Pointless is somewhat relative in this question, though.
It IS pointless at a nutrient level. It's also superflous... for the consumer.
On the other hand, it makes a great deal of sense for the producer. People are biologically wired to love sugar. It lights up the pleasure centers. We crave it. It also has the 'bonus' of spiking your blood sugar that once hormones take over actually end up making you hungrier so in the long run -- you eat more of the product.
Also, because of High Fructose Corn Syrup, it's cheaper than ever before it can be used to augment foods to make them more palatable when otherwise you're using cheaper or less satifying ingredients. When they came out with trying to lower fat content, the prodercers did just that. But by lowering the fat content (which they've taught as 'good'), it didn't taste as good -- UNTIL voila! Sugar was added. Take something like Snackwells cookies for example. They're the 'healthy' alternative, because they 'reduced the fat'. However, calorically... they have the same calories. They just removed the fat and replaced it with sugar. And sugar is cheaper than fat. So win/win for the producer.
What's more, producers need their products to not spoil (or delay spoiling) so that they can stay on the shelves for extended period of time. Sugar (and sodium) are presevatives! They cause these things to last longer. And last much longer if they're replacing fats which can go rancid. So the product stays 'good' longer, increasing the producer's ability to sell their product. Win/Win/Win. (Seriously, they discovered this with dog food. They literally put sugar in dog food to last longer and one thing your dog does not need is sugar).
Add in that sugar makes you hungrier and it's win/win/win/win.
From the producers point of view, sugar isn't pointless at all. It makes perfectly logical sense... even tough for the consumer's nutrition it makes little sense.
When reading one of the books I've read late (I've forgotten which one), the point where I actually became shocked was when they began discussing how Coke began adding salt to its recipe because 1) Salts make you thirstier. 2) Salt decreased the sweet... so that they could add yet. more. sugar. without it alienating people (Because flavor-wise there comes a point of too-sweet. Hormone-wise, it just continues to stoke you to want more.)
At some point in the 80s Coke and Pepsi hit on the marketing point that they'd basically saturated the market in the U.S. The people who aren't drinking sodas are doing so by choice and thus were a tough sell. Convincing people who already loved their soda to drink MORE, however, made perfect sense. So Coke and Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, etc. are engineered to taste good but not to hit your satiation buttons so that you like it and yet are always left wanting more.
Some of this is in Michael Moss's book: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/cereal-with-70-sugar-hooks-kids-on-junk-food-bliss-point.html
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-03-20 06:59 pm (UTC)It IS pointless at a nutrient level. It's also superflous... for the consumer.
On the other hand, it makes a great deal of sense for the producer. People are biologically wired to love sugar. It lights up the pleasure centers. We crave it. It also has the 'bonus' of spiking your blood sugar that once hormones take over actually end up making you hungrier so in the long run -- you eat more of the product.
Also, because of High Fructose Corn Syrup, it's cheaper than ever before it can be used to augment foods to make them more palatable when otherwise you're using cheaper or less satifying ingredients. When they came out with trying to lower fat content, the prodercers did just that. But by lowering the fat content (which they've taught as 'good'), it didn't taste as good -- UNTIL voila! Sugar was added. Take something like Snackwells cookies for example. They're the 'healthy' alternative, because they 'reduced the fat'. However, calorically... they have the same calories. They just removed the fat and replaced it with sugar. And sugar is cheaper than fat. So win/win for the producer.
What's more, producers need their products to not spoil (or delay spoiling) so that they can stay on the shelves for extended period of time. Sugar (and sodium) are presevatives! They cause these things to last longer. And last much longer if they're replacing fats which can go rancid. So the product stays 'good' longer, increasing the producer's ability to sell their product. Win/Win/Win. (Seriously, they discovered this with dog food. They literally put sugar in dog food to last longer and one thing your dog does not need is sugar).
Add in that sugar makes you hungrier and it's win/win/win/win.
From the producers point of view, sugar isn't pointless at all. It makes perfectly logical sense... even tough for the consumer's nutrition it makes little sense.
When reading one of the books I've read late (I've forgotten which one), the point where I actually became shocked was when they began discussing how Coke began adding salt to its recipe because 1) Salts make you thirstier. 2) Salt decreased the sweet... so that they could add yet. more. sugar. without it alienating people (Because flavor-wise there comes a point of too-sweet. Hormone-wise, it just continues to stoke you to want more.)
At some point in the 80s Coke and Pepsi hit on the marketing point that they'd basically saturated the market in the U.S. The people who aren't drinking sodas are doing so by choice and thus were a tough sell. Convincing people who already loved their soda to drink MORE, however, made perfect sense. So Coke and Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, etc. are engineered to taste good but not to hit your satiation buttons so that you like it and yet are always left wanting more.
Some of this is in Michael Moss's book:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-17/cereal-with-70-sugar-hooks-kids-on-junk-food-bliss-point.html