Sugar Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol And Tobacco Say Scientists
Featured ArticleAcademic Journal
Main Category: Nutrition / Diet
Also Included In: Regulatory Affairs / Drug Approvals; Public Health
Article Date: 03 Feb 2012 - 2:00 PST
'Sugar Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol And Tobacco Say Scientists'
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
|
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4.43 (7 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 10 posts |
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), argue that added sweeteners pose dangers to public health, and the government should regulate sugar in the same way as it regulates alcohol and tobacco. They set out their reasons for viewing sugar as "toxic" in a comment article published in Nature this week.
First author Robert H. Lustig, a a professor of pediatrics, in the division of endocrinology at the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, told the press:
"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. But sugar is toxic beyond its calories."
Lustig, who is also director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) Program at UCSF, and his co-authors Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, say in their report that sugar is fuelling a global obesity pandemic and lies behind 35 million deaths worldwide because it contributes to non-communicable diseases like cancer, heart disease and diabetes, which now pose a greater threat worldwide than infectious diseases.
In the US, about 75% of healthcare costs are spent treating these diseases and the disabilities associated with them.
The three authors, who between them represent the fields of endocrinology, sociology and public health, argue that sugar is more than just empty calories that affect health indirectly by making people fat. Worldwide consumption of sugar has tripled in the last 50 years, and is thought to be a main contributor of the global obesity epidemic.
But obesity is just a marker of the toxic effect of too much sugar on publich health, argue the authors, who say the substance has an effect all of its own, particularly at the levels consumed by most Americans, such as changing metabolism, raising blood pressure, altering the signalling of hormones and damaging the liver, something that is not well-known.
These are the same types of damage that alcohol inflicts on the human body, they say, pointing out that alcohol is distilled from sugar.
And it may explain why 40% of people with metabolic syndrome (a stage before diabetes), heart disease, and cancer, are not clinically obese.
Lustig said:
"As long as the public thinks that sugar is just 'empty calories', we have no chance in solving this."
Brindis, who is director of UCSF's Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies (IHPS), said changing people's patterns is not a straightforward problem, it is very complicated.
You can't just rely on individuals changing, you have to have environmental and community-wide change, just like what has happened with alcohol and tobacco, to increase the chance of success.
Lustig, Brindis and Schmidt argue that for people to change and start eating less sugar, they need to know what scientists are discovering about sugar.
Schmidt, is co-chair of UCSF's Clinical and Translational Science Institute's (CTSI) Community Engagement and Health Policy Program, which aims to bring together academic research, health policy, and community practice to improve public health. She said:
"There is an enormous gap between what we know from science and what we practice in reality."
"In order to move the health needle, this issue needs to be recognized as a fundamental concern at the global level," said Schmidt, who is also professor of health policy at UCSF's IHPS.
The authors argue that many of the changes that governments worldwide have made to reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption can be models for reducing sugar consumption. These include special sales taxes, controlling access, and tightening licensing on vending machines and snack bars that market high sugar products in schools, workplaces and other public arenas.
The authors want the balance to change, so that foods that are not heavily laden with sugar are as easy and cheap to obtain as those that are.
Schmidt said:
"We're not talking prohibition."
"We're talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose."
Funds from the National Institutes of Health helped pay for the study.
Written by Catharine Paddock PhD
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
Additional source: UCSF News.
MLA
26 May. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241133.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/241133.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
Total Agreement
posted by Gaile Gomerich on 15 Mar 2012 at 7:47 pmI have observed for some time now that the major food (retail or outlet) stores where I live all advertise Coke, Pepsi...Pop at least 3 times within their weekly flyer and they also have very prominent store displays of the same. One display of Pepsi covered the entire inside front wall of the sotre. The same store on another occasion promoted the sale of a brand of pop by offering with it a free environmentally friendly shopping bag. Another store promoted pop sales by connecting it to helping a charity. This kind of promotin of a very sugar loaded, unhealthy product can only be related to receiving profitable subsidies... And at who's real cost -- us the tax-payers that foot the health bill from diseases caused by excessive sugar consuumption/additiction...
re: The Science
posted by Danielle on 7 Mar 2012 at 8:59 amThe sad thing is that studies and tests can't really be trusted anymore until you look into who is funding them. Yes, sugar is bad if you consume a lot of it in your diet but I don't think that gives the Government the right to regulate and believe me, they're not doing it for our health. What they see is a hot commodity that they would like to get their hands on, make harder to get, and then drive up it's price.
The Science
posted by JoeyTwosneezes on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:12 pmWe seem to have strayed from our trust in science even as our ability to research and discern things using reason and empirical data increases. One of the opinions expressed in the comments of this article begins with "I don't believe" This is a matter of science, not faith. What you believe to be true matters most when you postulate your hypothesis. At that point you may state anything that you would like. However, then it becomes time to prove your hypothesis (or belief.) Once the evidence has been gathered and analyzed we can all see what the truth actually is. Once the results are published and reviewed by your peers they will likely conduct their own experiments. If their results bear out the same conclusions then any reasonable thinker would accept the new information as fact regardless of how improbable or undesirable those results might be. Just because the poison is sweet doen't make it any less deadly.
