INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: skyblue1 on February 02, 2012, 05:36:35 PM
-
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, argue that sugar is toxic and needs to be taxed and controlled. Why it's so hard to break our addiction
Sugar poses enough health risks that it should be considered a controlled substance just like alcohol and tobacco, contend a team of researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
In an opinion piece called “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” that was published Feb. 1 in the journal Nature, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis argue that it’s a misnomer to consider sugar just “empty calories.” They write: “There is nothing empty about these calories. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills — slowly.”
Almost everyone’s heard of — or personally experienced — the proverbial sugar high, so perhaps the comparison between sugar and alcohol or tobacco shouldn’t come as a surprise. But it’s doubtful that Americans will look favorably upon regulating their favorite vice. We’re a nation that’s sweet on sugar: the average U.S. adult downs 22 teaspoons of sugar a day, according to the American Heart Association, and surveys have found that teens swallow 34 teaspoons.
To counter our consumption, the authors advocate taxing sugary foods and controlling sales to kids under 17. Already, 17% of U.S. children and teens are obese, and across the world the sugar intake has tripled in the past 50 years. The increase has helped create a global obesity pandemic that contributes to 35 million annual deaths worldwide from noninfectious diseases including diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
“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,” Lustig, a professor of pediatrics and director of the Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health (WATCH) program at UCSF, said in a statement. “But sugar is toxic beyond its calories.”
The food industry tries to imply that “a calorie is a calorie,” says Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. “But this and other research suggests there is something different about sugar,” says Brownell.
The UCSF report emphasizes the metabolic effects of sugar. Excess sugar can alter metabolism, raise blood pressure, skew the signaling of hormones and damage the liver — outcomes that sound suspiciously similar to what can happen after a person drinks too much alcohol. Schmidt, co-chair of UCSF’s Community Engagement and Health Policy program, noted on CNN: “When you think about it, this actually makes a lot of sense. Alcohol, after all, is simply the distillation of sugar. Where does vodka come from? Sugar.”
But there are also other areas of impact that researchers have investigated: the effect of sugar on the brain and how liquid calories are interpreted differently by the body than solids. Research has suggested that sugar activates the same reward pathways in the brain as traditional drugs of abuse like morphine or heroin. No one is claiming the effect of sugar is quite that potent, but, says Brownell, “it helps confirm what people tell you anecdotally, that they crave sugar and have withdrawal symptoms when they stop eating it.”
There’s also something particularly insidious about sugary beverages. “When calories come in liquids, the body doesn’t feel as full,” says Brownell. “People are getting more of their calories than ever before from sugared beverages.”
Other countries, including France, Greece and Denmark, levy soda taxes, and the concept is being considered in at least 20 U.S. cities and states. Last summer, Philadelphia came close to passing a 2-cents-per-ounce soda tax. The Rudd Center has been a vocal proponent of a more modest 1-cent-per-ounce tax. But at least one study, from 2010, has raised doubts that soda taxes would result in significant weight loss: apparently people who are determined to eat — and drink — unhealthily will find ways to do it.
Ultimately, regulating sugar will prove particularly tricky because it transcends health concerns; sugar, for so many people, is love. A plate of cut-up celery just doesn’t pack the same emotional punch as a tin of homemade chocolate chip cookies, which is why I took my daughter for a cake pop and not an apple as an after-school treat today. We don’t do that regularly — it’s the first time this school year, actually — and that’s what made it special. As a society, could we ever reach the point where we’d think apples — not cake on a stick — are something to get excited over? Says Brindis, one of the report’s authors and director of UCSF’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies: “We recognize that there are cultural and celebratory aspects of sugar. Changing these patterns is very complicated.”
For inroads to be made, say the authors in their statement, people have to be better educated about the hazards of sugar and agree that something’s got to change:
Many of the interventions that have reduced alcohol and tobacco consumption can be models for addressing the sugar problem, such as levying special sales taxes, controlling access, and tightening licensing requirements on vending machines and snack bars that sell high sugar products in schools and workplaces.
“We’re not talking prohibition,” Schmidt said. “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.”
http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/02/should-sugar-be-regulated-like-alcohol-and-tobacco/ (http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/02/should-sugar-be-regulated-like-alcohol-and-tobacco/)
-
If loving sugar is wrong, I don't want to be right. :emosad:
-
What a bunch of assholes :Dickhead:
-
My typical call of LEGALIZE EVERYTHING
shall, for the purposes of this thread, also now include
I LOVE MY SUGAR AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM FREEBASING IT* YOU REPRESSING BASTARDS
*creme brulee can be kinda yummy sometimes
-
My typical call of LEGALIZE EVERYTHING
shall, for the purposes of this thread, also now include
I LOVE MY SUGAR AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM FREEBASING IT* YOU REPRESSING BASTARDS
*creme brulee can be kinda yummy sometimes
:plus:
-
They are just paving the way for Soylent Green
-
If they regulate it, I predict it will last one month before there is a national uprising of males who have experienced the female population without one of their necessary medications for PMS.
