The Toxic Truth About Sugar
Is sugar a poison? Professor Lustig’s the number one enemy of the sugar lobby. According to him sugar is clearly poisonous in larger quantities. Now Lustig’s published a well written article in the prestigious scientific journal Nature.
The negative health effects of todays sugar consumption can no longer be ignored he argues. It’s time to act against sugar like we’ve acted against tobacco and alcohol.
From the article
The problem with sugar isn’t just weight gain:
Authorities consider sugar as ‘empty calories’ — but there is nothing empty about these calories. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills — slowly.
A new problem:
Evolutionarily, sugar was available to our ancestors as fruit for only a few months a year (at harvest time), or as honey, which was guarded by bees. But in recent years, sugar has been added to nearly all processed foods, limiting consumer choice. Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy.
Time for a political intervention?
I recommend the three page article, it’s well worth reading. But you should avoid it if you get allergic symptoms from talk about taxation on food. Lustig argues that we need to use the same tools against sugar as the ones we use against tobacco and alcohol.
Unfortunately the time’s probably not ripe yet for drastic political measures against sugar. It’s a shame because such interventions would likely result in major gains for public health, just like they have already in the fight against smoking and other poisons.
Nature: The Toxic Truth About Sugar
The cause of obesity
Is too much sugar the main cause of common obesity? Here’s a video interview I did with professor Lustig a few months ago:
More Lustig
Obesity and the trouble with sugar (lecture from August last year)
Soda and diabetes – a coincidence?
Taubes in NYT: Is sugar toxic? (includes Lustig’s greatest hit with almost 2 million views on YouTube)
His primary message regarding sugar is both valid and important. Sugar, in both "regular" and highly-processed forms, has become a large part of modern diets, and that's a bad thing. I guess that calling it "toxic" (and I believe that in one of his talks he specifically calls it "poison") will grab people's attention, but then it feels like showmanship. And the sugar lobby (which is already running an advertising campaign here in the US) will play the victim of a smear, by pointing out that sugar isn't a poison. Who do you think people are going to believe? Especially people who have grown up on sugary treats while being told that fat is the problem?
Personally, I prefer not to see anything (that isn't criminal) demonized, including alcohol and tobacco. It should be enough if people understand that certain things could have negative health consequences without bringing moralizing and disgust into it.
What I want is to be able to do is to go to Google scholar, type in "sugar linked to heart disease" and find 20 clinical studies demonstrating the connection. I'd much rather work on getting the scientific/medical community to accept these ideas instead of running straight to the government before all the evidence is in. I absolutely believe that the evidence is there to be found, but we need to accumulate a lot of if before it starts to make a dent in the anti-fat message.
As I like to say to my lay-friend who is interested in this topic, HFCS is indeed the problem - not because it's different than sugar, but because it's so damn cheap.
We won't get a tax on sugar, though. Everyone is addicted to the stuff. And how could we tax sugar and not tax fat, which "everyone knows" is the problem - even though it isn't.
I would generally prefer fewer nutrition-based federal regulations (e.g., pizza is a vegetable?), and Lustig’s opinion seems extreme at first glance. However, this IS an “epidemic” with which we are dealing, and I’d much rather see a tax on added sugars than saturated fat.
One of the biggest problems we have is that governments have too much power, which invites corruption, and also invites meddling in people's lives -- like the "fat tax."
Perhaps this is our generation's "Modest Proposal".
but I strongly disagree that the solution is more government..
And, as ever, the simple-minded libertarian castigates all government whilst giving mega-corporations carte blanche: as if they somehow are immune from the corrupt and corrupting concentration of power.
I'm one of those folks who believes in government intervention only as a last resort. Maybe with sugar we're at the last-resort stage. If so, focus on where we'd get the most bang for the buck: soda. That supposedly accounts for about half the average teenager's sugar consumption. Ban it from schools, restrict its sale to minors, don't allow food stamps to be used for it. That's a start, let's see if it makes a difference before we try something more drastic.
i must say tho i do like Mr Lustigs Work.
All Lifes Very Best All The Time.
The impact of this is substantial: one reliable estimate will put the cost at US$3.35 trillion (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/23/us-unitedhealth-diabetes-idUSTRE6AM0NH20101123) - this is 20% of our current GDP on diabetes alone. We literally cannot wave our hands about this - it poses a serious threat to our nation's pocketbook.
