Hey, isn’t it time we regulate sugar like alcohol or tobacco?

posted at 9:52 pm on February 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

Per Coulter’s piece, I take it this is the conservative position now, yes? If we let the state require militia-age males to carry rifles, there’s really no reason we shouldn’t encourage it to intervene further in shaping people’s diets by making pixy stix cost 10 dollars. As long as it’s local government that’s doing the regulating and not the feds, go nuts.

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it’s everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it’s toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism…

“We are now seeing the toxic downside,” co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, 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.”…

“I don’t think people have any idea how many calories they take in when they take in soft drinks – particularly because they are consumed in such large quantities,” Nestle said. She thinks regulation could eventually be possible, since many local governments are already enacting policies to curb sugar in schools or tax sodas.

One of the co-authors has an op-ed at CNN making her case. She doesn’t want prohibition — imagine trying to enforce an outright ban on sugar — but rather “gentle ‘supply side’ controls, such as taxing products, setting age limits and promoting healthier versions of the product.” You would think that in an information age, as TVs and cell phones become ubiquitous even among the lower classes, nanny impulses would be channeled more frequently into public education campaigns than into regulation. Doesn’t feel that way, though, does it? You get the calorie counts on fast-food menus now, but you also get moronic attempts to ban Happy Meals in San Francisco. Maybe one begets the other — i.e. precisely because it’s easier to put the word out about food and nutrition, the nanny-minded become more aware of the dangers of certain substances and feel obliged to press harder for regulation. Or maybe it’s a simple matter of health warnings being drowned out by an expanding galaxy of ads for the dangerous products. I don’t quite buy that theory, though: Cigarettes haven’t enjoyed ubiquitous advertising and the actual packs have carried warnings for nearly 50 years, but somehow even that degree of informed consent is lately being deemed insufficient, thus requiring actual photos of people with tracheotomies on the packs — even though virtually everyone above grade school levels knows that smokes are a cancer risk. The more access to information you have, the dumber you supposedly are, and therefore the more your choices have to be made for you by your superiors. Isn’t the future glorious?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society.

I can see it now. Coming to a Pennsylvania state store near you: a five pound sack of Domino’s on sale this month for $10.99. You must be over 21 to purchase and have proper ID.

PatriotGal2257 on February 1, 2012 at 11:11 PM

What we really need to regulate is idiots who want to regulate stuff. Did I say “regulate”? I meant “ship to North Korea.”

Marxism is for dummies on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Where in Idaho? I lived for a while in Idaho Falls. Loved it out there.

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Just North of Boise…in a small town.

Electrongod on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 PM

What we really need to regulate is idiots who want to regulate stuff. Did I say “regulate”? I meant “ship to North Korea.”

Marxism is for dummies on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM

What he said! Times 2

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 11:14 PM

What we really need to regulate is idiots who want to regulate stuff. Did I say “regulate”? I meant “ship to North Korea.”

Marxism is for dummies on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM

+1,000,000,000

PatriotGal2257 on February 1, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Try Sam’s Club. Get the Mexican Coke. They use real sugar no crappy corn syrup. At least I can count on Mexico for something.

reddevil on February 1, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Didn’t know Sam’s carried it, we get ours by the case straight from Mexico, but there’s no comparison, the taste, between Mexico Coke and the crap they sell in stores here. Thanks to you, we’ll check out Sam’s, the price may be even better and we might help support a few more American jobs. On the other hand, Sam’s does pretty well by us already.

TXUS on February 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Keep your damned hands off the honey, though, or you’ll draw back a bloody stump!

profitsbeard on February 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Didn’t know Sam’s carried it, we get ours by the case straight from Mexico, but there’s no comparison, the taste, between Mexico Coke and the crap they sell in stores here. Thanks to you, we’ll check out Sam’s, the price may be even better and we might help support a few more American jobs. On the other hand, Sam’s does pretty well by us already.

Costco carries the Mexican Coke as well. It’s pricier than the American made high fructose corn syrup stuff, but I swear it tastes better.

italianguy626 on February 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Let’s check the would-be sugar regulators for adequate levels of tar and feathers!!! …and apply any needed corrections immediately!!!

landlines on February 1, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Every law, every regulation, every restriction makes the black market bigger. Ban marijuana and it is sold “illegally”. Ban alcohol and it will be made and sold “illegally”, just as it was during prohibition. Ban tobacco and it will be grown and sold “illegally”, like pot. Ban sugar and it will be processed and sold “illegally” as well. Ban guns and they will still be made and sold “illegally”. Ban ammunition and it will still be made and sold “illegally”. Ban or limit anything and it will still be available, always. The government in its supreme arrogance thinks it can control anything it wants to control. That is its weakness and will be its ultimate downfall. Praise the Lord, nobody can kill supply and demand.

AttaBoyLuther on February 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM

So lemme guess–we’re gonna revive The Sugar Act of 1764?

stukinIL4now on February 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM

This alone would start a civil war….

William Eaton on February 1, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Costco carries the Mexican Coke as well. It’s pricier than the American made high fructose corn syrup stuff, but I swear it tastes better.
italianguy626 on February 1, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Twenty some odd years ago, friends of ours went on a Christian Mission trip to Haiti for a week.
When they returned, one of the first things I heard from them was the soda down there tastes much better because it has real sugar in it.
But it’s not so ‘pricey’ down there, since sugar practically “flows like water” in Haiti.
No, they didn’t bring any back with them. : (

listens2glenn on February 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM

How soon before the Progressive Food and Health Nazis…..

……..want to harvest the nutrient rich minerals in our colons?

PappyD61 on February 1, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Praise the Lord, nobody can kill supply and demand.

AttaBoyLuther on February 1, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Just like in LA School District, where there is a black market for junk foods ,
now that the Mooch is forcing kids to eat what she wants them to eat .
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/17/local/la-me-food-lausd-20111218

burrata on February 1, 2012 at 11:56 PM

Here in Texas most grocery stores carry the mexican coke and pepsi and sprite, good stuff, cost about a $1.20 per bottle though in most stores.

clearbluesky on February 1, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Light bulbs, sugar, what’s next? Red meat?

nazo311 on February 2, 2012 at 12:02 AM

They talk about discouraging soda drinking in the video. The sugar content of soda is less than 12 g/100g. Apples have about 10 g/100g and grapes have over 15 g/100g of sugar. Should fruit be discouraged too then?

EaterOfBeef on February 2, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Stop this now. Two words: Ron Paul.

realitycheck on February 2, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Meanwhile, use of drugs that are actually addictive and that turn people into gibbering wrecks is on the rise, and not infrequently terrorist groups are profiting. The situation has in fact become bad enough that even LEO’s are losing heart and advocating surrender…

But yeah, let’s start regulating white sugar.

MelonCollie on February 2, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Ann Coulter: We already regulate alcohol and cigarettes, so what’s the big deal with sugar? Three cheers for the nanny state!

xblade on February 2, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Alchohol Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store. Not a federal agency.

HotAirian on February 2, 2012 at 12:47 AM

It’s going to get hard to cook, the way they keep wanting to take foods away.

Alana on February 2, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Wouldn’t oxygen count too by this reasonIng?

Buckshot Bill on February 2, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Wouldn’t oxygen count too by this reasonIng?

Buckshot Bill on February 2, 2012 at 12:49 AM

That’s covered as a global warming “pollutant”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 2, 2012 at 1:00 AM

… She passe away last year and I’m still happy I got her that milkshake. I took her candy and other sweets on a weekly basis till almost the day she died and the only thing I regret is that I didn’t manage to get her another strawberry milkshake.

Oldnuke on February 1, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Sweet things seem to often be the last foods people still continue to enjoy as they get old. So you done good.