-
If they regulate it, I predict it will last one month before there is a national uprising of males who have experienced the female population without one of their necessary medications for PMS.
A lot of us at my job are females aged 40-55, things would get ugly! :yarly:
-
as long as they dont fuck with the chocolate, I will be fine
-
I'm not a big chocolate fan really, except the ones that have pink stuff inside them. but you can never fucking buy them on their own, so whenever I wan some I have to buy a fucking massive box of shit, just to get like three of them, then giev the rest to my mum
But yeah I like sweets and pepsi. I couldn't survive without my pepsi
-
I'm not a big chocolate fan really, except the ones that have pink stuff inside them. but you can never fucking buy them on their own, so whenever I wan some I have to buy a fucking massive box of shit, just to get like three of them, then giev the rest to my mum
But yeah I like sweets and pepsi. I couldn't survive without my pepsi
Strawberry or raspberry?
Also, yes you can. Some chocolate stores will let you go in and make a custom box of whatever you want. Or take home a bag or whatever. It's fantabulous.
-
Either! I don't mind
i like the gooey ones like you get in Roses, and the not-gooey ones
I dunno wtf either is called , but if it's pink then it usually takes nice
-
Either! I don't mind
i like the gooey ones like you get in Roses, and the not-gooey ones
I dunno wtf either is called , but if it's pink then it usually takes nice
Time for you to go into a proper chocolate shop, and buy just the bonbons you like.
Acting shy is OK, they'll just assume you are buying valentines chocolates for that nice girl you want to impress.
-
Either! I don't mind
i like the gooey ones like you get in Roses, and the not-gooey ones
I dunno wtf either is called , but if it's pink then it usually takes nice
I like the chewy raspberry-centered Russell Stover ones, called Roman Nougat. 8)
-
I don't have much of a sweet tooth now after a decade of very healthy eating (and I've always eaten more or less healthily, but I liked sweets as a kid, particularly the chewy jelly type). I can't stand most chocolate; it needs at least 70% cocoa solids or it's sickly sweet to me. Almost all of my sugar comes from fruit, and not fruit juice or really sugary fruit like bananas, but things like whole oranges, granny smith apples, plums, various berries, pomegranates etc, where there's a lot of citric acid to offset the sweetness, and there's lots of fibre and water to slow down the absorption of the sugar.
-
Peter, I approve of your choice in chocolate.
70% or more is what it needs to be indeed.
-
If they regulate it, I predict it will last one month before there is a national uprising of males who have experienced the female population without one of their necessary medications for PMS.
A lot of us at my job are females aged 40-55, things would get ugly! :yarly:
Ugly hell, without that monthly chocolate fix, I can personally guarantee some heads are going to roll. You can count on it. :thumbup:
-
If they regulate it, I predict it will last one month before there is a national uprising of males who have experienced the female population without one of their necessary medications for PMS.
A lot of us at my job are females aged 40-55, things would get ugly! :yarly:
Ugly hell, without that monthly chocolate fix, I can personally guarantee some heads are going to roll. You can count on it. :thumbup:
That may make the world a better place........
* Hopes no really dear ones will cross my path, when I am in dire need of chocolate *
-
Prince Albert would be unaffected by this proposal since he doesn't eat sweets. He only eats, pound cake, cheese cake, doberge cake, cookies, peach pie, ice cream and milkshakes. He doesn't eat candy bars or icing.
(Yeah, I know, but I love him, so I haven't told him the truth about this.)
-
Great. The Health Nazis are at it again. Don't let people decide for themselves, that's bad business. :tard:
-
Great. The Health Nazis are at it again. Don't let people decide for themselves, that's bad business. :tard:
WE MUST PROTECT EVERYONE FROM EVERYTHING!!!!
-
Great. The Health Nazis are at it again. Don't let people decide for themselves, that's bad business. :tard:
WE MUST PROTECT EVERYONE FROM EVERYTHING!!!!
I have a theory on this. People are living longer due to advances in medicine and increased attention to safety in products and the workplace, so they have less and less to go after each year now that the easy targets are gone or in decline. Now they go after anything to keep the funds flowing and their names in the news.
-
i'm eating sweets
-
I have a theory on this. People are living longer due to advances in medicine and increased attention to safety in products and the workplace, so they have less and less to go after each year now that the easy targets are gone or in decline. Now they go after anything to keep the funds flowing and their names in the news.
:agreed:
When will it end?
-
The study was conducted in the city where Happy Meals were banned and so were soda machines on city property, San Francisco.
-
I'm all for sugar being regulated or controlled.
