley

talks, people listen.

>> Gillian: Let me ask then,

do you believe that sugar

consumption causes cancer?

>> I think yes.

I think that eating too much

sugar can definitely increase

the probability of cancer, and

also make the outcome of

people who already have

cancer, uh, worse.

>> Gillian: So how?

Well, let's review what sugar

is made of: One molecule

glucose and one fructose.

We know that when there's too

much fructose in the liver, it

sets off a chain reaction.

The pancreas produces more

insulin.

What Cantley now believes is

that excess insulin changes

cancer tumours, telling them to

gobble up the glucose.

>> What we're now learning is

that some of the cancers,

particularly those cancers

that correlate with obesity

and diabetes, often have

insulin receptor on the cancer

cell.

The tumour, by expressing the

insulin receptor, tricks the

glucose into going into the

tumour, rather than the muscle

and fat.

And as a consequence, the

tumour can use that glucose as

a fuel to grow.

>> Gillian: So if sugar can

fuel existing tumours and make

them grow, can it also cause

tumours to form in the first

place?

The science on that isn't as

clear.

Yet.

But Cantley is taking no

chances.

>> It scares me, yes, I think

if definitely -- I don't, you

know, I will eat fruit, fruit

has sugar in it obviously.

Uh, but if I can avoid any

sugar at all, and any drinks

that I drink, or foods, I try

to avoid processed foods,

'cause it's hard to find one

that doesn't have sugar in it.

I certainly avoid sugar when I

can.

(wind blowing)

>> Gillian: One of the

criticisms of the anti-sugar

scientist is that too much of

their "evidence" comes from

animals, not humans.

That said, here at Brown

University in Rhode Island

they're doing studies they

think should make a lot of

humans nervous.

This rat is perfectly healthy.

put him in a vat of water and

he finds his way to safety,

every time.

>> 5.2.

>> Gillian: Now, look at this

guy.

What he's been eating is the

equivalent of a North American

diet, complete with all the

fats and sugars we regularly

consume.

he doesn't know where to go.

his brain has been damaged.

>> These rats were totally

normal, and then they turned

into demented animals.

They don't remember they're

learning after even a day.

And as the challenge gets

harder and harder, they fail

more and more, just like a

human with Alzheimer's

disease.

>> 36.2.

>> Gillian: In this lab the

belief now is that Alzheimer's

is really diabetes of the

brain, linked to insulin

levels which can be affected

by too much sugar.

Professor Suzanne Delamonte.

>> Insulin resistance, we now

know, can occur in any organ.

It can occur in the muscles.

that's what diabetes is.

It can occur in the liver,

that causes fatty liver

disease.

It can occur in the ovaries,

that's polycystic ovary

disease.

And it can occur in the brain,

and we think that's

Alzheimer's.

>> Gillian: Now it's important

to remember that none of this

research represents the

scientific main stream.

The case against sugar has not

been proven.

Associations on both sides of

the border for Alzheimer's,

cancer, diabetes, including

Health Canada and the FDA

they all know about this

research and yet but none of

them are warning about links

between sugar and disease.

But there is one important

group that is raising the

alarm.

The American heart association

now recommends that people cut

back on added sugar,

dramatically.

Women should have no more than

6 teaspoons a day.

Men 9.

Don't forget the total sugar

intake in this country per

person is 26 teaspoons a day.

And yet, the Canadian food

industry remains unimpressed.

>> We've talked to people who

are quite convinced that there

is a relationship, a

correlation, between sugar and

diabetes and heart disease,

cancer, dementia.

What happens if those people

are right?

>> Uh, at this point in time,

I'm comfortable saying that

the science just isn't there

to support a role in chronic

disease.

>> Gillian: When we come

back, government goes on the

attack.

>> If your kids drink one

bottle of soda a day they're

eating the equivalent of 50

pounds of sugar a year, the

equivalent of 50 pounds of

sugar from just one soda a day.

>> Gillian: And big sugar

strikes back.

