History of Sugar: Origins, Trade, Industry, and Modern Consumption
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The history of sugar is the history of a plant becoming a technology, a technology becoming a traded commodity, and a traded commodity becoming an ordinary part of daily life. A widely used scientific synthesis places the earliest phase of sugarcane domestication and juice use in tropical Southeast Asia thousands of years ago; the decisive transformation came later, when producers in India learned to make transportable sugar crystals. From there, cane cultivation and sugar-making spread through Persia and the medieval Islamic world, into the Mediterranean, and eventually into Atlantic plantation economies. Gillian Eggleston’s history of sugar and sweeteners for the American Chemical Society divides this long development into phases running from early sugarcane use, through Indian crystallization and medieval diffusion, to New World plantation production, beet sugar, mechanization, and the modern sweetener economy.
That long history matters because “sugar” has never meant only one thing socially. It has been a rare luxury, a medicine and spice, a marker of wealth, a colonial commodity, a factory product, an everyday pantry ingredient, a source of quick calories, a familiar reward, and a target of modern public-health policy. For the chemistry and everyday categories behind the word, see Sugar: What It Is, Types, Uses, Health, and Psychology. This article stays with the historical question: where sugar came from, how it moved, how the industry changed, and how consumption became modern.
A crucial distinction runs through the entire story. The history of sugarcane is older than the history of crystallized sugar, and the history of crystallized sugar is older than the history of cheap mass-consumed sugar. Treating those three histories as if they began at the same moment hides the very transformation that made sugar globally important.
History of sugar: the timeline at a glance
Around 8000 BCE and the prehistoric era: sugarcane before crystallized sugar
Historical syntheses commonly place early sugarcane domestication and juice extraction in tropical Southeast Asia many thousands of years ago. Modern genomic research complicates any simple one-place origin story: research in Annals of Botany shows that modern sugarcane is genetically complex and that the domesticated sweet lineage Saccharum officinarum is tied to New Guinea-associated ancestry, while today’s commercial cultivars descend from later interspecific hybridization. The safest historical conclusion is therefore broad: people cultivated very sweet canes in the New Guinea–Southeast Asian world long before refined sugar existed as a commodity.
Early centuries CE: India and crystallized sugar
The next major threshold was technological rather than botanical. According to the ACS historical review, methods for producing sugar crystals from cane juice were developed in India in the early centuries CE, followed by improvements in refining. Crystallization turned sweetness stored in a perishable plant juice into a concentrated, comparatively stable product that could be stored, transported, traded, divided, and refined again.
About 700–1500 CE: the medieval Islamic world and the Mediterranean
Sugarcane cultivation and cane-sugar manufacture then spread across the medieval Islamic world. Eggleston identifies roughly 700–1500 CE as the phase in which cultivation, processing knowledge, and plantation-style production expanded westward. Sugar entered Mediterranean agriculture and commerce, but remained expensive in much of Europe because growing cane required suitable climates and processing demanded labor, fuel, equipment, and technical knowledge.
Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries: the Atlantic plantation economy
European colonial expansion carried cane production into the Atlantic and the Americas on an enormous new scale. The UK National Archives documents how early modern sugar production in the Americas depended first on coerced Indigenous labor and increasingly on enslaved Africans, with plantation mills crushing cane and boiling juice before raw sugar and molasses were shipped to European commercial centers for further refining.
Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: mass markets, beet sugar, and industrial processing
By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, sugar was moving from elite consumption toward much broader use in parts of Europe and North America. At the same time, beet sugar changed the geography of supply. USDA Economic Research Service history records Andreas Marggraf’s 1747 demonstration that beet sugar was the same sugar found in cane and the establishment of an early beet-sugar factory at the end of the eighteenth century; Eggleston identifies the Napoleonic era as the period that accelerated beet-sugar production and nineteenth-century mechanization.
Twentieth century: sugar inside the industrial food system
In the twentieth century, refined sugar became one component of a much larger industrial sweetener economy. The ACS history places high-fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners in this later phase. That distinction still matters: sucrose, corn syrups, sugar alcohols, and non-sugar sweeteners are not interchangeable chemical categories, even when all can participate in the broader history of manufactured sweetness.
