Why we should regulate sugar like alcohol

CNN ^ | February 1, 2012 | Laura Schmidt

[CharlesThe Hammer]

I am a medical sociologist, which means I study the health of whole societies. I've spent more than 20 years studying the best possible ways to address alcohol problems in societies -- what works and what doesn't to protect people from harm.

I work as a professor in the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine and at the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute. This allows me to connect with other scientists who come from very different backgrounds but who want to work together on big problems -- think of a Manhattan Project, only one focused on protecting health through the collaboration of scientists who study everything from tiny cells to entire societies.

[jpsb]

Isn’t it great that we gave the federal government the power to regulation what we eat, drink and smoke. Now the feds can save us from evil sugar. Yea! /s

[MrB]

Lefties may justify their position on the diaper requirement in that way,

but it’s more about their own inflated sense of “knowbetterism”.

[Navy Patriot]

Laura's idea is at least as good as having the government take DDT out of the environment or put MTBE into it.

Perhaps she can beat those records.

[CodeToad]

We should regulate the press to prevent such moronic articles.

[Navy Patriot]

Is she going to ban bread also?

You need to ask?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Notes about Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW (Masters in Social Work), MPH (Masters in Public Health). 1) She is an "Associate Professor in Residence", which means that she is non-tenured, nor does she have a permanent teaching or research seat at the university. She is a guest, paid for by someone else. 2) She is at the Institute for Health Policy Studies and the Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine. This is a convoluted blend to could be called the "Social Engineering Department." 3) Her organization has recommended using taxation, controlling access to sugary products and tightening licensing requirements to sell sweet snacks and drinks in schools and workplaces. Dr. Laura Schmidt said "We're not talking prohibition. We're not advocating a major imposition of the government into people's lives. We're talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose. What we want is to actually increase people's choices by making foods that aren't loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get." As far as Dr. Robert Lustig goes, he has long been a major opponent to sugar, however, he tends to use outdated information from less comprehensive studies. Some of the criticism: "While Lustig correctly points out that the nation’s overall caloric consumption has increased, he proceeds to blame carbohydrates as being the primary constituent... (using) data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17... "(However) data from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular." "According to the research, it’s (also) possible that over the last couple of decades, we’ve become more sedentary." "It’s also safe to say that all this finger-pointing at carbohydrate is just as silly as the finger-pointing toward fat in the '80′s. Lustig takes the scapegoating of carbohydrate up a notch by singling out fructose. Perhaps the most passionate point he makes throughout the lecture is that fructose is a poison... The answer is not an absolute yes or no; the evilness of fructose depends completely on dosage and context. A recurrent error in Lustig's lecture is his omission of specifying the dosage and context of his claims."

[null and void]

Laura's idea is at least as good as having the government take DDT out of the environment or put MTBE into it.

Perhaps she can beat those records.

Touché!

[dagogo redux]

“I study the health of whole societies.”

Says it all right there: She can’t think or write clearly, nor think in terms of human freedom.

I suppose she means the health of the individuals in entire societies, which is much different from what she said.

Either way, neither the health of the individuals, nor the “health” - i.e. proper functioning - of entire societies is enhanced by totalitarian tyranny.

A classic fool, in her element at her current location and position.

[rmh47]

You've obviously been bought by "Big Sugar."

[Dear God, please don't tell me I need to add a sarcasm tag!]

[Bigg Red]

It was only within the last year or so that I discovered that high fructose corn syrup plays havoc with my system. I usually avoid it, but yesterday was my birthday, so I had ice cream and cake last night, even though a little voice was telling me I would be sorry.

Result: Restless night. Two hours of sleep followed by 5 hours of wakefulness. Followed by GI distress.

HFCS is horrible stuff. But, as you said, we need to exercise common sense and personal responsibility.

And if people stop buying products that contain HFCS, market forces will make that junk disappear,

[tomkat]

Sieg f'n Heil

[SgtHooper]

While I am against this, unfortunately, there is sugar (sweetner) in dam near everything. The sugar (sweetner)lobby is powerful. I want sugar removed from our foods as least to the extend I can choose when I want it. To think that you can simply avoid it, by not buying it, is naive.

[wideawake]

I try to avoid it as well - and the best way to avoid it is to cook your own meals and bake your own treats.

Anything you buy that is ready-to-eat usually has HFCS in it.

[cuban leaf]

-To think that you can simply avoid it, by not buying it, is naive.—

Actually it’s pretty easy. I buy coarse rolled oats by the pound. It contains no sugar. My fruits and vegetables contain no sugar beyond what God put in them. Likewise my animal products. And my water contains no sugar.

But you see a pattern there, don’t you. ;-)

[Oztrich Boy]

What we want is to actually increase people's choices by making foods that aren't loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get."

Making "foods that aren't loaded with sugar" easier to get, means exactly that.

Making them "comparatively easier and cheaper to get" means restricting so that those containing sugar are actually harder to obtain.

[NativeSon]

5150...

oh, so we've met ....you know, you're probably right

[trailhkr1]

I try to avoid it as well - and the best way to avoid it is to cook your own meals and bake your own treats. Anything you buy that is ready-to-eat usually has HFCS in it.

I always thought cereals such as Special K and Wheaties were supposed to be good for you but HFCS is the second or third ingredient in them.

Like yourself I don't eat processed foods anymore, or very minimally and I feel 100% better. I sleep better, more energy etc.

When I do eat a lot of processed foods I feel lethargic.

[null and void]

Perhaps...

[buffaloguy]

Alernative translation:

“We advocate the scientific management of Mankind. It will be a glorious future!”

The heart and very soul of Liberalism. You don’t want any part of this chick...

[SgtHooper]

May you live to be 100! But you are the exception to the rule. Generally, buying liquids (other than water) in containers? Good luck. Packaged foods? Look at the ingredients. And being as saavy as you indicate, I think you know I am right about this. Sweetners are everywhere, especially fructose.