Banned? No. Regulated? Yes. There is a huge difference between the two.
-
how dyou think it should be regulated
-
how dyou think it should be regulated
it would depend on further study as to exactly how harmful it is. But I think the amounts used should be restricted in non-home made products. Sugar in the supermarket should possibly be taxed to artificially raise the prices thereby making it's purchase less enticing.
...or something.
-
how dyou think it should be regulated
it would depend on further study as to exactly how harmful it is. But I think the amounts used should be restricted in non-home made products. Sugar in the supermarket should possibly be taxed to artificially raise the prices thereby making it's purchase less enticing.
...or something.
So if I wrote an article about how board games cause obsessions and the withdraw from reality for those who collect and play them, and did a study using people who had obviously gone overboard with them you would support similar restrictions on them?
-
it would depend on further study as to exactly how harmful it is. But I think the amounts used should be restricted in non-home made products. Sugar in the supermarket should possibly be taxed to artificially raise the prices thereby making it's purchase less enticing.
...or something.
I think the highlight part is an adequate response to your question parts.
-
it would depend on further study as to exactly how harmful it is. But I think the amounts used should be restricted in non-home made products. Sugar in the supermarket should possibly be taxed to artificially raise the prices thereby making it's purchase less enticing.
...or something.
I think the highlight part is an adequate response to your question parts.
So what about the bolded part?
-
That suggestion is not exclusive of my initial assertion. It is dependant on further study. *If* further study bears out the claim then my suggestion could be implemented.
-
I put loads of sugar on my cereal this morning. :zoinks:
-
I put loads of sugar on my cereal this morning. :zoinks:
:zoinks: now, but :autism: later :P
-
Oh I am always :autism:
-
Don't I know it...
:P
-
I feel further study by these same people will have similar results. The government already does more than it needs to regulating peoples lives
-
I feel further study by these same people will have similar results.
That's generally why, to build a scientific consensus, you need to have multiple teams producing the same or similar results.
-
I feel further study by these same people will have similar results.
That's generally why, to build a scientific consensus, you need to have multiple teams producing the same or similar results.
I am aware of that but that is not how these thing usually play out. First you get the fear mongering doctor to make a stink and get people worked up. In this case, sugar, it causes diabetes, obesity and general nastiness according to him we must think of the children. Now he gets a few like minded colleagues to agree and the worried overprotective parents begin making noise. The the politicians get wind of it and want to score some point and look like they care and call for hearings and guess who they get to speak at them. The fact there are hearings to some people would make them feel there is something to the accusations. Before you dismiss this just look at backmasking and the other evils of rock music that got as far as congressional hearings in the US
-
I still think it's worth further study. Sugar is a highly refined substance far removed from the natural sugars that we find in fruits and such.
-
You mean like honey
-
I was more thinking of fruit and vegetables. Honey is, itself, kind of refined (albeit by the bees).
-
You mean fruit?
Many of us have come to believe that eating healthier means eating lots of fruits and vegetables. While fruits and vegetables are much better for you than refined foods like cookies and chips, my experiences and research have led me to believe that too much fruit can be harmful to your health.
Link (http://drbenkim.com/articles-fruit.html) I feel that may have to be regulated too :nerdy:
I do not think the government should be regulating peoples lives as much as they do now let alone giving them more power over them.
-
Too much of anything is harmful...It's all about degrees
-
Then why must things be regulated let people regulate themselves
-
A government has a duty of care to its citizens. They are obligated to protect, even from themselves. This can include regulation, restrictions, laws, and even education. Part of a solid regulation of any food should probably education so people are well informed of the potential dangers of excessive consumption. But the government would need to know exactly what constitutes as excessive, and specifically what the dangers are.
Now I know we're probably going to disagree on the idea of governments as a regulatory body. But that's my opinion on the matter.
-
I feel further study by these same people will have similar results.
That's generally why, to build a scientific consensus, you need to have multiple teams producing the same or similar results.
I volunteer to help with research, I've always been a team player! :autism:
-
A government has a duty of care to its citizens. They are obligated to protect, even from themselves. This can include regulation, restrictions, laws, and even education. Part of a solid regulation of any food should probably education so people are well informed of the potential dangers of excessive consumption. But the government would need to know exactly what constitutes as excessive, and specifically what the dangers are.
Now I know we're probably going to disagree on the idea of governments as a regulatory body. But that's my opinion on the matter.
They do a pretty poor job of the duties they already claim to do when they even do them. So unless something is truly dangerous to the public at large they should stay out of it.
-
i thought governments hired independent bodies to protect us e.g., Department of Health for the UK
-
In the US they are all part of the government and not always independent or objective at all. In my town the Heath department had been used by the mayor to force out businesses that they deemed undesirable after they could not stop them otherwise. They are also used to selectively enforce blight ordinances and mostly do what ever the mayor has told them in the past. It's a new year though with a new mayor so we shall see how it goes. It has been pretty much this way everywhere I have lived and in the surrounding towns.
