February 2, 2012
Should ‘Addictive’ Sugar Be Treated Like Alcohol and Tobacco?
A commentary in the journal Nature, posits that sugar is addictive, can be tied to a wide range of health issues facing individuals across the globe, and needs to be regulated in a similar fashion to alcohol and tobacco to limit its consumption.
The authors, three scientists from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), argue that sugar has become such a central ingredient in the food industry that it is in an overwhelming number of products consumed today. Consumers may eat upwards of 500 calories a day in sugar that has been added to products.
Sugar when consumed, according to the authors, acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco. In short, it’s addictive.
Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF and one of the commentary authors, told WebMD, “There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.”
The authors also maintain that sugar is a toxic substance that disrupts the body’s normal metabolism and leads to an increase in risk factors for a wide range of health issues such as diabetes, hypertension, heart and liver disease.
“Many people think that obesity is the root cause of these diseases,” the authors are quoted as saying by HealthPop. “Obesity is not the cause; rather, it is a marker.”
The Sugar Association dismissed the commentary. A statement emailed to HealthPop reads, “We are confident that the American people are perfectly capable of choosing what foods to eat without stark regulations and unreasonable bans imposed upon them.”
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Discussion Questions: Do you think sugar is addictive? If sugar were scientifically proven to be addictive, would you support it being regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco?
Poll
It may well be addictive — heaven knows chocolate is 🙂
That said, I don’t think alcohol or tobacco should be regulated, so I don’t think sugar should be either. Government intrusion into private lives.
Of course sugar can be addictive to anyone who loves sweets as I do, and unfortunately in the end some of us (myself included) are now type 2 diabetics. However, it is another nanny state idea to try and regulate what I could do for myself. After all, it is not crack cocaine we’re talking about. I’m so sick of these experts recommending that everything be regulated, because we have zero willpower to do it ourselves.
Self control and discipline is essential to anyone’s general good health, and common sense needs to come into play as well. Moderate intake of sugar and some degree of exercise will keep most of us living into our 80s and above, which has its own set of problems. All of us need to regulate what we do in all of our lifestyle choices, and we don’t need the yahoos from government telling us how to live. Snickers bar anyone?
I love this question. The answer is YES, the government needs to control everything in our lives because most of us are not smart enough to do it ourselves. We need to make sure to remove all choices from life because even getting out of bed is dangerous to your health.
This is beyond absurd. We call ourselves “The land of the free” yet we’ve decided to regulate more and more of the behaviors of our citizens. The pattern is always the same:
– recognize that something is “bad for you”
– create a charity that has money to spend
– create a marketing campaign
– pound the airwaves
– create a PAC
– back legislation
– rinse and repeat
What bugs me the most is that “scientists” decide what should be legislated. The same type of people that want to dismantle the EPA likely want to see warning labels on sugar.
Why don’t we declare war on making war? It probably costs more lives and DEFINITELY costs more money.
Enough already. We have bigger fish to fry.
Great response, Mel. Strikes me that the word “sugar” in the following quote from the article could be replaced with an number of things that are addictive, including caffeine, Facebook, television, laundry detergent, music, travel, video games, eating, sleep, porn, instant messaging, and even shopping.
“Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF and one of the commentary authors, told WebMD, ‘There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.’
We need to choose as a society to either base our regulatory approach on an assumption of individual responsibility and accountability, or an approach that assumes that regulation is the cure of all ills. I think the first will provide a greater economic and social environment for growth of individuals.
If sugar is proven to be addictive, then I would certainly support it being regulated. Additionally, like alcohol and tobacco, I would support adding a tax levy on products that have added sugar more than a predefined amount/percentage and direct those monies to healthcare.
I think — if it’s possible — we ought to try to separate politics from science for a moment.
There seems to be a growing body of evidence that sugar is at lease habituating. I believe the same could be said for anything that triggers good feelings in the brain and/or body. We’ve long known that foods with sugar, salt and good old fashioned fat taste better to the majority of people, and food that tastes good generally sells well.
It’s also irrefutable that excessive sugar intake, combined with more sedentary lifestyles, (how many kids actually walk anywhere these days,) have birthed accelerated incidents of obesity and Type II diabetes. It’s also true that those two diseases — especially in “at risk” populations will significantly raise the cost of healthcare for years to come.
Whether ingesting sugar is truly addictive in a clinical sense or just undeniably habit forming, chronic over consumption represents a threat to individual lives and public health. That said, let’s not be hypocrites here. Used as intended, tobacco products cause disease and death and yet, as a society, we not only allow their sale, we subsidize tobacco production! Ditto for alcohol. While the issue here is abuse, we don’t really have the social will to attack the problem. There aren’t police cars parked outside the parking lots of every bar in America at closing time administrating breathalyzer or blood tests.
