Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

UCSF says sugar is toxic to human body and should be regulated and taxed like alcohol Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:05:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Sugar should be regulated as toxin

A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.

Sour words about sugar

The background is well-known: In the United States, more than two-thirds of the population is overweight, and half of them are obese. About 80 percent of those who are obese will have diabetes or metabolic disorders and will have shortened lives, according to the UCSF authors of the commentary, led by Robert Lustig. And about 75 percent of U.S. health-care dollars are spent on diet-related diseases, the authors said.

Worldwide, the obese now greatly outnumber the undernourished, according to the World Health Organization. Obesity is a public health problem in most countries. And chronic diseases related to diet such as heart diseases, diabetes and some cancers — for the first time in human history — kill more people than infectious diseases, according to the United Nations.

Less known, and still debated, is sugar's role in the obesity and chronic disease pandemic. From an evolutionary perceptive, sugar in the form of fruit was available only a few months of the year, at harvest time, the UCSF researchers said. Similarly, honey was guarded by bees and therefore was a treat, not a dietary staple. [6 Easy Ways to Eat More Fruits & Veggies]

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. "Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy," the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just "empty calories," but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage — in laboratory rodents, anyway. Some researchers, however, remained unconvinced of the evidence of sugar's toxic effect on the human body at current consumption levels, as high as they are.

Economists to the rescue

Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF's Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar.

Among Lustig's more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation.

Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar.

This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods.

Some researchers argue that saturated fat, not sugar, is the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. Others argue that it is highly processed foods with simple carbohydrates. Still others argue that it is a lack of physical exercise. It could, of course, be a matter of all these issues.

==========================================


Are you paying attention people?

Since 80% of Americans are obese, everyone should pay a tax to buy anything with sugar in it. Even though most of us, me included, may have some extra poundage because of eating potato chips, french fries, or just eating too much at supper.

Banning sales of sugar products near schools? So any gas station near a school will lose all it's business of sodas, candy bars, and anything with sugar. How long before that business is forced to shut down or relocate? Any grocery store that has candy, drinks, frozen desserts, donuts, apple juice, and most everything else on their shelves.. tough luck, can't sell that stuff anymore.

Hypocrisy. In one part they say that all products with added sugar should be taxed. Later they assert that since fruit is readily available year-round, we get too much sugar from our fruit also, yet there's no mention of taxing fruit. If sugar is so toxic, it's toxic in all it's forms. Not selectively.

Some say a tax on the consumer wouldn't work. Instead, tax the manufacturer. Umm hello, it's the same thing. Tax the manufacturer, their costs go up so they'll raise their prices to the suppliers that buy from them.... the supplier raises prices to stores... stores raise prices to consumer. Each spot along the way, they bump just a tad bit more than the tax itself and the consumer is paying more than the orignal tax.

How about for a change, we find some way to inspire or give incentive for people to exercise. Especially kids. Schools these days have very short recess time. And at most schools, the monkey bars and jungle jims have been removed. Fear of injury and lawsuits. So we fill them with crappy chicken nuggets and corndogs at lunch time. Then give them 20 minutes at recess, but they have nothing physical to burn off some calories. Some schools have actually banned running and/or playing Tag. WTF.

Sugar is bad for you, so tax it. What's next? Red meat is bad, tax it. Charcoal is bad to cook on, tax it. Coffee has too much caffiene, tax it. Driving a car is dangerous, tax it.

Now I'm stressed, I need a fucking candy bar!







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:46:16 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
I understand what you're saying, LM, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it- researchers in Northern California with an agenda aren't likely to set policy for the rest of us anytime soon. Besides, as you've pointed out, there's zero consensus that added sugars are the root cause of most obesity. Saturated fats, trans-fat, processed carbs...they all can lay legitimate claim to causing obesity.

I'm not one of those that thinks the free market will save us all. Look where the 'free-market', as shackled as it still appears to some, has gotten us: a fucked up earth and a nation full of fatsos, to be blunt. I'm not in favor of doing nothing, but I'm not all that worried that a candy bar's about to be taxed to double it's value and slapped with an 18-years-or-older-to-purchase requirement.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:00:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
I understand what you're saying, LM, but I wouldn't get too worked up over it- researchers in Northern California with an agenda aren't likely to set policy for the rest of us anytime soon. Besides, as you've pointed out, there's zero consensus that added sugars are the root cause of most obesity. Saturated fats, trans-fat, processed carbs...they all can lay legitimate claim to causing obesity.