Twenty-first century: a global staple under new scrutiny
Sugar remains a major global agricultural commodity. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034 projects global sugar consumption to reach 202 million metric tons by 2034, with much of the growth coming from Asia and Africa, while consumption in many high-income countries is expected to remain comparatively stable amid changing preferences and health concerns. Modern sugar history is therefore still unfolding rather than ending with industrialization.
Sugarcane came first, but sugar did not begin as white crystals
The easiest mistake in a history of sugar is to imagine that ancient people encountered something like the white granulated sugar sold in supermarkets. They did not. The earliest sugar story is a plant story. Sweet cane could be chewed, pressed, or cooked; the sweetness was physically embedded in a fibrous tropical grass. The modern sugarcane genome literature also shows why the plant’s history should not be reduced to a single modern species. Commercial cultivars are polyploid hybrids with ancestry from domesticated and wild Saccharum lineages.
For a present-day explanation of the plant sources behind familiar sugars, see Where Does Sugar Come From? Cane, Beets, Fruits, and Milk. Historically, however, sugarcane had one enormous advantage over many other naturally sweet foods: it could store a high concentration of sucrose in harvestable stalks, making it suitable for repeated extraction and eventually for industrial-scale crystallization.
This early phase also establishes a recurring theme: sweetness and sugar are not identical concepts. Human beings encountered sweetness in fruits, honey, plant saps, and other foods long before refined sucrose became common. Sugar’s history is therefore the history of concentrating, stabilizing, transporting, pricing, regulating, and culturally organizing one especially important form of sweetness.
India changed sugar by making sweetness transportable
The invention of crystalline cane sugar in India was a technological turning point because crystals behaved differently from fresh cane or fresh juice. They were more concentrated, more stable, easier to portion, and much easier to move across long distances. Eggleston’s ACS account identifies the early centuries CE as the phase in which Indian sugar crystallization and refining methods emerged.
The basic physical logic remains recognizable in modern factories: dissolve or extract sucrose into a liquid, remove unwanted material, concentrate the liquid, induce crystallization, separate crystals from the remaining syrup, and dry the product. The equipment changed radically over centuries, but the history of sugar repeatedly turns on better control of extraction, heat, concentration, crystallization, separation, and purity.
For the contemporary process rather than its historical development, see How Sugar Is Made: From Plant to Crystal. Keeping these intents separate matters: the history article explains how sugar-making systems arose and spread; the production article explains what a modern factory actually does.
How sugar moved through Persia, the Islamic world, and the Mediterranean
Once sugar-making knowledge moved westward, it entered regions with established long-distance trade, irrigation systems, urban markets, and technical traditions. Medieval Islamic societies became crucial transmitters and developers of sugar cultivation and manufacture. This was not merely a story of merchants carrying a finished product. Plants, cultivation knowledge, irrigation practices, milling methods, boiling techniques, labor systems, and commercial institutions moved together.
The ACS historical synthesis treats 700–1500 CE as a distinct phase because sugarcane agriculture and cane-sugar manufacture spread widely through the medieval Islamic world during these centuries. Plantation-style cultivation also appeared before the Atlantic plantation complex. This longer chronology matters: European colonial sugar systems inherited and transformed older agricultural and processing traditions rather than inventing sugar production from nothing.
In medieval and early modern Europe, climate limited where cane itself could be grown, while distance and processing costs helped keep refined sugar expensive. Sugar could therefore circulate as both material and symbol: a small amount of concentrated sweetness represented access to distant land, technical processing, trade networks, and money.
Medieval and early modern Europe: sugar as spice, medicine, luxury, and display
Before sugar became ordinary, its scarcity made it socially conspicuous. Historian David Singerman’s NIST study of sugar measurement and commerce notes that cane sugar reached Europe long before it became cheap, and for centuries it functioned as an expensive spice or condiment available mainly to affluent consumers. Elite households could also turn sugar into elaborate decorative objects, making sweetness visible as wealth.
This is where history begins to overlap naturally with psychology. Scarcity changes meaning. When an ingredient is difficult to obtain, expensive, imported, and displayed in elite settings, people can learn to associate it with rarity, status, hospitality, sophistication, or celebration. Those associations are cultural and historical; they are not properties of the sucrose molecule itself.
