Would taxing sugar halt the diabetes epidemic?

Here's an article discussing a paper published in the Journal Nature yesterday.

Summing up the paper the article says "Like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is a toxic, addictive substance that should be highly regulated with taxes, laws on where and to whom it can be advertised, and even age-restricted sales, says a team of UCSF scientists."

Here's another quote concerning the cause of T2. "It's sugar, not obesity, that is the real health threat, Lustig and his co-authors - public health experts Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis - say in their paper. They note that studies show 20 percent of obese people have normal metabolism and no ill health effects resulting from their weight, while 40 percent of normal-weight people have metabolic problems that can lead to diabetes and heart disease. They contend that sugar consumption is the cause.".........'The gestalt shift is maybe obesity is just a marker for the rise in chronic disease worldwide, and in fact metabolic syndrome, caused by excessive sugar consumption, is the real culprit,' said Schmidt, a health policy professor who focuses on alcohol and addiction research."

Although I'm not a big fan of social engineering thru taxing at least this is something from the popular press that shows a little more understanding of T2 as opposed to the recent Paula Deen media storm. I would also note that as usual the article make no distinction between T1 and T2.

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Linda Gauvin-Miller on February 9, 2012 at 4:38am

I think more is at play here, Ninjaken, in the frame of invironmental infecting. Yes, foods are at play....but there, we have a concern of gross modification from the staples we knew some 30, 50, 100 years ago. T
For one, the flour my grand mother used to make her bread varried greatly in structure from the flour we now utilize.
People, as well, have been better informed, better educated even before the age of widely available computer technology, and that along with medical advancement have led to a more astute awareness of developing ills.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Goffe on February 9, 2012 at 5:24am

At first I laughed when I saw the title of the article "Public health: The toxic truth about sugar." {Note: instant access to the article will cost you $32.00.}

At first it reminded me about some of those annoying ads you see all over the web that start out with "The truth about..." or "Revealed:..." However after reading the various news reports about the article it is clear that there is an agenda at work and that selling magazines/cashing in for web versions might have a role in what seems to be a bit of sensationalism. I'll not contest the idea that sugar consumption in large quantities is bad for many people. But according to news excerpts it is not deleterious for all people.

At issue is just what is the role of government in protecting people from their own choices. New York City regulates salt while many schools have taken steps to curtail sugar intake for students. What is appropriate and who decides? One story on NPR posits that cheese is so harmful and outright dangerous it should be banned. Should vegan activists be allowed to force their vision of healthy eating on those who go a different way? What level of scientific evidence is sufficient to serve as a basis for banning a substance or imposing economic penalties for consumption via draconian taxation? Taxation as a tool for ending consumption of otherwise legal but clearly unhealthy products like tobacco does not work, although for many it does curtail or stop use - but not for all consumers willing to pay the price.

Water itself - in sufficient quantities can have a toxic effect on some people who consume it in excess. Nobody wants to ban it - instead we shake our heads and move on.

Short version: this is an attempt to extend the stranglehold of the nanny state. I hope it fails.