Lewis
Member
This will drive the libertarian set crazy. A recent article in the leading science journal Nature, ominously titled "The toxic truth about sugar," is recommending that governments treat sugar similarly to tobacco or alcohol by regulating, taxing and actively discouraging its use.
Lead author Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatrician and authority on neuroendocrinology and obesity, reports that for the first time in human history, chronic non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, which contribute to 35 million deaths annually, pose a greater health burden worldwide than infectious diseases.
The central risk factors in these diseases are tobacco, alcohol, and diets that contain a lot of processed food, including a high proportion of sugar. Governments already regulate tobacco and alcohol, but very few regulate unhealthy foods. Yet the evidence is now quite conclusive that sugar is a main culprit in many major illnesses, says Lustig.
Over the past 50 years consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide, triggering an epidemic of obesity. In fact there are now 30 per cent more obese than undernourished people. Yet sugar is currently "Generally Regarded as Safe" by institutions like the US Food and Drug Administration, which means food manufacturers can add unlimited amounts to food.
"A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly," reports Lustig. "If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose - which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole."
The four criteria, now largely accepted by the public-health community, that justify the regulation of alcohol apply equally to sugar, warranting some form of societal intervention. They are:
Unavoidability - Sugar, available in very limited amounts to our ancestors in seasonal fruits and honey, is now so pervasive people are consuming an average of more than 500 calories per day just from sugar added to processed foods, often without knowing it.
Toxicity - A growing body of evidence links excess sugar to hypertension, high triglycerides, insulin resistance, diabetes, the aging process, liver toxicity, cancer and cognitive decline.
Potential for abuse - This is due to the dependence-causing properties of sugar that compel us to consume more.
Negative impact on society - Lustig says 75 per cent of U.S. health-care costs are spent treating diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, which is associated with high sugar consumption. (The US is the world's highest sugar consumer and has the highest health care costs.)
We can look to alcohol or tobacco as models for how to manage sugar consumption. For both alcohol and tobacco, says Lustig, there is robust evidence that gentle 'supply side' control strategies - taxation, distribution controls, age limits - lower both consumption of the product and the accompanying health harms. Successful interventions share a common end point: curbing availability.
Such measures would help reduce consumption, which would have a big social payoff. In Saskatchewan, every one of our health outcomes has declined despite an ever-increasing expenditure on health care, whereas simple, no-or low-cost public health measures like improving diets - by reducing sugar consumption - would reduce health-care costs.
But Lustig recognizes that societal intervention faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby that knows just what buttons to push to make cranky columnists and commentators stand up for our freedom to poison ourselves. Naysayers (including those paid by the sugar industry) will say government regulation of sugar would needlessly infringe on personal liberty, yet another extension of the "nanny state" that meddles needlessly in our lives. But if that perspective is right, why accept regulation of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, drunk driving, seatbelts, speed limits, guns, pollution, etc.
Oddly, the same people who hate government interventions don't mind corporations infringing on our freedom, for their personal gain, by lacing our kids' food with sugar.
Helping people limit sugar use is not a threat to liberty. Good rules - like requiring people to wear seat belts - make our lives better.
Science Journal Nature
Lead author Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatrician and authority on neuroendocrinology and obesity, reports that for the first time in human history, chronic non-communicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes, which contribute to 35 million deaths annually, pose a greater health burden worldwide than infectious diseases.
The central risk factors in these diseases are tobacco, alcohol, and diets that contain a lot of processed food, including a high proportion of sugar. Governments already regulate tobacco and alcohol, but very few regulate unhealthy foods. Yet the evidence is now quite conclusive that sugar is a main culprit in many major illnesses, says Lustig.
Over the past 50 years consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide, triggering an epidemic of obesity. In fact there are now 30 per cent more obese than undernourished people. Yet sugar is currently "Generally Regarded as Safe" by institutions like the US Food and Drug Administration, which means food manufacturers can add unlimited amounts to food.
"A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly," reports Lustig. "If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose - which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole."
The four criteria, now largely accepted by the public-health community, that justify the regulation of alcohol apply equally to sugar, warranting some form of societal intervention. They are:
Unavoidability - Sugar, available in very limited amounts to our ancestors in seasonal fruits and honey, is now so pervasive people are consuming an average of more than 500 calories per day just from sugar added to processed foods, often without knowing it.
Toxicity - A growing body of evidence links excess sugar to hypertension, high triglycerides, insulin resistance, diabetes, the aging process, liver toxicity, cancer and cognitive decline.
Potential for abuse - This is due to the dependence-causing properties of sugar that compel us to consume more.
Negative impact on society - Lustig says 75 per cent of U.S. health-care costs are spent treating diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, which is associated with high sugar consumption. (The US is the world's highest sugar consumer and has the highest health care costs.)
We can look to alcohol or tobacco as models for how to manage sugar consumption. For both alcohol and tobacco, says Lustig, there is robust evidence that gentle 'supply side' control strategies - taxation, distribution controls, age limits - lower both consumption of the product and the accompanying health harms. Successful interventions share a common end point: curbing availability.
Such measures would help reduce consumption, which would have a big social payoff. In Saskatchewan, every one of our health outcomes has declined despite an ever-increasing expenditure on health care, whereas simple, no-or low-cost public health measures like improving diets - by reducing sugar consumption - would reduce health-care costs.
But Lustig recognizes that societal intervention faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby that knows just what buttons to push to make cranky columnists and commentators stand up for our freedom to poison ourselves. Naysayers (including those paid by the sugar industry) will say government regulation of sugar would needlessly infringe on personal liberty, yet another extension of the "nanny state" that meddles needlessly in our lives. But if that perspective is right, why accept regulation of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, drunk driving, seatbelts, speed limits, guns, pollution, etc.
Oddly, the same people who hate government interventions don't mind corporations infringing on our freedom, for their personal gain, by lacing our kids' food with sugar.
Helping people limit sugar use is not a threat to liberty. Good rules - like requiring people to wear seat belts - make our lives better.
Science Journal Nature
Last edited by a moderator:
