Yet the nutritional advice we receive from public health bodies is muddled, out of date, and frequently contradictory, and in many quarters still promotes the unproven hypothesis that fats are the greatest evil. With expert science and compelling storytelling, Gary Taubes investigates the history of nutritional science which, shaped by a handful of charismatic and misguided individuals, has for a hundred years denied the impact of sugar on our health.
As a chemist I do understand the processes that are discussed in the article. I also believe in self control. I understand that not every person is the same but if you are raised to have self control when it comes to food it most likely will carry through to adult-hood. It did for my siblings and me. Not everybody is going to understand the science behind this so I think a tax would only worsen the matter.
Most people understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy, it's making the choice between the two lifestyles where people fall short. In my opinion, that is their own fault. Within reason sugar is good to eat. Those of us who choose to eat it right should not be punished because of those who lack self control.
A few should not make profits from the masses. Added sugar means fewer nutrients for the body. The tax should go to inform consumers the dangers of eating food-like products rather than food. The health costs should be considered also. If you smoke, you usually pay more in the long run for health related issues of the body.
If you eat refined sugar and sugar substitutes, your health is less than ideal. No, People have eaten sugar for so long. And, anyone who has a brain knows to cut way down on sugar. I bake, and I always use less sugar than the recipes call for. I support govt regulation of toxic chemicals however. If sugar really is toxic, then it is proper to regulate it.
But first you have to educate people and convince them its toxic. Otherwise the backlash would be huge. Cost to society for the increasing obesity in children with all of its health costs is a burden to our country's productivity that, like tobacco, should be taxed.
We were not meant to consume this much hidden sugars in processed foods. No I would not. People are going to consume sugar regardless of cost.
We can not tell people what to do. If they choose to be unhealthy knowing that excess sugar is an inflammatory that is their problem. We cannot control other people. It is something that needs to be addressed. We have not done a good job of addressing it ourselves. One part is consumer action, another part is gentle persuasion to make better choices. There are alternatives to high sugar foods, they just are not as available or cheap as high sugared foods.
It is disproportionate. It also unscientific, if bread and sugar have the same glycaemic index where's the case for picking on sugars rather than starches - which are glucose polymers. Probably not. The problem isn't isolated to sugar but to the entire "processed white food" category.
It would be too tricky to tax. Regulation, however I would not support tax on added sugar because it's not up to anyone else but myself what I put in my body. If someone wants to abuse sugar consumption through various foods and drinks to lead to obesity and diabetes, I should not be penalized if I want to treat myself every once in a while.
I take care of my health by watching what I eat, but there's already enough taxes on things and this definitely doesn't need to be added to that list. Yes, most consumer goods should be taxed at roughly the same rate.
Just because something is taxed does not mean consumers have no choice. No, I do not support a national tax on sugar. It is just another way for my personal life to be controlled by people who do not know my personal needs and requirements, and generally do not care about my personal needs and requirements.
This is a non-issue that is being used to enhance political and social control. Taxes on food, in the name of directing behavior, are an overreach of government regulation. This article is an example of chemistry wrapped up by ideologues. Yes, provided the connection to health issues is developed as with smoking and the revenues used appropriately using the experience with tobacco product taxes.
Yes - because I never drink soda, so it wouldn't affect me. And it would promote people to buy less sugar and promote businesses to make more healthy alternatives. Better than outright ban. Tax should not be used to regulate how people eat their food. We have enough taxes to bear. Tax on added sugar won't do any good to anyone. Individual control is the best way to deal with the overconsumption of sugar. No, this whole flap about added sugar is pure hype! The government is already far too intrusive in our lives.
We need to stop all this nonsensical over-taxing and over-regulation and simply behave as responsible adults. We should responsibly limit our sugar intake to a reasonable level!
Sugar is fine, in moderation. Only if the tax is levied against the manufacturer, not the consumer.
It is very difficult to find any foods, other than fresh produce or fresh meats that do not have added sugars or artificial sweeteners. Consumers have no idea what's in most of the foods they eat, and those that do have a hard time finding good options.
Motivate the manufacturers to put out better options. No; At least 2 reasons why not No, if you start taxing the added sugar foods, ALL foods pricing will go up.
We have the cheapest food in the world and the main reason is the effective cost to produce the sugars. People need to understand their choices and make them appropriately. We don't need more government deciding for us.
This is consumer choice. One can regulate what a child does but doing this to adults who are presumed sentient is outrageous. Absolutely NOT. Government intervention is not the solution -- people must want to change for themselves. The responsibility is for parents to educate their children, and raise them to recognize the importance of good health. As we can see from the articles glycemic indexes plenty of every day foods have indexes higher than sucrose and HFC. Lets tax the potato while were at it.
Lustig is not mainstream in his thinking. Sugar is not toxic thats absurd on its face. Food in America is cheap and people eat too much and exercise too little. This whole campaign is an appalling, pseudoscientific proposal.
Next, should we have a tax on French Fries, or on breathing air? Prohibition doesn't work! Any effort to tax or regulate a substance will have unintended consequences. Tax sugar and you'll create a black market for it. Or you'll drive people to use other "sugary" substances, or fake sugar substitutes, with unknown medical consequences. Rather than tax or regulate, educate! It's better to discourage people through higher prices than try to ban sugar altogether.