Later mass availability did not simply erase these meanings. Sugar could become ordinary in everyday tea, baking, confectionery, and preserved foods while retaining ceremonial roles in cakes, desserts, gifts, festivals, and hospitality. The same substance could therefore occupy different psychological categories depending on context: necessity in one setting, treat in another, prestige object in another, and health concern in another.
The Atlantic expansion turned sugar into a colonial system
From the sixteenth century onward, the scale and geography of sugar changed dramatically. Atlantic islands and American colonies offered climates suitable for cane, while European empires supplied capital, ships, military power, legal institutions, and access to expanding consumer markets. Sugar became part of a transoceanic system linking land, mills, ports, merchants, refiners, insurers, states, consumers, and coerced labor.
The National Archives’ sugar collection describes early modern plantation production as a chain in which cane was crushed, juice was boiled, raw sugar and molasses were packed for ocean transport, and further refining often occurred in European commercial centers. That geography separated plantation agriculture from metropolitan refining and consumption, helping make sugar one of the defining global commodities of the early modern Atlantic.
The plantation was also a production technology in a wider sense. It coordinated land, monocrop cultivation, labor discipline, mills, boiling houses, storage, shipping, credit, and accounting around a commodity whose profitability depended on volume and timing. This organization would influence later agro-industrial systems far beyond sugar.
Sugar and slavery: the central human cost of Atlantic sugar
The rise of Atlantic sugar cannot be described accurately without slavery. Klas Rönnbäck’s Oxford Research Encyclopedia review of sugar plantation slavery explains that Spanish and Portuguese planters first exploited enslaved Indigenous people in the Americas and increasingly imported enslaved Africans as plantation demand expanded. After the late-seventeenth-century “sugar revolution,” sugar became the dominant plantation crop across much of the Caribbean and Brazil and, in Rönnbäck’s account, a main driver of the transatlantic slave trade.
The labor regime was exceptionally destructive. The National Archives describes enslaved people working under appalling conditions in cane crushing and boiling operations. Rönnbäck also emphasizes the demographic consequences of brutal labor, inadequate diets, and high mortality, which intensified planters’ demand for further forced migration.
Sugar’s falling price for consumers was therefore not a simple story of technological progress. Expanding supply reflected a political economy in which costs were violently transferred onto enslaved people and colonized populations. A complete history of sugar has to hold both facts at once: production became more efficient and widely distributed, and much of that expansion rested on coercion.
Abolition did not end coercive sugar labor
The nineteenth century changed legal labor systems, but it did not instantly make sugar production a story of free, equal employment. Ulbe Bosma’s 2025 International Review of Social History overview describes a post-slavery sugar world in which indentured and migrant labor systems expanded across cane-producing regions. Workers were moved to plantations in the Americas, Hawaii, Australia, South Africa, and elsewhere, while states and capital financed infrastructure and reorganized labor around expanding global exports.
This continuity matters because commodity history can otherwise become a sequence of machines and prices. Sugar required biological growth in fields, rapid processing after harvest, and large labor forces. Even as factories became more mechanized, planting, weeding, cutting, and transporting cane remained labor-intensive in many regions.
The history of sugar is therefore also a labor history: enslaved labor, indenture, migrant work, factory work, agricultural science, engineering, transport, and state regulation all contributed to making a formerly scarce product cheap and predictable enough for mass consumption.
How sugar moved from luxury to everyday necessity
Anthropologist Sidney Mintz’s Sweetness and Power is one of the most influential interpretations of this transformation. Mintz traced how Europeans and Americans turned sugar from a rare foreign luxury into a commonplace feature of modern diets, linking plantation production to capitalism, industrial labor, changing meal patterns, and the expanding use of sweetened tea and other foods.
The shift did not happen because human taste receptors suddenly changed. What changed was availability, price, distribution, work schedules, food manufacturing, household routines, and cultural expectation. Once sugar could be bought regularly and cheaply, repeated exposure could make sweetened foods and drinks feel normal rather than exceptional.
This distinction is psychologically important. A preference can be biologically supported and historically amplified at the same time. Humans have a strong capacity to perceive and value sweetness, while cultures determine which sweet foods are available, when they are served, what they signify, and how often they are encountered. Sugar’s mass history is therefore partly a history of learned defaults.
