Posted on by

Alcoholic. Junkie. Sugar Addict ??

40 Replies

Sugar Addiction?

There are some people who can’t resist sugary treats. We say they have a sweet tooth. But pretty soon, we may be calling them “sugar addicts”.

Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have published a position paper in Nature entitled Public health: The toxic truth about sugar.

According to Robert Lustig and his team, it’s not obesity that is contributing to our nation’s food related health problems, it’s sugar consumption. In fact, 20% of obese people are perfectly healthy, while 40% of people with normal weight have increased chances for diabetes and other health issues. When trying to find a common thread, the trail leads back to excessive sugar consumption.

Our daily sugar consumption today stands at 22 teaspoons. At 4 grams per teaspoon, 4 calories per gram, that works out to 352 calories! The most shocking fact is that just 30 years ago the average consumption was only a third of what it is today.

Instead of silly educational campaigns that are no match for corporate advertising budgets, the scientists suggest a set of drastic measures, mimicking the regulatory governance of alcohol and tobacco.

- Heavy taxation on sugary foods and beverages

- Removing sugar from the FDA’s “generalyl regarded as safe” (GRAS) list of ingredients

- Removing all sugary foods and drink from schools and nearby

- Prohibiting the advertising of sugary foods and drinks to kids and teens

- Banning the sale of sugary drinks to children

Why such drastic public health measures? According to the authors, since individual responsibility approaches have not been effective, the government must step in to help consumers.

“Everybody yells, ‘Nanny state, this guy is trying to control our food,’ ” Lustig said. “But it’s already being controlled. It limits consumer choice when so much of our food is controlled by these industries. I’m actually trying to undo the nanny state.” Read more from the San Francisco Chronicle…

 

What do you think? Should the measures above be instated, wholly or partially?

Get Fooducated: iPhone App Android App  RSS Subscription or  Email Subscription
Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Get Fooducated

Download APP

Subscribe

Follow

  • Elisa Zied

    I generally support the “soda tax”–problem is where to draw the line? A good first step is to limit/ban advertising of unhealthy foods–but again, how do we define unhealthy? Second, requiring manufacturers to disclose added sugar grams and nor lump added/naturally occurring sugar can give consumers more info to make more informed/healthful decisions when they make food purchases and want to reduce their sugar intake.

  • Ken Leebow

    1. “They” say 65% of our food consumption is processed junk. Are we going to tax 65% of our food supply? I think not.

    2. We have not embarked on any national and long-term ad campaign to educate or assist people.

    We should try this …

    A. Here’s an ad I saw the other day that will grab the attention of its audience. The only problem for Americans … it’s an Australian ad (way to go Australia) … 

    http://bit.ly/A3HDe8

    B. Rather than describing daily intake at 22-teaspoons (not an interesting visual), how about demonstrating what one Coke/Pepsi per day looks like on an annual basis (an amazing visual) …
    http://bit.ly/A3HDe8

    This visual should be on TV, at every doctor/dentist office. Simple steps might create major change.

  • Romo324

    All else aside, taxes are not meant to control how we live, they are
    meant to fund our government. Taxing something like sugar to “be
    healthier” is just a cop out. Anyway, what are we going to do? Tax tea
    next?

  • Romo324

    All else aside, taxes are not meant to control how we live, they are
    meant to fund our government. Taxing something like sugar to “be
    healthier” is just a cop out. Anyway, what are we going to do? Tax tea
    next?

  • Casey

    From the CNN editorial:  “One of the saddest effects of sugar overconsumption is to dampen the natural hormones that tell kids’ bodies when they’ve eaten enough, leading them to feel hungry even as they overeat.”
    I do appreciate the irony of reading this on the same day my daughter had to attend a school wide assembly for the Goodies Factory to promote their fundraising catalogue for kids to peddle cookies, candy and cheesecake.

    • AE

      I seriously would have blown a gasket about that. 

  • Pwnzwn

    Government doesn’t need to ban children from buying sugary treats, it’s a free country. Allow people to educate themselves about sugar rather than not allow them to have it at all.

    • Annoyed Guest

      Have you even read the article? The authors specify they feel personal responsibility has failed in this case.

      • Guest

        And the authors are aspiring autocrats intent upon controlling our meals. I don’t care about their “feelings” any more than they care about mine…or yours. For autocratic food police I don’t care one little bit, not one pinch of sh!t.

      • Pwnzwn

        You want the government controlling everything you do? … -_- be responsible for yourself and your kids

      • Pwnzwn

        You want the government controlling everything you do? … -_- be responsible for yourself and your kids

  • http://twitter.com/wellnessforalln Janice M. Epstein

    why not make sugar really expensive at the production level BEFORE it becomes a product on the shelf and see if industry uses it less?  otherwise, i’m fine with higher taxes on it like a soda tax.

    • Guest

      But what about bakeries and other businesses that buy sugar. Cost would go up so much, profits would go down and a lot of local bakers would go out of business… like me :-/

  • Sweetwater Tom

    I must be a “fat addict.”

  • C.E. Camargo

    I consider the measures suggested are way over exaggerated, I do believe though that if you want to prevent the over consumption of sugar in people and children, the appropiate approach is to consider a regulation that establishes a certain level permitted for sugar use in the production of beverages and food, that way you dont have to go over the limit with measures that aren’t realistic anyways.   

  • Marion

    Great News!!  I volunteer to dictate to you what you may and may not eat. I will also tell when you may eat, and where. I do this out of the goodness of my heart and because I think I can control you so much better than you can control yourself. This is for your own good. I am only here to help. This is your lucky day, just trust me!