We could use the revenue for diabetes research and treatment. That way the products would be more expensive and, hopefully, people would take a warning about it, and probably would cut down sugar consumption. And, companies would do something to offer products without added sugar.
The primary role of a tax is, and should be, to raise revenue necessary for legitimate government functions. History has shown that the use of taxation as an economic or social incentive or disincentive leads to both economic and social distortions. No, because this will just empower an already too powerful central government even more. In addition, this kind of tax is just more wealth redistribution which is inequitable and confiscatory. I would assert however for a healthy substitute for sugar that will be affordable.
I didn't stop smoking because of cost, but due to being convinced that it is bad for my health. It depends. It would seem to fall in the "sin tax" category like alcohol and tobacco and to the extent the government would consider taxing sugar and reducing taxes on other things I'd be open to the idea. But the costs of implementation would also need to be considered, and might be too daunting. Seems likes a progressive idea that could improve health and raise revenue to support research and education around this issue.
The use of added sugar. Increases difficulty with controlling sugar consumption for most people. Imposes costs that extend beyond the person consuming excessive sugar - externalities.
These costs need to be borne by those who wish to consume sugar. However, sugar purchased alone should not be taxed extra - only sugar added to foods. The above should apply to sodium as well. Sugar clearly high-jacks the brains of many like a drug, causing hard to control cravings, changing the way we think and act Doesn't make sense to subsidize sugar and HFCS production, then tax it.
Just stop subsidizing it, or reduce subsidies. Like other substances that are harmful and addictive, we should be regulating the marketing of it to children.
No, becasue it is not a drug. It does not produce the adverse effects which occur when taking drugs. I do believe that a person can become addicted to sugar but the same can be said for steak or carrots or water. People can have addictions to anything they consume. This brings me back to self control. If you realize it is out of your control you have the ability to ask for help.
See a dietian if you need assistance in adjusting your diet to consume less sugar. This is in no way the same as going to rehab for drug addiction. What sugar does to your body is no where near what drugs do to your body. What about people who put ketchup on everything?
Is that going to be regulated like a drug? What about basil or garlic? Regulation of sugar as a drug will bring a lot more to the debate table than is necessary. Yes, it should be regulated. It obviously harms people when it is consumed.
It is not a naturally occurring product in nature, except for honey. We should be eating real food, not food-like substances. Plus our regulation of "drugs" aside from alcohol is completely irrational and counter-productive. If we don't know how to regulate marijuana, how can we handle sugar. This would be over-regulation.
What is needed is better food labeling to discern how much 'Added sugar' v 'Inherent sugar' is in foods. No, that is ridiculous. Alcohol and drugs cause people to become impaired in their thought process. Their actions when impaired can kill others. The person who has consumed sugar isn't going be impaired to the point of killing some one.
It was in WWII and people survived somehow without it. Initially, each stamp was good for one pound of sugar and could be used over a specified two-week period.
Later on, as other items such as coffee and shoes were rationed, each stamp became good for two pounds of sugar over a four-week period. We can do with a lot less sugar and still be fine. No, there is no evidence of direct harm in a dose-dependent manner and no credible evidence of addiction.
Human behaviours eg violence, judgment etc are not affected by sugar. After studying Forensic Toxicology in school, I've learned and heard a lot about regulated drugs and alcohol. To consider sugar a "drug" or "addictive" is ludicrous. Over consumption of sugar affects no one other than that person; if someone wants to ruin their health by eating too much sugar for their body to handle then that's their prerogative.
There is no physical dependence when sugar is consumed, or side effects when it is not consumed, unlike any of the Schedule I drugs listed. Are we going to start throwing people in jail who have eaten more then teaspoons of sugar a day? I think it's a little more important to catch real criminals and just educate the public about healthy life choices and diet options than to punish people for making a personal choice in food consumption.
No, I do not think that sugar should be regulated. It is just another way for my personal life to be controlled by people who do not understand nutrition or medicine, and certainly do not really care about my health or welfare. We certainly do not need more government intrusion into our lives. Sugar has been in our diet for centuries without harm. Anything that has an effect can be used properly or improperly.
Sugar is a food. Overeat to your own disadvantage. Only if the results of research ideally funded by sugar tax revenues substantiate the need to do so. This seems like it could be too harsh. I would just stop subsidizing corn to drive up the price of corn syrup. No; People must take responsibility for their own health and I think a way to do it is to have them pay higher health insurance costs for engaging in unhealthy behaviors. BMI is not a perfect metric, but health insurance premiums paid by individuals could be BMI dependent.
Certainly automobile insurance works this way; if you have a lot of moving violations and accidents, you pay How well has our "war on drugs" worked for keeping drugs off the streets? What a great scaremongering article! Let's be a touch more logical. The editors will have a look at it as soon as possible. Delete template? Cancel Delete. Cancel Overwrite Save. Don't wait! Try Yumpu. Sugar is being called the new tobacco. Decades ago scientists were paid thousands of dollars to mislead the public into believing that fat should be avoided, when in fact, sugar causes a multitude of health problems and behavioral issues.
Diabetes is more prevalent today than ever before and obesity is at epidemic proportions, especially amongst children. He explains what research has shown about our addiction to sweets. He clarifies the arguments against sugar, corrects misconceptions about its relationship to weight; and provides perspective for making informed decisions about it. Contact Information piratetvseattle gmail.
0コメント