I'm not one of those that thinks the free market will save us all. Look where the 'free-market', as shackled as it still appears to some, has gotten us: a fucked up earth and a nation full of fatsos, to be blunt. I'm not in favor of doing nothing, but I'm not all that worried that a candy bar's about to be taxed to double it's value and slapped with an 18-years-or-older-to-purchase requirement.


It's only a matter of time. Someone will try to do this. Some national, state, or local politican is going to attempt it. Whether or not they are successful, it will cost lots of money for them to "research" it. All on taxpayers' dime. And it isn't all that far fetched. Countries around the world already have Fat Taxes. A sugar tax doesn't seem so far off.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:06:52 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
You're right about taxpayer dollars spent on legislative time, grants, and reams of paper, to provide the groundwork for actually presenting the legislation. But to consider the other side, just for the sake of discussion- I wonder if other countries' "fat taxes" have been effective in curbing, or lowering, the overall obesity of their constituents.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take pride in our "freedom", if all we're doing with it is stuffing our faces with the worst shit possible and becoming hands-down the fattest, unhealthiest population on earth. Taxes are regressive, bot so is shortened life span and billions in medical costs that we'll all be chipping in on.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:15:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm not sure if they have or not. I'm more worried about the precedent it sets. If this happens, it will make the next unnecessary tax easier to pass. If we try to tax people into healthy living, where would it stop? We should offer education on the issue. The health classes taught in schools have been a joke for years. Time to rethink how we teach health and nutrition. Give companies some incentive to make, produce, and market healthy food. There has to be a better way.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:19:38 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,657
Location: United States
I tend to agree. Every time this comes up, somebody always disagrees vehemently, but the fact of the matter is that it's significantly cheaper and easier to feed a family on fattening, unhealthy foods. That's a huge reason why so many of our poor and working class are overweight. If we can somehow change that equation, we'll all be healthier.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:21:06 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
I have to wonder if they're just not searching for some kind of answer to American's fat problem. They're picking on kids because this batch is supposed to be the first to have it's lifespan shortened because of lifestyle. Every generation has lived longer than the one before until now. So far there is no answer because no one wants to do the hard work to save the children of the next generation. People will bitch about this just as they have here in Florida about taking out fats and sugars and adding certain healthy foods to the schools. Parents are saying how dare the government tell me how to feed my child. Well, let's see. Jr comes home and sits on the couch or plays xbox or on the computer. Has to be driven everywhere. God forbid they walk anywhere. Oh and what about passing taxes so that gym class can stay in schools? Nah, we'd rather have sports. Football, basketball. So the few can be healthy instead of the many. There's been many either ors here. Either you get gym or you get to keep football. You choose parents. Why football of course. Jr is going to be the next Tom Brady and keep me in a mansion until I die. Dumbass.
Anyone read any studies on the ciggy taxes? Has it stopped people from smoking? 5 bucks a pack is pretty high. How about 5 bucks for a Snickers?
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:20:19 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
chefkathleen wrote:
Anyone read any studies on the ciggy taxes? Has it stopped people from smoking? 5 bucks a pack is pretty high. How about 5 bucks for a Snickers?


5 bucks a pack? That would be a half price sale up here. It seems to be working, though it's always hard to tell which factor is actually having the most effect. The three main causes of fewer smokers seem to be high taxes on tobacco, a ban on tobacco advertising, and far better and graphic education as to the long term health effects of smoking.

I think taxes on junk food are far easier to justify in countries with socialized health care. And, coming from one of those countries, I also tend to believe that sometimes the government needs to step in to help people who show they can't look after themselves. Is anyone complaining about their freedom to use led paint being infringed on? Yet we would still have manufacturers using it if not for a government ban. So if we can't stop eating junk food, or can't get motivated to exercise, then the government should help.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:51:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,067
Location: United States
This whole story looks to me like a bunch of egg-heads spent up all their grant money on hookers and blow, and had to come up with some kind of excuse for what they spent it on.

