Tuesday, 07 February 2012
-
Sugar: The World's Sweetest Toxin
According to scientists, sugar should be treated like a chemical toxin, and in turn, regulated. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco want there to be buying-age restrictions for purchasing sugar and a ban from schools (similar to regulations against alcohol and tobacco products).
What is the logic behind such a drastic proposal? According to their paper in the journal Nature, the researchers believe that sucrose (sugar) has done equal damage to society as alcohol and tobacco. And their views are backed up by the statistics of obesity and health problems relating to dietary intake.
They explain that from an evolutionary perspective, sugar was available in fruits and man had access for a few months. But now, sugar is readily available and we consume more than the recommended amount. In fact, Americans are estimated to consume 40 teaspoons of sugar a day!
What do you think? Should sugar be regulated?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to ireallylikefood's IReallyLikeFood Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in ireallylikefood's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: sbaral@xanga
- About Me: I'm a Rutgers University graduate who discovered a passion for writing in college when I found myself enjoying researching for and writing papers instead of working at biology labs. In my spare time, I enjoy cooking and watching movies--I am in pursuit of learning to fluently speak French and Italian after developing an interest in these languages from watching foreign films. Apart from foreign films and cooking, my interests include photography, traveling, art history and interior design. twitter.com/sushbaral
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 1 261 Views: 882 735680 Comments: 2 6456 View all posts by sbaral@xanga
Comments (15)
I understand that large amounts of sugar is not good for the body, but seriously? Doesn't the government have anything else better to do? It should have to offer basic information and let people choose for themselves. If the government starts treating us all like kids, we will all begin to behave like them, and surely, that can't be a good thing.
Okay, who are these scientists, and where can I find them? I think I want to beat some sense into them -- preferably with a Louisville slugger.
This is such a stupid idea. Doubling the taxes? To save money for who? It gets them more money for their research but it doesn't solve the problem, it hurts the economy (as if we need anymore of that), and it's going to piss people off in a really big way. No thanks. Those three need to go back to the books and try to come up with some other ideas because this plan sucks.
I agree that sugar is harmful and am currently trying to cut it out of my own diet. However, I believe the government controls enough and whether or not you want to put harmful substances in your body should be a personal choice.
This is so ridiculous. The government needs to find something more important to occupy their time with.
Tax it to cover the government burden caused by obesity? It's not as crazy as it first seems. Tobacco is taxed for a reason.
sugar is bad, splenda is bad, breathing is bad, whatever
Yes, sugar is bad and people need to learn how to better control their intake. However, like the other comments have mentioned, there are far more important things that the government must first address - *ahem* school funding. Seriously, this whole act of claiming to fix relatively minute issues just to distract the public from the larger issues is getting old...
People should stop eating so much sugar, sure. I'm the first one to agree on that. But sugar is a necessary part of a human diet.... making a big deal over it is ridiculous.
Increasing taxes would generate more revenue for the economy - not hurt it. And, on the other hand, if increasing taxes causes less consumers to purchase sugar/sugar-based products, that would generally cut back on some of obesity's causes. On a very topical and superficial level - both of those outcomes are favorable.
Also, these UCSF researchers are merely suggesting taxes as a deterrent - they don't necessarily represent the "government," they aren't necessarily lawmakers or lobbyists. Yes, they are employees of the state of California because they are part of the University of California system, but that doesn't imply that they are greedy for governmental revenue or whatever. They're researchers, for goodness sake; they research and write papers based on their findings. The gentleman on the left is a medical doctor of pediatric endocrinology and the lady on the right is a doctor of sociology specializing in alcohol's effect on wherever her interest of study is and she also has a masters in public health - they aren't particularly concerned with school funding; which is why they aren't focusing on "larger issues."
My point is: these people have published an article in a peer-reviewed journal and they are making their point that change requires motivation, a catalyst, a starting point. It is even stated in the video that a "gentle" turning of the public away from too much sugar would be an excellent place to start.
Eh, maybe they have a point.
I can't watch the video, so I am responding to the text only.
NO, sugar should not be regulated. That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard, and I'm disturbed by how often I'm hearing it.
People get all up in your face about right to choose... in BIG decisions, but then they want the government to control what we put in our bodies? The people that can't get a driver's license right on the first try, this is who we want to have control over our diets, instead of our own brains and stomachs?
And yet, with universal health care, it makes sense to regulate diets in order to keep costs down. One of the many, many reasons that universal health care is a bad idea.
Any substance can be toxic at sufficiently high quantity. Eating too much peanut butter can lead to death.
I don't give a shit about commenting on government regulation, but I will say it was interesting to think about sugar that way.