To warble on about "no new taxes" or "personal responsibility" or "no government" is not a real answer to this clearly visible cost tsunami, now only 8 years away. Because honestly much damage has already been done to adult Americans, and they will soon manifest their diabetes - in all its terrifying expense.
With our lax labeling laws and the current unintelligibility of existing labels (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379706002819), it is nearly impossible for the average American to avoid hidden sugars and "-oses" in foods.
Community health and education programs are proving challenging, as well. Studies show that patient and community education can gain attention, but aren't enough to change behaviors (that is, a poster isn't going to break your addiction!).
To the anti-Lustig crowd I return the challenge - so then, with this crisis clearly in front of you, what *effective* evidence-based program do you propose? I would love to see URLs here.
(*crickets crickets crickets*) :)
Treating the populous as a bunch of gibbering morons who must be protected by "their betters" from themselves isn't the answer.
People need access to accurate information and they need to care about their health as opposed to seeing disease as an inevitability that is outside their control. The idea that you can eat what you want, do what you want and pass the bill onto your neighbors is one that must end.
When you remove responsibility from individuals, you force everyone to suffer the consequences.
Like OHMIGOD, externalities. I love how statist bootlickers take this one concept from economics. We have to save people from themselves because it costs society too much money. Never mind that the obesity crisis was created by government intervention in the first place, we obviously need more government intervention to fix the problem.
There's no null hypothesis for this sort of thinking. You want a url, try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, prove that I'm wrong with a url.
Lustig is well aware of Cass Sunstein's "Nudge;" (http://nudges.org/?s=obesity) he's working with a public policy professional here. You will see that several of Lustig's ideas are quite in line with Nudge, such as changes to the physical environment and changes to signage.
The problem is that health care is a funny good, and its peculiar nature when combined with well-known human cognitive biases means that incentive-based experiments - such as cash-back wellness programs - don't work as well as we'd hoped. Much this may be due to the biology as well. . .again, a cash-back plan won't reduce the biological basis or effects of an actual addiction.
Despite what his detractors say, Lustig has no interest in being a social engineer. As he says, the social engineering has happened already in the form of regulatory capture - Big Ag gets the subsidies - the FDA & USDA market the grain, rules are never enforced, etc.
Here's an interesting short video in which Lustig addresses this common charge against him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffoOeW5wZ9s
I'm still seeking those URLs by the way. Behavioral economics has many useful ideas.
Statist bootlicker, is that vitriol? I thought it was a valid description of someone who wants the state to intervene even more to fix what it screwed up in the first place?
You are right, I'm not a public health professional, thank God (I mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster). My background is in science and engineering. This means I have had to deal with realities instead of hand-waving and unicorn farts.
Yes, Big Ag and Big Pharma are classic examples of regulatory capture. A statist sees regulatory capture and thinks, "Gee, let's fix this with more taxes and regulations, only this time we will call it by some trendy name like, uhm, nudging."
Despite what his followers say, a sugar tax is just another form of social engineering. That should be obvious to anyone who has a couple brain cells to rub together, but it isn't, since neither you nor Lustig don't strike me as stupid. Unfortunately, the alternative is more nefarious.
Just as I hold this extremely antiquated view that free speech should apply to all forms of speech, even the ones I disagree with, I also define social engineering as all forms of manipulating people's behavior by taxes, subsidies and regulations. I'd like to see people eat less sugar, I just don't want the government to force, or uhm, nudge them not to.
As far as the addiction aspect goes, I could care less. Are drugs addictive? Has all the destruction from the War on Drugs been worth it to save people from themselves? What about alcohol, is that addictive? How did Prohibition work out?
Of course, none of my points are valid because I didn't provide a url.
I'm also not a fan of taxes to coerce behaviour -- especially when those taxes could be aimed at the wrong foods (for example the recent Fat Tax in Denmark) BUT I do see a role for Government in setting policies which protect the interests of the general population over that of big corporations.
That is the LAST thing you should expect from government. The problem is that power attracts corruption.
I am opposed to gov't. intervention on this issue as you are, and for many of the same reasons. But I concur with the assessment that you're being vitriolic. "Statist bootlicker" and "obvious to anyone who has a couple brain cells to rub together" are not neutral comments. They're designed to inflame and attack people, not issues. I'm not suggesting that you back off one bit in your opposition, merely that you focus it solely on the issue at hand.
