Saturday, August 13, 2011

Kellogg's and WebMD report sugar's good for you!

A few moments ago a tweet from Andrew Tobert rang up on Tweetdeck.

He was tweeting about a WebMD advertorial that explicitly states not only is sugar not bad for you, it's actually good for you and that your children can eat nearly as much of it as adults,

"A panel of world health experts recently reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded that a high sugar intake is not related to the development of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure or cancer.

Sugar was also not connected to behavioural problems like hyperactivity in children.2-3 As well as this, the panel did emphasise the beneficial role that carbohydrates like sugars play in health.

Children do have different needs to adults, so they have different Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) for sugar. But not as different as you might think.

Because they are active and growing, children are not vastly different to the "average person" used on the front of the pack. In fact, for sugar, it is very similar indeed.
The advertorial was written by Kellogg's and according to WebMD, they have sole discretion over content.

I decided to clip that pic up above from the website, as I'm guessing the page will probably get yanked - it's spreading like wildfire on Twitter.

I wonder who the BootsWebMD genius was who decided giving sponsors sole editorial control over content was a good idea?

Anyone out there still wonder about the intentions of Big Food?

Still think it'd be a great idea to partner with them, that they're part of the solution?

Bookmark and Share


  1. Why the broad brush condemning all partnerships? I find it more critical to question the decision to allow Kelloggs such an open and unedited platform.

    Shame on Web MD for not maintaining editorial control. We have an even bigger problem when it comes to research. What gets funded, who ghost writes the article and whether it gets published all significantly influence what we think we know.

    Science is far more vulnerable to politics, group think, and financial factors than any of us want to believe.

  2. Who owns web MD? and where does there funding come from?

  3. It's been a while since MD has shown any good judgement. See some of their CAM articles and occasionally they promote "alternative" therapies. I don't understand why they're still a popular consumer brand. I guess the same reason Dr. Oz is.

    The same public that eats up the CAM articles would rebel against the "sugar is good" ads. Or, more likely, use it as more proof that MDs can't decide what to eat and they should just eat whatever they want.

  4. Sure our kids can eat as much as we can - the incidences of adult and childhood obesity in this country are proof of the pudding there! Pardon the pun.....So sad when corporate wins over common sense.

  5. "the panel did emphasise the beneficial role that carbohydrates like sugars play in health."

    What... I don't even... oh my god

  6. I am actually afraid to forward this as so many who read it may actually believe this complete nonesense and lies, once again the big marketing machine has manipulated research and produced false claims which can damage health futher. Shame on those who published this and I hope you are never allowed to parent children yourselves as you have shown a complete disregard for their wellbeing. This article makes me sick.

  7. omg that is truly horrendous. I stopped eating all Kellogs products many manyyears ago because they just add sugar to everything, even their healthy 'Special K' is one of the worst breakfast cereals and dieter can eat. The scarey thing is people will listen to such a report.

  8. Anonymous7:42 am

    I'd really like to read a critique of the article they are referring to that said sugar is not related to the chronic diseases listed...or at least get a link to the article to read for my self.

  9. Nestle/Gerber also sponsors the breastfeeding section on WebMD, so you can guess how accurate and helpful that content is.

  10. Anonymous7:09 am

    Sugar is such large quantities as part of our daily food came into being only during the last 50 years or so. What did humans eat for most of the 50,000 or odd years they were on earth. Surely not sugars. I am convinced it is a dispensable that does more harm than good.

  11. Anonymous10:42 pm

    Of course sugar is 'good' for you! It's necessary for survival! But at what quantities? We are practically showering in simple sugars everyday. And an article by a sugar-reliant industry? Come on, I think people are a little smarter than that.