54 comments

Top comments

  1. bill
    Another celebrity, a la Lustig, putting the blame
    only on sugar, when the problem is all carbohydrates
    which break down into glucose in the bloodstream.

    If you do not understand this, you do not understand
    the problem, nor can you comprehend the solution.

    Reply: #3
    Read more →
  2. Lisa
    NOT a good idea to tax anything else! The bureaucrats act like they're helping people when all they do is fund their wasteful pet projects.
    Read more →

All comments

  1. Lisa
    NOT a good idea to tax anything else! The bureaucrats act like they're helping people when all they do is fund their wasteful pet projects.
  2. bill
    Another celebrity, a la Lustig, putting the blame
    only on sugar, when the problem is all carbohydrates
    which break down into glucose in the bloodstream.

    If you do not understand this, you do not understand
    the problem, nor can you comprehend the solution.

    Reply: #3
  3. FrankG
    So what is your solution bill?
  4. Thomas E.
    I would like government to only do what is within their mandate. And best I can figure is to regulate interstate commerce in the States, but in general accurately regulate. Make companies do real testing for man made products. From GMO to artificial sweeteners.

    Stop subsidizing agriculture, and picking winners and losers.

    I figure we don't need any new laws or taxes, use the laws in place to go after collusion between pharmaceuticals and food manufactures where appropriate, but start out with telling the truth about the currently known science.

    I know too many people who try to do their best to eat right. Problem is, governments and general doctors continue on with the healthy grain, low fat bovine excrement.

    I hate to say it, President Reagan was correct, at least in one place, government is the problem. More of the current governments is not going to solve a thing.

    But that's just me.

  5. Murray
    I am skeptical of taxation solutions--not dismissive, but skeptical. Denmark proposed a tax on saturated fat, after all, with as strong as a conviction that it would be good for average health as many have a conviction that taxing processed sugar would be good for average health.

    Looking at the falling revenue of Coca-Cola, I am beginning to think education alone might make as much or more difference than taxation. People in general do pay attention to these things, which was a problem with the ill-advised food pyramid. I recall in the 1980s some research came out about oatmeal being good for heart health and there was soon a shortage of oats (until farmers adjusted their crop plantings the next season). So lots of people do react to these things.

    At least with the competition of ideas, I can opt out based on my independent review of the science (unconflicted by the vested interests that influence the enactment of tax laws). If the government says butter is bad, I can still eat butter. But if the government taxes butter, I can still eat butter but I have to pay the tax, without hope of a refund when the science ultimately shows they were wrong. Worse still, they might ban butter.

    The renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead observed that it is easier to change a person's diet than their religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right under our constitution (Canada), so shouldn't freedom of traditional diet likewise be protected?

  6. tw
    If I am not mistaken, the rise in the use of fructose and high fructose corn syrup is due to in part sugar taxation.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Reply: #9
  7. Lucy
    Hidden sugars aren't noticed, I was looking for a convenient soup I could have on hand that wasn't thickened with flour or loaded with noodles. Panera Bread had a Squash Soup labeled Gluten Free and Vegetarian, and it had 22 grams of sugar in a serving, how is that for healthy? Why does a soup have to be sweet?
  8. Cameron Hidalgo
    I've said for years that a can of soda is worse for you than a cigarette. Glad to see people are agreeing. Though the issue with smoking is that most people have 20-40 cigarettes in a day. Can you imagine drinking 40 cans of soda?
  9. Lori Miller
    Yes, and cyclamate (a no-calorie sweetener) was outlawed in the US in 1970.

    Were people in the US and western Europe generally trim before or after the government busybodies started making laws and telling people how to eat?

    And by the way...is that a second chin on Jamie Oliver?

    Reply: #10
  10. erdoke
    In the article he talks about exhaustion resulting from 3.5 hours of sleep daily over a long period of time. That's rather a cortisol driven hyperinsulinaemia and overweight than a regular sugar and flour induced one.

    To the article itself: Fructose might indeed be the main driver behind insulin resistance together with grains. For most people it would be enough to drastically reduce these two diet components to maintain a healthy weight and avoid type 2 diabetes. Of course there are other benefits of keeping insulin at an even lower level, but for the masses a VLCHF (moderate protein) diet is not reality in the close future.