Media and Ed
posted by Felicia on 10 Feb 2012 at 10:59 pmAs a sufferer from an eating disorder, I see magazines with sickly models on them and actresses withered away. The way the media presents to us what is "attractive" is absolute insanity. They are sick for crying out loud and we buy into it, finding ourselves Dreading looking in the mirror and accepting who we are from the inside. As for myself one way I felt with it was restricting and using fad diets to be thin what I didn't know was when you stop feeding you body it starts to shut down. Your metabolism slows and your body starvation mode which causes fat storage. Also once you have starved your body it begins to freak out and binging begins. My point being is that sugar is not the problem but the way society sends out wrong messages to people , causing insecurities and awful struggles with food is the real problem here !
Sugar and a Sedentary Lifestyle...
posted by H. L-C on 6 Feb 2012 at 9:03 amOK...the authors and commenters miss a point. As societies move towards a more sedintary lifesytle valuing brain power over muscle power - our diets and plate sizes - have not changed to reflect this change as a civilization. In a crazy but true way, the world has sped up but as humans we have actually "slowed" down. Hmmm...
Elevators, office chairs, computers, gardening machinery, washers and driers, dishwashers, TV and DVD, stoves, cars, trains and planes have all contributed to a mass reduction in the use of the individual human muscular system.
The obesity problem is not just a food problem. It is a significant contributing factor.
How food is prepared is another issue - high-temperature frying and grilling vs low temperature boiling or stewing is another factor with high-temperature cooking altering food structure, absorption, nutritional value, causing inflammation and oxidization.
Addressing the lack of day-to-day physical movement in the school, work and home is a key strategy in winning the battle of the bulge!
Attacking this from a single million perspectives is doomed to failure as we have seen over the years. What is needed is a National Wellness Project utilizing all the information and agencies at our disposal to combat this issue and provide better food education and food in schools and beyond.
The final piece of the puzzle is people's attitudes towards weight: i.e. taking ownership of their obseity and doing something about it vs how Government maybe trying to adversely influence their lives by denying them sugar.
If some people choose to see it as the Government telling them what to do vs helping themselves have a better quality of life which is more sustainable for everyone as a species - then we have a bigger problem than too much sugar.
As a Type 2 Diabetic...
posted by Mary Nissley on 4 Feb 2012 at 7:07 amAs a Type 2 Diabetic in my 40's, and as an RN student who is specifically fascinated with nutrition studies, I would like to point out a few things.
The epidemic of the modern disease profile begins in every society 30 years after that society begins to ingest refined carbohydrates. For America, before the late 1800's we ate animal fats with little heart disease and rare diabetes to follow. However, in the 1890's, several things happened all at once. Cola drinks were invented, and sugar became much more refined (and highly popular.) To add insult to injury, industrially-produced white flour became highly refined, replacing locally-ground meal in the common diet. 30 years later, the heart-attack rate in American hospitals began to skyrocket.
This scenario has been replayed in many societies around the world. The Native Americans were not an overweight and unhealthy people, until they began to ingest sugar and refined flour. The aborigines of Australia were hale and hearty, until the white man's food arrived.
Diabetes is defined properly as the inability of the body to properly process carbohydrates. Yet, modern medicine continues to tell diabetics that a little sugar can be eaten, as long as insulin is taken to balance the effect. Surprise! Blood glucose falls faster than insulin levels... which creates a hypoglycemic episode.
Our love affair with sugar and white flour will kill off modern society, if we don't recognize it for the vampire it is, before it is too late.
Regulation begins in the grocery aisle
posted by André on 3 Feb 2012 at 5:44 pmThere a many healthier sweeteners in the same aisle as the 5lb bag of processed white sugar. Regulation is and should begin with the choices we make at the grocery. The government doesn't care that obesity, diabetes,and tooth decay are beyond the stage of epidemic. We each are ultimately responsible for our own health and wellness.
banish sugar!!
posted by tony on 3 Feb 2012 at 7:42 amThis is insane!!! what will be next, come on people get your head screwed on!!! next no meat, then no salt, then no fruit, and on and on.....keep the government out of our lives......
Maybe
posted by JJ on 3 Feb 2012 at 5:45 amI don't believe "sugar" is the culprit. I believe all the sugar imitations, derivatives and synthetic engineering of sugar are our enemies. And a study of all the other preservatives and "approved additives"and the horrific processing of our food are what is making for obesity and poor health. Regulation is oppressive and pointless. Let's hit the source - not the consumer.
Why? Sugar the sole calprit?
posted by Conrad on 3 Feb 2012 at 5:19 amThere are like tens of thousands ways that people can become obese without touching sugar. It is imposible to understand how they zoomed on this one.
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'Sugar Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol And Tobacco Say Scientists'Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.