These don't seem to work so great, however. Is it because $300 isn't enough to motivate behavioral change? Or is it that a year is too long to see the reward?
How much would it be worth to a non-LCHF T2D person to become low-carb? Would we need to offer them US$500 a month, paid every month under threat of a refund if their sugar numbers creep back up?
Considering the average cost of treating a T2D in the USA is apparently just under US$12,000 a year, 500 a month would still leave a nice savings for the insurance companies and the public. Or should we increase the bonus by also paying folks a premium for every drug they manage to drop? The Victoza is US$500 out-of-pocket for most people; those who are covered for it apparently co-pay about US$50-75 depending on the plan. The insurance apparently matches that in many plans.
If you can get yourself off the Victoza, should you get your $75 back as well? And $75 more for every blood pressure med, and purple pill you drop? So ideally folks could get as much as US$725 a month back?
Would that be enough to motivate T2D and pre-diabetic folks to adopt LCHF? It seems like a substantial amount and being paid once a month seems as if it would overcome the human biases against long-term risk/reward thinking.
I'm also thinking that this plan should be a part of every health care option in the US; maybe it should also be automatic opt-in, and require a double opt-out in writing and a phonel interview with your insurance provider.
If you can get your kids to switch to a healthier lifestyle with measurable results as well, then you should also get a family bonus - since it's most important to attack childhood obesity, maybe getting your kids on-board should be worth another $300 a month?
How much cash-back would motivate you or your non-LCHF relatives to get their children over to LCHF? We should ask around. I'd be very interested in hearing answers.
Again, if anyone has any URLs to more studies on nudges or cash-back wellness, please provide! :)
I'm 100 percent convinced you are real and not a sockpuppet of moreporkplease
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002469.htm
scary indeed - we just need to reed the first line
"Carbohydrates are one of the main dietary components. This category of foods includes sugars, starches, and fiber." :-O
That'll both improve health and get the Libertarians to stop yammering for a minute.
Assuming you try for the cash back, why would the average person do LCHF when conventional wisdom says the only way to get healthy is HCLF?
Unless people are educated, they do not know the science and they would assume the government does. That's the problem. The government can get a message out like "avoid fat and eat healthywholegrains" apparently very effectively. The issue is to get them to get their message based on science instead of politics. It will never happen since money talks louder than science, so in reality government is best kept out of nutrition areas and lots and lots of other places too.
When did elected representatives stop having to answer to their electorate?
Are we really so powerless to effect change? Perhaps if we assume that we have no voice we create a self-fulfilling prophecy? Might the reverse be true also?
Instead of complaining about "Government" why not do something about it... lobby your representative (and his opposition if there is one)... let them know your opinion... if enough voters do the same then they have no choice except to listen... or they risk not getting elected next time.
If you empower a body, no matter how well-meaning, to promulgate ideas, ANY ideas, by force, all you are doing is setting yourself up for the day when the state arrives at your door to take your children away because they're too obese. Or because the state dislikes your sexual practices. Or your religious practices.
Besides, do you really want to go around announcing that your ideas are so worthless that you can't get people to adopt them by any means OTHER than pointing a gun at them, or at least, at their wallet?
Current cash-back experiments that I can find have been run by universities, HMOs, and private insurers. A slight majority of the USA health care system is private - that is run by private insurers, companies that contract with insurers for benefits, HMO/PPOs, and those few companies that are self-insured. Perhaps you're not American and don't know this. :)
Those who offers the cash-back plan have the ability to set the incentives and goals. So these so far have been relatively private-market experiments - only a few states have Medicaid/Medicare waivers that allow them to experiment as well, but I can't find the results of any state- level cash-back experiments. If you have an URL, please share!
Considering that the horrifying epidemic of T2D is coming at us, the issue isn't to sit and engage in sterile abstract debates or name calling. The diabetes is real, and the cost will hit us like a brick in a sock. My advice is to *pull the rope sideways* instead of wasting time in the same old tug-of-war, which never produces a solution.
So I asked the receptionist at my job how much it would take to get her to give up sugar. "That's impossible," she said. So I said, "what about $500 a month?" "Wow," she said, "Sure - except it's in everything and you often don't know." Bingo.