Tea, coffee, cocoa, and the social expansion of sweetness
Sugar’s expansion in Europe interacted with other global commodities, especially tea, coffee, and cocoa. These bitter or astringent beverages created repeated opportunities to add sweetness. As they became embedded in domestic life, workplaces, cafés, and social rituals, sugar acquired new contexts of use. The cup became a small delivery system for a global history of agriculture, empire, trade, taste, and routine.
The pairing also changed expectations. Once a person repeatedly learns a beverage in sweetened form, sweetness can become part of what that drink is expected to taste like. Another person raised with an unsweetened version may experience the same added sugar as excessive. Historical commodity systems can therefore become individual sensory expectations through ordinary learning and repetition.
This does not mean every modern preference for sweet tea or coffee can be explained by colonial history. It means the food environment that trains preference has a history. Individual taste develops inside inherited systems of ingredients, prices, recipes, marketing, family practice, and social ritual.
Beet sugar broke sugarcane’s monopoly on commercial sucrose
A major technological and geopolitical change came from the sugar beet. The USDA Economic Research Service’s historical report notes that the German chemist Andreas Marggraf demonstrated in 1747 that beet sugar was identical to cane sugar. Experimental production followed, but European beet sugar gained its decisive stimulus during the Napoleonic era, when war and blockade disrupted access to imported cane sugar.
The ACS history treats beet sugar, mechanization, and modern processing as defining features of the nineteenth century. This changed the geography of the commodity: temperate regions that could not grow tropical cane could now cultivate a crop bred specifically for sucrose extraction.
For consumers, refined cane sugar and refined beet sugar can both be overwhelmingly sucrose. Their agricultural histories are different even when their main crystalline molecule is the same. This is a useful example of why origin, processing, sensory expectation, and chemistry should be kept conceptually separate.
Industrialization made purity, measurement, and standardization economically important
A mass commodity must be measurable. When sugar moved through tariffs, refineries, wholesale markets, and international contracts, questions such as purity and sucrose concentration became financial questions. Industrial sugar therefore generated a need for standardized analytical methods, not merely larger mills.
Singerman’s history of sugar measurement at the U.S. Bureau of Standards shows how saccharimetry—the measurement of sucrose using optical rotation—became important to customs revenue and commerce around 1900. Disputes over measurement could change tariff assessments and move large sums of money. Scientific standardization thus became part of the infrastructure of the sugar trade.
At the factory level, mechanization improved crushing, extraction, evaporation, crystallization, separation, drying, and material handling. At the market level, standardized grades, weights, assays, contracts, and customs rules made shipments comparable. Modern sugar was produced not only by agriculture and chemistry but by systems of measurement.
The twentieth century put sugar inside a larger sweetener economy
By the twentieth century, sugar was no longer the only industrial route to concentrated sweetness. Eggleston’s historical framework identifies high-fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners as major later developments. Their appearance changed competition, formulation, and consumer language, especially in packaged foods and beverages.
This is also where terminology becomes easy to blur. Table sugar is sucrose. High-fructose corn syrup is a different caloric sweetener. Sugar alcohols are another class. Non-sugar sweeteners such as aspartame or sucralose are different again. A history of sweetness can include all of them, but a history of sugar should keep the categories explicit.
For an overview of major sugar forms rather than other sweetener classes, see Types of Sugar: White, Brown, Cane, Raw, and Other Sugars. The proliferation of labels and sweetener technologies is part of modern food history, yet different substances require their own evidence when discussing taste, nutrition, metabolism, or health.
Modern sugar production is global, but consumption is uneven
Today commercial sugar is produced primarily from cane and beet, and the balance remains strongly weighted toward cane at the crop level. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034 projects sugarcane to continue accounting for more than 85% of sugar crops over its outlook period. Brazil, India, Thailand, China, the European Union, and other producers occupy different positions in a market shaped by climate, yields, energy prices, ethanol policy, trade rules, and domestic demand.
