Australian sugar consumption down
[url=http://www.skynews.com.au/health/article.aspx?id=802394]Sky News: Australians are losing their sweet tooth[/url]
"Australians are becoming increasingly sweet on savoury foods, with new data showing we're consuming over 25 per cent less sugar than 60 years ago.
A report shows sugar consumption in 2011 was 42kg per person, down from 57kg per person in 1951 when Australia's sweet tooth was at its sweetest.
The report - Sugar Consumption in Australia: A Statistical Update - also found there has been a sharp nine per cent decline since 2004 when every Australian, on average, was absorbing 46kg of sugar.
The report, compiled by Green Pool, has taken all aspects of sugar consumption into account.
'Our calculations... include household use, processed foods and beverages, takeaways, convenience foods and restaurant meals,' Green Pool spokesman Tom McNeill said."
Bogus new sugar figures "worse than useless", mislead public debate
It turns out that one growth area in the Australian economy is the production of misleading reports on sugar consumption!
This latest one follows hot on the heels of last year's bogus "Australian Paradox" paper published by two University of Sydney scientists.
On the new report "Sugar Consumption in Australia: A Statistical Update", someone sceptical would ask the obvious question, something like: "How did a modest Brisbane firm succeed in the extraordinarily difficult task of counting all the added sugar scattered here, there and everywhere across Australia's food supply, a task so immense that even the massively resourced Australian Bureau of Statistics failed badly, so badly in fact that it had to abandon its methodology as unreliable over a decade ago"?
The answer, of course, is that it did no such thing. Indeed, the report is a bit of a farce. Unfortunately, the report is based on a data series that was discontinued as unreliable by the Australian Bureau of Statistics [4306.0] a decade ago, and updated using a methodology abandoned as unreliable by the ABS a decade ago. Accordingly, the report is worse than useless, a nonsense that misleads rather than informs the public debate.
How did this happen? To some extent, we can let the authors "off the hook" because the "terms of reference" seem to have been fundamentally flawed: "In the absence of ABS collating such data, the Australian Sugar Refiners and CANEGROWERS [the industry's peak body] have commissioned an independent analysis ...to publish an updated set of statistics on sugar consumption in Australia using ABS methodology..." ([url]https://greenpoolcommodities.com/news/sugar-consumption-in-australia-a-statistical-update/[/url] ).
That is, the authors did what they were paid to do: update the data series that the ABS had abandoned as unreliable after 1998-99, specifically applying the outdated and broken methodology that the ABS had abandoned as unreliable. Put another way, the authors seem to have been sent on a fool's errand, whether they understood it or not.
So they dutifully dragged out a discredited series that had been discontinued as unreliable and updated it, applying as instructed the broken methodology that the ABS had abandoned as unreliable. It's complete nonsense, of course, but otherwise a job well done. Yep, a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out".
For those interested, all the issues are discussed in a fair bit of detail at [url]http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/New-nonsense-based-sugarreport.pdf[/url] .