America's INSANE Sugar Addiction, Compared.

Ladies and gentlemen! Pure sugar is pure energy. And sugar make it different and wonderful. Because they taste delicious. Sugar is in so many of the foods we eat. It's loaded into our granola and our juice and our barbecue sauce and salad dressing. In fact, some three-quarters of packaged foods and drinks in the United States now carry caloric or low-calorie sweeteners or a mixture of both. But it's also added into foods that might surprise you, like bread, yogurt, spaghetti sauce, and soup. In fact, many of the foods that you might consider to not even be sweet might actually be packed with more sugar than a candy bar. And although Americans' appetite for sugar has slowed in recent years, they still remain the biggest consumer of sugar on the globe. But as an American who lives abroad, it got me wondering, how much more sugar are Americans consuming than Europeans on the whole? How do our everyday products differ when it comes to the sweet stuff? Well, in today's video, we'll unpack those reasons, including labeling rules, industry choices, taxes, and public health programs, and show the data behind it. So let's get started. As I've gotten older, sure, my taste buds have changed. But each time I go back to the United States and visit my family and friends, I find myself thinking, jeez, this stuff is sweet. And for sure, some foods are supposed to be sweet. I expect to feel the sugar crystals between my teeth as I take a bite into a gooey chocolate chip cookie. But what about things like bread, cereal, yogurt, ketchup, and milk? Was I just imagining things, or are American foods really sweeter? Well, the short answer is, yeah, they are. Peer-reviewed analysis comparing soft drink cereals and yogurts do show substantial variation across countries. However, in many comparisons, sugar reductions were greater in some European markets than in the United States. Take this box of Kellogg's Corn Flakes. Look familiar? Well, the ingredients aren't the same. This box from the U.S. has 10.7 grams of sugar per 100 grams. But this box from the United Kingdom and across the EU has just 8. Same with this box of Cookie Crisp. The U.S. box has a whopping 34.6 grams of sugar per 100 gram serving, while boxes sold in the UK and the European markets vary between 24 and 25 grams per same serving size. Now, for sure, one could easily argue that Cookie Crisp isn't pretending to be L food, but you're still talking about 10 grams of sugar. And when you consider that the American Heart Association recommends a daily added sugar limit of 24 grams for women and 36 grams for men, those extra grams of added sugar make a huge difference. But what about products outside of the cereal aisle? Like the pasta sauce aisle, for example. Marinara sauce might seem like a savory staple. After all, it's America's favorite sauce. But one of America's most popular brands is also sickeningly sweet. Bertolli's tomato and basil sauce has a sugary sweet 11 grams of sugar per serving. And with five servings in total, that means that just one jar of this pasta sauce has 10 grams more sugar than a bag of Skittles. In Germany, Bolognese reigns supreme, with Bertolli's Bolognese having just 20 grams per jar. About a third of the sugar content. Which, for sure, these are different flavors, but it goes to showcase the differences in consumer preferences with sugary options coming out on top in the United States. And that's something that I've noticed when I am back stateside at a grocery store in the U.S. There, stores have a plethora of options for almost all staple items, like yogurt, for example. Not just stopping at plain or vanilla, but literally hundreds of options here come with fruit on the bottom, sprinkles on top, M&Ms mixed in, and almond butter swirled over top. The choice is overwhelming, but it's also what consumers have come to expect. And in the bread aisle, sweetened options like King's Hawaiian, brioche, and cinnamon raisin bread are front and center, not categorized as sweets or pastries. And even enriched white bread, like the classic Wonder Bread, has approximately 50 grams of sugar in a loaf, all of which are added. And all of the sugar adds up. Worldwide, consumption has tripled over the past 50 years, and this increase is expected to continue, particularly in emerging economies. However, amongst similarly wealthy nations, the U.S. still tops the list when it comes to sugar consumption. And let's run through those numbers. Every year, we produce millions of tons of the stuff. In 2024, according to the USDA, the world churned out just over 180 million tons of sugar. And the country that consumes the most of all of these sugars, as it turns out, is the United States. In fact, each American consumes about 126.4 grams of sugar daily. Or, to put that in perspective, that's a little over 11 Reese's peanut butter cups. But hold on a second, let's be fair here, because yes, while the U.S. leads the pack, it certainly isn't the only country with a sugar problem. Germany, interestingly, comes in second with daily sugar consumption of 102.9 grams per person per day. This is followed by the Netherlands at 102.5, Ireland at 96.7, Australia at 95.6, Belgium 95, and the United Kingdom at 93.2 grams. All of the countries shown exceed the WHO's recommendation intake for an average adult by a substantial margin. And listen, general scientific consensus is that, to some degree, sugar is sugar. You are welcome to debate yourselves in the comment section, but a robust study of research indicates the human body does not distinguish between natural sugars and added sugars. It processes them all as glucose for energy and storing any excess as fat. So even