(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Sugar Coated
Director: Michèle Hozer, photo: Neville Ottey
og
Sugar blues
Directed by Andrea Culcova,
photo: Martin Stepanek et al.
We know it's not good for us. But we are not necessarily aware where harmful sugar actually is. Two documentaries are now focusing on the many negative effects of the sweet substance, and on the food industry's efforts to maintain a general belief that sugar has not been proven to cause serious illnesses.
Little cute numbers. "All right," it says. This is not disputed by the experts who make statements, neither in Sugar Coated or Sugar blues. However, there is little to indicate that we are particularly restrained when it comes to our intake of the sweet substance. Over the past 30 years, the world's total sugar consumption has increased by as much as 46, according to the Canadian documentary Sugar Coated, directed by Michèle Hozer. In the same period, the number of overweight people has doubled, and now numbers 600 million people, while the number of diabetics is said to have tripled, to 347 million. First and foremost, to get one of the obligatory puns done: The film argues well that the consequences of our excessive sugar intake are not particularly sweet.
It also provides a thought-provoking reminder of how deeply integrated sugar is in our culture. Sugary products such as cakes, chocolates and confectionery have become a way of expressing love and joy. Sugar has become a natural part of not only birthday celebrations and weddings, but also National Day and holidays such as Christmas and Easter, as well as more recently imported celebrations such as Halloween and Valentine's Day. The substance is also found in far more food products than the typical sweets, for example in cereals, sauces, meat products and bread products. Judging by the number of names, there is little doubt that sugar is a dear child: In Canada, there are apparently 56 different names of products that are all really sugars, such as fructose, glucose, sucrose, sucrose, agave, panocha, syrup, honey, table sugar and cane sugar.
The biggest epidemic in history. In the film we meet among other pediatrician Robert H. Lustig, who is one of the most significant players in the fight against the sweet father. He generally uses big and clear words, and does not hesitate to say that sugar in larger doses is simply poisonous. Lustig has written the book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity and Disease, and his lecture Sugar: The Bitter Truth has reached a great many via the web. Among his outrageous points is that sugar is a direct cause of heart disease, diabetes and obesity – probably also cancer and dementia. He also believes that such disorders have become more widespread than infectious diseases such as HIV in African and Asian countries, as sugar consumption has increased. The pediatrician also claims that 13 percent of normal-weight children and as much as 30 percent of obese children have so-called nonalcoholic fatty liver, a disease that was not even described until 1980. According to Lustig, this is the largest epidemic in world history, which he puts into directly related to the intake of sugar. As I said: big words.
Lustig is supported by a number of less preachy voices in Sugar Coated. One of these is research journalist Gary Taubes, another is dentist Cristin Kearns. The latter has uncovered a series of confidential documents showing how the food industry worked against the supposedly healthy debate that arose in the 70s about whether sugar is toxic. The methods are suspicious of the tobacco industry's use of PR experts and spin doctors the decade before, just as portrayed in the TV series Mad Men. How to sell a product that according to research is directly harmful to health? By ignoring this research and directing attention to something completely different – like Lucky Strike is toasted. Kearns also seems to be able to document that the food industry funded reports from researchers who came to some to their far far sweeter conclusions – and that these researchers had close ties to the food and nutrition authorities' agencies and committees.
30 percent of overweight children have so-called non-alcoholic fatty liver, a disease that was not even described until 1980. According to Lustig, this is the largest epidemic in the history of the world.
No response. Not everything that comes in Sugar Coated is new. Robert Lustig, for example, also recently appeared in the American documentary Fed Up (Stephanie Soechtig, 2014), who argued that the hidden sugar content of a variety of foods is a major cause of the obesity problem in the United States. Cristin Kearns and her disclosures about the sugar industry's tactical blurring of research results, however, are a throw from filmmaker Michèle Hozer, who in turn makes her film an important document.
Sugar Coated contains interviews with several different professionals – all clearly skeptical of the sugar. According to the cast, Hozer has tried to get various industry organizations and relevant authorities to participate in the film, but these have either refused or failed to respond. Possibly on the advice of their sugar spin doctors, who know that the best media strategy is sometimes not to line up in the media.
However, Michele Hozer's film is not a dry cavalcade of "talking heads". On the contrary, it has a lighter humorous tone and a fresh design language, with frequent use of old commercials, animation sequences and other inventive illustrations. This does Sugar Coated to one – excuse the word choice – quite a sweet movie experience, despite its sour message.
Personal documentary. The sugar's less sweet sides are also the theme of Czech Andrea Culcovas Sugar blues, a documentary with both differences and similarities Sugar Coated. Strikingly, it begins with a birthday cake, which also appeared – albeit in a different version – during the first five minutes of Hozer's movie. But this may not be so strange, as the cake is undeniably a good image of the sugar's central position in childhood – and when something should be highlighted.
Sugar blues is, in turn, a far more personal documentary, which is based on the fact that the director himself has recently been diagnosed with diabetes, and consequently must stay away from refined sugar. At the beginning of the film, she is also pregnant and fears that her eating habits may affect the child. This causes her to examine the health consequences of our sugar intake, and she takes up the fight against the commercially controlled forces she calls the "sugar mafia". Over the five years the film spans, she not only introduces a completely sugar-free kitchen for her own family, but also tries to influence others to stay away from sweets through demonstrations and other forms of activism. She also seeks out a number of experts in the field, including Gary Taubes who was also in attendance Sugar Coated. And again, the absence of representatives of the sugar industry or other uncritical voices is quite evident.
Strikingly, the [movie] begins with a birthday cake, which also appeared – albeit in a different version – during the first five minutes of Hozer's movie.
Although the personal starting point of Culcova does Sugar blues Unlike Hozer's film, many of the conclusions about both the sugar's damaging effects and the sugar industry's strategies are the same in the two documentaries. But here too, new information is presented, and with that the list of potential negative consequences becomes even longer. For example, there is talk that high sugar consumption could possibly lead to ADHD, Alzheimer's and various forms of autism.
Humor and seriousness. Sugar blues also uses humor – actually to a greater extent than Sugar Coated – and is a fun and charming movie with a serious and progressive message. Not least, it contains more eccentric and funny characters than Hozer's film, including Culcova himself, which is a kind of combination of detective and activist. One can also say that Sugar blues is more vocal and anecdotal, but the filmmaker's clear project makes it so full that it never feels unfocused or directly unstructured. Besides, the humorous and essayistic form never goes beyond the level of objectivity in the film, which in the end also serves some thought-provoking global perspectives.
To some extent, these two seductive documentaries complement each other in – here again – sweet harmony. Sugar Coated builds the fullest expert-based line of argument, while Sugar blues provides a more vivid and direct insight into how to try to change your own and others' sugar habits. So we eventually realized that we should actually blunt the smoke, even though powerful forces tried to tell us it was not so dangerous.
Huser is a film critic in Ny Tid.
alekshuser@ Gmail.com