    • Anonymous

      Pretty much what marketing/advertising does.   Creates needs & wants, started doing so in the 1800′s.   Just look around you at how many people dress, what motor vehicles they buy, the smart phones, gotta keep up, gotta be in style.  Food marketing/advertising is no different.

      What I understand you to be saying is that you don’t want an entity that wants to improve health telling you “what to do” but it’s ok if you & everyone else in the US is inundated with corporate advertising that tells you “what to do/eat” every time you watch TV, go online, walk into a supermarket, etc.– some how that’s different. 

      • Marion

        We who will control want the power, dumbass. You overthink things, eh? Well, we will bludgeon that tendency out of you then you will make a nice, compliant subject. We will take the power, you can keep all the rest of that sentimental schlock.

  • Michelle

    How about we end government corn subsidies so the cheapest and most unhealthy sugar, HFCS, stops being so artificially cheap that companies feel they can put it (and other corn/grain fillers) into every food possible? If corn and other subsidized foods had to truly compete in the free market, I think healthier foods (colorful veggies and fruits, grass-fed rather than artificially-cheap-grain-fed beef, etc) would suddenly become cheaper options due to the actual laws of supply and demand.

    • Dfrisicaro2

      I loved your answer the best!!!

    • Dfrisicaro2

      I loved your answer the best!!!

  • Guest

    The problem with comparing tobacco to sugar is that the former is not necessary to a balanced diet whereas sugars, in the form of fruits and carbs, are a necessary part of a healthy diet. Articles such as these frustrate me because they identify a problem without acknowledging or addressing the fact that executing the solution is impossible. Sugars, in and of themselves, are not a problem; their over consumption is the problem, and people’s choices to buy what they want with their money cannot be regulated unless we subscribe to communism.

    Besides, there is of course the France exception where baked goods and chocolates flourish amidst high fashion and size 0s. Government does not need to interfere where education fails.

    • pdsj

      AMEN!

    • Guest

      Agree Agree Agree!

  • Healthnut

    20% of obese people are “perfectly healthy”? Reading that makes me question all of these articles.

  • Sishorrock

    I think a tax on sugary foods Is a great idea. I’m currently trialling a 30 Day Low Carb High Fat diet with 40 people in the UK. The mainstay is to eliminate sugary or insulin inducing foods. Great results so far. Robert Lustig is not alone in his thinking. I certainly believe fizzy drinks like coke and fanta should not be on sale to under-18′s.

  • guest

    Some people purchase Gatorade or other sports drinks thinking they are making a better choice for their child or themselves than soda. I think a visual aid ad campaign might be benificial. Something to show conusmers how much sugar is in a bottle of these drinks. Not a serving but a whole bottle.

  • pdsj

    Please! This is absurd and only another attempt to control. You cannot tax people into better eating habits any more than you can legislate morality. As a guest said quite well, “Sugars, in and of themselves, are not a problem; their over consumption is the problem, and people’s choices to buy what they want with their money cannot be regulated unless we subscribe to communism.”

  • Redrabbit

    Oh my goodness! This article was written for a large pro-government state and I am not one of them. It is not the government’s job to tell me what to eat, it isn’t even their job to educate me on the pro and con of sugar. If a person wants to eat better, THEY, have to take the initiative to educate themselves and make choices based on that. The US is not a socialist country, let’s keep it that way.

  • Carol

    Here is a better link to the article (free — from Marion Nestle’s site): http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Comment_sugar1.pdf
    What Lustig (who has made a career out of sugar bashing) doesn’t mention in the article is the affect of sugars occurring naturally in fruit, milk, etc. Has the same research been done on sugars from all sources? I’d think you’d need to in order to see if sugar is the problem or simply overconsumption (vis-a-vis calorie expenditure) in general. It is possible (and very common) to consume 20+ teaspoons of sugar daily from fruits and other natural sources: 1 large apple, 1 medium banana, 1 cup low-fat milk, 1 cup plain yogurt, 1 cup carrot juice and a few dried apricots = 95 grams sugars (24 tsp).

    • Carol

      To clarify:  the apple + banana + milk + yogurt + carrot juice + apricots = 95 g sugars (not each one)

    • http://www.facebook.com/dawn.anthes Dawn Anthes

      Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

      It isn’t just the calorie over-consumption, it’s the way the body processes fructose that’s the problem. 

      • Replying to Dumbass Dawn

        Fructose – that’s right. Those goddam apples and oranges and all fresh fruit is just loaded with toxic fructose. Lethal fructose in fruits overwhelms the human metabolism. Cannot detoxify. Body processes are the problem. Fructose poison. Fruit kills.

        Yeah, and foodies are geniuses. If you believe any of this nonsense I have a couple of bridges to sell you. Idiots.

        • http://www.facebook.com/dawn.anthes Dawn Anthes

          Try watching the video. Fruit is fine.

          • Stupid People Should Not Breed

            The video is quackery. You are a moron, not even smart enough to be a convincing quack.

  • Pingback: Friday Reads – Strong Girls Win

  • Pingback: Nutrition & Health News, week of Feb. 2 « still cookin'

  • Anonymous

    Let me finish Lustig’s quote: “I am actually trying to undo a nanny state.” An replace it with an new one.

    Why is it that we always try to solve a problem with the cause?

  • Anonymous

    Let me finish Lustig’s quote: “I am actually trying to undo a nanny state.” An replace it with an new one.

    Why is it that we always try to solve a problem with the cause?

  • Danny

    Just because you tax an item heavily isnt gonna stop people from buying it.This is a typical line the gov.pocket scam that needs to stop.