Taxing 'toxic' sugar - Age restriction for sugary drinks proposed

allcdnboy1

allcdnboy1

New member
Sugar is so toxic that it should be taxed and slapped with regulations like alcohol, some U.S. researchers argue.

In a commentary published in Wednesday's issue of the journal Nature, doctors from the University of California, San Francisco, say that rising global rates of major killers such as heart disease and Type 2 diabetes aren’t caused by obesity as commonly thought.

Instead, obesity is a marker for those health problems, and sugar is the true culprit, Dr. Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis said.

"We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby," they wrote.

Measures such as smoking bans in public places, the use of designated drivers and the addition of condom dispensers in public washrooms were also battlegrounds that are now taken for granted for public health, the authors said in calling for sugar regulations.

They suggested:

Taxing "added sugar" - any sweetener containing fructose that is added to food in processing, including sugar-sweetened beverages and sugared cereal.
Controlling the location and density of fast-food outlets and convenience stores around schools and offering incentives to open grocery stores and farmers' markets.
Limiting sales during the school day or designating an age limit to buy drinks with added sugar.
The researchers said sugar meets four criteria for regulation that are largely accepted by public health experts and that were first applied to alcohol. Those criteria are pervasiveness in society, toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society.

The American Beverage Association responded to the article by saying there's a drink and portion size for every occasion and lifestyle.

"We believe providing more options - not taking them away - is a better solution to help parents and individuals choose beverages that are right for them and their families," the beverage group said on its website.

Dietitians generally encourage people to eat a healthy diet without focusing on a single nutrient.

There are several toxic substances, such as salt and trans fat, that affect health if you eat too much of them, said Dr. Arya Sharma, scientific director of the Canadian Obesity Network.

"I don't think we can bring the whole question about obesity down to a simple substance like people eating too much sugar," Sharma said in an interview from Lethbridge, Alta.

The discussion is valuable, but no one knows what the unintended consequences of regulating sugar might be, Sharma said.

"Changing lifestyle is more about changing your life than your style," Sharma said. "We have to ask ourselves, are we prepared to change our lives? Which means spend less time on the road, perhaps less hours working, perhaps start cooking again, perhaps bring home economics back into school."

source: cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/01/sugar-toxic-regulate.html
 
I think more research is needed before we start going around and taking this as the truth. It caught my eye because I think it's sad that we need to take such drastic measures because people are incapable of making the right choices for themselves. Smoking should not need to be banned everywhere ... people should quit simply for the fact that it's not good for them. Sugar is fine, when taken in proper amounts, unlike alcohol, which is not good by any means (however, is "socially acceptable") ... end rant.
 
Sorry, but that's just complete nonsense. Apart from the fact that sugar alone is hardly the beginning and the end of the problem, did people not learn anything from the past? The smoking bans had no effect, drugs are still as present as ever (if not more) and the numbers on underage drinking and alcoholism are as high as ever.


Typical nanny state response. Never going to work.
 
yes, but the amount required for water is very difficult to reach. Alcohol is, realistically, 1 drink, if you think of the side affects. Sugar ... probably in the middle.
 
It's quite similar to taxing junk food or creating this "fat" tax. However, what is the ethics behind policing someone's choice? We don't want to be told what to do, and want to have freedom to make our own choices- caveat: when the consequences are only felt by ourselves. All you can do is inform the public about the health risks and hope that is enough. Rather than creating policies to tax healthy food and simply taking away an individual's choice, efforts should be put into creating education and information programs that target at risk populations and communities.


If you go into the grocery store and pick out a healthy meal filled with fruits, veggies, and good proteins...then compare it to fast food, you'll see that it is significantly cheaper to eat unhealthy food. Initiatives need to be created to target food prices, and making healthy choices more accessible to families.


But this is my perspective on adult choices....I think sugar limitations should certainly be considered for children.


Lets face it: sugar tastes good and is addictive. Children will always choose a sugary sweet over a health carrot. While healthy choices may be limited to the child based on what their parents expose / offer them and essentially their parents' economic situation (see above about the cost and convience of healthy diets), it is still crucial to target them.


It is such a hard topic to discuss...how do you target sugar, salt, and fatty food intake without limiting peoples' right to choose their own behaviours? And how do you enforce healthy eating on a child that isn't going to be able to understand the rationale behind healthy eating?
 
I definitely think some things need to be changed. I like the idea of restricting sugar in schools, that makes total sense. I also kind of like the idea of a sugar tax which would be on the food producers who load sugar into everything. Perhaps they would choose to lower the amount of sugar in their products.


There is nothing better then simply educating people and providing tasty, healthy alternatives. I like the Jamie Oliver movement, the way he's going about things. He not only questions what's being served in schools but provides alternatives that make sense. If people can get a taste of living healthy and what healthy feels like they can make the decision themselves.


There's probably really no easy answer, though. I don't like legislating personal choices so much, but it seems like there are a lot of uninformed or uncaring entities behind what we eat.
 
Even if sugar would charged with high tax rates, still the key is discipline as it is the end users who will be deciding whether to use more of it or in moderation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top