SUGAR: needs government regulation like tobacco and liquor?

[gareb]

---

Sugar is as toxic as tobacco and liquor, needs government regulation according to researchers


Posted: 02/06/2012
Last Updated: 16 hours and 20 minutes ago


By ERIN ALLDAY, San Francisco Chronicle
SAN FRANCISCO - Like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is a toxic, addictive substance that should be highly regulated with taxes, laws on where and to whom it can be advertised, and even age-restricted sales, a team of scientists contends.


In a paper published in Nature on Wednesday, the University of California, San Francisco researchers argue that increased global consumption of sugar is primarily responsible for a whole range of chronic diseases that are reaching epidemic levels around the world.


Sugar is so heavily entrenched in the food culture in the United States and other countries that getting people to kick the habit will require much more than simple education and awareness campaigns, the scientists said.


It's going to require public policy that gently guides people toward healthier choices and uses brute force to remove sugar from many processed foods, said Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF.

"The only method for dealing with this is a public-health intervention," Lustig said in an interview. "Everyone talks about personal responsibility, and that won't work here, as it won't for any addictive substance. These are things that have to be done at a governmental level."

In response to the study, the food and beverage industries said in statements that sugar cannot be blamed for high rates of chronic disease in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Comparing sugar to alcohol and tobacco is "simply without scientific merit," the American Beverage Association said. "There is no evidence that focusing solely on reducing sugar intake would have any meaningful public health impact."

Lustig has written extensively about the role he believes sugar has played in driving up rates of chronic illness such as heart disease and diabetes. Excessive sugar, he argues, alters people's biochemistry, making them more vulnerable to metabolic conditions that lead to illness, while at the same time increasing people's craving for sweets.

It's sugar, not obesity, that is the real health threat, Lustig and his co-authors -- public health experts Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis -- say in their paper.

They note that studies show 20 percent of obese people have normal metabolism and no ill health effects resulting from their weight, while 40 percent of normal-weight people have metabolic problems that can lead to diabetes and heart disease. They contend sugar consumption is the cause.

In other words, not everyone gains a lot of weight from over-indulging in sugar, but a large proportion of the U.S. population is eating enough to have devastating health effects, they say.

Americans eat and drink roughly 22 teaspoons of sugar every day -- triple what they consumed three decades ago -- and most people aren't even aware of the various ways sugars sneak into their diets, often via breads, cereals and processed foods. Terms that identify sugars on labels include sucrose, glucose, fructose, maltose, hydrolysed starch and invert sugar, corn syrup and honey.

Getting those sugars out of the American food culture is going to require a massive shift in how foods and beverages are made in the United States, the authors say. In the paper, they say that the Food and Drug Administration needs to remove sugar from the list of foods "generally regarded as safe," meaning they can be used in unlimited quantities.

The food and beverage industries have repeatedly denied that sugar is the main villain behind rising obesity rates or the increases in diabetes and heart disease. Instead, industry representatives blame a complex cultural shift toward a more inactive lifestyle and increased calories overall.

Not all scientists agree that sugar should shoulder the entire burden for the chronic diseases afflicting modern Americans.

"When you get into this argument about sugar in the diet, you also have to look at the type of food that has a high sugar content," said Jo Ann Hattner, a San Francisco registered dietitian who teaches nutrition courses at Stanford University. "Those foods have few nutrients and little fiber, and that's not good for you. So is it sugar itself that's harmful?"

That said, Hattner added, there's no doubt that people in general consume too much sugar and that everyone could benefit from eating less -- and especially looking out for "hidden" sugars in their diets.

(Contact Erin Allday at eallday(at)sfchronicle.com.)
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, ScrippsNews | News, Washington, Sports, Home, Garden, Food, Business, Entertainment.)
Must credit the San Francisco Chronicle

[twistedANGEL25]

Ma bankrupt ang mga pastries and the like nga restuarants if this happens...

[gareb]

Sugar should be regulated like alcohol, tobacco, commentary says

By Ryan Jaslow



(CBS) Should the government regulate sugar, just like it regulates alcohol and tobacco?

A new commentary published online in the Feb. 1 issue of Nature says sugar is just as "toxic" for people as the other two, so the government should step in to curb its consumption.

The United Nations announced in September that chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes contribute to 35 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the commentary. The U.N. pegged tobacco, alcohol, and diet as big risk factors that contributed to this death rate.

Two of those are regulated by governments, "leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked," the authors, Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argued.

They said that over the past 50 years, sugar consumption has tripled worldwide. That's also helped contribute to the obesity epidemic - so much so that there are 30 percent more obese people in this world than there are malnourished people.

But how does sugar compare to alcohol?

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it's unavoidable, there's potential for abuse, it's toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it's everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it's toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism.

"Many people think that obesity is the root cause of these diseases," they wrote. But 40 percent of normal-weight people are developing diseases like diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, heart and liver disease. "Obesity is not the cause; rather, it is a marker."

That's why it's time that the government steps in and regulates sugar in ways similar to tobacco and alcohol, the authors wrote. That includes taxes, age restrictions and other policies to control the distribution of sugar.

"We are now seeing the toxic downside," co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, told WebMD . "There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient."

Dr. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, told HealthPop that she agrees that it's time for policy changes, since many Americans take in roughly 25 percent of their daily calorie intake through sugar.


"I don't think people have any idea how many calories they take in when they take in soft drinks - particularly because they are consumed in such large quantities," Nestle said. She thinks regulation could eventually be possible, since many local governments are already enacting policies to curb sugar in schools or tax sodas.

"If you have enough of those, the federal government can step in."

Industry groups disagreed with the science and implications of the commentary.

The Sugar Association said it disputes some of the statistics presented - namely the tripled sugar consumption rates, which it said were based on "incomplete science" in a statement emailed to HealthPop.

"We are confident that the American people are perfectly capable of choosing what foods to eat without stark regulations and unreasonable bans imposed upon them," read a prepared statement from the Sugar Association.

The American Beverage Association added in a separate statement, "Moreover, an isolated focus on a single ingredient such as sugar or fructose to address health issues noted by the World Health Organization to be caused by multiple factors, including tobacco use, harmful alcohol use, an unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity, is an oversimplification"

[zhaquiri]

To me this seems really unnecessary. If anything should be "regulated," it should be the irresponsible people who eat their weight in sugar. I mean, ANYTHING can be toxic if you consume too much of it. People have died from drinking too much water. Yes...WATER. Should water be "regulated" too? Should water only be sold to people "of age" because too much of it could kill a person? Sugar, in itself, is not "toxic." As with practically everything else, moderation is key. It's not the sugar's fault if some people are irresponsible with their own health, leading them to obesity and/or death.

But then again, I do see the point of actively bringing sugar down a couple notches. "Americans eat and drink roughly 22 teaspoons of sugar every day." Wowzers.

[marx_yu]

sos..pagamyanay manig utok oi, control should be wid the person nganu gud tawn tanan tao maapektohan nga ksagaran obese dra rman sad sa ilang lugar mga walay control, gobyerno jud maski asa kurakot jud kung ma regulate na sa govt so meaning cla npud ang mu facilitate sa exchange of commodities..so pangwarta npud..hayz

[gareb]

zhaquiri: the point of the researchers is that too many available food products on the market have excess sugar in it, leaving people with too few and expensive choices to "eat healthy".

obesity has become a public health problem in the US, leading not a few to urge the government to address the matter in many levels: from the manufacture of available food in the market, to regulations and setting down safety guidelines to ensure public health, to government-initiated campaigns to make the public aware of the causes and dangers of obesity.