Sugar tax needed, say US experts (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Helen Briggs
Health editor, BBC News website

Sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco and should be regulated, claim US health experts.

According to a University of California team, new policies such as taxes are needed to control soaring consumption of sugar and sweeteners.

Prof Robert Lustig argues in the journal Nature for major shifts in public policy.

The Food and Drink Federation said "demonising" food was not helpful as the key to health was a balanced diet.

Several countries are imposing taxes on unhealthy food; Denmark and Hungary have a tax on saturated fat, while France has approved a tax on soft drinks.
***
more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16822533

Unfortutely, the editorial in Nature that ignited this controversy is available for $$$ only: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7383/full/482027a.html

[handmade34]

1. I agree n/t

[Angry Dragon]

4. bull

[handmade34]

10. ?

[Angry Dragon]

13. What else do you want to see taxed??

[HuckleB]

15. What does that question have to do with the OP?

[Angry Dragon]

16. I believe sugar is a legal substance

why should it be taxed any different than anything else??

Hey, we need to tax fried food
We need to tax any foods with over 400 calories per serving
We need to tax any foods with over 15% of DR sodium
We need to tax, and tax, and tax

[HuckleB]

17. Yes, it is.

So what?

BTW, bringing up a bunch more red herrings does not mean your question is anything but a red herring.

[handmade34]

18. the important issue here

is the serious damage done by the excessive consumption of processed sugar... The article quoted by the poster contains information and thoughts by Dr. Robert Lustig who studies childhood obesity. Dr Lustig's work is comprehensive and well thought out and his studies show how the effects of processed sugar (especially HFCS) on the body are very similar to alcohol.

We have subsidized the sugar (and HFCS) industry for far too long... we have allowed corporations and food processors (and marketers)to stock our grocery store shelves with "food" that does great harm to our bodies and we have absolved these corporations and food processors of any responsibility for the true external costs of the harm they have done...

Less than 100 years ago, the average intake of sugar was only about 4 pounds per person per year... today the average is closer to 200 pounds

_______________________________________________________
"...the distinction between "simple" and "complex" carbohydrates: a baked russet potato, for example, traditionally defined as a complex carbohydrate, has a glycemic rating of 85 (ffl12; studies vary) whereas a 12-ounce can of Coca-Cola appears on some glycemic indices at 63.

Eating high-glycemic foods dumps large amounts of glucose suddenly into the bloodstream, triggering the pancreas to secrete insulin, the hormone that allows glucose to enter the body’s cells for metabolism or storage. The pancreas over-responds to the spike in glucose—a more rapid rise than a hunter-gatherer’s bloodstream was likely to encounter—and secretes lots of insulin. But while high-glycemic foods raise blood sugar quickly, "they also leave the gastrointestinal tract quickly," Ludwig explains. "The plug gets pulled." With so much insulin circulating, blood sugar plummets. This triggers a second wave of hormones, including stress hormones like epinephrine. "The body puts on the emergency brakes," says Ludwig. "It releases any stored fuels—the liver starts releasing glucose. This raises blood sugar back into the normal range, but at a cost to the body."

One cost, documented by studies at the School of Public Health, is that going through this kind of physiologic stress three to five times per day doubles the risk of heart attacks. Another cost is excess hunger. The precipitous drop in blood sugar triggers primal mechanisms in the brain: "The brain thinks the body is starving," Ludwig explains. "It doesn’t care about the 30 pounds of fat socked away, so it sends you to the refrigerator to get a quick fix, like a can of soda."
Glycemic spikes may underlie Ludwig and Gortmaker’s finding, published in the Lancet two years ago, that each additional daily serving of a sugar-sweetened beverage multiplies the risk of obesity by 1.6..."

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/05/the-way-we-eat-now.html

[Angry Dragon]

19. So the only solution is to add another regressive tax??

Why not start with eliminating the subsidies??
Outlaw HFCS

[Tumbulu]

20. That sounds like a good plan

but no one has been able to stop the farm subsidies- there are too many farm state senators. It just won't be done. So, then what can be done......

[NinetySix]

2. My ASS, we need a sugar tax.

"Sugar is as damaging and addictive as alcohol or tobacco and should be regulated...."

Given the correlation between the dramatic increase in type-2 diabetes and the rise of the use of corn sweetener in food, beverages, gum, and just about everything else you can put in your mouth, you would think the same would be said of it as well.

Corn sweeteners, however, have benefitted greatly from US corn subsidies over the last 30 years, a major factor in their ubiquitous use.

Now that those subsidies have come quietly to an end and cane sugar may once again be competitive as a sweetening agent, "health experts" breathlessly tell us of its dangers....

Excuse my skepticism, please, but I don't think I need to draw you a picture.

[HuckleB]

5. The first paragraph of the article seems to indicate that the tax would include corn syrup.

[Muskypundit]

3. Fuck a sugar tax.

Sugar is not as addicting as tobacco. Pure bullshit. It's the millions of chemicals and preservatives in food that causes most of the harm.

[handmade34]

11. "chemicals and preservatives"

and processing... processing food often changes its chemical compound and the way it works in our body

[Muskypundit]

12. No disagreements there.

[HuckleB]

6. A few more details at this link:

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-added-sugar-tax-lustig-20120201,0,5626906.story

This seems to clarify the so-called "addiction" comparison:

"When it comes to alcohol, there are four criteria that justify government regulation, according to the 2003 book “Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity”:

* It’s unavoidable in society.

* It’s toxic.

* It can be abused.

* It’s bad for society.

“Sugar meets the same criteria,” Lustig and colleagues write, “and we believe that it similarly warrants some form of societal intervention.”

[qb]

7. This reeks of influence from the artificial sweetener lobby

I don't dispute the adverse effects of too much sugar, but I see this pushing a lot of people into consuming something worse.

[handmade34]

9. I have followed Dr. Lustig

for years... this push is by him and his studies (and he is not a fan of artificial sweetners)

I believe that our increasing consumption of processed sugar has a crucial impact on declining health in this country and it should be taxed (and definitely not subsidized as we do now)

[HuckleB]

14. +1

This can be discussed without bringing up unsupported suppositions that lead to distraction from the main point.

[qb]

21. I'll take your word for it. However, he makes no mention of the almost certain shift to diet soda.

Children drink a lot of soda. Making sugar consumption prohibitive without addressing the artificial sweetener issue will result in children consuming a lot more Splenda and NutraSweet - not an improvement.

[handmade34]

22. we have been duped

into thinking we need "sweeteners"... you are so correct, artificial sweeteners are bad... the need is to educate and reform our way of eating... to nourish our bodies, not poison them...

corporate interests and food processors are poisoning us and don't care because money is the bottom line, not people, or health or the environment

many people eat and enjoy wonderful food with no added sweeteners (or other additives) ...reading labels should be required before eating the packaged food...

[HuckleB]

23. Most of the children I know drink almost no soda at all.

It's not hard to do it, if the boundaries are set.

[HuckleB]

8. Video on the topic by the authors of the Nature editorial: