White sugar is not an industrial/manufactured product but an extract of plants, so it does not belong with processed foods.
Original statement
انت ي سمح بالسكر الابيض قلت لهم ده اعظم منتج انتجه الانسان وهو مش مش حاجه مصنعه يا جماعه هو السكر الابيض هو مش مصنع
verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.
Translation
White sugar is not an industrial/manufactured product but an extract of plants, so it does not belong with processed foods.
Origin
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- الحلقة الثانية من بودكاست #بدون_إثـــــــارة_جدل مع الدكتور ضياء العوضي (Open source)
- Published
- 28 November 2024
- Timestamp
- 0:03:15 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine/CC transcript; wording may contain transcription errors.
- Claimed mechanism
Not applicable.
- Claimed health effect
Not applicable.
- Population concerned
Everyone
- Geographic restriction by Elawady
none found
Diverging source versions
- Source status
- Video transcript (own words)
- Attribution
- Elawady (machine transcript)
- Video
- Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الكورتيزون حياتك (Open source)
- Published
- 17 October 2025
- Timestamp
- not available (transcript has no timings)
- Attribution uncertainty
- Machine transcript; in this video he says sugar is 'refined, manufactured' and that he accepts that, so his wording varies.
Scientific assessment
Mostly true – Correct at its core, but with limitations or minor inaccuracies.
Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.
1. What was claimed?
Sugar is not manufactured/ultra-processed.
2. What is demonstrably correct?
Table sugar is extracted and refined from cane or beet; in NOVA it is a culinary ingredient, not an ultra-processed product.
3. What is wrong or exaggerated?
Being 'not ultra-processed' says nothing about safe quantity: sugar is the archetypal free sugar that WHO and EFSA advise limiting. The archive's own Dr.-Diaa quote on the UPF page names sugar among 'processed foods' to avoid, contradicting his transcripts.
4. What remains unclear?
None.
5. Which studies support it?
6. Which studies contradict it?
I-SUG-03, I-SUG-05: these limit the health implication (sugar intake should be limited); they do not address the processing classification itself.
7. What applies to Germany and Europe?
Applies.
8. What is known about Egypt?
Applies.
9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?
Classification aside, sugar intake should be limited.
Assessment details
- Rationale for certainty of evidence
Under NOVA (A-UPF-22), ultra-processed products are identified by industrial ingredients 'never or rarely used in kitchens'; table sugar is a kitchen ingredient and is not itself an ultra-processed food. It is, however, an industrially refined product, and free-sugar limits apply irrespective of processing category.
- Source quality
Own words; inconsistent across videos ('not manufactured' vs 'refined, manufactured, I accept that'). The archive's UPF quote lists sugar among processed foods to avoid, contradicting him.
- Regional transferability
Universal.
- Individual exceptions
None.
- Regional scope of the claim
- general (biological/medical)
- Last reviewed
- 26 October 2026 provisional
Scientific evidence in detail
True only under certain conditions – The claim holds only for certain doses, groups of people, preparations or circumstances.
Research question: Is white sugar a plant extract rather than an industrial product, and does it belong outside the category of (ultra-)processed foods?
Research question in detail (PECO)
- Population
- Not applicable
- Intervention or exposure
- Table sugar
- Comparison
- Food processing classification (NOVA)
- Geographic scope
- universal
- Outcomes
- Classification
Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.
What speaks for the claim?
Sugar is a 'culinary ingredient' in the NOVA system
Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28322183 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017000234 Narrative reviewabstract checkednewly addedNOVA classifies sugar as a Group 2 processed culinary ingredient, together with honey, oils and salt, not as an ultra-processed food.
- Actual result
- Group 2: substances derived 'by processes that include pressing, refining, grinding, milling and drying'; includes 'sugar and molasses obtained from cane or beet'.
- Methodological quality
- moderate (primary definitional source)
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Classification debated.
What speaks against the claim?
Sugar is a 'culinary ingredient' in the NOVA system
Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28322183 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017000234 Narrative reviewabstract checkednewly addedThe same NOVA source states that sugar is obtained by refining, i.e. it is a processed product; soft drinks and sweets made with it are ultra-processed.
- Actual result
- Group 4 includes carbonated drinks and confectionery.
- Methodological quality
- moderate
- Relevance
- direct
- Limitations
- Definitional.
What does the overall evidence say?
Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.
Which position is better supported?
Correct as a classification point (sugar is not ultra-processed under NOVA), but sugar is an industrially refined product, and its classification is irrelevant to the advice to limit free sugars.
Why some studies weigh more
Definitional sources.
Is a causal relationship established? Not applicable Classification claim.
Remaining uncertainty
NOVA reliability.
Justified conclusion
Partly correct.
Does this depend on the country?
- General biological effects
- Universal.
- Origin of the food
- Cane sugar is produced in Egypt; beet sugar in Europe; both refined.
A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
- Main outcome
- Not applicable (classification)
- Starting level
- high (randomised trials)
- Result
- moderate
Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.
Clinical guidelines and official statements checked
- WHO: Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children (2015), publication page and news release (I-SUG-05) (2015) · Original publication
Reduce free sugars to <10% of energy (strong); further reduction to <5% (~25 g) conditional. Free sugars include sugars added by manufacturer, cook or consumer and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and concentrates (news release https://www.who.int/news/item/04-03-2015-who-calls-on-countries-to-reduce-sugars-intake-among-adults-and-children, fetched 2026-10-26).
Search strategy
Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).
| Database | Date | Search | Looking for | Hits | Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed | 26 October 2026 | Monteiro CA[au] AND NOVA[ti] AND trouble with ultra-processing | both directions | 1 | |
| Europe PMC | 26 October 2026 | (NOVA) AND ("processed culinary ingredients") AND (sugar) AND (classification) | both directions | 900 |
Open questions
None.
How deeply was this checked?
4 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (1 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 2 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.
Last scientific review: 26 October 2026
History of the verdict
- 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly true (moderate)
- 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly true (moderate)
Primary NOVA definition confirms the existing assessment.
New sources: I-SUG-107
In plain language
Dr. Diaa said white sugar is not a manufactured product but a plant extract. Under the classification the archive itself uses, table sugar is a kitchen ingredient and not an ultra-processed food, so this point is largely right. But this does not make large amounts healthy. Health agencies still advise limiting sugar.
Studies on this claim
Studies supporting the claim (2)
-
What are ultra-processed foods?
Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2019 · PMID 30744710 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980018003762Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract checkedNOVA's authors explain that products with industrial ingredients or cosmetic additives (e.g., emulsifiers, flavours, emulsifying salts) are ultra-processed.
Table sugar is a kitchen ingredient and not itself a UPF marker under this definition.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
How to define and identify UPF.
- How was the study done?
Commentary/guide to the NOVA classification.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Not applicable
- What was actually found?
Defines UPF processes and a practical rule: at least one ingredient characteristic of NOVA group 4 (substances rarely used in kitchens such as HFCS, hydrogenated oils, hydrolysed proteins; or cosmetic additives such as flavours, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners, gelling and glazing agents).
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A practical label test.
- What are the study's limitations?
Commentary; reliability not tested here
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports definitional part of C-UPF-01; used to classify allowed items (C-UPF-12) and sugar (C-SUG-05).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
That the category is precise.
-
Sugar is a 'culinary ingredient' in the NOVA system
Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28322183 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017000234Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checkedThe NOVA classification places table sugar with oils, butter, salt and honey as processed culinary ingredients made by refining; soft drinks and sweets are ultra-processed.
Sugar is NOVA Group 2 (culinary ingredient), not ultra-processed, but is obtained by refining.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Explain the NOVA food classification.
- How was the study done?
Commentary with definitions and examples.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable.
- What was actually found?
Sugar is Group 2 (processed culinary ingredient); soft drinks and candies are Group 4 (ultra-processed).
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Sugar itself is not an ultra-processed food, but it is a refined product.
- What are the study's limitations?
NOVA classification is not always applied consistently.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports the claim; the 'not industrial' part is not accurate because sugar is refined.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Used in Europe and elsewhere.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Says nothing about how much sugar is healthy.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (2)
-
EFSA: how much sugar is safe?
EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key studyEFSA found no safe intake level and advises keeping added and free sugars as low as possible.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Can a UL or safe level for dietary sugars be set?
- How was the study done?
Regulatory scientific opinion with systematic reviews.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; General population
- What was actually found?
Sugars are a well-established hazard for caries; RCTs on surrogate endpoints show causal positive relationship of added/free sugars with obesity and dyslipidaemia (moderate certainty), NAFLD and T2D (low), hypertension (very low); no safe level identified; intake of added and free sugars should be as low as possible in a nutritionally adequate diet.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Applies to sugar, honey and syrups alike.
- What are the study's limitations?
Trials looked at markers (weight, liver fat, blood fats) rather than diseases; cohort studies mostly compared sugar with other calories at equal total energy; few data below 10% of energy.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts C-SUG-01, C-SUG-05 (health relevance); supports C-SOD-01.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Directly applicable in EU/Germany.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot name a safe daily amount of sugar; it does not show that sugar is harmful when it does not add extra calories, except for tooth decay.
-
WHO sugar guideline
World Health Organization. WHO news release 2015Guideline / position statementindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key studyWHO recommends keeping free sugars, including honey and juice sugars, below 10% of energy.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim
Original publication · Scientific details
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Recommended limit for free sugars.
- How was the study done?
International guideline (news release read in full).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; Adults and children
- What was actually found?
Free sugars <10% of total energy (strong recommendation); further reduction <5% (~25 g, 6 teaspoons) conditional. Free sugars include sugars added by manufacturer, cook or consumer and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates; not sugars in fresh fruit, vegetables or milk. A can of sugar-sweetened soda contains up to 40 g free sugars.
- How large was the observed effect?
<10% energy (strong); <5% (conditional)
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Honey, juices and table sugar all count.
- What are the study's limitations?
Conditional recommendation for <5%
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Defines honey and juices as free sugars: contradicts C-SUG-01 and C-SUG-06; supports C-SUG-02.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applies globally including EU and Egypt.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Not applicable.
No study in this group is marked as key.
Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)
No studies in this group.
Regional context
Germany / EU
Applies.
Egypt
Applies.
What applies in my country?
General scientific assessment
Mostly true Largely correct as a classification point; irrelevant to the advice to limit sugar.
The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:
- Additives and processing
- Controls, imports, recalls, labelling
Honey, sugar, sweets
Choose a country to see the checked information for it.
Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.
Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country
References
- Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them.. Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2019 · PMID 30744710 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980018003762
- The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing.. Monteiro CA et al.. Public Health Nutr 2018 · PMID 28322183 · DOI 10.1017/S1368980017000234
- Tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars.. EFSA NDA Panel et al.. EFSA J 2022 · PMID 35251356 · DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074
- WHO calls on countries to reduce sugars intake among adults and children (Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children, 2015) — news release. World Health Organization. WHO news release 2015