
Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say - evo_9
http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-regulated-toxin-researchers-180605186.html;_ylt=Amaj5zLSmK4pdOYz6J.1nJumWot4;_ylu=X3oDMTRzcnNkZHQ3BGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTW9zdCBQb3B1bGFyBHBrZwM5MGM0YzI4NS0xZmNkLTMwYmQtOGMwZi05OWFlYTBhYzM0NGUEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhQkxpc3RNaXhlZE1vc3RQb3B1bGFyQ0EEdmVyAzdhZjcyN2FlLTRkZjUtMTFlMS1hNTdiLTZiMzdkYTgyZTI4Yg--;_ylg=X3oDMTNoMDM3N2hhBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOWI5ZWMzYzMtNTRhNi0zMmUzLTgwN2ItOTZmNmQxYTgyZWE4BHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljc3xkZXN0aW5hdGlvbjIwMTIEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
======
jpxxx
Robert Lustig, despite his considerable bona-fides, is an alarmist who uses
hack science and a number of unsupported suppositions to make his (telegenic)
points. When you call something like fructose 'toxic', you are doing the
public a disservice.

~~~
DocSavage
His contention is that it's as toxic as alcohol, although alcohol has
immediate effect on the brain and therefore is more self-limiting. You can
also check out his video where he goes through the biochemical pathways:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

At one point, he asks what you call a substance that primarily gets
metabolized in the liver and when presented in excess (not an extreme excess
either), gets metabolized into products considered harmful to the body.

I should also note that every objection you make is unsupported and ad hominem
('alarmist', 'hack science'). If you want to counter his claim, point to a
study where fructose is shown not to be correlated with the diseases in
question. There are certainly a lot of studies as far back as the 50s that
support his claims. I personally am on the hunt for well-controlled studies
with reasonable duration (years to a decade) that involve sugar/fructose.

~~~
jpxxx
Fine, you're right. Let me de-hominenize. His claims are alarmist and the word
toxic is unsupported by the available science and opens him up to claims of
media-seeking hackery. He's probably on the right path in untangling the
effects of the godawful modern diet but to single out a specific sugar and
call for its regulation is still a big stretch.

------
brudgers
> _"Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that
> they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide"_

Alcohol shouldn't be regulated, endangering others while intoxicated and other
irresponsible acts should be.

~~~
kiloaper
I disagree. Alcohol is claiming more and more lives from liver disease and
throat and stomach cancer in the UK [1] and Ireland. It's not just drink
driving that's a problem, but also the death toll from alcohol abuse over the
long term which also places increasing pressure on health services.

[1]<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15997695>

~~~
brudgers
> _"Balance's figures found 189 hospital admissions for 30 to 34-year-olds"_

Those people are adults, and the numbers of cases is so small that one might
question its statistical significance.

Furthermore, what evidence is there that regulation would be a more effective
way of dealing with the problem (if it exists) than alternatives such as
education or public awareness campaigns?

~~~
kiloaper
>and the numbers of cases is so small that one might question its statistical
significance.

You clearly miss the point. The fact is that liver disease is increasingly
significantly in age groups it was not historically a problem in. This was
widely reported in the UK last year, I may not have picked the best article.

~~~
brudgers
The rate of occurrence may be increasing, but the rate at which persons are
being diagnosed may also play a role, as may changes to the rates at which
person's seek treatment.

In other words, a 32 year old with a beer belly might be more likely to be
diagnosed based on a doctor's increased awareness, or may be more likely to be
diagnosed because of more frequent visits to the doctor.

And even if those do not play a role, a case has not been made that special
regulations with regard to alcohol are a better solution than other
alternatives.

------
zephjc
Maybe processed food producers should stop adding sugar/HFCS to everything
under the sun. An example list:
[http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods...](http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct)
Does HFCS _REALLY_ need to be in NyQuil? In steak sauce? In _vegetable soup_?

~~~
ScottBurson
The problem is, they do that because people buy more of the product when it
has sugar in it.

On the whole, I don't think pressuring the producers is going to get us
anywhere. There may be specific cases where such pressure might work --
vegetable soup, perhaps -- but even then, that can only happen if enough
consumers refuse to buy products containing gratuitous sugar.

No, I think educating the public is really the only strategy available to us.
Even regulation and taxation, which could be beneficial, can't happen without
a certain number of informed consumers pushing for it.

~~~
tnicola
Educating the public will be hard as well. People lobby the government on
behalf of sugar companies.

Stevia, a low calory, low GI sugar substitute was unavailable in the US until
very recently because the sugar companies lobbied the FDA to classify it as a
'drug' or a supplement and needed to be tested ad nauseum before it became
available. All this allowed sugar and sweetener companies to prolong the
entrance of Stevia into the market and not hit their profits.