  11. Daniel
    I get that all carbohydrates are the problem but at least Oliver and Lustig are getting part of the equation right. Sugar is bad for you, really bad for you and there's a large segment of the population that doesn't get that. They think it's only empty calories not knowing that it's doing serious damage to their bodies. Once people understand that sugar is really bad for them, then we can move on to carbohydrates. Sure, it'd be great if people woke up to the harmful effects of both at the same time, but let's take what we can get at this point. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
    Reply: #13
  12. Megan
    For many people, simply cutting back on sugar could be all it takes to keep them healthy for life. For children in particular a sugar free diet could mean that they never have weight issues as they do not mess up their insulin sensitivity. This means that they can eat some carbs and be perfectly healthy.
    For anyone who easily gains weight, the fact is that all carbs are an issue. but maybe we are the lost generation and a sugar free existence for new generations should be what we are aiming for. I believe that getting rid of sugar is enough in the long term.
    Look back to the 1970's and see that while people ate potatoes, bread and rice - they still were slim. The main difference was the addition of sugar in vast qualities to many of our foods. Possibly the change in wheat structure could also be a factor.
    Going back to a diet consisting of low sugar, and few processed foods should lead us back to the time before all this began.
    For the rest of us - we have to be low carb.
  13. bill
    "...at least Oliver and Lustig are getting part of the equation right."

    Fine, but let's not fail to point out that
    they don't get the whole equation right.

    "...sugar is really bad for them, then we can move on to carbohydrates."

    Don't you mean "other" carbohydrates?
    This is the whole point: People think
    carbohydrates are not sugar. They are.

    Do you want me to post the link to the video
    where Dr. Eric Westman says that carbs are
    made of many sugar molecules all strung
    together?

    Reply: #15
  14. Boundless
    re: Good idea:

    Not.

    This would actually be less successful than the existing punitive taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and would have the same unintended side effects (due to rewarding a black market).

    At least with booze and weed, the official government advice is that they might be bad for you. We have with sugar a more fundamental problem that the official diets actually promote grains that spike BG even faster than sucrose, as well as low fat diets that result in high carb diets.

    And taxing foods to mold behavior presumes that the National Nannies get it right. Recall that in recent years it was also proposed to tax fats. Our current metabolic epidemic is largely due to clueless legislators making seriously defective guesses on nutrition.

    A sugar tax would eventually result in the tragic spectacle of a petty criminal choking to death while resisting arrest for the heinous crime of selling an individual packet of sugar on a New York street.

    Reply: #44
  15. Daniel
    Yes, I meant to say other carbohydrates. I'm well aware that carbohydrates and sugar are pretty much one and the same.

    I think we need to be careful when shoving too much information down the throats of the "uneducated" when it comes to diet. Give them a little at a time and they might be more receptive to changing. Once they give up sugar and see how much better they feel, then you can move on to other carbohydrates. Throw all of that at them at once and they're not likely to change anything. In fact, they'll probably get defensive.

    I know that's how it worked for me. I used to be offended by other people telling me what not to eat. I didn't want anything to do with it. Then, one day I had a fast food lunch the day after I had had some fresh veggies for lunch and I thought about how much worse I felt after eating the fast food. So, I decided to cut back on the fast food to see how it made me feel. I did that and started feeling better and that's when I started to examine everything I was eating.

    It's a gradual process. Let's applaud Lustig and Oliver for at least getting part of the equation right. Most health professionals aren't even that far. Again, let's not let perfect get in the way of good.

    Reply: #19
  16. Bill Johnston
    Jamie needs to observe biochemical fundamentals. By essentially restricting his focus to the substance called "sugar", Jamie is not addressing a huge category of sugar that is hidden from view because it is called "saccharide", more commonly known as "carbohydrate."

    A teaspoon of table sugar contains four grams of carbohydrate. When the U.S. Dietary Guidelines call for people to eat 300 grams of carbohydrate per day (as it does), that is the dietary equivalent of eating 75 teaspoons of sugar per day. Other than table sugar, grains and starches as well as products made from them, like breads, cakes, rolls, potatoes, rice, etc., constitute the primary source of carbohydrate intake. Would you knowingly slam down 75 teaspoons of sugar in one day? I don't think so.

    Bottom Line: to cut down on sugar intake you must cut down not only on table sugar but on carbohydrate intake from all sources.

