Skip to comments.Why we should regulate sugar like alcohol
Posted on 02/02/2012 7:02:33 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
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.
Anything you buy that is ready-to-eat usually has HFCS in it.
-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. ;-)
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.
oh, so we've met ....you know, you're probably right
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.
“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...
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.
When I went on the prism diet in 1997 I learned to read labels. I was not allowed to eat any packaged food that had sugar as one of the first four ingredients. Since then I like to show people ingredient lists as a source of humor.
People would be flabbergasted to find out what foods list sugar (or corn syrup, etc) in the first four ingredients, and often it is foods you would guess have no sweetener in them.
A little off subject, but sometimes I want a snack at work that is not sweet. We have Armour Vienna Sausages in a little 5 oz can for 50 cents. These are very small cans. The ingredients label says it has, per serving, 120 calories, 80 from fat, and contains 520 mg of salt (22% of a daily adult recommended intake).
Now, that’s not all that good but it’s really not bad either, until you read what most people ignore: The multiplier. That is, the number of servings per can. It’s a trick producers have used for a while that I first discovered on an Ice cream bar that seemed to be very low on sugar and calories, considering how good it was.
Anyway, back to the little can of sausages. It contains 2.5 servings. That’s right. Six little 1.75” long mini-dogs are 2.5 servings. This means a can, which anybody can eat without breaking a sweat, contains 300 calories, 200 from fat, and 1,280 mg of salt, which is over half the recommended adult intake of salt.
Labels are actually a great source of entertainment for me, and the more entertaining the label, the less likely I am to eat what is in the package displaying the label.
So tell me about your success in this area. Really, did you accomplish anything other than expending grant money?
Sure sugar is bad for you in large quantities but it's already subsidized and taxed so highly in the US that we pay more per pound than just about anyone. I know when I've eaten too much. So do most people. Butt out.
I once heard a local newscaster trying to pronounce “meteorologist” and she came up with “Media Urologist”. Sort of a compelling image, I thought.
Kinda wondering how she "studied" alcohol.
While munching unsweetened pot brownies.
I read the "DUmmie FUnnies" on FR. Does that make me a "Socio-Political Progessive Analyst"?
Frankly, what Mrs WBill makes is far better than anything I could get in the store.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with eating a couple of "Oreo" cookies (or whatever). The problems stem from eating a couple of packages of Oreos. Then, sitting on your butt 12-16 hours a day and not exercising them off.
But, since the backlash is starting up against HFCS, and since politicians have no self-discipline and assume everyone else is just like them ....I'd look for HFCS to be regulated in the near future.
That’s a good point. American agribusiness is amazingly surreal in how it does things. Its design today is in effect based on the public-corporate partnership models of economic fascism of the 1930s.
This amounts to centralized government dictation of the means, type and quantity of production, but under those diktats, production is carried out by corporate management instead of government bureaucrats, as long as compliance is achieved.
So, for example, if Michelle Obama dictates that corporations must use less salt in their products, as she has done, they must comply with her unelected diktat, but it is up to them to do so.
As long as they do so “voluntarily”, they will not be forced to do so by the bureaucracy.
But salt is one thing, and sugar is another. Proportionally, 10 million short tons of sugar are consumed in the US each year, mostly by people and bacteria in fermentation. About 40 million tons of salt are *used*, but only a fraction of that is consumed, the rest being used for food processing purposes in which only a small fraction is consumed (like brining).
So while limiting salt added to food to enhance flavor can be done, limiting sugar would likely increase the price of food considerably.
Simply take away a lot of the farm subsidies, which make wheat and corn, including corn syrups, less expensive than they would be on their own and healthy alternatives would be relatively cheaper.
Food Nazis can eat used food for all I care.
Battle to the death.
Used food? Isn’t that what vegetarians would call meat?
Sounds like you have a good handle on it. Nice job! It just irks me that companies toss this stuff in, or distort what should be clearly understandable, to mess up food products. I think generally, most ppl do not read labels like they should. Thus, the companies get away with it. I may need to look into that prism diet myself.
It's just good marketing and product design.
I was recently buying a can of tomato paste and one can had an ingredient list of precisely one ingredient while another had six ingredients, including HFCS as the second listed.
I have become a very careful label reader, and I try to stay away from prepared foods anyway, even the ones without HFCS. But, last night, I was foolish — and I paid the price.
I didn't need a governing body to intervene. I didn't need a tax on sugar to prompt me to quit. I made a choice based on my own experiences.
Yes, he’s such an important person, we should join him in his cause /sarc.