if you were to make the switch from corn syrup to real sugar, when you're going over the recommended sugar intake by this substantial of a margin on a regular basis, you're probably going to have adverse health implications. However, the body's reaction to sugar differs significantly based on the food's context, as whole fruits contain fiber, vitamins, and nutrients that slow sugar absorption and provide satiety, unlike refined sugars. And this difference in the surrounding matrix is crucial for health, even if the sugar molecule itself is indistinguishable. And added sugars can masquerade under many different names on food labels, a tactic that the food industry uses to confuse consumers and obscure just how much sugar is really in our food. For the American diet specifically, the culprit for this high sugar intake largely relates to the quality of food, with around 60% of the U.S. diet consisting of processed foods on average. And these processed foods typically contain more calories, more fat, more salt, and more added sugar. Furthermore, Americans consume a substantial amount of sugary beverages. This includes beverages such as energy drinks, specialty coffees, like those super sweet frappuccinos, and sodas. Which, by the way, Americans really enjoy. So while again, to some degree, sugar is sugar, context really matters here. Germany, for example, which again was the second highest in per capita sugar consumption, their sugar comes significantly from different sources and contextual settings. People here love their Kaffee und Kuchen, an afternoon ritual with short socializing with friends or colleagues. In fact, 36% of added sugar intake in Germany comes from confectionery goods, followed by juices and nectars at 26%, and soft drinks at just 12%. But these short sugar pauses are most often balanced with dietary balances of fresh regional foods, portion control, and active lifestyles. And a government which actively lobbies food manufacturers to cut out unnecessary sugar. Which leads me to my next point. We can't even drink soda for crying out loud. It's ridiculous. This is a democracy and we should have a choice. This is going to bankrupt the country. Our medical system cannot handle it. Obesity is a national problem. I don't think you can solve it by banning one of many sugary things out there. It's no secret that a loud and vocal portion of American citizens see any attempt by the government to regulate their diets as an infringement on their freedom. We've got the essence of contemporary liberalism that is something preposterous and something sinister. Even if they would probably be better off for it. Why does anybody need 32 ounces of liquid sugar? Famously in 2012, New York City's former mayor Bloomberg proposed a soda ban which aimed to limit sugary drink sales to 16 ounces in order to fight obesity. Pushback was swift and ultimately it was struck down in 2014 by the state's highest court. The rule is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the city. And Cook County, which is home to Chicago, Illinois, passed a one cent per ounce tax on soda in August of 2017. A massive retail and beverage industry advertising plus consumer backlash followed and the county board repealed the tax just two months later. But even if you are someone who sits firmly in the camp of self-accountability, data shows us that government interventions actually work. Taxes and national reduction programs appear to have measurable effects and that actually might explain a huge chunk of the cross-country differences. Take the United Kingdom for example. In 2018, the UK government introduced the soft drinks industry levy or the sugar tax. A tiered excise that applied to producers and importers of soft drinks in the United Kingdom that contained added sugar. And this essentially led many manufacturers to reformulate their recipes to fall beneath certain thresholds. And emerging evidence shows that the levy is having a significant impact by encouraging reformulation and decreasing the volume of sugar purchased through soft drinks. In fact, after the levy, manufacturers heavily reformulated their products, significantly reducing the sugar content by 46% in a five-year period and replacing sugar with low-calorie sweeteners to avoid the tax. While overall soft drink sales volume remains stable, sales of low levy and high levy drinks decreased, while sales of no levy drinks increased, indicating a shift in consumer choice and product offerings. Plus, new research has shown that the levy has led to a significant drop in the amount of sugar in people's diets across the United Kingdom. With the amount of sugar consumed by children and adults from soft drinks decreasing significantly by around half in children and by about a third in adults after the sugar tax was announced. Now, in anticipation of the counter argument, yes, while the levy has been successful in reducing sugar, many manufacturers just simply increase the use of artificial sweeteners. And again, without getting into the weeds here, there is really no conclusive evidence that they are inherently healthier than refined sugar. That being said, while correlation does not equal causation, there have been positive changes in public health trends attributed to the sugar levy in the UK, such as an 8% reduction in childhood obesity, particularly in primary school-aged girls, and a 12% reduction in hospital admissions for tooth extractions in children. But the UK isn't the only European nation that has battled sugar consumption with regulatory action. Elsewhere in Europe, countries such as Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Spain, and Portugal also have sugar sweetened beverage taxes, or more