Government Should Regulate Sugar Intake?

Sugar as Addictive as Alcohol & Tobacco

A panel of scientists has argued in Nature magazine that the negative health effects of sugars in processed foods, linked to obesity and diseases like cancer and diabetes, warrants government-imposed regulations.

The trio of experts, operating out of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), have cited a UN report from September of 2011 detailing non-communicable diseases as deadlier than infectious diseases, causing up to 35 million deaths per year.

The UN report placed much of the blame on tobacco, alcohol and diet as major contributors to these health epidemics, but as the first two of these are already regulated, diet alone remains the last frontier.

Sugar Consumption Tripled in 50 Years

The debate over sweeteners is not new, but heavy media coverage in the past decade has targeted high-fructose corn syrup, a highly-processed mixture of glucose and fructose, which has been particularly controversial in the United States.

However, as the scientists of UCSF will tell you, it isn't the sugar itself that's dangerous - it's the fact that our consumption of it has tripled in the past fifty years.

"As long as the public thinks that sugar is just 'empty calories,' we have no chance in solving this," says one of the three authors, Robert Lustig, in a press release from UCSF. "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... but sugar is toxic beyond its calories."

Argument for Regulating Toxic Substances

Social psychologist Thomas Babor, in a 2003 book titled Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, developed a four-part argument for the regulation of alcohol. His argument has been appropriated by the three UCSF scientists to make the case for the regulation of sugar.

1. Unavoidability. Sugar has been added to nearly all processed foods on the market; in short, it is unavoidable.
2. Toxicity. Like alcohol, sugar induces many symptoms associated with the metabolic syndrome, which increases the likelihood of many costly and fatal diseases.
3. Potential for abuse. The authors cite several studies that suggest sugar leads to dependancy and addiction, ie it acts on the brain to encourage subsequent intake.
4. Negative impact on society. The US spends 75% of its health budget on treating the diseases and disorders associated with the metabolic syndrome.

The government could regulate sugar consumption by taxing it, limiting sales during school hours, and placing age limits on purchases.

Public Health Activism Vs Sugar Embargo

Co-author Laura Schmidt urges the public to think of sugar regulation as the first step in solving an important public health issue, rather than an embargo.

"We're not talking prohibition... 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."

The UCSF scientists concede that regulating sugar will be a difficult task, especially in emerging markets. Their paper is a call-to-arms solution for a better-informed public body. "In order to move the health needle, this issue needs to be recognized as a fundamental concern at the global level," ends Schmidt.