-
i thought governments hired independent bodies to protect us e.g., Department of Health for the UK
I see that as part of the government. Perhaps it's more bureaucracy than government, but *shrug*
-
So, in stead of bears and wolves, we now are to be afraid of sugar.
And, in a culture where everyone is supposed to be happy and satisfied all the time, we'll go to aspartame, for the sweetness. (HUGE YUCK btw) and to increased use of happy pills.
Until, in ten years. The government will have to regulate that too, because in stead of sugar, we need a new natural environment enemy to be scared of.
* craves for chocolate *
-
*starts illegally trafficking sugar at $10.00 a lb*
-
*starts illegally trafficking sugar at $10.00 a lb*
Good thing you have steel doors they can't get through with the chainsaw
-
Clearly we should rely on SCIENCETM to conduct INDEPENDENT, PEER-REVIEWED STUDIESTM- which are, of course, as solidly free of lies, corruption and general adgenda'ed fuckwittery as our wonderful benevolent government at large is- in order to tell us what freedoms we would be better off without.
-
No, because I wants all the sugars my hubby can give me. :2thumbsup:
-
Clearly we should rely on SCIENCETM to conduct INDEPENDENT, PEER-REVIEWED STUDIESTM- which are, of course, as solidly free of lies, corruption and general adgenda'ed fuckwittery as our wonderful benevolent government at large is- in order to tell us what freedoms we would be better off without.
"All statistics are socially constructed" - my first Uni tutor.
-
*starts illegally trafficking sugar at $10.00 a lb*
Or growing your own sugar cane?
-
Sugarcane by Missy Higgins HQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feYTeqJzghg#)
-
*starts illegally trafficking sugar at $10.00 a lb*
Or growing your own sugar cane?
But I can see it now... [Today a house on Pine Street, Somewhereville was raided by the DEA for illegally growing vast quantities of sugar cane. The DEA were quoted saying, "This has been a significant haul, holding a market value of at least $200,000. Let this be a lesson. We will not tolerate people attempting to illegally distribute this natural narcotic substance on our streets. We will continue operation sour tooth to ensure that people are kept safe from the dangers of sugar addiction and the risk of diabetes." This raid has not gone without controversy however. Proponents defend the raid and the "war on sugar" crackdown by calling sugar cane as toxic as alcohol and weed combined and is known to destroy lives in it's wake. Meanwhile critics condemn this crackdown as a draconian measure to control people's lives needlessly and endanger civil liberties in consumer choice...]
-
I just read the first two paragraphs of the first post... looked to the side of my bed and saw a 24 pack of coke... which has been depleated to 8 in just two days.... im amazed im not a fat fuck, with only a slight gut.
-
how dyou think it should be regulated
it would depend on further study as to exactly how harmful it is. But I think the amounts used should be restricted in non-home made products. Sugar in the supermarket should possibly be taxed to artificially raise the prices thereby making it's purchase less enticing.
...or something.
GA shows exactly what's wrong with the big governent philosophy in just one post!! :thumbup:
-
I found the "...or something" to be the most profound part. :zoinks:
-
Should sugar be regulated?
By whom, exactly? The government? HAHA, the government has already proven itself to be totally incapable of anything productive countless times, and asking it to regulate yet another thing is like flushing resources down the toilet. Here is a small example of how the public sector handles a project:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/23/california-high-speed-train-project-at-crossroads/?page=all (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/23/california-high-speed-train-project-at-crossroads/?page=all)
-
I could start selling loosies of Coca Cola out in front of bodegas down in NYC :zoinks:
-
I could start selling loosies of Coca Cola out in front of bodegas down in NYC :zoinks:
Lol watch out, Parts. There might be an imminent threat to your respiration just for posting such a thing on the internet. :GA:
-
Did Mexico already start with taxing Coca Cola?
Coca Cola is having a hard time, now that sugar is being targeted. They are even coming up with dairy now.
-
Did Mexico already start with taxing Coca Cola?
Coca Cola is having a hard time, now that sugar is being targeted. They are even coming up with dairy now.
Indeed. The lie of government utility will become impossible to ignore, one day.
-
I could start selling loosies of Coca Cola out in front of bodegas down in NYC :zoinks:
You'd hold your own on those mean streeets. Nobody would dare mess with you! :pirate:
-
I could start selling loosies of Coca Cola out in front of bodegas down in NYC :zoinks:
Here you are at your bodega! :whatthe: :coke: :coke: :coke: :trollface:
-
There is much difference between offering safety, and enforcing 'protection'
And that distinction is one that should not be ignored.