Consumption is equally uneven. OECD-FAO projects global sugar consumption to grow at about 1.2% per year and reach 202 million metric tons by 2034, with low- and middle-income countries in Asia and Africa contributing most of the growth. In many high-income markets, slower population growth and health-related preference shifts are expected to keep consumption comparatively stable. These are projections, not a claim that every country is moving in the same direction.
Modern consumption also differs by food system. Sugar may be purchased directly for household cooking, consumed in beverages and confectionery, or incorporated into breads, sauces, dairy products, cereals, snacks, and other manufactured foods. The historical transition from visible sugar bowls to sugar embedded across the food supply is one reason modern consumers often encounter sugar as an ingredient rather than as a separate product.
Public-health policy changed the modern meaning of sugar
In the twenty-first century, sugar is simultaneously an ordinary ingredient and a public-health category. The World Health Organization guideline on sugars intake recommends that adults and children reduce free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake and suggests a further reduction below 5% for additional benefits, particularly in relation to unhealthy weight gain and dental caries.
The term free sugars is broader than table sugar. WHO includes monosaccharides and disaccharides added by manufacturers, cooks, or consumers, plus sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices, and fruit-juice concentrates. This is not identical to the U.S. regulatory category Added Sugars, and neither category is identical to total sugars. Historical discussion becomes misleading when these modern definitions are collapsed into one another.
This article is about dietary sugar as a food, commodity, and cultural object. Blood-glucose readings, fasting glucose, A1C, continuous glucose monitoring, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, glucose targets, and personalized diabetes treatment belong to clinical medicine and are outside this article’s scope.
The psychology of sugar history: how a commodity acquires meaning
Sugar has a chemical identity, but people encounter it through categories. “Luxury,” “treat,” “staple,” “natural,” “refined,” “traditional,” “comfort food,” “empty calories,” and “something to cut back on” are not molecular properties. They are learned meanings built from history, culture, marketing, family practice, health communication, and repeated sensory experience.
Mintz’s historical account is especially useful because it connects production to consumption. As sugar moved from aristocratic rarity to working-class and household routine, its meaning changed with its material availability. A scarce imported spice can signal prestige; an inexpensive spoonful in daily tea can become invisible habit; a packaged-food ingredient can become a label-reading concern. One substance can occupy all three histories at different times and in different settings.
Expectation then feeds perception. A person who learns that a dark, minimally processed-looking sugar is “natural” may approach it with a different expectation than bright white granulated sugar, even when the nutritional difference is small in ordinary serving amounts. A childhood birthday cake may carry emotional associations unrelated to sugar chemistry. A family recipe can turn a generic ingredient into a cue for memory and belonging. These psychological layers arise from learning and context rather than from a personality type attached to a preferred sugar.
History also cautions against treating present behavior as timeless. The frequency, form, and context of sugar exposure have changed dramatically. Modern cravings, habits, and food cues occur inside environments built by industrial production, retail availability, advertising, portion norms, schedules, and family routines. Historical explanation can clarify those environments without converting ordinary preference into a diagnosis.
What the history of sugar shows—and what it does not show
The history of sugar shows that food preferences are shaped by supply systems as well as by sensory biology. It shows that price, trade, empire, labor organization, industrial technology, and cultural routines can transform a rare ingredient into an everyday expectation. It shows that the meanings attached to sweetness are historically variable.
It does not show that everyone who likes sugar is “addicted.” Sugar addiction is not an established clinical diagnosis, and the existence of a profitable historical sugar industry is not evidence of a substance-use disorder in individual consumers. It does not show that cane sugar, beet sugar, brown sugar, raw sugar, or historically older sugars are automatically healthier. And it does not turn the history of dietary sugar into a guide for managing blood glucose.
The strongest historical lesson is more concrete: what feels ordinary today was built. Sugar became ordinary through agriculture, crystallization, trade, coerced labor, industrial processing, measurement, transport, retail distribution, food manufacturing, and repeated cultural use. The modern sugar bowl is the endpoint of a very long system.
Frequently asked questions
Where did sugar originate?
Sugar has more than one “origin” depending on what is being asked. Sweet sugarcane lineages were domesticated in the New Guinea–Southeast Asian region thousands of years ago, while the manufacture of crystallized cane sugar was developed later in India. Modern genomic research also shows that commercial sugarcane has complex hybrid ancestry, so a single-point origin story oversimplifies the plant’s history.