Sugar has been a commodity since the 5th Century A.D. Nobody ever accused the Mongols of being too fat because they ate sugar. Nor did the ancient Crusaders gain too much fat from trading in sugar and forming their own sugar refineries in the 12th Century.

If you want to know why Americans are overweight, the reasons are simple: Not enough exercise and too much caloric intake. Our forefathers had to struggle and sweat for every mouthful. Not so much today. We've got it too easy. As long as we're living the easy life, humans will continue to get fatter and fatter. This won't change until our attitude toward life as a whole changes. Until we mature as a species.

Buz
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 7:19:17 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,156
Location: Atlanta, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
This whole story looks to me like a bunch of egg-heads spent up all their grant money on hookers and blow, and had to come up with some kind of excuse for what they spent it on.

Sugar has been a commodity since the 5th Century A.D. Nobody ever accused the Mongols of being too fat because they ate sugar. Nor did the ancient Crusaders gain too much fat from trading in sugar and forming their own sugar refineries in the 12th Century.

If you want to know why Americans are overweight, the reasons are simple: Not enough exercise and too much caloric intake. Our forefathers had to struggle and sweat for every mouthful. Not so much today. We've got it too easy. As long as we're living the easy life, humans will continue to get fatter and fatter. This won't change until our attitude toward life as a whole changes. Until we mature as a species.


Mr. Nudie you are right. Exercise is the key. I love food, red meat, sugary desserts, along with everything else, but I do have enough sense to realize that I must burn more calories than I intake or gain weight. I burn a lot of calories. Wasting money on these kind of silly studies makes me want to go all Mongol on these researchers and do what they Mongols did. Build things out of their skulls.

(I know there is a crazed barbarian hiding deep in my soul. It must be that damned Viking ancestry.)

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:18:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,067
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
Wasting money on these kind of silly studies makes me want to go all Mongol on these researchers and do what they Mongols did. Build things out of their skulls.


"To crosh your enemies, see dem driven before you, and to hear de lamentation of their women...."

Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 02, 2012 10:06:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Well personally I think if people want tax policy to promote economic growth and create jobs and all that shit, then why not policies to promote healthier eating? I was lucky to have parents who really cared for me and the money to buy good food and fresh fruit and stuff. Gosh when I look a cereals in the store they are like totally just feeding kids sugar for breakfast? Personally I never eat chocolate bars and shit so hehe a tax on that crap wouldn't bother me at all. Really, the money could be spent on better health care and education otherwise our whole country will be getting sick when we are old. I think the guy up above is like Canadian and if you go to Canada or New Zealand (yup that's called traveling people haha) you will see they are WAY skinnier than us Americans and also they eat like less food. Just saying?
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 3:15:39 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
This would simply be a 'fat tax'.

We have had rumours about this coming to Britain. They will end up enforcing it I think, just another way to make money from the public.

Instead of just taxing sugar, how about we get rid of a percentage of the fastfood chains and replace them with sushi, pasta and salad bars instead? I would much rather eat healthy food instead of the fatty processed shite that the highstreet chains offer.



iflatlander
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 5:49:08 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/21/2012
Posts: 12
Location: my bed, United States
taxing sugar would be stupid, for starters artificial sweeteners are probably worse for a body then sugar, i'd rather put natural "toxic" sugar in me then chemically based sweeteners which do you think is more "toxic"? tax fast food not sugar! most food has sugar in some degree will that help anyone to raise food price were food can already be unbearably expensive? the middle man takes enough out of our pockets, farmers dont get diddly for doing most the work.
Buz
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:03:53 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,156
Location: Atlanta, United States
Plain and simple. It is NOT the government's business! When the government starts making stuff like this it's business and taxing and dictating to its citizens, then blood needs to run in the streets! This is exactly the kind of the thing the American patriots revolted against. Bring back liberty and freedom!