In addition to actually getting it classified as a drug, there is paid
propaganda research out there saying that it is actually bad for you. Some
handwaving arguement is presented without much evidence and a giant leap in
order to frighten people.

On such article can be found here. (done by quick Google search and I am in no
way partial to this particular one. I am sure that there are more on the same
subject) [http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-
reviews/100-stevia-d...](http://www.30thstreetclinic.com/general-
reviews/100-stevia-dangers.html)

When asked about dangers of stevia, this author says that it is dangerous,
because it is not approved by the FDA. Hence, there is this vicious circle
that even people who will seek out to educate themselves will come across
these claims and perhaps continue to use sugar.

Educating the public against products of the giant companies is an uphill
battle. I am Canadian and Canadian doctors and nutritionists chuckle at this
"not approved by the FDA - hence bad" arguement about stevia, but I am sure
that if we were a major sugar country that it would be the same here as well.

------
gerggerg
Anyone with a bit of time and a mild interest in chemistry and/or nutrition
should watch this video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

It's a talk by Dr Robert Lustig called Sugar: The bitter truth.

~~~
driverdan
It's good to watch his talk but keep in mind this is hyperbole and propaganda
mixed in with science. He uses alarmist words to push his ideas which is
pretty unscientific.

~~~
127001brewer
Please explain how Dr. Lustig's words are "unscientific".

~~~
Florin_Andrei
It runs against the principle that my liberty as an individual is above all
other considerations. Ergo, it's "unscientific".

/sarcasm

~~~
127001brewer
I appreciate your sarcasm, but there is a fine line between "regulations" (in
terms of general public safety) and "free will". For example, you _could_
smoke as many cigarettes as you want to, but is that in the interest of the
general public?

------
joejohnson
This NY Times article from last August
([http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all))
goes into a lot more detail on the toxicology of sugar.

------
bdunbar
The headline is misleading.

 _The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that
include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits
on purchases._

It's for the children, of course.

And for your own good, because you, yes you, are clearly irresponsible and
can't think for yourself.

Funny ol' world where supposedly smart guys can't think of a better solution
for a problem than to ask the government to step in.

~~~
techiferous
> And for your own good, because you, yes you, are clearly irresponsible and
> can't think for yourself.

I really dislike a nanny state. But I also dislike a state where people don't
take care of themselves and then clamor for better healthcare for their
preventable diseases and expect the public to pay for it. Not sure what the
answer is.

------
ImprovedSilence
Yeah, and caffeine is a drug, do you need a prescription for that. I have no
doubt that some lobbying special interest group is behind this "research".

~~~
astrange
Which group would that be?

~~~
jff
Why, the artificial sweetener industry, of course! In seriousness, there is
surely a bunch of money to be made here, even if that isn't the objective of
the researcher. Step one, declare that eating X will _kill_ you. Step two,
develop a book all about how not to eat X. Step three, profit. Note that there
is no "..." step, because there are always people dumb enough to jump on the
latest food craze.

------
joejohnson
I am in favor of taxing sugar and this money could could go directly to
healthcare.

------
codergirl
I didn't see that article cite the researchers, but it's probably this group:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>.

Pretty interesting talk about the rise of high fructose corn syrup.

~~~
jganetsk
The guy in that talk is the principal investigator of the study. But it has
nothing to do with HFCS in particular, and everything to do with added sugar
in general. Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.

~~~
joejohnson
>> Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.

That is false.

Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate
glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture
of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what
distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes
that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a
substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most
commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is
nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to
be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each
of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react
the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010
review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of
Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to
be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the
single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.

The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the
liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell
in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the
liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose).
And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the
fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them,
say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the
equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work
will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.

Full article:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all)

~~~
elemeno
I don't see anything in there which refutes the statement that refined sugar
from cane and beets isn't significantly different to HFCS in terms of their
effect.

~~~
joejohnson
Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Glucose is metabolized through
many other (supposedly less deleterious) processes. HFCS is primarily
fructose. Refined sugar is a mix of about 50-50 fructose-glucose. Thus,
refined sugar is significantly different that HFCS.

~~~
ScottBurson
HFCS is 55% fructose; sucrose is 50% fructose. This doesn't strike me as
"significantly different".

------
thenewgreen
Huh, was just talking about this on hubksi: <http://hubski.com/pub?id=15982>

I provided this link there too: <http://naturalnews.com/Images/Cola-
Earlier.jpg>

It wasn't so long ago that the cola industry was actively marketing it as
something that was beneficial to "put in a bottle".

I imagine that years from now we will look back at our naiveté regarding
health with shock and awe.

~~~
ori_b
The second link is a parody created in 2002.

<http://rjwhite.tumblr.com/post/472668874/fact-checking>

~~~
thenewgreen
Thank you.

------
grecy
I highly recommend watching King Korn [1], a documentary about growing corn in
the USA and the subsidies that come with it.

