Is Sugar a Toxin That Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol or Tobacco?
Tweet
Image: Uwe Hermann/CC BY-SA 2.0
The guantlet has been thrown. Three public health researchers opened season on sugar when they published a commentary, in the journal Nature, proposing that sugar should be regulated similarly to how alcohol and tobacco are controlled now. This is not about obesity, although increased sugar consumption also contributes to an epidemic of weight gain. This is about toxicity.
Sugar Causing Cirrhosis of the Liver
Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt, and Claire Brindis -- the authors of "Public Health: The Toxic Truth About Sugar" -- argue that fructose quickly overwhelms the liver's ability to break it down, leaving fatty deposits in the liver and triggering processes that increase the risks for diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
Fructose is a simple sugar (simple means it is not linked together with other molecules of sugar). We eat fructose mostly in the form of common sugar (sucrose: a molecule with one fructose and one glucose linked together) or high fructose corn syrup (a mixture of simple fructose and simple glucose in solution).
Fructose gets its name because it is found in fruit -- but the fiber in fruit controls the slow release of fructose into the blood stream, so that the liver does not get hit with big sugar punches. Glucose can be used for energy by all our cells, so it does not affect the liver so directly.
A fatty liver itself can become a disease. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is "currently the fastest-rising indicator for liver transplant," according to Mayo Clinic. NAFLD can progress to cirrhosis, scarring and inflammation which shut down the liver. NAFLD is just one of many sugar-related diseases that lead author Dr. Lustig links to 75% of U.S. healthcare dollars being spent on illnesses caused by our diets.
The Sugar Industry Fights Back
The sugar industry calls the commentary "irresponsible," leading by protesting the data on sugar consumption because Americans throw away 29% of food they buy. So we turned to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which the Sugar Association cites as a source of reliable data. The USDA stated in the 2010 update of the Dietary Guidelines (published once every 5 years):
Even in the absence of overweight or obesity, consuming too much sodium, solid fats, saturated and trans fatty acids, cholesterol, added sugars, and alcohol increases the risk of some of the most common chronic diseases in the United States. (Ch. 3, p. 20).
According to the USDA, Americans get 16% of their calories from "added sugars" (not including sugars naturally present in fruits, vegetables, and other foods). Almost half (46%) of these "added sugars" are consumed in beverages: soda, energy/sports drinks, and sweetened fruit drinks.
It is clear from the USDA position that Dr. Lustig and his team are not alone in the opinion that change in consumer choice must be urgently pursued. If consumers start making healthier choices, then sugar demand must decline; industry protests in vain.
Is Regulation Needed to Protect Our Kids from Sugar?
No one wants to see cupcakes behind boldly printed tobacco-esque labels like "Eating this could kill you." Most adults don't want the government telling them how often they can reach for a soda pop, if resistance to food taxes is any gauge. In our worst vision of dystopian regulation, we imagine parents participating in the school bake sale labelled as "sugar pushers"!
But what about our kids? Would you appreciate the security of knowing your kids cannot get sugar sodas and candy bars from the local grocery without parental permission?
And why is a candy bar cheaper than an apple or a pear, anyhow? Would you support taxing (or at least de-subsidizing) "added sugar" -- at least up to the point where healthy consumer choice is not economic idiocy?
Talking about sugar as a toxin already achieves a bold stride in public health strategy. Perhaps the realization that "added sugar" equates with other natural substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are pleasurable when used responsibly but deadly when consumed in excess, will suffice to change consumer behavior. If not, watch as "sugar toxicity" ups the debate to a new level.
Top Articles on Sugar
Sugary Drinks Increase Heart Attack Risk in Women
Nutrition Facts Labels and How to Read Them
How to Encourage Healthy Eating When Your Kid's Sweet Tooth is Hardwired From Birth
Let Them Eat Cake: Responsible Tips for Dealing With Sweets