Alana on February 2, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Didn’t know Sam’s carried it, we get ours by the case straight from Mexico, but there’s no comparison, the taste, between Mexico Coke and the crap they sell in stores here. Thanks to you, we’ll check out Sam’s, the price may be even better and we might help support a few more American jobs. On the other hand, Sam’s does pretty well by us already.

TXUS on February 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Hate to burst your bubble a bit, but the same bottling facilities that make regular Coke products also bottle Mexican Coke, it is not an imported product. There’s no difference between the version you get from Mexico (being so close to the border I assume) and the version everyone else gets in the States. Mexican Coke is mostly sold in Avanza stores in addition to Sam’s and Costco.

It’s fairly common in Colorado, but my husband and son, who both work for Coke, say that Avanza sells far more Fanta, which is also a Coke product.

Common Sense on February 2, 2012 at 1:15 AM

They talk about discouraging soda drinking in the video. The sugar content of soda is less than 12 g/100g. Apples have about 10 g/100g and grapes have over 15 g/100g of sugar. Should fruit be discouraged too then?

There are different types of sugar. High fructose corn syrup is the real culprit here. Our bodies can’t synthesize it like natural sugar (sugar in fruit, fructose) and leads to insulin insensitivity, and eventually, type 2 diabetes.

They don’t need to tax or ban it; just stop federal subsidies of corn and grain. Humans don’t need carbs to live, we don’t need to subsidize farmers to get everyone fat, and we can all enjoy soda with regular sugar in it again since HFCS will not be cheaper.

spec_ops_mateo on February 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM

And someone posted that banning sugar would kill us; no, it won’t (not that I want to band sugar, just ban subsidies for corn and grain).

Glucose is indeed integral to biological function. The body can produce sugar for muscles when needed, from protein and fats.

If they couldn’t, humans would have never evolved. Our biological ancestors were not eating pita bread and whole grain oats. They ate animals and supplemented with nuts, berries and roots.

If a lack of sugar would kill us, Eskimos would never have survived since they ate lots of fats. Its amazing how much healthier people are that eat animals and avoid bread.

spec_ops_mateo on February 2, 2012 at 1:26 AM

The reason to regulate sugar originates in our society’s requirement that the state provide the necessary medical care. If the state provides the medical care, then the state certainly has an interest which might trump individual rights to partake.

So, we can say that the same mandate which produced Obamacare would, of necessity, produce a mandate to legislate healthy eating and exercise.

Absent that consideration, there’s no reason for controlling sugar use. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, whose use frequently has an immediate affect on those around the user, sugar never immediately affects those around the user — the effects occur years after the use — unless you want to admit the “Twinkie Defense” as reasonable.

unclesmrgol on February 2, 2012 at 1:26 AM

1. From the wisdom of Robert H. Lustig:

Although there are numerous contributors to hyperinsulinemia, our current food and activity environment is the most important, and the most amenable to change; however, it will take acknowledgment of the concepts of biological susceptibility and societal accountability, and de-emphasis of the concept of personal responsibility, to make a difference in the lives of children.

How many leftist cliches does he pack into that sentence?

gs on February 2, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Seriously, someone needs to sit these people down in a chair, swat them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and say No! Bad scientists! Bad!

I mean really, can’t we do some studies on this kind of creepy, stalker-y obsession with other people’s behavior? There has to be some type of pill this crap.

Nom de Boom on February 2, 2012 at 2:17 AM

for this crap.

Nom de Boom on February 2, 2012 at 2:17 AM

How many leftist cliches does he pack into that sentence?

gs on February 2, 2012 at 1:58 AM

What kind of school do they go to think that way. My IQ is on the higher end but I read that drivel and just shake my head.

arnold ziffel on February 2, 2012 at 2:18 AM

TXUS on February 1, 2012 at 11:16 PM,

If you have an HEB nearby try HEB’s Original Cola. It is made with sugar instead of HFCS and it is really tasty. Plus, at $2.99 a 12 pack you can’t beat it!