(♪♪♪)

>> Everywhere you turn

somebody is telling us what we

can't eat.

(♪♪♪)

(♪♪♪)

>> Gillian: World wide,

there are few industries more

powerful than the processed

food industry, or the sugar

industry that feeds it.

And yet for all their power,

we know remarkably little

about how they work.

Cristen Couzens is determined

to change that.

As a community care dentist in

Colorado she'd always been

interested in sugar, but it

wasn't until she unearthed a

stash of documents from a

sugar company that had gone

out of business, that she got

a peek into a very secretive

world.

>> The first folder that I

pulled out opened up to a memo.

The blue letterhead of the

Sugar Association.

And it had the word

"confidential" underneath

the letterhead.

And I just looked at that and I,

oh my G-- you know, what have

I found?

>> Gillian: What she'd found

was a directive from the '70s,

a memo to industry executives

about a newly published

scientific white paper; a

paper that concluded sugar was

not only safe, but important.

>> It was clear after reading

further that the Sugar

Association had funded this

white paper called, "Sugar in

the Diet of Man," and they

were trying to make it appear

that it was an independent

study.

>> Gillian: Among the more

than fifteen hundred pages

she uncovered, there were

some Canadian ones too.

An account of a sugar industry

meeting in the '70s in

Montreal, that included frank

talk about heart disease.

>> The greatest threat to

sugar consumption is in the

field of nutrition, it says.

More particularly in view of

comments that have been

recently made on the influence

of sugar on atherosclerosis.

>> Gillian: So they were

worried?

>> They were worried, as far

back as 1971.

>> Gillian: What does that say

to you?

>> They've known for a long

time.

>> So I took this paper and

crossed out where it said

"tobacco" and put in "sugar"

and looked to see if I could

find similar tactics that the

sugar industry was using.

>> Gillian: Today Couzens is

pursuing her research at the

University of California in

San Francisco.

And she's doing it under the

tutelage of someone to whom it

all sounds familiar.

>> The amazing thing I learned

from her was that strategies

that I thought the tobacco

companies made up back in the

50's, actually some of those,

the sugar people had done even

before that.

>> Well, you know now, we have

83 million pages of history

documents that's on the

internet.

>> Gillian: Stan Glantz is

famous in litigation circles

as the man who first

publicized secret tobacco

industry documents that proved

cigarette companies knew their

product was dangerous.

In the new sugar documents, he

sees lots of parallels.

>> Well, one parallel is just

trying to undermine science.

Another one is working to try

to attack and intimidate

scientists and others who are

coming up with results that

these big corporate interests

don't like.

Another one is trying to

subvert sensible regulation.

>> Gillian: The sugar industry

Has decades of practice in

that.

In 2003 the world health

organization in Geneva was

looking at a resolution

recommending people reduce

their sugar intake to just 10

percent of what they eat.

It had broad appeal among

health experts, but then the

industry weighed in.

>> The sugar industry went to

their friends in the US

congress and they got these

very influential congressmen

to write letters and say that

this is simply unacceptable.

And in fact, that the US

would, you know, pull it's

funding from the World Health

Organization if this report

continued.

>> Gillian: Five months later

the recommendation quietly

disappeared.

Having seen the movie before,

Stan Glantz says we can't

afford to let it happen again.

>> We wouldn't have a tobacco

epidemic if there wasn't a

tobacco industry.

We wouldn't have an obesity

epidemic if there wasn't an

industry that was making a lot

of money selling sugar and fat

and salt and things like that.

And to me the bottom line is

that one of the key disease

vectors for non-communicable

diseases is big corporations.

And I think we're going to

have to have to get these big

Corporations under control.

>> It has become a bit of a

moral issue, when you see the --

how far we've come.

>> Gillian: Bruce Bradley, who

used to help run a number of

those corporations, agrees.

>> This isn't a blip, this

isn't a minor, oh, we just had

a minor course correction.

We're on a completely wrong

trajectory with our health.

>> Gillian: What's the answer

then?