heavily taxing sugary drinks depending on the sugar content. So, some countries use flat taxes per liter regardless of sugar level or VAT increases on sugar drinks rather than a tiered excise like what they have in the United Kingdom. But some countries don't have any at all. Germany, for example, has been mulling over the idea of a sugar tax but has yet to actually take any action on the stance. Rather, manufacturers have been encouraged to lower the sugar levels in drinks voluntarily, but this has had little to no effect to date. On average, manufacturers have only reduced the sugar content of soft and energy drinks by a mere 2%. And listen, I think even if you are someone who is staunchly against any new taxes, you like saving money, right? Researchers calculated that if implemented in Germany, it could prevent up to 240,000 cases of type 2 diabetes over the next 20 years and reduce anywhere from 17,000 to 30,000 deaths, saving the country 4 billion euros in the healthcare system alone. In my opinion, the question isn't whether or not we should be implementing a sugar levy, it's whether or not we can afford not to. But taxes alone aren't the only regulatory tool that governments and their agencies can use to help curb sugar consumption. And at least in this space, there has been more international buy-in on both sides of the pond. Not quite a decade ago, the U.S. did a bit of an overhaul on the nutrition facts label that you find on the back of your products. One of these changes was to require a declaration of added sugars in order to help consumers understand the difference between naturally occurring sugars and those added during the product's processing, allowing for more informed choices about intake. And of course, these new labeling efforts have prompted industry commenting, lobbying, and legal administrative pushback around the phrasing thresholds and timelines. So although this regulation was passed in 2016, added sugar labels only became mandatory for large food manufacturers in 2020 and small manufacturers until 2021. And so unfortunately, at this point, the science is still unclear as to whether or not these labels have made or will make any significant measurable impact on sugar awareness or on intake or consumption. Some studies say yes, some studies say no. However, I have to say the designer in me appreciates this fact. Visual design and graphic communication of those nutritional values, including added sugar, does impact consumption and purchasing trends. In fact, a systematic review of 36 different studies concluded that simplified and easy-to-understand front-of-package labels such as the Nutra score and traffic light labeling are effective and may guide healthier food choices. So what is this exactly? Well, if you're from one of these Western European nations, you have certainly seen this before. Developed by the French Public Health Agency, it assigns a score based on favorable nutrients like fiber and protein and unfavorable ones like saturated fats, sugar, and salt with dark green indicating a higher nutritional quality and red indicating a lower quality. The system uses an algorithm to calculate an overall score, which is then translated into the color and letter. And it is designed to simplify dietary choices for consumers. And as disclaimer, this system is not perfect and there are well-founded criticisms of it. Namely that because we're using the same score for all products, you inherently have an overly simplistic algorithm that penalizes naturally healthy foods like nuts and olive oil for high fat or calorie content, or just simply a lack of consideration for essential nutrients like vitamins and minerals. Which is fair. I can't speak for everyone, but I would wager that most of us go to the grocery store with a general idea of what we want to buy. We just might not have made a decision about the brand or the flavor yet. Now, probably, although I can be wrong. So please correct me in the comment section if you disagree. But most of us aren't using the Nutra score to shop from scratch. We go into the grocery store with a rough shopping list already in mind. Like, I know I want Greek yogurt for breakfast, but I don't know which brand. And I know my kids like cereal for breakfast, but there's some flexibility on which box I buy. And so if you're a consumer who's standing in front of the frozen food section, for instance, and you're trying to decide between two somewhat similar pizzas, the Nutra score is a helpful tool to compare products and understand with relative visual ease the difference in nutritional values, especially sugar, fat, and caloric content. So as a recap, yeah, many U.S. packaged foods are sweeter than in the United Kingdom and the EU. Part of this is consumer preference, but it is significantly impacted by fundamental differences in policy and less fiscal pressure in the United States. So what can you do? Well, policymakers can nudge recipes via taxes, mandatory front-of-pack labeling, and targeted reduction programs. And consumers like you can vote with your wallet and demand clearer labels. And data shows us that where taxes or front-of-pack labels exist, we see faster reformulation. The manufacturers do have other recipes. We just have to create the regulatory environment which prioritizes public health. But let me know your thoughts down below in the comment section. Which of these tools do you think would be the most successful to implement meaningful change in sugar consumption where you live? And if you enjoyed what you saw today, be sure to give this video a thumbs up. And for more content from Type Ashton, hit that subscribe button and notification bell. So I'll see you next time. Tschüss!