Nature, the prestigious science magazine from Great Britain, has just published a commentary with a provocative title–The toxic truth about sugar—and an even more provocative subtitle: Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol.
The authors, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are researchers at the University of California medical center in San Francisco (UCSF).
They argue that although tobacco, alcohol and diet are critically important behavioral risk factors in chronic disease, only two of them—tobacco and alcohol—are regulated by governments to protect public health.
Now, they say, it’s time to regulate sugar. By sugar, they mean sugars plural: sucrose as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Both are about half fructose.
Their rationale?
- Consumption of sugars has tripled over the last 50 years.
- Many people consume as much as 500 calories a day from sugars (average per capita availability in the U.S. is about 400 calories a day)
- High intake of fructose-containing sugars induce metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, insulin resistance), diabetes, and liver damage.
- Sugars have the potential for abuse.
- Sugars have negative effects on society (mediated via obesity).
- Too much of a good thing can be toxic.
Therefore, they argue, societies should intervene and consider the kinds of policies that have proven effective for control of tobacco and alcohol:
- Taxes
- Distribution controls
- Age limits
- Bans from schools
- Licensing requirements
- Zoning ordinances
- Bans on TV commercials
- Labeling added sugars
- Removal of fructose from GRAS status
In a statement that greatly underestimates the situation, they say:
We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.
But, they conclude:
These simple measures — which have all been on the battleground of American politics — are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.
What is one to make of this? Sugar is a delight, nobody is worried about the fructose in fruit or carrots, and diets can be plenty healthy with a little sugar sprinkled here and there.
The issue is quantity. Sugars are not a problem, or not nearly as much of a problem, for people who balance calorie intake with expenditure.
Scientists can argue endlessly about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of metabolic dysfunction, but most people would be healthier if they ate less sugar.
The bottom line? As Corinna Hawkes, the author of numerous reports on worldwide food marketing, wrote me this morning, “there are plenty of reasons for people to consume less sugar without having to worry about whether it’s toxic or not!”
Comments
To add a comment to the original post, click here.
You must be signed in to post a comment.
Sign in nowIf a picture is worth a thousand words, this ad from M&M’s speaks volumes … http://bit.ly/nQNUYU
I use it in all my presentations because it illustrates this beautifully …
Our cravings for fat, salt, and sugar started back when humans lived in caves and hunted and gathered for their food. Fat, salt, and sugar were in short supply. So to ensure that we ate adequate supplies of each, we evolved a craving for them. – Harvard Medical School
From the CNN editorial: “One of the saddest effects of sugar overconsumption is to dampen the natural hormones that tell kids’ bodies when they’ve eaten enough, leading them to feel hungry even as they overeat.”
I do appreciate the irony of reading this on the same day my daughter had to attend a school wide assembly for the Goodies Factory to promote their fundraising catalogue for kids to peddle cookies, candy and cheesecake.
According to a critique from the Australian Diabetes Foundation on this study, some of the findings are unfounded and misleading.
Dr. Alan Barclay, Research Head of the Australian Diabetes Foundation says –
“The commentary is a provocative piece intended to encourage debate. Many of the statements simply do not apply to Australia and on certain issues there is little evidence to support their views.”
Dr Barclay says that sugar consumption in Australia has “dropped 23 percent since 1980”, despite the US study claiming that over the past 50 years sugar consumption has “tripled worldwide”. Dr Barclay said that despite the Australian drop in sugar consumption, obesity had doubled and diabetes had tripled in this time.
Dr Barclay noted that Dr Lustig and his team in California believed that attention should be turned to ‘added sugar’, which was defined in the study as any sweetener containing the molecule fructose that is added to food in processing; and the study claimed that fructose could trigger processes that lead to chronic diseases including liver toxicity.
However, in Australia, Dr Barclay’s view was that, “One would need to eat at least 135g, or about 32 teaspoons, of pure added fructose per day on top of what one already eats to attain that degree of toxicity”.
Report here –
http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2012/02/02/australian-expert-slams-us-study-%E2%80%98sugar-as-toxic-as-alcohol%E2%80%99.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AustralianFoodNews+%28Australian+Food+News%29
[...] writes today that a prestigious science magazine in the UK has published a commentary that “sugar is toxic and should be regulated”. We regulate tobacco and alcohol for public health’s sake; why not sugar? Their [...]
[...] A new study makes the case for sugar to be regulated along with alcohol and tobacco. [Food Politics] [...]
I’m not clear on whether the problem and thus the target of regulation is added sugar in terms of processed foods, or plain sugar that you can buy at the store. I’m in favor of some kind of change around packaged convenience foods, but I am not in favor of any measure that would prevent me from, for example, baking a cake for my birthday. I don’t see any indication that homemade foods with added sugar are truly problematic in this way.
I agree with you: It’s excess sugar – of any kind – that is harmful. The dose makes the poison.
But before we even dream of regulating fructose how about eliminating health claims on sugary foods? So many consumers are misled into buying cereals and vitamin drinks that claim heart, metabolism and immunity claims while delivering huge amounts of sugar.