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the United States of America




I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:09:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,341
Location: Alabama, United States
Rembacher wrote:


5 bucks a pack? That would be a half price sale up here. It seems to be working, though it's always hard to tell which factor is actually having the most effect. The three main causes of fewer smokers seem to be high taxes on tobacco, a ban on tobacco advertising, and far better and graphic education as to the long term health effects of smoking.

I think taxes on junk food are far easier to justify in countries with socialized health care. And, coming from one of those countries, I also tend to believe that sometimes the government needs to step in to help people who show they can't look after themselves. Is anyone complaining about their freedom to use led paint being infringed on? Yet we would still have manufacturers using it if not for a government ban. So if we can't stop eating junk food, or can't get motivated to exercise, then the government should help.


Eh, I'm not sure I buy all of this. This tax would be a burden for everyone, not just "people who show they can't look after themselves". A person who lives and eats healthy and who DOES look after themselves would be taxed as if they didn't. As Xuani said, many times eating crappy food is cheaper than eating healthy food. So low income to middle income families eat crappy food quite often. Taxing that crappy food will be more of a financial burden on the poor than it is to the upper middle class and wealthy.

The lead paint analogy doesn't quite work either. When a person eats sugar, they know they're eating sugar. It's a choice they made. A person could buy a home or rent an apartment and not know that lead paint was used in the house. It would be a blind and unknown threat to people. Even if a person chose to paint their own home with lead paint, I doubt they would alert all their guests that the home had lead paint. Or a small child playing with or putting in his mouth a toy that was painted with lead paint, which parents won't know. A person willinging "poisoning" their body with sugar is unrelated to a person being poisoned unknowingly by someone else's decision.

My own opinion is that governement should stay out of my body. If this tax ever comes to pass, it will have absolutely nothing to do with health. It will only be passed as a new means to gain tax dollars. I just don't think the gov. can say on one hand, a person can do whatever they want to their body. Fill it with tattoos and piercings, botox, silicone, collagen, have abortions (which I support, so people don't get your panties in a wad). But on the other hand tell me, you can do all that but.... No Sugar For You. And if you do choose to put big bad sugar into your body, we're going to make you pay for it!





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 03, 2012 8:36:47 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
I think it should be up to each of us to regulate our own diets. Do we really need a scientist to tell us which foods are bad for us?

As sad as it is, LadyX is right. It is less expensive to eat badly than it is to eat healthy. If you look at sugar free snacks vs sugary snacks, the sugar free are always more expensive. Sugar substitutes such as Truvia and Splenda definitely cost more. There is a diabetic in my family who complains about this all the time.

Anyone remember the movie Demolition Man? "Salt is bad for you, hence it is illegal." For some reason, this study reminded me of that...

WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2014 4:39:22 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
Refined sugars and artificial sweeteners (for all things diet) - are both deadly as fuck to we humans.



Oh yeah, what's Known-Unknowns got to do with this? You'll have to skip to the 12 minute mark to learn his role.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:56:31 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,212
Location: Cakeland, United States
Much better for you -



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
CharlotteRusse1
Posted: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:45:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/9/2011
Posts: 200
Location: United States
How about using Stevia? Natural, low-cal and tastes pretty good. I use it in my tea.

Most sweetened processed foods contain much more sugar than needed. I don't know why the manufacturers sweeten them so much.

You don't need to tax sugar, just stop subsidizing the manufacture of high-fructose corn syrup quite as much. The farm bills have huge subsidies for corn, most of which goes into junk food.



Writer of amateur erotica since 2011..See the latest at:

vines
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:53:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/19/2012
Posts: 92
Location: United States
I looked over just the first part. I may read the rest later. So I don't know the full story but to me this is science gone bad. Misleading the average person. Cholesterol can be a good thing, really, you want high cholesterol, good cholesterol. And you want a good amount of fat on you too. The reason being is fat helps produce hormones needed for life, and youthfulness. The more muscles you have or the more active you are the more fat you need. In order to keep those muscles healthy. Mind you I'm talking about good fat not bad fat. And yes there are good and bad fat. It takes a lot and I mean a lot of effort to get rid of bad fat. As for the thing about metabolic disorders, well, pro athletes are more likely to have this happen to them. Regular showers and increased activity will help regulate the metabolic system. Good things to do are things that will engage the muscles nearest to the bones. Such as 'thinking men' or walking(as fast as you can for as long as you can). It is not about how long you do the activity it is about how well you fatigue the muscle.These muscles nearest the bone are the most important muscles and are the ones ignored by most. Working these muscles will keep your joints healthy too. I hope this helped clear up some things. Sugars are need for your body. Saying sugar is toxic to your body is like saying an apple is toxic. Once anything enters the body can become toxic. It all depends on how your body is working as a whole. Later. :)
Volya
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:32:20 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 10/9/2013
Posts: 46
Location: United States
Two things come to mind...