    Reply: #17
  17. erdoke
    Obesity and T2 diabetes are mainly caused by insulin resistance of the liver and then spreading to other tissues/organs. Of course there is a very strong link between carbohydrates and insulin, as carbs represent the most insulinogenic macronutrient group. However, not all carbs are created equal, for instance fructose and glucose together are much more likely to induce insulin resistance in the liver and there is a role in it for high protein consumption, bad food combination choices, sedentary lifestyle and so on. If you approach the problem from the insulin point of view, all this becomes not black and white. This also gives us an idea why other dietary and lifestyle changes might also work, though usually to a lesser extent.
    In fact without fructose (sucrose and HFCS) it is rather difficult to "achieve" insulin resistance in the liver. Then it is an interesting discussion if there is any difference between sucrose and HFCS. Chemically and energetically not much, although I just read about a wierd study earlier today where they found that HFCS was 87 % more lethal to female mice than sucrose, but same toxic for male mice...
  18. FrankG
    Reading some of the comments above, I have little wonder that the LCHF approach is dismissed by some as ludicrous for suggesting that all carbs are equal and all are bad!

    All carbs, nor indeed "sugar" (sucrose and other simple saccharides) are NOT the problem per se...

    The issue is one of dose and frequency... too much and too often.

    Which one of these is more likely to facilitate an high dose and high frequency... soda or potatoes?

    Think of it this way: Coca leaves have been chewed for thousands of years by Central Americans as a stimulant... did they have a problem? What about after those leaves were refined into Cocaine?

    And sure, we have had refined "sugar" (sucrose) around for some time now but it has never been this ubiquitous, nor as cheaply available as in the form of HFCS. Imagine a cheap and readily available Cocaine being handed out to our children at every snack, party, sporting event, for breakfast, used at every meal, in every drink, every day etc.. etc...

    Focusing on refined sugar and, in particular, sugary drinks, makes a great deal of sense in my view. Once that easy "sound byte" message has been communicated -- and gawd knows it helps to have celebrities speaking out (human imperfections aside) -- then I've no doubt that messages such as "hidden sugars" and all the rest, become that much easier to promulgate.

    But even then, I don't see that a VLC approach is necessary for everyone. People were slim and healthy eating bread, potatoes, rice and pasta in the past... maybe if they were to forego that sugary rush at breakfast and then another at mid-morning coffee-break, they could still tolerate a reasonable amount of carbs?

    Knee-jerk reactions aside, is taxation the answer? Maybe. What about "leveling the playing field" by removing the corn subsidies instead? Also an approach I would endorse. In either case it will require government intervention, legislation and changes to policy. I think MY government does have a role to play in public health.

  19. bill
    "... let's not let perfect get in the way of good."

    When voting was restricted to white males and someone
    said, "Minorities and women should be able to vote," You were
    probably the one who said, "Let's applaud those who want voting
    rights for minorities, but don't go shoving 'women should have
    the vote' down people's throat."

    Reply: #21
  20. bill
    This was just posted today by Dr William Davis on his Wheat Belly Blog:

    "Eat NO grains or sugars–Remember: from a blood sugar standpoint, most grains are worse than sugar in their blood sugar raising potential. The safety of “complex” carbohydrates in grains is complete fiction: their glycemic indexes are higher than sucrose."

    Quit arguing with me. Take it up with someone who knows this stuff.

    Replies: #22, #24
  21. FrankG
    Interesting that you bring up the vote... this seems like a perfect example of a phased-in approach, where (for example) only the male landed-gentry had a say, then middle-class men above a certain age, then all men of an age, then married women above an age etc.... all the way to everyone over the age of majority.

    One might argue that there was a snow-ball effect, where: as more and more got the vote, they realised the importance of granting that right to all.

    I wonder how things might have progressed (if at all) in your all or nothing, black and white, no room for compromise World?

    Meantime it is all too easy to be negative about other's suggestions but I'm still waiting for you to offer some constructive, realistic and practicable solutions of your own.

  22. FrankG
    "Quit arguing with me. Take it up with someone who knows this stuff."

    Was this meant for me bill?

    Are you aware that I have been diagnosed with Metabolic Syndrome, including Type 2 Diabetes, since 2003 and have literally years worth of spreadsheets recording Blood Glucose testing around meals... sometimes testing up to 20 times in a day?

    Are you suggesting I don't know this stuff? Seriously.