So — as a society — our cultural standard has been “user beware” and, if you’re not, the rest of us will bear the burden of increased public health costs.
In other words, we’ve taxed tobacco and alcohol but not really ever attempted to really regulate them. Before everyone jumps in about age limits, let me suggest you drive by any high school in America and see what the kids have stuck in their mouths. Look like cigarettes to me. And, those same kids have no trouble getting their hands on a six pack.
Bottom line: It isn’t about a nanny state or some left wing plot to make America into a socialists health farm. We, as a society, don’t care enough about public health to do anything about significant threats to it — including, by the way, cracking down on the abuse of prescription drugs — so why should we pick on poor sugar, (which we also subsidize)?
The science is clear. Our public health position is not. We literally want to have our health and eat our sugar too, and my bet is we will keep on doing it until their is a financial disincentive to do so. Because — as a society — we may not care about our bodies but we sure value our money.
First question: No. Second Question: No.
“We are confident that the American people are perfectly capable of choosing what foods to eat without stark regulations and unreasonable bans imposed upon them.”
How can I join the Sugar Association? This fits my own term for these types of things — ridiculi, as if ridiculous on its own wasn’t enough. I’d love a Snickers Bar Tony!
Who ever craved unsweetened candy or bitter orange juice? Nobody! Of course sugar is addictive. So is water, coffee, smoking, and booze. Most people like the enjoyment that sugar usually brings. The answer lies in educated self-discipline and moderation, not federal regulation.
My politics tend to be Libertarian. For example I support legalizing drugs. I agree that some local and state laws on the use of alcohol that are absolutely ludicrous. But, this is a different issue.
As is often attributed to Lincoln, “The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong.” In this case the citizens don’t have a chance. Food manufacturers know what sugar (cane, corn syrup, barley syrup, et al) are addictive. That is why they add them to anything they can. Why does sugar have to be added to bread, of all things? My grandmother didn’t do it and her bread was better than anything you can buy in a package.
Yes, it is all about addiction and I see nothing wrong with food companies doing everything they can to get people to eat more food. But, the other side of that is that there must be balancing laws.
From 1960 to today the average weight of an American increased about 30 pounds or just under 20%. That is 30 pounds for every man and woman in the U.S. that converts to revenues and profits for food processors. These companies may be asking themselves how much more money can they make if they can increase the average weight by another 30 pounds per person. I certainly would if I was the CEO.
Tobacco is clearly a dangerous product, and alcohol also has many well defined negatives (both medical and societal) — although my cardiologist tells me that I should consume a quarter of a glass of red wine daily. Regulation makes more sense for alcohol and tobacco. However, sugar is less threatening, and the science doesn’t really put it on a par with alcohol and tobacco. In any event, more regulation would probably use up federal resources which are not there to begin with. Far more effective, I think, would be even more noise in the media relative to obesity — a long-term solution, but ultimately the only viable one.
Why doesn’t the fact that this came from San Francisco surprise me?
Yes indeed, we should have Katherine Sibelius decide if it’s “one lump or two.” After all, how in the world can all us unenlightened morons make decisions for ourselves?
The big question, of course, is, with all us idiots eating poorly, breathing polluted air, etc., etc., how is it that longevity continues to rise?
Thank God for the regulators.
I’m sure that there are a bunch of people in Washington DC who smoke, regularly have sex with their staff, and drink who have decided they know what is best for less capable Americans and should impose that for the greater good. Of course, we should regulate sugar. Let’s also “nudge” people through government subsidies to brush twice a day in front of mirrors with cameras. Let’s ensure that everyone washes their hair 6 times per day because 5 is too few and 7 is too many.
There is zero chance that sugar will be regulated. What’s next, sin taxes on Crisco?
I agree with most comments herein. We need LESS regulation, not more. Consumers must hold responsibility for their own actions, and not rely upon the government to be their babysitter.
Wow. Ryan really, really nailed it.
Yeah it’s addictive! Have you ever not had chocolate for a couple of months and then put a few pieces of Godiva’s offerings in your mouth? Your entire system lights up and says to you, “MORE!”
But regulating it in the U.S.? Are you kidding? We barely regulate guns! I think the real solution is education: what is the food you’re eating made of, what happens when you eat too much of it, etc. If people slow the feasting on sugar, the companies that sell it to them will adjust … you know, with something worse (kidding, sort of).