Is sugar toxic? Only in amounts that exceed the small amounts we evolved eating, which is easy to get in today’s environment of fruit juice, sugary cereals and ubiquitous sodas. Should it be regulated? That’s a different matter entirely. I’m fine with keeping it out of schools (as long as that includes fruit juice and flavored milk as well as soda, candy, and cakes) and I believe added sugar is already required on labels, no? Beyond that, I believe regulating something that is essentially a food (alcohol and tobacco are not) is problematic. I agree with Dr. Ayala–let’s eliminate the health claims on sugary foods (though even that is going to be difficult–it’s my understanding–I hope I’m wrong–that rights to those health claims are basically sold to the food companies by the AHA–now that’s something that we need to put a stop to!) and continue educating people as to the dangers of over consumption of sugar (and other refined carbohydrates.) But regulate? No. No. No.
Why should we tax something we are subsidizing!!!! It makes no sense, let’s stop subsidizing corn and sugar so that it is not so cheap to begin with. Then it will be used more sparingly by companies and consumers.
Oh, and if we really want to help people we could use that money to subsidize fruits and veggies. That way the poor in American wont just be starved because of raised prices(from taxing sugar), they will be fed and just starved for sugars. Yay, national obesity and health care problem solved before lunch;)
[...] you can read the original piece, which I originally accessed through Marion Nestle’s blog Food Politics. Dr. Nestle herself [...]
What are we going to regulate and tax next?
If love was a drug, you’d be my dealer and I’d be your biggest buyer.
(As a line, it still works, every time; well eventually. Alcohol helps)
I do agree that the number of calories in the food chain is out of control and that artificially made sugar, the mass production of which was invented by our wonderful colleague Dr. Takasaki around 1966 in Japan, is the evil to end all evils.
But the sugar gold rush is allowed to perpetuate itself because people are susceptible to its influence.
A review of heroin addiction in the 1970s, of those using drugs during the Vietnam war, showed that the majority of the returning veterans gave up their addiction because the environment in which they found themselves abusing drugs was removed once they had returned home.
Many knew where to get drugs back home, but the mental escape they had sought had been removed and the immediate opportunity to get drugs easily had also been removed.
Dealing (no pun intended) with the production and supply of sugar is only one side of the coin. Dealing with the internal motivation to seek out sugar is another.
If sugar is to be classed as a drug, then we have to recognize that people are using it as an emotional crutch, just like any other drug is used.
For my part, I’m going to stop calling everyone sugar, or honey. Or saying, ‘that is so sweet of you…’ At any rate, I’m sure it sounds sexist.
Are sugars toxic? Are NYU professors unprincipled? Are foodies imbeciles?
Should they be regulated?
Good point, Diana. And let’s eliminate the wheat and soy subsidies, while we’re at it as well.
[...] read the Food Politics article Are sugars toxic? Should they be regulated? It talks about an article recently published in England, the authors argue that tobacco, alcohol, [...]
I read that article and I remember the portion sizes that American restaurants serve. Always enough for 3 people to have more than enough. When people see those portion sizes they assume that’s the proper amount to put on a plate at home. The restaurant is seen as the “food authority”.
When portion sizes come down at mom and pop restaurants that the 99% visit, people will follow suit.
I look at the portion sizes in starred restaurants and that’s how the rich people stay thin. Good food in proper quantities. Just my take on things. I’mno expert.
“Why should we tax something we are subsidizing?”
There’s the money quote for me. Although you could turn it around and it would be even more sensible…if we only taxed it.
Personally, I do think of sugar as a drug. I eat as little of it as possible, and when I do it is a conscious decision. It tastes a lot better when you use it in moderation.
I don’t know what Barclay’s beef is.
I just recently watched Supersize Me again the other day and it was really striking when I realized that we were watching someone induce metabolic syndrome in himself. He was eating a pound of sugar a day. (Exasperatingly, his doctor kept saying over and over that he would never have expected the liver and CV problems from a high fat diet.) Americans consume an average of 1/2 of sugar a day. That means many consume more than that. If someone of European descent can induce insulin resistance and sugar addiction in a month, it’s not hard to see the implications on a population wide level.
It’s hard to make the case for regulating a specific food unless it meets the standards that Lustig and Co. lay out. I think the limiting hours and age limit for purchase are over-stepping and unrealistic anyway.
If you accept their premise that added sugar is similar in it’s properties to alcohol and tobacco, then an added sugar tax and strict rules on sales in schools, and labeling rules similar to trans fats make sense and are justified. Currently sugar is not grouped with the nutrients to limit on the nutrition facts label.
I think that if you don’t buy their premise, then stricter regulations aren’t justified. It’s the ‘opportunity for abuse’ and ‘addictive/habituating’ that justify regulation, the rest is food police busy body stuff. With marketing to kids it’s the fact that kids can’t differentiate between ads and entertainment. Otherwise, correct info and transparency is the most you can insist on.
At a minimum, we need a upper limit for sugar in the school lunch program, sugary beverages and high sugar added products (more than X grams per serving)should be excluded from SNAP. Obviously corn subsidies are part of the equation.
