Should the Government Regulate Sugar Like Alcohol?
As you may have heard, a new article in this month’s issue of Nature suggests that “added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol.”
The article, written by UCSF scientists Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, states that a tax on “added sugars” could help meet the growing costs of excess sugar-related health complications in the U.S., but the cost of sodas would have to more than double to deter consumption.
According to the LA Times, the argument presented by Lustig and fellow researchers is this:
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.”
There are some obvious flaws in the argument for regulating sugar and there are also some valid points. Here are some relevant facts to consider:
The Effects of Sugar on Health
- According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in this country, the average American consumes 222 calories worth of sugar from sugar cane and sugar beets each day, along with 165 calories with of sugar from high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.
- The U.S. spends $150 billion on health care and $65 billion in lost productivity each year because of health issues associated with metabolic syndrome, a group of diseases including diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems and cardiovascular disease.
Have “Sin Taxes” Ever Really Worked?
- A 2010 study found that making healthier food more affordable did not increase nutritional value of foods purchased while making unhealthy foods more expensive, significantly decreased unhealthy purchases.
- Regarding the alcohol tax, “When prices [of alcohol] go down, people drink more, and when prices go up, people drink less” said Alexander C. Wagenaar, a professor of epidemiology and health policy research at the University of Florida College of Medicine.
- With regards to the tax on tobacco products, for every ten percent increase in the price of a pack of cigarettes, youth smoking rates overall drop about seven percent, according to the American Lung Association.
- The District of Columbia imposed a “bag tax” in 2010. In the first quarter, it generated $150,000 and decreased bag use by more than 80%.
Some Questions to Consider
The government subsidizes corn which, obviously, plays a large role in the production of the dangerous ingredient high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Does that give the government a right to intervene if they feel it is causing more damage to society than good?
The trio of researches suggest the FDA remove fructose from their list of foods known as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). So, are the authors of this article attacking sugar? Or are they after something larger such as the manufacturers of soda and high fructose corn syrup? We know that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose. According to Dr. Mercola, “Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain’s communication with leptin, resulting in overeating.”
Is taxing the consumer really the answer? One group of economists at Iowa State University believe additional soda tax is a great idea, but not on the consumer. Their study, published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, indicated that the most effective approach would be to make soda manufacturers responsible for any additional tax — not consumers. “What you’re trying to do is apply the tax as close as possible to the thing you’re trying to change,” economist Helen Jensen said in her interview with TIME Healthland.
What are your thoughts? Please comment below or join the discussion on our Facebook page.
Reactions from Around the Web
“There is an obesity problem in our country that can lead to the very serious health issues mentioned in the comment–but it originates from the combination of overconsumption of all foods and lack of exercise… To label a single food as the one and only problem misinforms, misleads and confuses consumers, and simply adds to the problem.” – The Sugar Association
“At a minimum, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could remove fructose from its list of items Generally Recognized as Safe. That would force food makers to seek an FDA review of products with added sugars.” – L.A. Times
“I don’t think penalizing the consumer is the answer. I think the food industry needs to come under Government regulation with legislation to control salt, trans fats and sugar content. Those manufacturers whose foods rate high on the unhealthy scale should be taxed more. Eventually it won’t be cost-effective to produce junk food, the opposite case to the status quo.” – Dr. Christian Jessen (@DoctorChristian)
“Commentators seem concerned that government would be regulating people’s diets, but what is being proposed is different. Ceasing to subsidize corn and removing fructose from the GRAS list would make sugar less ubiquitous and more expensive, and that might just be enough to change behavior.” – P. Duncan via comments
“I don’t suppose for one moment that the American scientists who have called for stricter regulations on the consumption of sugar are funded by one of the major producers of artificial sweeteners.” – SeaBee via comment
“Should sugar be regulated like alcohol and tobacco? (seems extreme to me)” – Ellie Krieger (@Ellie_Krieger)
“Even the most healthful diets on the planet generally contain some foods with added sugar. The dose makes the poison.
Regulating nutrients, per se, is a slippery slope. If we regulate sugar, we should certainly regulate trans fat — which is far less important to palatability, and more toxic in smaller quantities.” – David Katz, M.D. (@DrDavidKatz)
“Sugar isn’t unhealthy – eating it in abundance is. Shouldn’t it be a glutton tax?” – @NathanHornby
“Don’t forget that the government subsidizes corn, and high fructose corn syrup is a major source of sugar. As a result, the government has, in effect, been regulating the consumption of sugar all along.” – DB via comments
Sources:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679257/should-the-government-regulate-sugar-like-tobacco
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/sin-taxes-47011606
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/137936.php
Pingback: The 6 Sneakiest Ways Sugar Hides in Your Food | Live in the Now | Natural Health News | Natural Health Resources