1. Someone actually funded this "research" study. I'd love to hear what Janet Napolitano (the new head of the UC system) has to say about how well those funds are being put to use.

2. I think the words they chose to use in the report says a lot about the hidden agenda. Sugar is "toxic?" Please. So is water in sufficiently high doses, or when it gets into the lungs and interferes in respiration. Using the same criteria proposed by the researchers, taxing water is justifiable as well.

Like others have said, Americans' weight problems are due mainly to the imbalance of calories ingested and calories burned. Fix the balance, and you've fixed the problem.

Young50
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:07:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/6/2013
Posts: 96
Location: United States
Why do we listen to anything originating in California?
Mazza
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 5:24:34 PM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 2,840
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:
Sugar should be regulated as toxin

A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).

The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases.

Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco.

Sour words about sugar

The background is well-known: In the United States, more than two-thirds of the population is overweight, and half of them are obese. About 80 percent of those who are obese will have diabetes or metabolic disorders and will have shortened lives, according to the UCSF authors of the commentary, led by Robert Lustig. And about 75 percent of U.S. health-care dollars are spent on diet-related diseases, the authors said.

Worldwide, the obese now greatly outnumber the undernourished, according to the World Health Organization. Obesity is a public health problem in most countries. And chronic diseases related to diet such as heart diseases, diabetes and some cancers — for the first time in human history — kill more people than infectious diseases, according to the United Nations.

Less known, and still debated, is sugar's role in the obesity and chronic disease pandemic. From an evolutionary perceptive, sugar in the form of fruit was available only a few months of the year, at harvest time, the UCSF researchers said. Similarly, honey was guarded by bees and therefore was a treat, not a dietary staple. [6 Easy Ways to Eat More Fruits & Veggies]

Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. "Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy," the researchers write.

Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just "empty calories," but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes.

Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage — in laboratory rodents, anyway. Some researchers, however, remained unconvinced of the evidence of sugar's toxic effect on the human body at current consumption levels, as high as they are.

Economists to the rescue

Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF's Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar.

Among Lustig's more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation.

Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar.

This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods.

lafayettemister wrote:
Some researchers argue that saturated fat, not sugar, is the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. Others argue that it is highly processed foods with simple carbohydrates. Still others argue that it is a lack of physical exercise. It could, of course, be a matter of all these issues.


I think that education is more important than banning

lafayettemister wrote:
Banning sales of sugar products near schools? So any gas station near a school will lose all it's business of sodas, candy bars, and anything with sugar. How long before that business is forced to shut down or relocate? Any grocery store that has candy, drinks, frozen desserts, donuts, apple juice, and most everything else on their shelves.. tough luck, can't sell that stuff anymore.


That's not a bad idea TBH - if it's not available, then it can't be bought - they're doing similar stuff in the UK just now with cigarettes - hiding them in an attempt to make them less accessible to minors. I don't know how successful it's been though and they also raised the age at which you're allowed to buy them to 18, rather than 16.

Hypocrisy. In one part they say that all products with added sugar should be taxed. Later they assert that since fruit is readily available year-round, we get too much sugar from our fruit also, yet there's no mention of taxing fruit. If sugar is so toxic, it's toxic in all it's forms. Not selectively.

Driving a car is dangerous, tax it.


Actually, we do pay road tax here in the UK, not because they're dangerous though, that's why we pay insurance...

There was a thread a while back and I'm quoting my old post from then, as I believe it's relevant

https://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst23633p4_New-York-City-to-ban-sugary-drinks.aspx

Quote:
As far as I can see, the issue is less to do with soda than the fact that people are so poorly educated (I don't often venture into these more weighty debates, but I have noticed that pretty much every time I do, I always end up saying the same)

I have a cousin who works in social work, here in the UK. Do you want to know what she actually does?

She goes into people's homes and shows them how to clean, how to cook simple meals, helps them to buy groceries, teaches them a little of budgeting... that sort of thing. She gets paid to do this..

When did parents and grandparents stop passing on their wisdom to their kids?

When did schools stop teaching basic life skills such as home economics? How to budget, how to cook, how to live as part of a society?

What happened?

We have become a helpless society. We cannot make decisions for ourselves anymore. We look to the government to take care of us. We take no responsibility for our actions. We blame everyone else.

At the end of the day, I don't really care if I cannot buy a giant cup of soda (I don't tend to drink it anyway). Sure, it would be a good thing to not have our citizens pigging out on junk food and soda. However, taking that away from them is an infringement on their right to choose, to live freely.

Not that they will care, not in the long term... Sure, they'll kick up a fuss initially, perhaps... The usual forum threads, FB votes etc... It'll peter out to nothing though... People are too lethargic and poorly educated to care.

(Obviously I am making huge sweeping statements here, as is my wont)

The other thing that worries me more than the issue of taking away a 'right' is how fucking powerful the drinks giants actually are.

How did they become so damned big that it actually takes the intervention from the bloody government to teach people that drinking so much soda might not be a good idea? Of course money is the answer, control too.

Hey, let's introduce a substance which is so addictive that people won't be able to stop ingesting it. Their need for it will be so great that when they become fat and helpless, even though they see it, they won't be able to stop. Let's get them so unfit and apathetic that they will simply do what we tell them...

Sugar is that substance... More addictive than heroin (or so I am told). OK, you are probably thinking that I'm getting things totally out of proportion but think about it. Think about the sort of things that people will do for their sugar hit... Eating disorders - all those wrappers hidden underneath the mattress, kids fighting over sweets and candy. Parents use it as a tool with which to control and punish their offspring - do that and you can/can't have candy, don't do that and you can/can't have candy. It becomes a reward very early on. When we don't have it, we crave it.

You know that sugar is a thief? As the body ingests sugar, the sugar 'steals' the vitamins, minerals and goodness. If you take (cheap) vitamin supplements, the sugar contained within leaches any goodness in them.

In the UK, cigarettes contain between 5-20% sugar - did I mention that it's supposed to be more addictive than heroin?? Why do people crave them so badly? Nicotine? Nah, sugar... If you are a smoker, tell me this, can you really (honestly) tell the difference between a hunger pang and a cigarette craving? Think about that one and get back to me...

Sugar is carcinogenic, I've already mentioned that it is a leach, that it is addictive. So, what we have is a substance that most of the nation are addicted to, crave, ingest WAY too much of... How can this be used to control a nation?

Well, they become sick, lethargic, obese... They are addicted, they need their hit.

Sugar is in pretty much everything - I'm not talking about natural sugars here - those can be processed and dealt with pretty well by our bodies and as part of a healthy, balanced diet, really pose little problem. I'm talking about refined sugars.

It's added to burger buns, yogurts, crisps (chips) - check out the fast food ingredients - it's in there, enticing us... Did I mention that it's in cigarettes??

(I realise that I am making terrible generalisations here. I will provide some links etc, it is a subject which I have studied at some length)

Now if people had more 'sense' they would know that all things in moderation is a good policy. They would realise that things are very fucked up when they are being 'controlled' in some way and that this control is the thin end of a very large wedge. They are addicts, poorly educated, lazy addicts at that...

I should also point out that as bad as sugar is, it pales in comparison to Aspartame and artificial sweeteners - that is a whole forum thread in and of itself... Seriously... I mean it...

I mean, if you haven't read the book 1984 by George Orwell, or Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, I'd heartily recommend them. It gives us a glimpse of what life could be like for us in the future...

In fact, Animal Farm, by George Orwell shows how we can have our minds changed for us and completely change our belief systems, forgetting what we once knew to be good, to be true...