Who invented sugar?
No single person invented sugar. People cultivated and consumed sweet cane long before written industrial history. The crucial technological development of producing sugar crystals from cane juice is associated with India in the early centuries CE. Later societies repeatedly changed cultivation, refining, milling, crystallization, and trade.
When did sugar reach Europe?
Sugar reached Europe in limited quantities long before it became an everyday food. Through medieval trade and Mediterranean cultivation, Europeans encountered cane sugar as an expensive spice, medicine, and luxury. Its much broader availability came later, especially after Atlantic plantation production expanded and nineteenth-century beet sugar increased supply.
Why was sugar once so expensive?
Cane required suitable tropical or subtropical conditions, processing was labor- and fuel-intensive, transport was costly, refining was technically demanding, and long-distance trade added risk and taxation. Scarcity and elite demand kept prices high. Expansion of plantations, coerced labor, improved processing, beet cultivation, mechanization, and larger trade networks progressively changed those economics.
What was sugar’s role in slavery?
Sugar was one of the central plantation commodities of Atlantic slavery. Rönnbäck’s Oxford Research Encyclopedia review describes the late-seventeenth-century expansion of Caribbean and Brazilian sugar as a major driver of demand for enslaved African labor and of the transatlantic slave trade. Enslaved people performed extraordinarily harsh agricultural and processing work under violent labor regimes.
When did beet sugar become important?
The chemistry of beet sugar was demonstrated in the eighteenth century, but beet sugar became economically important in the nineteenth century. USDA historical research records Marggraf’s 1747 work and early factory development; the Napoleonic wars and continental disruption of cane imports helped accelerate European beet-sugar production.
Is beet sugar chemically different from cane sugar?
Both cane and beet are major commercial sources of sucrose. Highly refined white sugar from either source is predominantly sucrose, even though the crops, agricultural environments, processing histories, and some less-refined products differ. Origin and chemistry should therefore be distinguished.
When did sugar become common in everyday diets?
The timing differed by country and social class, but the major transition occurred across the early modern and industrial periods as Atlantic supply expanded, prices fell, sweetened tea and other products spread, beet sugar added new production capacity, and industrial food systems developed. Sidney Mintz famously analyzed the shift from aristocratic luxury to commonplace necessity in Britain and the wider Atlantic economy.
How is modern sugar consumption changing?
There is no single worldwide pattern. OECD-FAO’s 2025–2034 outlook projects continued global growth driven mainly by Asia and Africa, while many high-income countries show flatter demand under slower population growth and health-related preference changes. Global totals therefore conceal large regional differences.
Does the history of sugar explain sugar cravings?
History helps explain the food environment in which cravings and habits occur: availability, repeated exposure, learned routines, social meaning, portion norms, and food cues all have histories. It does not by itself diagnose an individual craving or establish “sugar addiction.” Craving, hunger, habit, reward learning, and clinical disorders are separate concepts that require their own evidence.
Related Articles
References
Ballinger, R. A. (1978). A History of Sugar Marketing Through 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 382. USDA ERS
Bosma, U. (2025). The World of Sugar and the Commodity Frontiers Initiative: An Introduction. International Review of Social History, 70(3), 463–470. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859025100655
Eggleston, G. (2019). History of Sugar and Sweeteners. In Chemistry’s Role in Food Production and Sustainability: Past and Present, ACS Symposium Series 1314, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2019-1314.ch005
Mintz, S. W. (1986). Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Penguin Books. Publisher record
The National Archives (UK). (n.d.). Sugar. Education resources on early modern sugar, trade, plantation production, and slavery. The National Archives
OECD-FAO. (2025). Sugar. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034. OECD
Pompidor, N., Charron, C., Hervouet, C., et al. (2021). Three founding ancestral genomes involved in the origin of sugarcane. Annals of Botany, 127(6), 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcab008
Rönnbäck, K. (2023). Sugar Plantation Slavery. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.908
Singerman, D. (2007). “A Doubt Is at Best an Unsafe Standard”: Measuring Sugar in the Early Bureau of Standards. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 112(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.112.004
World Health Organization. (2015). Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children. WHO