I’d be happy just to see nutritionists stop referring to sugar as empty calories. Maybe then Cooking Light and other will replace the ‘Total Fat’ with the amount of sugar in the nutrition facts for all their low fat dessert recipes.
I’d would be great if conquering metabolic syndrome rather than vitamin deficiency was the implicit main focus of nutrition education.
[...] Are sugars toxic? Should they be regulated? <<To keep this in perspective, Nestle is traditionally in favor of regulating the food industry to keep them honest. If she’s against this, that’s a good indication that it’s crossing the line. (Food Politics) [...]
[...] Food Politics » Are sugars toxic? Should they be regulated?. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookMorePrintEmailStumbleUponTumblrDiggLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
[...] changing more standards. Food politics is talking about how they want to diminish the amount of sugar consumed whether it through high fructose corn syrup or sucrose. Apparently the amount of sugar consumed has [...]
[...] a article about sugar http://www.foodpolitics.com/2012/02/are-sugars-toxic-should-they-be-regulated/ I found some very interesting thoughts on sugar. I knew an over amount of sugar consumption is not [...]
Regulate sugar? We’re currently subsidizing its ubiquity. Corn syrup wouldn’t be in all of our food if our tax dollars weren’t making it so cheap.
How is it that educated people having the potential for good in the world can be so devastatingly wrong on a subject like this then display their erroneous thinking for all the world to see. This is what passes for science?
Furthermore if the authors of this piece perceive that alcohol and tobacco are regulated by public health then they obviously live in an academic bubble. In the areas where I work and live there are liquor stores on nearly every corner, beer and wine available in every grocery and convenience store and certainly every restaurant. Moreover most of these outlets sell tobacco products. If this is regulated then what does unregulated look like?
[...] sucres sont-ils un poison ? Devraient-ils être réglementés ? » (Are sugars toxic? Should they be regulated?) est un article de Marion Nestle paru sur son blog Food Politics le 2 février [...]
[...] it has been widely discussed in recent days on the Internet and in social media — notably at Marion Nestle’s Food Politics as well as at the New York Times’ blog Motherlode for instance — but something must be [...]
@Joe, It may not seem like they are regulated, but alcohol and tobacco are–in the US. Yes, they are ubiquitous, but the regulations pertain to who can buy, not who can sell. You have to provide proof that you are over 21 to buy either, if I’m not mistaken. A store could get into serious trouble with the law if they are caught selling either to minors. And there are regulations about advertising–tobacco, anyway.
Remember — the researchers suggested restricting the sugars FOR CHILDREN, not for adults. And other “unhealthy” food items are already taxed — at the manufacturer’s level as well as at the consumer end — so there’s nothing different from what’s already occurring regularly in our food regulation system.
Why are we talking about regulating something that already has government programs subsidizing it? Take away the subsidies, stop guaranteeing sugar growers a price for their product, stop corn subsidies that allow for HFCS to be so ubiquitous. Why would we regulate something that’s already being regulated? Policy makers should be calling for a change in the problems regarding the actual farm bill, not adding new policies to complicate the issue even further. Throwing money at something, and then regulating its presence makes no sense whatsoever for anyone.
MargaretRC: unfortunately, added sugar /isn’t/ already required on food labels, despite several attempts to put it there. Only *total* sugars are listed, which can be from sugars naturally present in berries in a trail mix, or pure HFCS.
Kevin, MargaretRC, Diana, Benboom, Austin: while it’s true that the price of *HFCS* is being held down by corn subsidies, the price of cane sugar in the US is actually being held *up* by import tariffs, a Marketing Order, and other measures. This recent report:
http://sugarreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Impact-of-the-U.S.-Sugar-Program-Beghin-Elobeid-Report-11.17.11.pdf
… estimates that if all of these programs (including domestic subsidies, which of course do push teh price down) were removed, “The U.S. price of raw sugar falls by 24 to 34% depending on the year of the projection. The wholesale refined sugar price falls by 32% to 40%, and the retail refined sugar price falls by 26% to 33%. … The raw sugar price on the world market increases by 2% to 4% or by about 1 cent per pound. ”
Joe: it may well be the case that “there are liquor stores on nearly every corner, beer and wine available in every grocery and convenience store and certainly every restaurant” where you live, but this isn’t true of all states (I’m assuming you’re a US resident), and certainly isn’t true of Canadian provinces or anywhere in the EU. Most places restrict the kinds of stores that can sell alcohol, the kinds of alcohol they can sell (some states have relatively liberal laws who can sell wine and/or beer, or on specialty stores that sell these items, but are much more restrictive about who can sell liquor, eg), the density of the stores, and the hours at which such stores are open. And there are still whole dry counties in the US — including, ironically, Moore County, TN, where the famed Jack Daniel’s Distillery is located.
[...] “uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby” (an extreme understatement, as Marion Nestle points out). For example, controlling the location of fast food restaurants near schools, offering incentives [...]
[...] como la que ahora proponen? Yo creo que se trata más de un problema de educación.(vía Food Politics)TweetPin ItArtículos [...]
[...] Are sugars toxic? Should they be regulated? [...]