Knowledge is power, so let’s try that first.
But Mel, STAYING in bed is dangerous too: surely you know a sedentary lifestyle is an unhealthy one! Back on topic, my answers are “no” (at least in any meaningful use of the term) and “no.” I think it’s unfortunate Dr. Lustig et al feel a need to make grandstanding comments that overwhelm any intelligent conversation they’re trying to initiate on the issue. (Then again, since David isn’t here today playing Devil’s advocate, I’ll do it: maybe this is a(n outrageously) clever defensive move on the part of the sugar industry: advocate something so absurd it brings ridicule upon all regulatory efforts … even sensible ones.)
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
It may well be addictive — heaven knows chocolate is 🙂
That said, I don’t think alcohol or tobacco should be regulated, so I don’t think sugar should be either. Government intrusion into private lives.
Of course sugar can be addictive to anyone who loves sweets as I do, and unfortunately in the end some of us (myself included) are now type 2 diabetics. However, it is another nanny state idea to try and regulate what I could do for myself. After all, it is not crack cocaine we’re talking about. I’m so sick of these experts recommending that everything be regulated, because we have zero willpower to do it ourselves.
Self control and discipline is essential to anyone’s general good health, and common sense needs to come into play as well. Moderate intake of sugar and some degree of exercise will keep most of us living into our 80s and above, which has its own set of problems. All of us need to regulate what we do in all of our lifestyle choices, and we don’t need the yahoos from government telling us how to live. Snickers bar anyone?
I love this question. The answer is YES, the government needs to control everything in our lives because most of us are not smart enough to do it ourselves. We need to make sure to remove all choices from life because even getting out of bed is dangerous to your health.
This is beyond absurd. We call ourselves “The land of the free” yet we’ve decided to regulate more and more of the behaviors of our citizens. The pattern is always the same:
– recognize that something is “bad for you”
– create a charity that has money to spend
– create a marketing campaign
– pound the airwaves
– create a PAC
– back legislation
– rinse and repeat
What bugs me the most is that “scientists” decide what should be legislated. The same type of people that want to dismantle the EPA likely want to see warning labels on sugar.
Why don’t we declare war on making war? It probably costs more lives and DEFINITELY costs more money.
Enough already. We have bigger fish to fry.
Great response, Mel. Strikes me that the word “sugar” in the following quote from the article could be replaced with an number of things that are addictive, including caffeine, Facebook, television, laundry detergent, music, travel, video games, eating, sleep, porn, instant messaging, and even shopping.
“Dr. Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF and one of the commentary authors, told WebMD, ‘There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.’
We need to choose as a society to either base our regulatory approach on an assumption of individual responsibility and accountability, or an approach that assumes that regulation is the cure of all ills. I think the first will provide a greater economic and social environment for growth of individuals.
If sugar is proven to be addictive, then I would certainly support it being regulated. Additionally, like alcohol and tobacco, I would support adding a tax levy on products that have added sugar more than a predefined amount/percentage and direct those monies to healthcare.
I think — if it’s possible — we ought to try to separate politics from science for a moment.
There seems to be a growing body of evidence that sugar is at lease habituating. I believe the same could be said for anything that triggers good feelings in the brain and/or body. We’ve long known that foods with sugar, salt and good old fashioned fat taste better to the majority of people, and food that tastes good generally sells well.
It’s also irrefutable that excessive sugar intake, combined with more sedentary lifestyles, (how many kids actually walk anywhere these days,) have birthed accelerated incidents of obesity and Type II diabetes. It’s also true that those two diseases — especially in “at risk” populations will significantly raise the cost of healthcare for years to come.
Whether ingesting sugar is truly addictive in a clinical sense or just undeniably habit forming, chronic over consumption represents a threat to individual lives and public health. That said, let’s not be hypocrites here. Used as intended, tobacco products cause disease and death and yet, as a society, we not only allow their sale, we subsidize tobacco production! Ditto for alcohol. While the issue here is abuse, we don’t really have the social will to attack the problem. There aren’t police cars parked outside the parking lots of every bar in America at closing time administrating breathalyzer or blood tests.
So — as a society — our cultural standard has been “user beware” and, if you’re not, the rest of us will bear the burden of increased public health costs.
In other words, we’ve taxed tobacco and alcohol but not really ever attempted to really regulate them. Before everyone jumps in about age limits, let me suggest you drive by any high school in America and see what the kids have stuck in their mouths. Look like cigarettes to me. And, those same kids have no trouble getting their hands on a six pack.