So here's where the private-public partnership comes into play. Here's where the FDA, USDA, Mrs Obama et al. stops wasting time with "My Grain Lobby Plate" and starts developing a clear, exact food label. If you think about it, you really don't need the USDA to do more than that - the label. The rest we can handle with incentives.
For the Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare set, HHS & the SSA can increase benefits and offer cash-back on the Medigap policies - half to the insurers, half the recipients. Or better yet, give the states waivers so they can do it on a regional basis. Both of these structures will survive even into 2014, so it's worth doing the experiment.
I agree that the experiment is worth doing. Giving people a bigger incentive than better health (i.e. money) will probably achieve more results since our society seems to base its priorities on personal financial gain more than anything else (only said with a pinch of sarcasm). As you said, the government should give you a nutrition label with everything on it. Why is our country (USA) one of those that do not get to know when we are eating GMO? Why can't we buy raw milk in my state? It's because of the same reason we are told to eat healthywholegrains and avoid animal fats - big-money corporate interests rule. Sometimes the consumer does win like organic labeling, but even this has been abused. Instead of the small independent farmer you think of when you see "organic", a large number of these products are from just another large corporation with undesirable farming practices.
FrankG.,
I agree that representatives should represent the people, but they don't. From what I've seen (and I may just have ignorant friends and relatives), most people appear to vote by party line (Dems or Repubs) and they love their incumbents. Ask anyone why they specifically like a politician (other than maybe the president), they won't be able to name a single policy the politician advocates for or has passed on their behalf. Our people need political as well as nutritional educations. The people need to get organized so they can change the government. That isn't going to be easy as "Occupy Wall Street" didn't seem to accomplish much. That makes it easy for Big Pharma and Big Agriculture to buy off the politicians with bribes . . err, I mean campaign contributions. All we are going to get is "My Grain Lobby Plate" as Moreporkplease termed it.
I don't agree that the only option open to government is "force"... is the corn subsidy an example of "force" or of "policy"? Who benefits from that policy and who suffers?
No-one is forcing us (at gun point, for example) to eat processed/packaged food mostly made up with cheap fillers like HFCS and corn-starch and yet the USDA guidelines (a government body?) and the food polices in regard to the production, distribution and sale of food, makes processed, packaged foods (packed with HFCS etc...) ubiquitous, cheap and, according to government sanctioned guidelines, it is the healthier choice to make.
This is policy not force at work, and we need to take the policy-making process away from the rich and powerful lobby groups (Big Ag/Pharma/Sugar) that currently control them.
It's easy to see how this works: lobby group sponsors politicians favourable to their needs with campaign funds, politicians support policies favourable to the lobby group, lobby group makes higher profits and sponsors more politicians.. and so it goes on.
Then look at who actually writes the policies... compare a list of government policy-makers with the employees of "Big Ag/Pharma/Sugar" and over time you will see a revolving door system where the same names go back and forth between the two lists... the proverbial "fox in charge of the hen-house" scenario..
Do you ever stop to wonder about the blatant conflict of interest inherent in a system where the USDA is promoting what we should eat; under the guise of what is healthy for us? Stop for a second and remember that "USDA" stands for the "US Department of Agriculture". Surely their job is to safeguard and promote the interests of USA food producers? How does that translate to "healthywholegrains" being good for us? Good for us or good for the bottom line? Except that is short-sighted because it really isn't good for the Country's bottom line; as the cost to the nation's health is rapidly becoming a bottomless pit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar
Getting a bunch of know-nothing, self-serving politicians and bureaucrats involved just is not the answer. I try to keep politics and knowledge separate but I admit my opinion of Lustig dropped a few points when I saw he desires government intrusion.
I did this and went from 185lbs to 137lbs. I started on Sept 19 2011 and today is March 31. I was pre hypertensive, major knee and hip issues, lethargic, constantly caught colds and my brain was foggy.... also I developed sleep apnea.... I am only 39 years old but I was on my way to a heart attack, stroke, diabetes, knee replacement and I had to sleep with a breathing machine on every night.
I currently do not have any of those problems anymore. I have changed my diet. I still indulge in a piece of cake once a week and a few hershey dark chocolate kisses during the week. My desire for sweets have plummetted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-18560_162-57407128-0.html