At one point, they make High Fructose Corn Syrup in their home kitchen - The
chemicals involved and the process is mind blowing. It's amazing it's
considered "food".

[1] <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/>

~~~
jff
_Chemicals_ , oh my god! Not that!

I bet you don't eat that scary irradiated meat, either.

~~~
grecy
For lunch just now I ate wild moose that I shot... so no, I don't eat farmed
meat.

------
malkia
I still don't understand why people put sugar into tea? At least Trader's Joe
has very good tea (yes, I have to put that one here "UNSWEETENED")...

------
jakeonthemove
I don't get it - glucose is fuel for our cells (or at least that's what I've
been taught), so why is sugar bad for you? Does anyone know?

------
aresant
Read "regulated" as "taxed" in this headline.

In another similar "regulatory" move, taxes on cigarettes have been shown to
be effective for reducing smoking in "new smokers" and young adults (18 - 24)
but with almost no effect in other age groups:

<http://org.elon.edu/ipe/gallagher.pdf>

and

<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4916a1.htm>

Would a similar strategy really be effective w/sugar or just add a further tax
burden to 95% of us?

Can't we come up with a better system that seeing more money out the door in
taxes?

~~~
roc
Not too long ago a link was posted here regarding some research that suggested
bodies that had been overweight will process foods differently to try to
return to that weight, even after a person had lost weight via diet and
exercise. The gist was that a person who was, say, 200 pounds and lost weight
down to 160 pounds had to eat ~20% fewer calories to maintain that weight than
someone who was at 160 without ever being overweight.

If that research is upheld upon further examination, then any policy which
prevents young people from becoming obese in the first place would be perhaps
the most promising way to obtain objective progress against societal obesity.

I'm not suggesting that taxes are the right way to go, but if taxes merely
discourage the young from developing obesity, that's not a mark against it.

~~~
Someone
I find it hard to believe such ideas. It would mean that, somehow, a body that
has not been overweight wastes 20% of its energy intake every day.

Moreover, if you subtract the energy loss that must take place due to the
temperature difference between body and air, the muscle efficiency of such
persons must be extremely more efficient.

Surely, evolutionary pressure must have been able to optimize that away?

I find it more likely to believe that people who become overweight tend to be
less inclined to be active, and that that does not change when they do lose
weight.

~~~
roc
It's entirely possible the study had flaws, but the idea is not without
evolutionary precedent. It's my understanding that some orangutans are
similarly specialized to prioritize rebuilding fat stores, given an
environment of intermittent plenty.

------
derleth
Well, there go apples. And grapes. And peaches. And so on, and so forth.

~~~
bwanab
Not at all. From the article "Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-
rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage."

~~~
derleth
So if they added fiber to a Snickers bar, that Snickers bar would be healthy?

~~~
jemka
In addition to adding fiber, you would need to add vitamins and minerals,
bring the fat to almost nothing, and reduce the calories by a factor of 3.

~~~
127001brewer
What kind of _fat_ to bring to almost nothing?

You need _fats_ to aid in the absorption of vitamins and minerals[1], such as
using a plain olive oil dressing for your salads.

1\. <http://www.naturalnews.com/001545.html>

~~~
jemka
>What kind of fat to bring to almost nothing?

The point was to show that one cannot simply "add fiber" to a candy bar and
make it comparable to fruit. Their individual nutritional values are not
correlated because they both have sugar. Nor would they be if fiber was added
to the candy.

>You need fats to aid in the absorption of vitamins and minerals[1],

Would this hypothetical diet consist of only snicker's bars? Otherwise I don't
understand the argument.

What point are you even trying to make?

~~~
127001brewer
No, you're missing my point: I'm saying you should not remove all fats from
your diet. As the linked article I provided suggests, you need fats in your
diet.

And I did not suggest a hypothetical diet of only snicker's bars. Any healthy
diet needs a balance of fats, fibers, minerals and vitamins.

Suggesting that all fats should be removed is not accurate. (And I'm simply
providing information that you need fats in your diet.)

~~~
jemka
I never said you need to remove all fats from your diet. Therefore my
confusion to your reply.

While I missed your point, apparently you're having your own conversation.

------
droithomme
Sugar is as essential to the body's functioning as water and air.

Such a tax will not eliminate sweet foods. Basic uncontroversial economics is
sufficient to know the result of such a tax will be that manufacturers will
switch to saccharine, Aspartame and other synthesized sweeteners which are not
so taxed. Whether their deleterious health effects are real or conspiracy
theories and if real are more harmful over the long run than sugar I will
leave to the curious reader's further research.

~~~
tghw
That's just flat out wrong. Sugar, as in sucrose, is not at all necessary for
the body's functioning. Other sugars are used by the body, but they can easily
be synthesized from fruits and vegetables.

~~~
Craiggybear
Sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar.

And it is absolutely essential ... regardless of its origin.

But yes, too much ain't a good idea.