>> I think the honest answer

is that we need government to

step in and to become an

advocate for consumers.

>> But sugary drinks are a big

reason ...

>> Gillian: But look what's

happened when governments have

tried.

Earlier this year New York

City passed a law banning

super-sized sugary drinks.

>> If your kids drink one

bottle of soda a day,

they're eating the equivalent

of 50 pounds of sugar a year,

the equivalent of 50 pounds of

sugar from just one soda a

day.

>> Gillian: Industry's

response, to ridicule Mayor

Michael Bloomberg as an

overbearing nanny.

The law was later overturned

by the courts.

(♪♪♪)

>> Everywhere you turn somebody

is telling us what we can't

eat.

>> Gillian: But advocates keep

on trying.

Two weeks ago in Washington,

congressmen calling on the

government to help consumers

by demanding better labels.

And at the very least,

recommending a daily limit for

how much sugar is safe.

In Canada and the U.S., those

limits exist for other

ingredients like fat and

sodium.

Manufacturers must say what

percentage of the recommended

daily limit their product

contains.

But next to sugar, nothing.

>> Would your association

representing the big food

manufacturers in this country

would they accept, uh, upper

limit of how much sugar

Canadians would, should eat?

>> I think that's kind of

hypothetical because ...

>> Gillian: Well, people are

putting on the table saying,

this is one way to, if you

want to curb the amount of

sugar people are eating, this

is one way to start doing

that.

>> I think the industry

actually has responded to the

need for, uh, a diverse supply

of foods out in the retail

marketplace.

>> Across our portfolio of

more than 650 beverages we now

offer 180 low and no calorie

choices.

>> Gillian: Today, even

Coca-Cola, the world's largest

sugar user, knows it can't

ignore the health debate

anymore.

>> We like people to come

together with something that

concerns all of us, obesity.

Coca-cola and every ...

>> Gillian: But the bottom

line hasn't changed: If you're

getting sick from what you

eat, it's your fault.

>> For people to blame the

consumer, to blame the victim

in all of this just as the

tobacco companies blame the 12

year olds they go out and

addict, it's just not fair

because people aren't given

the information that they need

if they're trying to make a

good choice.

>> Gillian: As with tobacco,

at some point it will all come

down to lives and to dollars.

The reckoning, warns Dr.

Lustig is coming.

>> Bottom line?

There will be no money left by

the year 2026 for anything

else because diabetes will

have chewed through all the

healthcare dollars.

There will be no health care

in 13 years here in America if

we do nothing and I'm sure

Canada is right behind.

>> Gillian: For three weeks

the Breedons have been eating

the food we've supplied.

>> How much steak you want,

Anna?

>> Gillian: They're still

eating the kinds of food they

like, as much as they like.

The only difference none of

it's processed and none has

added sugar.

>> Then eat some of mine because

it's not too hot, hot.

>> Gillian: So has it made a

difference?

The moment of truth.

In three weeks Jonathon lost

one-and-a-half inches around

his waist.

8-and-a-half pounds.

Anna's weight is down too and

her waist, where all that

dangerous fat can accumulate,

is down by 5 inches.

And what effect did all that

have on their bloodwork?

>> I'm Dr. Flanders, nice to

meet you.

Okay, Jonathan, I am glad to

say there's some real signs of

things improving.

If we have a look at your

cholesterol level, it has

actually gone down by 10 per

cent which is fabulous.

Your triglycerides have gone

down by 20 per cent.

Okay so Anna...

>> Gillian: Her results are

equally good.

And while our three week

experiment is far from

scientific proof of anything,

Dr. Flanders is pleased.

>> So this is some evidence

that the changes that you've

made to your eating

are helping to make your body

happier, healthier.

This is fantastic news.

This is really great.

>> Well, when we first started

the project, I thought the

change would be, like, really

little.

like, I wouldn't see anything.

But to see how dramatically

its changed, means to me, like,

that it's really good.

>> It was a big change, at first

it was hell, but good results.

I'm happy.

(♪♪♪)