    Reply: #23
  23. bill
    Sorry to read that you disagree with Dr. Davis.
    Reply: #40
  24. FrankG
    You quote Dr Davis, "Eat NO grains or sugars–Remember: from a blood sugar standpoint, most grains are worse than sugar in their blood sugar raising potential. The safety of “complex” carbohydrates in grains is complete fiction: their glycemic indexes are higher than sucrose."

    1) In terms of BOTH dose and frequency, and given the prevailing food environment, do you think someone is more likely to overeat on whole-grains, or refined sugars?

    2) BEFORE someone is able to accept that whole-grains may be as bad if not worse for them than refined sugars, don't you see that they FIRST have to accept that [blood] sugars are a problem?

    Seems to me you are putting the cart before the horse. This is why a phased-in approach makes sense. First we need more general acceptance that sugar and not fat, is the problem.

    ---

    "Sorry to read that you disagree with Dr. Davis."

    No you're not sorry. You're just being petty.

  25. bill
    I am quite seriously sorry that you disagree with Dr. Davis.

    Please take it up with him.

    Reply: #26
  26. FrankG
    And I'm still waiting on this much vaunted "solution" which presumably involves zero government (or celebrity) intervention AND takes us in one fell swoop, all the way from the currently established wisdom -- prevalent throughout the media and widely accepted -- to an utopia of healthy LCHF living...
  27. Mark
    Current "change for life" advice in the UK is to swap ""sweetened" breakfast cereals for "wholegrain" ones.
    Which makes little sense since the latter tend to be higher in both GI and GL than the former.
    Telling people to cut what the food industry calls "sugar" can easily result in people eating more actual sugar.
    Whilst this seems to be some kind of paradox it makes perfect sense when you realise that 1g of glucose equates to 0.95g of maltose or 0.9g of amylopectin. (Replacing polysaccharides with di or mono saccharides reduces the total hexose count.)
    Reply: #31
  28. tony
    To be effective a tax on sugar should be high enough to discourage consumption. I propose that for all individuals and food manufacturers the first 25 grams of sugar per day to be tax free and every additional gram be taxed at $1,000 per gram.

    If the $1,000 per gram doesn't curtail consumption, raise it.

    Replies: #29, #35
  29. Thomas E.
    @Tony,

    Problem is, how would you enforce this?

    If the government(s) would come out and simply, the advice about low far was misguided; modern research suggests that natural animal based facts have long been good for human health; and so on.

    Then people may gladly switch to eating bacon and eggs for breakfast. As many have suggested the mindset has to change.

    Problem is, right now there seems to be far too much of an economic machine behind low fat, statin taking health advice.

    That has to be broken.

    Right now, the way I see it, the "low fat" mantra is quite alive, the low fat is so engrained in people, it is complete common sense, if you don't want to be fat, don't eat it. So, adding low sugar to low fat causes people's head to explode, and they go back to the common sense, low fat is king.

    So, I loop back to the top of my post, you need the experts and the government to admit, low fat was misguided.

  30. Liz F
    I was a bit surprised as Jamie Oliver has been fairly conservative in his food recommendations. Sure, he did recommend fresh, healthy food and has been trying to improve school lunches but he hasn't really commented on the food pyramid or conventional diet logic. Speaking out so strongly against sugar was unexpected. Yes, perhaps it isn't as far as he should go but it's a good first step.

    As for legislation taxing sugar? Sin taxes never work. If anything, they inspire black market trading. Better measures would be to force companies to admit added sugar in their products or even reducing the amount of total sugar allowed in certain foods.

  31. erdoke

    1g of glucose equates to 0.95g of maltose or 0.9g of amylopectin. (Replacing polysaccharides with di or mono saccharides reduces the total hexose count.)

    I am not sure I understand the hexose count reduction story, but the weight reduction per every molecule monomer added during polymerization must come from the molecule of water "lost" with every new glycosidic bond. In other words maltose equals two glucose molecules minus one molecule of water.

  32. erdoke
  33. Elenor
    Aw, come one! The government has had a huge hand in causing this! Why does he (do any of you) think they can or will do anything worthwhile to stop what they are doing?! It's just one more (idiot liberal) idea that the way to stop or control something is to let the gov't get its sticky hands into it (in another/different way from the way their hands are already causing it!)! I wish people would quit trying to see the govt as a solution -- it's not and cannot be! (Lustig is the same way: he wants the govt -- that caused the problem! -- to fix it.)

