Should Sugar Be Regulated like Alcohol and Tobacco?
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, argue that sugar is toxic and needs to be taxed and controlled. Why it's so hard to break our addiction.
By BONNIE ROCHMAN | @brochman | February 2, 2012 |
158
inShare
52
JOSE LUIS PELAEZ / ICONICA / GETTY IMAGES
Sugar poses enough health risks that it should be considered a controlled substance just like alcohol and tobacco, contend a team of researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
In an opinion piece called “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” that was published Feb. 1 in the journal Nature, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis argue that it’s a misnomer to consider sugar just “empty calories.” They write: “There is nothing empty about these calories. 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.”
Almost everyone’s heard of — or personally experienced — the proverbial sugar high, so perhaps the comparison between sugar and alcohol or tobacco shouldn’t come as a surprise. But it’s doubtful that Americans will look favorably upon regulating their favorite vice. We’re a nation that’s sweet on sugar: the average U.S. adult downs 22 teaspoons of sugar a day, according to the American Heart Association, and surveys have found that teens swallow 34 teaspoons.
To counter our consumption, the authors advocate taxing sugary foods and controlling sales to kids under 17. Already, 17% of U.S. children and teens are obese, and across the world the sugar intake has tripled in the past 50 years. The increase has helped create a global obesity pandemic that contributes to 35 million annual deaths worldwide from noninfectious diseases including diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
“There are good calories and bad calories, just as there are good fats and bad fats, good amino acids and bad amino acids, good carbohydrates and bad carbohydrates,” Lustig, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) program at UCSF, said in a statement. “But sugar is toxic beyond its calories.”
The food industry tries to imply that “a calorie is a calorie,” says Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. “But this and other research suggests there is something different about sugar,” says Brownell.
(MORE: Ads Featuring Overweight Children Make Some Experts Uncomfortable)
The UCSF report emphasizes the metabolic effects of sugar. Excess sugar can alter metabolism, raise blood pressure, skew the signaling of hormones and damage the liver — outcomes that sound suspiciously similar to what can happen after a person drinks too much alcohol. Schmidt, co-chair of UCSF’s Community Engagement and Health Policy program, noted on CNN: “When you think about it, this actually makes a lot of sense. Alcohol, after all, is simply the distillation of sugar. Where does vodka come from? Sugar.”
But there are also other areas of impact that researchers have investigated: the effect of sugar on the brain and how liquid calories are interpreted differently by the body than solids. Research has suggested that sugar activates the same reward pathways in the brain as traditional drugs of abuse like morphine or heroin. No one is claiming the effect of sugar is quite that potent, but, says Brownell, “it helps confirm what people tell you anecdotally, that they crave sugar and have withdrawal symptoms when they stop eating it.”
There’s also something particularly insidious about sugary beverages. “When calories come in liquids, the body doesn’t feel as full,” says Brownell. “People are getting more of their calories than ever before from sugared beverages.”
Other countries, including France, Greece and Denmark, levy soda taxes, and the concept is being considered in at least 20 U.S. cities and states. Last summer, Philadelphia came close to passing a 2-cents-per-ounce soda tax. The Rudd Center has been a vocal proponent of a more modest 1-cent-per-ounce tax. But at least one study, from 2010, has raised doubts that soda taxes would result in significant weight loss: apparently people who are determined to eat — and drink — unhealthily will find ways to do it.
(MORE: Banning Sugared Drinks in Schools Doesn’t Lower Student Consumption)
Ultimately, regulating sugar will prove particularly tricky because it transcends health concerns; sugar, for so many people, is love. A plate of cut-up celery just doesn’t pack the same emotional punch as a tin of homemade chocolate chip cookies, which is why I took my daughter for a cake pop and not an apple as an after-school treat today. We don’t do that regularly — it’s the first time this school year, actually — and that’s what made it special. As a society, could we ever reach the point where we’d think apples — not cake on a stick — are something to get excited over? Says Brindis, one of the report’s authors and director of UCSF’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies: “We recognize that there are cultural and celebratory aspects of sugar. Changing these patterns is very complicated.”
For inroads to be made, say the authors in their statement, people have to be better educated about the hazards of sugar and agree that something’s got to change:
Many of the interventions that have reduced alcohol and tobacco consumption can be models for addressing the sugar problem, such as levying special sales taxes, controlling access, and tightening licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell high sugar products in schools and workplaces.
“We’re not talking prohibition,” Schmidt said. “We’re not advocating a major imposition of the government into people’s lives. We’re talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose. What we want is to actually increase people’s choices by making foods that aren’t loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get.”
Bonnie Rochman is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @brochman. You can also continue the discussion on TIME‘s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.
Read other related stories about this:
Tax and Regulate Sugar Like Alcohol and Tobacco, Urge Scientists The Guardian
Should We Regulate Sugar? The New York Times
Sugar Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol, Tobacco, Commentary Says CBS News
Related Topics: alcohol, fructose, Nature, regulating sugar, soda tax, sugar, Tobacco, toxic sugar, Diet, Diet & Fitness, Obesity
EMAILPRINT
SHARE
158
Sponsored Links
Brain Training Games
Improve memory with scientifically designed brain exercises.
www.lumosity.com
Luxury Retreat Australia
Private, Holistic, One-on-One Treatment for Addictions
www.sanctuarybb.com
FMG U.S. Externships
Nationwide Hands-On Clinical Externships for Foreign Doctors
www.fmgportal.com
Latest on Healthland
BREAST CANCER February 3, 2012
Planned Parenthood Responds to Komen Reversal
Planned Parenthood thanks supporters who publicly criticized Komen’s decision to terminate funding the group
FROM OUR PARTNERS
Doctors Cheating in Dermatology ExamsCNN Health
29 Days to a Healthier RelationshipHealth.com
What's Considered Healthy Food Around The World?HuffPost Healthy Living
EXERCISE February 3, 2012
Boot Camp: Do Food Diaries Really Work?
Month three of boot camp has begun, but the pounds stubbornly refuse to budge. Could a food diary — or lack thereof — be the culprit?
PREVIOUS
Can Anesthesia Raise the Risk of ADHD?
NEXT
How Massage Helps Heal Muscles and Relieve Pain
Disqus
Post as …
Real-time updating is paused. (Resume)
Showing 1-20 of 155 comments
cavedave
Regulate sugar; absolutely, I want the government to take responsibility for me from my first breath to my last.
No more worries for me, because I know that out there somewhere there is a caring and compassionate bureaucrat who has nothing but my best interest at heart.
Thank god that we have finally evolved to a society that understands that humans are fragile and easily led astray by temptations of the flesh, and stomach. We can now count on the government to insure that we enjoy a long and happy life free from the cares and woes of... show more
Like Reply
1 day ago 91 Likes
flux8
Relax. Take a deep breath. Slow down. Think. Knee-jerk reactions at ANY suggestion of regulation are not only counter-productive, but possibly harmful when people decide to ignore the science to take some misguided stance with political ideology. I think it's unfortunate that your post is "liked" by so many readers merely out of widespread frustrations with the government that are irrelevant to the issue here.
The proposal is not to control how much sugar YOU the consumer can eat. It's to regulate how much is put into our foods, since the diet of the... show more
Like Reply
23 hours ago in reply to cavedave 44 Likes
NaveedXVO
A good argument to show that we are sliding down a slippery slope. So because the government pays healthcare for some people they should be able to regulate what people do is your argument?
I wonder how many other things we can think of that are bad for peoples health that we could regulate?
Like Reply
22 hours ago in reply to flux8 12 Likes
flux8
Again...no one is suggesting regulating what people do. Alcohol and tobacco are regulated and yet, you are able to go out and drink and smoke as much as you want. However, the regulation of the manufacturers is in place because of financial and health implications (people killed by drunk drivers, second hand smoke, etc) to the others in society. Thus, there are health warning labels on anything that has substantial quantities of alcohol and tobacco. No such warning exists for sugar. Thus, why many people don't think twice about their kids eating Frosted Flakes everyday for breakfast (and... show more
Like
22 hours ago in reply to NaveedXVO 24 Likes
Fatesrider
NaveedXVO, "slippery slope" is a fallacy - which is to say false logic. It suggests an effect based on an unrelated cause that seems reasonable from a superficial point of view, but upon closer examination factually falls apart.
You imply regulation of people's actions when it's regulation of the choices - a completely unrelated thing.And I can list thousands of things that are bad for people's health that ARE regulated - just in your drinking water ALONE.
Humanity is still learning about how we interact with our world, and how it interacts with us. As we learn, we discover things... show more
Like
16 hours ago in reply to NaveedXVO 2 Likes
DEEKAYBEE
flux8 Neither tobacco nor alcholo were regulated for the reason you state. You can hace your opinion, vapid as it might be, but not your own facts about history.
Like
16 hours ago in reply to NaveedXVO 2 Likes
DEEKAYBEE
Your supecilious attitude towards other people is breathtaking. Compunded with your Dr. Strangelovian attitude towards government intrusion into ones life. Top it all off with your heroin analogy. Wow.
Using your heroin analogy, should we not make sugar illegal?
Who are this we all pay for my eating habits. You pay your insurance and I will pay mine thank you very much.
As to the ones that the government pays for the alternative can be not to pay for them. First people of yor ilk take away medical freedome then turn around and take more away because you want to... show more
Like Reply
16 hours ago in reply to flux8 3 Likes
flux8
You missed the point of the analogy. The heroin analogy was not to equate it with sugar. It was to give context to the idea suggested by the original poster that regulation is bad no matter what. Heroin is a hyperbolic analogy to demonstrate that it IS needed when there is a public health hazard and that willpower is NOT always sufficient.
People who are not educated about human hormone regulation or chronic toxicity do not ever consider that sugar is an actual health hazard. That's a big part of the problem with educating people about it. Because... show more
Like
16 hours ago in reply to DEEKAYBEE 7 Likes
jray83
I think this is a great idea. We, the american people, are doing an outstanding job of reigning in our government when it comes to national debt and spending. Our government is providing us with so many great services, and the regulations for these services is really very effective. I say one more "small" thing like regulating an institution that controls a little carbohydrate that our bodies use for fuel is really no big deal.
Like Reply
18 hours ago in reply to flux8 3 Likes
flux8
Two things: Firstly, you are apparently unaware that your body is quite capable of generating the carbohydrates it needs on its own and that carbohydrates are NOT all equal in your body. Just as there are good fats and bad fats, there are good carbs and bad carbs. (Alcohols are carbohydrates as well) They are each processed differently, and they each have different effects on hormone levels in your body. Hormones which regulate your metabolism.
Secondly, this regulation is for corporations, not you. As I've stated repeatedly, you can go on eating sugar all you want for all your... show more
Like
16 hours ago in reply to jray83 7 Likes
jray83
O and btw I understand how our body converts other nutrients into glucose to be stored in liver/ muscles and that is the whole point of our bodies storing fat b/c it can then break it down into a simple carb that it can use for energy blah blah blah.. the point here is where we draw the line. I think its right here.
Like
14 hours ago in reply to jray83 1 Like
a1936
If they're doing something like putting higher taxes on sugary items, they are regulating us, the consumers. How can you say they aren't? They don't want people to consume it, and they're making it harder for people to do so because a lot of people have to watch every penny. There's a difference between educating people and just flat out trying to stop them from having it, which is what this is proposing. And sugar does not have a negative consequence to society, it doesn't harm anyone who isn't using it. If people want to eat a hundred cookies a... show more
Like Reply
17 hours ago in reply to flux8 2 Likes
flux8
It absolutely has a negative consequence to society. You just don't realize it until the day you depend on Medicare to help take care of your hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease.
Taxes don't prevent you from doing anything. Have people stopped drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco? This kind of tax (a "sin tax") is there to say, hey you can use it, but then you need to contribute to the pot that will eventually pay for the medical treatments that you will not be able to afford. Plus, there is a bit of irony in that you... show more
Like
16 hours ago in reply to a1936 10 Likes
jray83
Flux8 you are right, my friend. Sugar is not an "acute toxin". If my grandpa wants to have a coke in his old age without paying extra taxes then I will fight for that. You know, flux, that I'm curious as to just how many non-"acute toxins" that we are exposed to in our everyday lives. Do you know of any others?
Like
14 hours ago in reply to a1936 1 Like
ScottieB4
Okay. Deep breath. Any west-coast-tent-living-do-gooder should at least complete a marathon before suggesting putting sugar on par with alcohol or cigs. Bring all the protein, fruits, veggies, whole grains you want. You'll beg for the glucose your body requires somewhere between mile .01 and 26.2. No need to fear an insulin response because there won't be one.
Like Reply
2 hours ago in reply to flux8
flux8
Perhaps you should either watch the lecture on YouTube or read the original NY Times article from April 2011 first because I don't think you understand what this controversy is actually about. It is *not* about glucose. It is about fructose which, when bound to glucose, forms sucrose. When this topic talks about sugar, it is referring to sucrose because sucrose (or similarly HFCS) is what is used nearly ubiquitously in your supermarket foods.
Also, the average American adult (or child) isn't running marathons.
Like
1 hour ago in reply to ScottieB4
jray83
I agree that it is true that our bodies are capable of converting macronutrients into glucose for storage in the liver, etc basic physiology. I am also keenly aware of my own caloric intake and needs.
Since you have such an excellent understanding of the way your body can be harmed on a physiological level, then lets focus on that. Imagine that the world is actually made up of many different types of cells each with a vital role to play in the functioning of the organism as a whole. Now lets say that a few of these cells... lets... show more
Like Reply
15 hours ago in reply to flux8
i8246i
Congrats, you caused my sarcasm detector to explode.
Like Reply
1 day ago in reply to cavedave 27 Likes
mjschumacher100
So let's leave the situation as it is, America will get fatter and fatter and fatter. Super. Reminds me of Wall-E.
Like Reply
21 hours ago in reply to cavedave 4 Likes
cavedave
Hey, you want the government to involve itself in every aspect of your life; you are getting your wish.
Wait until you walk into the supermarket with your "Nutritional Allowance Card" and be told that you have exceeded your maximum of calories, sodium, sugar, or fat and you have to return that bag of chips because the F.D.A. or some other agency thinks you are too stupid to make a purchase independent of their wise guidance.
I'm just saying that these kinds of edicts run far from what powers the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government.
Want to know why... show more
Like Reply
21 hours ago in reply to mjschumacher100
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/02/should-sugar-be-regulated-like-alcohol-and-tobacco/#ixzz1lLkzLNVX
No comments:
Post a Comment