OK, I've run our of steam for now (thank god you say, already asleep)


Essentially, when naturally produced, sugar is okay, in moderation. It's when we start tampering with nature that it becomes problematic...

Part two of my rant...

Quote:
So, instead of editing my previous post, I'll just add to it here... (sorry, I feel a tad strongly about this)


sugar should be a controlled substance

Quote:
If sugar were discovered today it would be classified as a “controlled substance”. If you look at the effect sugar has on the human body, it is just as powerful as many other substances on that mind altering list.

Sugar elevates your mood when taken in small doses. But the more you use, the more it takes to get the same effect. If you suddenly try to cut down your sugar intake drastically, do you get withdrawal symptoms such as headaches, mood swings and fatigue? Have you ever had sugar cravings so bad that would do almost anything to get some?

Doesn’t that sound like addiction behavior?

In today’s society there is really no way to cut sugar out of your diet completely. If you take time to look at labels you will find sugar almost everywhere. But your job should be to educate yourself and understand how eating excess sugar effects your blood sugar so your can learn to spot this “controlled substance” and keep it under control.


Some of the dangers of sugar

Quote:
Sugar is loaded into your soft drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and hidden in almost all processed foods—from bologna to pretzels to Worcestershire sauce to cheese spread. And now most infant formula has the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola, so babies are being metabolically poisoned from day one if taking formula.

No wonder there is an obesity epidemic in this country.

Today, 32 percent of Americans are obese and an additional one-third are overweight. Compare that to 1890, when a survey of white males in their fifties revealed an obesity rate of just 3.4 percent. In 1975, the obesity rate in America had reached 15 percent, and since then it has doubled.

Carrying excess weight increases your risk for deadly conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes.

In 1893, there were fewer than three cases of diabetes per 100,000 people in the United States. Today, diabetes strikes almost 8,000 out of every 100,000 people.[1]


Loading cigarettes with sugar to hook the young

Quote:
Tobacco manufacturers are adding sugar and sweeteners in an effort to make cigarettes smoother - in what is being branded a cynical attempt to lure young smokers and turn them into addicts.


Tobacco manufacturers are adding sugar and sweeteners in an effort to make cigarettes smoother - in what is being branded a cynical attempt to lure young smokers and turn them into addicts
New research, published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, reveals that some cigarette firms are using additives such as plum juice, maple syrup and honey to make their products taste better.

But, according to scientists, the sweeteners increase the smokers' risk of cancer.

The study looked at sweet additives put into cigarettes by five big tobacco firms - British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, Gallaher, and Japan Tobacco International. The details come from the firms' websites.

The researchers say the firms do this because "the addition of sugars in tobacco can enhance tobacco use in at least two ways - neutralisation of the harsh taste of cigarette smoke and generation of acetaldehyde, which increases the addictive effect of nicotine... Moreover, the sweet taste and the agreeable smell of caramelised sugar flavours are appreciated in particular by starting adolescent smokers."


OK, that's just a little information... I urge you to take a look...

The problem is HUGE... At least think about it...

I want to talk about Aspartame too, but I think that may be for another thread...


Anyway, I hope you'll think about it...
naughtynurse
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 6:46:49 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 6,431
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Well put mazza.

A couple of interesting bits:

hyperglycemia makes you feel "hungry" so it's a self serving cycle. You eat to much sugar(of any other refined carbohydrate) your blood sugar skyrockets, triggering responses in your body that make you want yo eat more, so you eat more sugary, carbohydrate laden snacks, causing another spike, leading to more hunger. Is it any wonder we are burn out our beta cells (the bits that create insulin)? (We also build resistance to insulin from this cycle)

Now to understand a little better the role insulin plays in the body, think of your cells like a room. In order to function you need energy in the room (like people coming to a party) insulin opens the door to the cell allowing the glucose to come in. (Like a key in the door) exercise builds more doors to the room/cell. (More doors=more oppurtunities to pull glucose in to the cell and out of the bloodstream) so if we don't exercise and eat to much sugary foods, we are essentially making it extremely hard for the cells to function properly.

Okay, I'll stop lecturing now. But I see the posts in fb all the time "help us find a cure for diabetes." We've got the prevention, we just have to motivate to do it: exercise!