Bottom line: It isn’t about a nanny state or some left wing plot to make America into a socialists health farm. We, as a society, don’t care enough about public health to do anything about significant threats to it — including, by the way, cracking down on the abuse of prescription drugs — so why should we pick on poor sugar, (which we also subsidize)?
The science is clear. Our public health position is not. We literally want to have our health and eat our sugar too, and my bet is we will keep on doing it until their is a financial disincentive to do so. Because — as a society — we may not care about our bodies but we sure value our money.
First question: No. Second Question: No.
“We are confident that the American people are perfectly capable of choosing what foods to eat without stark regulations and unreasonable bans imposed upon them.”
How can I join the Sugar Association? This fits my own term for these types of things — ridiculi, as if ridiculous on its own wasn’t enough. I’d love a Snickers Bar Tony!
Who ever craved unsweetened candy or bitter orange juice? Nobody! Of course sugar is addictive. So is water, coffee, smoking, and booze. Most people like the enjoyment that sugar usually brings. The answer lies in educated self-discipline and moderation, not federal regulation.
My politics tend to be Libertarian. For example I support legalizing drugs. I agree that some local and state laws on the use of alcohol that are absolutely ludicrous. But, this is a different issue.
As is often attributed to Lincoln, “The role of government is to protect the weak from the strong.” In this case the citizens don’t have a chance. Food manufacturers know what sugar (cane, corn syrup, barley syrup, et al) are addictive. That is why they add them to anything they can. Why does sugar have to be added to bread, of all things? My grandmother didn’t do it and her bread was better than anything you can buy in a package.
Yes, it is all about addiction and I see nothing wrong with food companies doing everything they can to get people to eat more food. But, the other side of that is that there must be balancing laws.
From 1960 to today the average weight of an American increased about 30 pounds or just under 20%. That is 30 pounds for every man and woman in the U.S. that converts to revenues and profits for food processors. These companies may be asking themselves how much more money can they make if they can increase the average weight by another 30 pounds per person. I certainly would if I was the CEO.
Tobacco is clearly a dangerous product, and alcohol also has many well defined negatives (both medical and societal) — although my cardiologist tells me that I should consume a quarter of a glass of red wine daily. Regulation makes more sense for alcohol and tobacco. However, sugar is less threatening, and the science doesn’t really put it on a par with alcohol and tobacco. In any event, more regulation would probably use up federal resources which are not there to begin with. Far more effective, I think, would be even more noise in the media relative to obesity — a long-term solution, but ultimately the only viable one.
Why doesn’t the fact that this came from San Francisco surprise me?
Yes indeed, we should have Katherine Sibelius decide if it’s “one lump or two.” After all, how in the world can all us unenlightened morons make decisions for ourselves?
The big question, of course, is, with all us idiots eating poorly, breathing polluted air, etc., etc., how is it that longevity continues to rise?
Thank God for the regulators.
I’m sure that there are a bunch of people in Washington DC who smoke, regularly have sex with their staff, and drink who have decided they know what is best for less capable Americans and should impose that for the greater good. Of course, we should regulate sugar. Let’s also “nudge” people through government subsidies to brush twice a day in front of mirrors with cameras. Let’s ensure that everyone washes their hair 6 times per day because 5 is too few and 7 is too many.
There is zero chance that sugar will be regulated. What’s next, sin taxes on Crisco?
I agree with most comments herein. We need LESS regulation, not more. Consumers must hold responsibility for their own actions, and not rely upon the government to be their babysitter.
Wow. Ryan really, really nailed it.
Yeah it’s addictive! Have you ever not had chocolate for a couple of months and then put a few pieces of Godiva’s offerings in your mouth? Your entire system lights up and says to you, “MORE!”
But regulating it in the U.S.? Are you kidding? We barely regulate guns! I think the real solution is education: what is the food you’re eating made of, what happens when you eat too much of it, etc. If people slow the feasting on sugar, the companies that sell it to them will adjust … you know, with something worse (kidding, sort of).
Knowledge is power, so let’s try that first.
But Mel, STAYING in bed is dangerous too: surely you know a sedentary lifestyle is an unhealthy one! Back on topic, my answers are “no” (at least in any meaningful use of the term) and “no.” I think it’s unfortunate Dr. Lustig et al feel a need to make grandstanding comments that overwhelm any intelligent conversation they’re trying to initiate on the issue. (Then again, since David isn’t here today playing Devil’s advocate, I’ll do it: maybe this is a(n outrageously) clever defensive move on the part of the sugar industry: advocate something so absurd it brings ridicule upon all regulatory efforts … even sensible ones.)