    Nina Teicholtz points out in her (great) book, "The Big Fat Surprise" that the 'cracker-and-cookie' (and other processing) companies are removing transfats just as FAST as they can from all their products because people are starting to avoid processed food with transfats. But they also know, since the people are brainwashed, that they will not buy processed foods made with saturated fats (since they also had a huge hand in creating that aversion!). Are they doing anything more/different from the gov't to undo the damage they helped cause? No, they are trying to create NEW and UNKNOWN fats to put in their processed foods, so they can fool (or mislead) the public into continuing to eat their health damaging crap!

    Govt is SO not the answer! They're a major p[art of the cause!

  34. Jason
    If Jamie Oliver says it you can pretty much rest assured it's idiotic. He's been advocating for low fat high carb vegetarian meals in schools for years. No doubt obesity levels have gone UP in the schools that have adopted his recommendations. He thinks that if locally-sourced vegetables are added to the menu a grain-based meal magically becomes "healthy." Like Doctor Oz he was very self-righteous about the low fat gospel until very recently. Now he is turning on to the trendy anti-sugar message. The unifying principle in his thinking appears to be that he wants the government to force kids (and adults I suppose) to eat whatever he personally deems healthy from year to year. He needs to spend less time 'educating' others and more time learning himself. Oliver is the UK's Oprah - "often wrong but never in doubt" when it comes to dietary advice. The fact that he seems to have said something sensible for once must be an accident.
  35. Smithy
    Yer but they'll probably remove all of the SUGAR from the ingredients and replace it with something like Dextrose, or HFCS!

    You cant win against food manufacturers, that is unless you dont buy processed foods.

    Replies: #36, #37
  36. erdoke
    It depends on the wording of the legislation. On top of that the industry have been telling us so far that there is no difference between sucrose and HFCS...
    Reply: #38
  37. tony
    Then let's include in my legislation ALL sweeteners. ;)
  38. Boundless
    re: ...industry have been telling us so far that there is no difference between sucrose and HFCS...

    That was just chewed on over at:
    http://authoritynutrition.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar/

    I'm presently of the opinion that the major problem with HFCS is that being so cheap, it made simple sugars even more pervasive. It takes real effort to avoid sugars in foods today.

    There may be some increased hazard due to the slightly higher fructose in HFCS, and that's it's free fructose, but we won't know until the much more massive problem of full time glycemic diets is swept away, and the problem can be studied without confounding. I don't plan to volunteer.

    I doubt that the fact that HFCS is sourced from GMO corn, loaded with frankengenes and pesticides, has more than homeopathic impact on the final sugar. This industry, of course, is a disaster in multiple other ways, so do what you can to reduce demand for sugars generally, and HFCS in particular.

  39. Dave
    Never mind adding another tax and more government regulation of our lives. How about just removing the special treatment the sugar industry now receives? The sugar industry represents only 2% of the value of farm products in the US. But it makes up 35% of the political donations and 40% of the lobbying. Re: http://reason.com/archives/2015/01/06/big-sugar-leaves-a-bitter-afte/1

    If anyone is addicted to sugar, it's politicians. Just keep spreading the word about LCHF and sugar sales will go the way of Coca-Cola sales. People will eat less sugar because they are educated, not because they are taxed into submission.

  40. Jonathan Christie
    bill, Davies is talking about insulin-resistant people. Traditional-eating Japanese might be quite surprised to learn they're harming themselves with their rice-based diet since they're one of the longest-lived peoples in the world.
    Reply: #42
  41. Butler Reynolds
    Did I miss something?

    Another post says that Coke is cutting jobs because people are drinking less of it.

    Amazing that people were able to cut back on their soda consumption without the nanny state taxing them in to it.

  42. Thomas E.
    I suspect Garry Taubes might be a reasonable reference here. I believe he said, in his best estimation, people who eat their indigenous diets, tend to show little signs of cancer, obesity, diabetes and so on.

    So, it if possible that there is a sufficient subset of people, whose ancestors did not eat rice, that are not adapted to eat rice, that then makes the statement Dr. Davis' statement about eating rice valid (for a significant set of people)

    Is it also possible, that many people have been so damaged by bad diets, that tolerance to the grain rice has been degraded, possibly permanently?

