T Nation

Should Sugar Be Regulated Like Alcohol


#1

[i]I struggled whether to post here or in PWI. Let's start here and leave it to the mods to move if it goes in that direction. Apologies if this has been posted, I didn't see it in here or PWI and search turned up nothing.

D. [/i]

Writing in the journal Nature, UCSF pediatrician Robert Lustig and colleagues suggest regulating sugar just like alcohol and tobacco with taxes and age limits, for example due to what they call the "toxic" effects of too much sweet stuff. Education, they say, is not enough.

Please read full article then discuss.


#2

Why is anything regulated? Mostly it’s because people can’t find a happy medium.

It’s a slippery slope, if one agency or group says to control sugar, then what’s next fat and cholesterol foods?

Good point on taxing things. People will pay for whatever they want if they want it bad enough.

I like what he says, “there is no bad food”… I used to say there were bad foods, but recently changed my stance, there’s only “bad food products”, there’s a difference.

So, should sugar be regulated like alcohol? What does that mean?
Does that mean the “natural” cookies I buy with no trans-fat and no HFCS won’t be available unless one is of certain aged?

What type of sugar?

too many questions at this point to give an answer IMO.

It’s tempting though when I need more calories, and I consider paying $7/lb for organic brussel sprouts and a package of oreos is cheaper, there’s a problem with that IMO


#3

I am aware that France recently introduced a soda tax, where the funds are then sent to local farmers.

I am all for the idea. And on top of, I believe grains should be taxed as well, instead of being subsidized. Especially since they have nearly the same (some say worse) effect on the body as sugar.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that for a low income family it costs the same amount to go get a child a McDonald’s happy meal dinner as it does to buy a head of broccoli and some carrots.

We should be doing everything in our power to promote and subsidize real food: organic meats, vegetables, fruits, and nuts.

Everything else from their is not required for health and is actually more detrimental to health - taxing such a thing only makes logical sense.

Unfortunately, governments are so screwed up and liable to financial pressure that such a thing will never happen.


#4

No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.


#5

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread


#6

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread[/quote]

and yet, if you have insurance through your employer, your costs are higher than they need because many people “abuse” sugar


#7

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread[/quote]

and yet, if you have insurance through your employer, your costs are higher than they need because many people “abuse” sugar[/quote]

This is a reason to charge the offenders more for their health insurance not to restrict others access to a product.


#8

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread[/quote]

and yet, if you have insurance through your employer, your costs are higher than they need because many people “abuse” sugar[/quote]

This is a reason to charge the offenders more for their health insurance not to restrict others access to a product. [/quote]

Bingo.

That being said - I’m all for reducing corn and other grain subsidies, which would increase the price of HFCS. For a host of reasons.


#9

Like a couple others said, if they would just end subsidies for corn, soy, and wheat… that could be a huge improvement in our nation’s health.


#10

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread[/quote]

So then I guess it’s safe to assume that you guys believe that cigarettes and alcohol should be untaxed too?

Its not in anyone’s best interest to deter you from doing what’s detrimental to yourself, I guess…


#11

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Sugar is an addictive substance, however the answer is not regulation. There is no easy answer, but large inroads could be made through simply mandating full disclosure for all food which is sold to consumers. That means printing calories, sugar, fat on the menus. I know for a fact if that 2500 calorie appetizer had “this is 2500 calories” on it…people would eat a LOT less 2500 calorie appetizers.[/quote]

Exactly.

I was going to post that full-scale education is a long term way to go, but what you’re suggesting IS education, but on an immediate, experiential basis.


#12

[quote]hungryone wrote:

[quote]benos4752 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

/end thread[/quote]

So then I guess it’s safe to assume that you guys believe that cigarettes and alcohol should be untaxed too?

Its not in anyone’s best interest to deter you from doing what’s detrimental to yourself, I guess…[/quote]

Ah, you mean taxing the hell out of things you personally consider a sin? Yeah, I’m against that.

If you allow individual health to become a public responsibility every decision is open to government regulation.


#13

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?


#14

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

No. I’m not okay with someone saying telling me I can’t do something to myself. Legal is the lack of interference. Legalizing is a lack of action, not an action.

What happens when serious weight training is regulated for being dangerous? Or taxation based on BMI?

I’m willing to bet mcdonalds and coke kill more people than narcotics do. I think we should pass laws regarding your fast food intake. Components of a sedentary lifestyle are dangerous too. Lets limit TV watching and Gameplay. Maybe add a 200% tax on anything video entertainment related…


#15

[quote]hungryone wrote:

So then I guess it’s safe to assume that you guys believe that cigarettes and alcohol should be untaxed too?
[/quote]

Taxed no differently than anything else.


#16

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Things get sticky here, but the short answer is yes.


#17

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.


#18

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually.


#19

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good.


#20

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, the government should not regulate what I put in my body.[/quote]

So you’re okay with legalizing all narcotics too then?

[/quote]

Why not? If people want to destroy themselves, let them. Freedom is a double edged sword.[/quote]

Because the legalization of some things bring more demonstrable harm than good to society. I think we should assess each substance individually. [/quote]

“harm than good to society”

Tell me, where does society hurt?

You can then literally justify ANYTHING as for the general good. [/quote]

No you can’t.

There would be little demonstrable benefit for the legalization of crack or murder or rape and they would all be accompanied with huge negatives.