A special thank you to all who read and voted on my competition Quickie, a Recomended Read: Something Borrowed
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:08:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Anything that eats away at teeth cannot be good. They sneak it into food to make it taste appealing but thankfully I don't eat many processed foods.
Guest
Posted: Monday, January 20, 2014 12:00:16 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,130
Sugar is a natural product, but our society abused it very much. As a doc I am of course very much against all kind of sweets and products with unnecessary much or hidden sugar inside. We should use sugar wise and moderate in our daily live, then we will reduce the chance for sicknesses like diabetes mellitus and other diseases a lot. The consume of sugar is not only toxic for our organism, but also bad for the nature and societies in the countries where it is harvest. Sugar is far to cheap for the high demand of work power and damage of nature which is linked to its production. A lower consume of sugar based on higher prices (which returns to the worker in the production countries - fair trade) would have not only positive influence on our health, but also on the nature and social development in the production countries too. coffee
keoloke
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:49:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 556
Location: United States
Great thread Lafayettemister. Thanks.



Also.

lafayettemister wrote:
I'm more worried about the precedent it sets. If this happens, it will make the next unnecessary tax easier to pass.


I agree. There’s always a line that keeps on being crossed on and off by governments. Here they profess freedom, again here telling you what you should or must do.
“I’ll tax you because sugar is bad for you, I’ll do it for your health". But sugar in omnipotent in your diet because I have allowed it to be misused and to be everywhere. You almost cannot escape from it.

Really! Do we seriously need sugar as an ingredient in a bread roll? I have baked some rolls myself, there’s no need of sugar. Nevertheless, a single item (bread or not) may contain sugar, corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup. This is craziness and now we go to the other point. Education


lafayettemister wrote:
We should offer education on the issue. The health classes taught in schools have been a joke for years. Time to rethink how we teach health and nutrition.


Yes, they key, is education and.. time.

While salt can give you a few issues, sugar is responsible for over a hundred. So sugar is bad, when ingested it propels the body toward an acidic state. An acidic body is bad enough but combined with other issues and you got a perfect cocktail for diseases starting. Just give time and they will show up, guaranteed.

"Eating healthy cost more money" Well, it depends. Not necessarily. But in any case... Lay in an hospital bed for 4 days and get a bill of $40,000, now lets talk about money again.

At the end, company use sugar (and others ingredients) to create their own unique flavor and an addiction. It got nothing to do with health but quite the opposite; if we're sick, we are worth more money.


p.s. The fact that some people may say that they burn it, well good for you. But sugar is so acidic that with only one can on sugary soda the body would need about 30 glasses of water just to offset it. It’s easy to realize that many persons are in a constant acidic state.



Practice Happiness, it is a choice

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is not much needed.
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:14:27 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,156
Location: Atlanta, United States
I oppose governmental interference.




I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

DLizze
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2014 5:15:13 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 4/23/2011
Posts: 2,501
naughtynurse wrote:
Well put mazza.

A couple of interesting bits:

hyperglycemia makes you feel "hungry" so it's a self serving cycle. You eat to much sugar(of any other refined carbohydrate) your blood sugar skyrockets, triggering responses in your body that make you want yo eat more, so you eat more sugary, carbohydrate laden snacks, causing another spike, leading to more hunger. Is it any wonder we are burn out our beta cells (the bits that create insulin)? (We also build resistance to insulin from this cycle)

Now to understand a little better the role insulin plays in the body, think of your cells like a room. In order to function you need energy in the room (like people coming to a party) insulin opens the door to the cell allowing the glucose to come in. (Like a key in the door) exercise builds more doors to the room/cell. (More doors=more oppurtunities to pull glucose in to the cell and out of the bloodstream) so if we don't exercise and eat to much sugary foods, we are essentially making it extremely hard for the cells to function properly.

Okay, I'll stop lecturing now. But I see the posts in fb all the time "help us find a cure for diabetes." We've got the prevention, we just have to motivate to do it: exercise!


THIS.

"There's only three tempos: slow, medium and fast. When you get between in the cracks, ain't nuthin' happenin'." Ben Webster
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.