Nanny State PING!
She could probably still score, just not with me.
“Put those sugar beets down and step away slowly, you’re under arrest you sugar hoarding scum”
Soon we will see the BATFES (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and Sugar)
| Not all things labeled 'junk science' are junk. In this case, there is NO money in it for researchers or endocrinologists to OPPOSE sugar. The sugar lobby is huge and super powerful, and our chance of eliminating taxpayer subsidies for sugar are almost zero.
I understand the comments on this thread are almost 100% against this author, but he/they are basically correct. Sugar IS a mild poison because the fructose that is 50% of every 'table sugar' (sucrose) molecule is toxic in that form. It MUST be detoxified by our livers into other compounds, and human livers can only detoxify a certain amount of fructose per day (roughly 25-30 grams of fructose if you are a full grown adult in good health). Most of the world now eats two or three times that amount or more because sugar is so cheap, and thought to be harmless. Children have smaller livers and can only detoxify even smaller amounts than healthy adults.
Over time, the excess fructose damages our livers, leading to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other diseases. Type TWO diabetes used to be called 'adult onset diabetes', but it is now happening to younger and younger sugar addicts, even children.
Newt Gingrich took a beating after FL debates for even mentioning the possibility of someday eliminating the sugar subsidy, and that was after Newt's answer that the sugar lobby was too powerful and it would be almost impossible. [and he was right about that]
Sugar and Salt, white death, I use as little of both as possible.
I agree with you and want the sugar subsidy eliminated, along with all agricultural subsidies, but that is not relevant to regulating sugar. The federal government should put out the information and then let us decide. With lower taxes and less government, we would have more time to make informed decisions and more money to afford healthier foods. My family, including my children, eat only a very small amount of processed sugar. We buy almost nothing with added sugar, and we read labels very carefully when we do buy packaged food. I agree with your point on health. I just believe it is not the government’s place to regulate sugar for us - that is my job as a parent.
Because it's the main source of energy for our cells? Or because you don't understand biology and chemistry?
Because it's the main source of energy for our cells?You don't read too good do you? Glucose is the main source of energy for our cells, not sucrose (which contains 50% fructose and needs to be detox'ed by our livers)
Or because you don't understand biology and chemistry?Not only you don't read, you don't understand either subject
I noticed you cited Dr. Lustig, but as I pointed out in a previous post, his criticism of fructose was based on a limited study, with only a pediatric spectrum, for a relatively short time.
Here is a concise set of criticisms against Lustig’s histrionics:
A loose term applied to monosaccharides and lower oligosaccharides.
What an arrogant putz this “professor” is. Personally, I don’t giver a damn what she thinks. Someone should throw her useless dissertation at her. Leave everyone alone, you food Nazi.
That’s approximately one half of a glass of orange juice per day.
You make a more convincing case than the author does. Of course, you didn’t waste valuable words trying to impress anyone with your resume.
No one gets out alive
I have no problem eliminating the Sugar subsidiy.
However Education is greatly needed. I also have no problem if they required the Glycemic index be posted on processed foods.
Bread, Pasta, Starch are basically reduced to sugar in the body and are just as bad. I see people eat huge amounts of the above having no idea what they are doing to their body.
So Sugar is just part of the problem.
That’s very progressive! Well done.
The science behind America's rate of obesity says that our rate of obesity is caused by the fact that we're consuming more energy than we burn. It can't be blamed on a macronutrient, a micronutrient, some food ingredient, or a chemical. Americans are consuming too much food and beverage while living a sedentary lifestyle.
Sugar makes you fat
Consuming more calories than you burn makes you fat. It's the amount of calories that matters, not the source of those calories.
“Thats very progressive”
I hope that was a complement, liberals have given the word progressive a bad name. :^)
Conservatives believe in giving people information to make their own decisions, Liberals believe in making decisions for people or making them pay dearly.
He also says that fructose is a toxin. It is not. The liver easily converts fructose to glucose. Of course, if you overwhelm the body with anything, bad things can happen.
Anyone with Lustig's background should know better than to promote the silliness he does, but there it is. He has an agenda, but I have no idea what it is. Who cares. If you're going to demonize sugar of any kind, you should probably find a source who knows what he's talking about.
So fruit and honey are toxic? Sure. You do realize, don't you, that just about anything can be toxic in the right quantities? People die from drinking too much water.
Fructose utilizes a different pathway than glucose when metabolized. Even so, your liver easily converts fructose to glucose. You need to stop listening to Lustig.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.