    I apologize for the circular arguments. Without having fully read Wheat Belly, but reading a decent amount, I would fully suspect there is a significant population that can eat whole grain, unprocessed rice with no or little adverse effects. But, pull off the husk, open up the pores (minute rice with par cooking) , bleaching, (and so on) and I would suspect the number of people (long term) tolerant to that food will tumble.

    It would appear there seems to be a tendency for people to go black and white on issues. One thing for certain, to say because the Japanese used whole grain, long grain rice, that was virtually unprocessed as a healthy part of the diet, we should be able to eat minute rice is complete FALSE.

    And are they the longest lived because of the lack of wheat and sugar? Or because of the presence of the non-processes whole grain rice?

    Reply: #51
  43. craig castanet
    i'm not in favor of taxation, any more than i'm in favor of paying for people's healthcare. eating sugar is a civil right, as is keeping my own money. i don't want the G.D. government assuming the right to take my property, nor assuming the responsibility for my healthcare. why pay a third-party (government) for healthcare. the cheapest healthcare excludes third parties, e.g. insurance companies, government, etc.

    But I must live in a make-believe world that is mean and free. That's just my personal preference.

  44. Tandy
    "A sugar tax would eventually result in the tragic spectacle of a petty criminal choking to death while resisting arrest for the heinous crime of selling an individual packet of sugar on a New York street." Very well said and your comment has slam-dunked the entire subject. Much Kudos.
  45. Gwen
    I don't think a sugar tax is a good idea at all. Nobody should be in the business of bullying others into eating what they believe to be a healthy diet. The results of eating LCHF should speak for themselves and those who wish to follow such a diet should be free to do so. There is enough health bullying as it is. We don't know everyone's circumstances and what is right for one may not be right for another. People need informed choice rather than being dictated to.
  46. Jonny
    ......says the fat chef who loves nothing more than slaughtering a pig or two!
    Reply: #50
  47. Steven
    Seems like the article linked to in this post has disappeared from The Telegraph's website.
    Reply: #49
  48. 75 years young
    No no no laws/taxes for what you can eat otherwise you are totaly controlled like Monsanto etc., controlling seeds .
    We would end up with ration cards allowing for instance ... 3 eggs per week , 4 ounces of steak and so on .
    They just need to get a leg in on one food item and then it is on for every food item just like the Abbot government in Australia contemplating putting a tax on all fresh foods .
    I have been totaly LCHF for 13 years so this rant has more to do with protecting my food choices in the future without having them taxed because some diatetic association who has been wrong for the past 50 or 60 years tells me it will be better for my health .
  49. bill
    The link to the article still works for me.

    75 years young:

    Well said!

  50. Jon
    Nothing wrong with slaughtering a pig or two, very LCHF in fact!
  51. Jon
    FYI: the Japanese eat white rice, not brown rice. It's probably more to do with their genes than their diet i.e. the are not insulin resistant.
    Reply: #52
  52. Thomas E.
    Interesting, I was listening to a podcast or reading a blog, and this was addressed. The bran on the brown rice is full of Phytic acid, which can be an anti-nutrient, as it can bind or slow the absorption of other nutrients.

    One link http://authoritynutrition.com/foods/rice/

    Hate to through this out, but https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+white+rice+over+brown&i...

  53. Hope
    I wonder how one from the USA whose ancestors hail from Northern Europe can eat an indigenous diet? I have pondered over that a lot. It doesn't seem right that my body can't process properly prepared grains and dairy ie Weston A Price style. But it can't ,LCHF is the only way I don't gain weight. It must be something environmental (not just the gmo and other defiled foods they mass produce here) maybe vaccines, since we over vaccinate here, antibiotic over use, etc.? Just a theory. My husband's line can be traced 2 generations back to Holland through both parents, and he cannot do dairy and was severely allergic to it growing up on a dairy farm. My line is Swede and French, I can't do any grain without gaining weight, which is very hard considering I have to feed a family of 6! Sugar, that's an obvious. Anyway I know the topic was Jamie Oliver and taxing sugar but a few had mentioned the Japanese and their rice. Rabbit trail, I know.
    Reply: #54
  54. erdoke
    I believe it is mainly not the poisonous foods you eat on a standard American diet, but the nutrients you lack, i.e. deficiencies building up contribute to obesity and also to modern diseases of civilization. Low intake of fat soluble vitamins, minerals, unbalanced amino acids, essential fatty acids, etc.

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts