Should Sugar be Regulated Like a Drug?


By Bonnie Rochman, Time Magazine

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.


(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.

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.”

Source: www.healthland.time.com/2012/02/02/...
Share

Leave a Comment with Facebook or use the form below


Previous Comments

M.M. commented on 12-Feb-2012 11:50 AM5 out of 5 stars
i TOTALLY agree, sugar should be regulated like tobacco and drugs. It's big business, though, and it will difficult to make it happen...
Rosalind commented on 12-Feb-2012 12:26 PM5 out of 5 stars
Many people would find they are fructose intolerant if they cared to do the available sensitivity test. Fructose is not assimilated well by the human body. It's actually downright danger for most simply because we're told fruit for instance is 'healthy'.
Table sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. For me, for the sake of my health and quality of life, no more fruit (occasionally berries in season), NO fruit juices, fizzy drinks, processed foods, cakes etc, after finding out I was fructose intolerant. It took
me 3 days to get over the strong pull of sugar addiction and like other more well known addictions, need to remind myself that I am and always will be a sugar addict. It is that strong an addiction. I'm losing weight and feel better for it.
John Jones commented on 12-Feb-2012 02:12 PM5 out of 5 stars
Lowering sugar consumption has pretty obviously gone beyond the point of necessary. I think that taxing buyers would be wrong though. Tax the hell out of the corporations that are making huge profits at the expense of our health. Tax them to the point
that they'll have to think about what they're doing - maybe even develop a conscience??
Reggie commented on 12-Feb-2012 09:09 PM5 out of 5 stars
I understand the dangers of eating sugar and until 3 years ago after moving in with my boyfriend the bag of sugar bought at the supermarket was only renewed perhaps every 6 months. Now i have to buy a kilo a week, (At first it was 2kg a week, ive forced
cut backs) My trolley also has to contain chocolate biscuits every week now as my boyfriend cant live without them plus 3-4 sugars in his coffee, 2 in his tea and a penchance for sweet biscuits and cakes. He vehemently denies a sugar addiction and points to
his slender frame as proof that its not doing him any harm. My concerns are met with much resistance and so for the most part i have given up, after all, its his body? isn't it? Unfortunately i have taken up more sugar eating than i did before, i now have
1 sugar in my coffee, i crave chocolate when i PMS and i now seem to have to top my dinner of with a piece of fruit to feel satisfied. I feel a fresh renewal of determination after reading this article. Thanks 'Food Matters' for reminding me :))
Kelly commented on 13-Feb-2012 01:58 AM5 out of 5 stars
What happened to good old fashioned moderation. I understand that we all have different tolerances, but a little goes a long way when you have a healthy relationship with food.
TEG commented on 13-Feb-2012 06:37 AM5 out of 5 stars
True, sugar and salt are addictive to our bodies. The Food Industry uses them to 'addict' even children via 'cereals.' I am surprised this article does not include ASPARTAME. It is over 200 sweeter than REAL sugar and is quite harmful. Dr. Russell Blaylock's
work on aspartame and any research will give you sorid details of this toxic and addictive substance. It's in everything. Research and decide for yourself Also, SOY is NOT healthy but GMO, like corn. This includes SOY MILK.Our animals eat GMO feed and it passes
on to us via MILK and meat, along with the rBGH and antibiotics. Along with SUGAR/ASPARTAME (NutraSweet) beware of hidden MSG. The Food Industry is NOT about HEALTHY anything except PROFIT! PROCESSED FOODS, even if it says "Organic" is still processed food.
Research ingredients, read reliable research from Drs. Blaylock, Mercola, read Natural News website. WE THE PEOPLE are being deceived and misinformed. Our children and even PETS are harmed because of it.Any doctor who says FOOD isn't related to health problems
should remember HIPPOCRATES "Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food." MOTHER NATURE makes FOOD.
David Getoff, CCN, FAAIM (V.P.) commented on 13-Feb-2012 08:20 AM5 out of 5 stars
Very important article. I have been lecturing on this for close to 20 years. The DVD movie "Sweet Suicide" by Nancy Appleton goes over this in an easy to understand manner. Every time I get my patients to VASTLY reduce sugar and starch, and like our distant
ancestors, increase their animal protein and animal fat consumption,their energy comes back, their weight starts going down, their symptoms begin to subside, and all of their blood chemistries start normalizing. Sugar is our ENEMY!
Anonymous commented on 16-Feb-2012 05:14 PM5 out of 5 stars
Consider VERY carefully, the position of REGULATING food. You will do well to remember WHO is most likely to be choosing which foods and substances will be "regulated" (read- TAXED) or banned. Like how our natural/ alternative foods and supplements are
currently restricted vs.chemical drugs? Our best option is to EDUCATE, and then allow folks to make their OWN decisions and live with the consequences.
Tim Lester commented on 24-Feb-2012 01:55 PM5 out of 5 stars
The government shouldn't be regulating any drugs. Every year thousands of Australians die because they can't get access to the latest drugs. Who is looking after their lives? View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA . We should be free to choose
what to put into our bodies. If you are regulation of sugar you have to be for the regulation of raw milk and alternative medicine which will totally kill them as options. Regards Tim
Anonymous commented on 30-Mar-2012 01:18 AM5 out of 5 stars
ithink abolishing sugar in our diet will help us.most food we eat contain sugar
|

Leave a Comment


12345




Captcha Image


'FOOD MATTERS'
FREE NEWSLETTER

Yes, keep me up to date with:

- The Latest Nutrition Tips
- Natural Healing News &
- Special Offers




For free instant access

Featured Products

About

SCREENINGS

RESOURCES

TAKE ACTION PLANS COMMUNITY FORUM HEALTH RESOURCES

STORE

DVDs WATCH INSTANTLY BOOKS WHOLESALE

CONTACT US

LATEST NEWS