Sugar is so harmful to public health it should be controlled like alcohol and cigarettes
 

What do you think? I'm all for it.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...229/story.html

Sugar is so toxic it should be controlled like alcohol, according to a new report that goes so far as to suggest setting an age limit of 17 years to buy soft drinks.

It points to sugar as a culprit behind many of the world's major killers - heart disease, cancer and diabetes - that are now a greater health burden than infectious disease.

A little sugar "is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly," says the report to be published Thursday in Nature, a top research journal.

Over the eons sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year at harvest time, or as honey "which was guarded by bees," says the report by Dr. Robert Lustig, a noted childhood obesity expert at the University of California, and two U.S. colleagues specializing in health policy.

Now it is added to "nearly all processed foods." In developing countries, sugary soft drinks are often cheaper than potable water or milk, they say, noting that over the past 50 years, consumption of sugar has tripled worldwide.

The sweetener is made from sucrose, found in sugarcane and sugar beets or from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and contains a roughly equal mixture of glucose and fructose.

A growing body of scientific evidence shows the fructose "can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases," Lustig and his colleagues say.

"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," they say.

"We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby," the researchers say, "and will require active engagement from all stakeholders."

But such "tectonic shifts" in policy are possible, they say, pointing to bans on public smoking, limits on alcohol sales and condom dispensers in public washrooms. "It's time to turn our attention to sugar."

Many schools have removed pop and candy from vending machines, but "often replaced them with juice and sports drinks, which also contain added sugar," the report says.

Canada and some other countries have also imposed small taxes on some sweetened food, but the researchers say it would take a big price hike to affect consumption.

"Statistical modelling suggests that the price would have to double to significantly reduce soda consumption - so a $1 can (of soft drink) should cost $2," they say.

The report suggests governments introduce zoning rules to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities and around schools.

"Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar," particularly soft drinks.

Parents in South Philadelphia, Pa., recently lined up outside convenience stores and blocked children from entering them after school. "Why couldn't a public health directive do the same?" says the report.

The notion of putting a 17-year-old age limit on soft drinks is a nonstarter with the Canadian Beverage Association, representing makers of pop and most non-alcoholic drinks sold across Canada. The industry sells about $5 billion worth of product in Canada each year.

"No," the association would not support putting a 17-year-old age limit on soft drinks, said Stephanie Baxter, the association's communications director, who chuckled when told of the Lustig's age-limit suggestion.

Baxter was quick to dismiss the report in Nature as an "over simplification" of a complex issue.

"No one single food or beverage can be linked to obesity," she said. "And there is no scientific evidence to support the allegations that sugar, in any of its various forms, is a unique cause of health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease or metabolic syndrome."

She also said there is "no evidence that taxing or restricting access to sugar-sweetened beverages would have any meaningful impact."

Lustig and his colleagues say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could "set the table" for change by limiting the amount of sugar that can be added to food.

Ultimately, Lustig's report says, food producers and distributors must reduce the amount of sugar added to foods. "But sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change."

Grant Morrison argues the same thing during one of his drug fueled years in the 90's.

I snort a big line of sugar every morning.

pretty much everything we put in our mouth, breathe in, absorb through our skin has been linked to all those diseases. only solution is moving to the middle of nowhere and growing/killing organic food. not realistic.

living by the old saying 'everything in moderation' is a good idea.

yes moderation is good. depriving yourself completely from what you enjoy isn't good for your mental health either but the idea that everything is poisoning us so who cares what we eat/do is foolish.

alcohol and cigarettes are not controlled shit i could get both at any age

yea, like government regulation ever solved any problem :1orglaugh

Controlling alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and gambling sure has worked well. Oh hell, let's add sugar to the list!

The information is out there. We know that too much alcohol is bad for you. We know that too much drugs are bad for you. We know that too many cigarettes are bad for you. We know that too much gambling is bad for you. We also know that too much sugar and fat is bad for you.

People still do them because they want to do them. Banning sugar or fat would be a simple Band-Aid, that wouldn't even work, on a deeper sociological issue. That Band-Aid would prevent real solutions to real problems from being formed.

actually government regulation of cigarettes has been incredibly successful.

but people like the freedom to be gluttonous slobs and poison their life into an early grave.

