New Call to Regulate Sugar

Published on Thursday, February 2, 2012, by Rebecca Flint Marx / Edit Post

Last year, the New York Times profiled Robert Lustig, the leading expert in childhood obesity at UC San Francisco's School of Medicine. The article, subtly titled "Is Sugar Toxic?," explored Lustig's efforts to convince the American public that sugar is, yes, a toxin, to say nothing of "evil." Lustig is back, this time in the February 2 issue of the journal Nature (hidden behind a paywall). Together with two other health-policy researchers, he argues that the government should regulate sugar to protect public health.

Growing scientific evidence, the authors write, "shows 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. If international authorities are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose—and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) and sucrose— which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole."

In addition to the widely floated ideas of taxing soda or products with added sugars, or curbing the availability of sugary foods in schools and the advertising that promotes them, Lustig and co. prescribe combating this societal ill via a couple of decidedly more invasive tactics: removing sugar from the Food and Drug Administration's "Generally Recognized as Safe" honor roll; imposing an age limit on those allowed to buy sugary beverages; and legally prohibiting children from patronizing crackhouses convenience stores.

And so we revisit the familiar battle that breaks out whenever wonks propose that the government save us from ourselves. On one side are those who maintain it's their God-given right to eat, drink, and smoke whatever they want, regardless of whether it dooms them to an early grave or causes their unborn kids to grow gills. On the other side are those who argue that since we aren't willing to take responsibility for what—and how much—we stick in our pie holes, it's up to the government to play Father Knows Best.

And then there are those (myself included) who concede that sugar is best consumed in moderation. Sure, it causes chronic conditions like diabetes and obesity, but hardly deserves to be classed with booze and cigarettes. A law prohibiting unaccompanied minors from convenience stores after school is ridiculous: What about kids who just want to buy a pack of gum or a bag of chips? (The latter, of course, will also make them fat and dead.) Why not, as the endlessly argued soda tax proposes to do, put the onus on manufacturers instead?

Actually, that's what the researchers say they hope to do. In a press release, Laura Schmidt, one of the proposal's authors, clarified that she and her co-authors don't want to shut down bakeries or outlaw snickerdoodles, only bring the hammer down on added sugars like high-fructose corn syrup, and to "make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose." The proposed regulations, Schmidt said, would "actually increase people's choices by making foods that aren't loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get."

Regardless of how you feel about the proposal, maybe the saddest thing about it is the zero confidence it expresses in Americans to accept responsibility for dietary choices and act accordingly. Lustig, of course, has argued that the chemical effects of sugar make us its slaves, and that personal choice has nothing to do with consumption. But given that the government won't even impose regulations to prevent the airline industry from treating passengers like battery hens, it looks like self-policing may be the only realistic option.

Image source: Flickr member Uwe Hermann under Creative Commons

CHOW contributor Rebecca Flint Marx eats and writes in New York City. You can follow her on Twitter. Follow CHOW, too, and become a fan on Facebook.

ALLFood Media
POST A COMMENT |11 Comments

COMMENT

  • [I am late to respond]
    GalinaL, let me, once again, answer that with some questions of my own:
    - Would you "punish" parents for giving children Full Fat Milk (all of that Saturated Fat)?
    - What about Skim Milk (no Fat Soluble Vitamins)?
    - What about Chocolate Milk (Added Sugar)?
    - Ginger Ale for when the child is a little under the weather?
    - What about drinks where they add Honey for...+READ

    [I am late to respond]
    GalinaL, let me, once again, answer that with some questions of my own:
    - Would you "punish" parents for giving children Full Fat Milk (all of that Saturated Fat)?
    - What about Skim Milk (no Fat Soluble Vitamins)?
    - What about Chocolate Milk (Added Sugar)?
    - Ginger Ale for when the child is a little under the weather?
    - What about drinks where they add Honey for a sore throat (your insuling spikes just the same with Honey or any other sugar)
    -etc.

    The list goes on and on? Which acts are punishable? Which are not? Who decides? Are these things decided at a local level? State? FEDERAL? (Would we really need the Federal Gov't to get involved in one more thing?)

    We are basically asking for a Nanny State where the Nanny would likely
    - Get the science wrong.
    - Grow larger than originally intended
    - get Scope Creep

    ...this list also goes on.-COLLAPSE

  • Captainspirou, Everything you just mentioned is subsidized by USA government.

    @DougRisk What is wrong with punishing parents for giving their children soda instead of water?

  • Captainspirou,
    Let me respond with a question:

    Why not add a tax for any product that is, say, 50% white flour (bread, pasta)?
    Or, any product that uses Vegetable Oil?
    Or, more than 10% Poly Unsaturated Fat?
    Or, Soybean Oil (phyto-estrogens)?
    Or, ... well, you get the idea.

  • If you are knowingly profiting from something that is proven to make people sick, then sure, a tax to cover some of the expense to society is reasonable.

    And as for our ability to act like proper adults and make wise choices, we all have to stand up against the constant erosion of the relentless brainwashing of advertising. Perhaps the answer might be to ban advertising for sugar-laden...+READ

    If you are knowingly profiting from something that is proven to make people sick, then sure, a tax to cover some of the expense to society is reasonable.

    And as for our ability to act like proper adults and make wise choices, we all have to stand up against the constant erosion of the relentless brainwashing of advertising. Perhaps the answer might be to ban advertising for sugar-laden products?

    But, as the average grocery store is full of foods that seemed designed for an eight year old's taste buds, it seems willfully ignorant and destructive to do nothing but beat your chest and whine about a nanny state all the while shoving twinkies and oreos down your cakehole.-COLLAPSE

  • @DougRisk

    So should we punish the parents? Considering that parents pay for soda then the tax actually would put the onus on the parents.

  • We're getting fatter because we have increasingly high caloric diets coupled with sedentary lifestyles. Also, as someone who works in Oncology, it isn't so much that there's a "cancer epidemic" more that people are starting to actually go to the doctor for checkups, and our imaging/lab testing is getting better at detection.

  • nlgardener, I'm a fan of how Sweden (and other Nordic countries, I believe) ban certain advertising during kids' shows. No more Cookie Crisp!

  • I don't believe in government regulation over what we eat, but I don't think it's any coincidence that when the government decided to go the "grains good, fat bad" route that the obesity epidemic--and the cancer epidemic--began.

  • I lived for awhile in Europe. Traveled a lot, and was impressed with the duty-free shopping areas on the ferries and airports in Norway. In addition to booze, cosmetics and tobacco - candy was a big presence (and I'm not talking Belgian chocolates). Kid's candy, junk candy, aisles of candy the kinds I would never eat again.

    They tax sweets the same way as booze and tobacco. To discourage...+READ

    I lived for awhile in Europe. Traveled a lot, and was impressed with the duty-free shopping areas on the ferries and airports in Norway. In addition to booze, cosmetics and tobacco - candy was a big presence (and I'm not talking Belgian chocolates). Kid's candy, junk candy, aisles of candy the kinds I would never eat again.

    They tax sweets the same way as booze and tobacco. To discourage consumption. (Don't know how the cosmetics figure into that - never did understand it LOL). But I was impressed with their collective social resolve.

    It's not a bad thing.

    If we didn't have speed limits, how fast would we drive??-COLLAPSE

  • "Lustig, of course, has argued that the chemical effects of sugar make us its slaves, and that personal choice has nothing to do with consumption."

    Would you expect a person advocating for more government intrusion to say that we were free to choose?

  • "Why not, as the endlessly argued soda tax proposes to do, put the onus on manufacturers instead?"

    Or, you know, parents?