I think education would go a long way. most people have no idea on the sugar or sodium contents of most foods.

yeah more govt. control

I agree. I have been "sugar" free for almost two months and it is absolutely amazing how incredible i feel these days. Not only is that shit super fattening, but it does really bad things to your pancreas, your endocrine system, hormonal support systems, your intestinal flora, etc. Sugar is the enemy. I replaced sugar with Stevia (Truvia), which contains 0 calories, and I almost have my six pack abs back.

I would recommend anyone dumps sugar and processed foods and adopt a Gluten Free/ Dairy Free lifestyle.

Governments need additional tax revenue and sugar is their target. Sugar is a soft target as they can say (as always) "oh no it's not because we want to tax you....it's for your own good". It won't be controlled but slowly they will put in peoples mind the idea it should be taxed.

i have always lived under this very train of thought and it suits me fine.

people need to man the fuck up... our parents, aunts and uncles didn't spend a minute of their lives worrying about this shit and most of them are living well into their 70's and well beyond with a past of more pollution, water that wasn't as clean, more drug use, more drinking (some of them anyway), more red meat, less exercise..

we are doing very well in comparison for the most part. Someone who is living in moderation today will easily live with a sound mind to 100 years old, for the first time in history this is starting to become a reality. Fear and stress? will kill you before 55, every time.

Definitely education on the topic is good. At the VERY least it should be a no-brainer to get soda and snack machines out of public schools. Also remove flavored milks which can contain more sugar than a can of soda by volume.
And for fucks sakes, why does the US school system consider potatoes a "vegetable" when nearly every other country defines it more accurately as a "starch"? The entire school lunch food program should be removed from the hands of people who call pizza a vegetable and fried potatoes a vegetable.

I'm just getting on the "everything in moderation" train, because that is some sound logic. I like a little sugar now and again, but some people take it to extremes.

I used to drink a 2L of Pepsi a day, and laughed at people drinking coffee.

Now I feel like shit, so I decided to stop. Was able to stop 5years completely back in 2002.

I want the feds out of my personal life. -1 for their interference.

And in this group seriously..

most are for the legalization of marijuana but for the regulation of sugar?

i like bacon

and I also like sugar

and I like sex...

have it on some healthy wheat bread with the cooled drippings spread on it :)

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8...ay1561429c.jpg

Fucking terrorist paki bastards always selling Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.

That'll teach 'em to run a convenience store in the good ol' USA. :1orglaugh

Jesus Christ....

Yeah, more laws YAHOOO we love 'hem huh ?


Big Brother at it's best. Why not remove the brain from anyone while at it.

Oh hell no! I was on coke since I was a baby and it never did me any harm .

keep dreaming. A law like that won't pass, big business would see to that. The way some of these companies process food for human consumption is more worry some than sugar....pink slime anyone?

the only way I could see sugar being banned is if companies found a way to turn shit into a sugar substitute and giving them a higher profit margin than buying sugar for their products.

Animal fat is good for you. I save all my Swine drippings.

Sugar is bad, but its really the high fructose corn syrup and refined sugars that are bad for you.

Is there any better way to create a thriving medical industry, than feeding the population poison?

Tell me about it almost all of my teeth have cavities and I'm addicted to sweets!

jesus christ your posts always make me spit out coffee :1orglaugh

Make sure you buy Truvia. The regular raw Stevia tastes like shit. Truvia is exactly the same except they know how to process out the stuff that tastes bad in Stevia.

Regulation is not ban, it's more along the lines of please use it, just not more than x amount per x amount of end product plzthx.

So I guess you are all for gmo's and other such tactics employed by the "food" industry? As long as the goberment stays out of my life.

I haven't had a soft drink, sports drink or energy drink (regular or diet) since before the turn of the millenium.

The Corn Refiners Association has been running TV commercials recently with propaganda saying all sugar is the same and touting CornSugar.com.

gooooooooooorgeous

http://cdn.cheesecake.com/images/upl...secake_800.jpg