I have been a lifelong Coca Cola drinker. I bought my last Coca Cola in December-it had NO flavor whatsoever, it tasted like diluted brown cornsyrup. When at home I enjoy HEB Original Cola, if I am out having something to eat or feel like having a soda at work I now get a Dr. Pepper instead of a Coca Cola. At least Dr. Pepper has a flavor to it.

Nahanni on February 2, 2012 at 2:51 AM

One of the co-authors has an op-ed at CNN making her case. She doesn’t want prohibition — imagine trying to enforce an outright ban on sugar — but rather “gentle ‘supply side’ controls, such as taxing products, setting age limits and promoting healthier versions of the product.”

I’d like to give this bio*ch a gentle shove back into her lab – and tell her to just stay there and never come back out again. Keep her snoopy, naggy little ideas out of my life, away from my body. Because it IS my body, and I’ve been a good girl, minding my own business (which she might want to learn how to do), paying my taxes, and never cost this government a dime. I sure as hell don’t think I need to pay even more taxes based on this nanny do-gooder bs. When will people like her and our government understand that they work for us, not vice versa?!!

fullogas on February 2, 2012 at 3:09 AM

This is pretty well known in big cities, but for those who haven’t heard, try to get Kosher-for-Passover pop (almost all the big brands make it in the spring). Corn products aren’t used on Passover by most Jews, so anything certified Kosher for Passover is guaranteed free of corn syrup– sugar only. You can check online in the early spring to see how the bottles will be specially marked in your area.

ChicagoJewishGuy on February 2, 2012 at 3:21 AM

So here’s a quote I pulled from this…

“We are now seeing the toxic downside,” co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, 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.”

So let me get this straight. Not only are they “scientists” studying obesity and diet, but they are part of a CENTER for Obesity Studies. So they do all this studying… and the best they can come up with is…

“Uh, the gov’t has to make it illegal for you to be obese”.

That’s the ONLY WAY you fools can come up with to help people be more healthy ? Pass a law ? How pathetic.

Would it not make more sense to study both obese and non-obese, their DNA, metabolism, diet, exercise, etc., and find out what it is that non-obese people do to get and stay that way and see if they can find a good way to get people to adopt these habits before they become obese ?

Or am I just talking crazy here ? Science has become a laughing stock in the year 2012.

deadrody on February 2, 2012 at 3:51 AM

Oh and the most ridiculous part of this is “age limits” for sugar ? Really ? We’re going to ban sugar for the very audience that eats it the most ? Do these people even begin to think about this ?

Say you ban candy, soda, and sugary cereal from anyone under 10. You do realize these industries then cease to exist, right ?

I am SO sure.

deadrody on February 2, 2012 at 3:53 AM

The point of opposing ObamaCare, I thought, was not because of the idea of a mandate. I thought it was because the whole pursuit was an inexcusable over-extension of Federal power, regardless of the mandate. Are we now willing to say that, absent the mandate, ObamaCare would have been just fine?

JohnGalt23 on February 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

No way. The whole thing is bad. But the fact of the matter is, the only way to actually try and PAY for it is with the mandate. Obamacare sucks, but as far as the effect on the debt and health care, its even WORSE without the mandate.

deadrody on February 2, 2012 at 4:02 AM

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because [blah blah blah] it’s toxic….

AFAIK it’s only toxic to microorganisms. But if would-be ninniesnannies want to do something about sugar, I suggest killing price supports.

Olo_Burrows on February 2, 2012 at 4:05 AM

It’s not the sugar that is the problem, look at the amount of corn syrup being used.

Same difference. The problem with high-fructose corn syrup is that it’s cheaper and thus food manufacturers use more than they otherwise would, not that it’s more harmful. Table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are both half fructose (the most damaging carbohydrate fraction for the metabolism) and terrible for people in sustained high quantities.

Random on February 2, 2012 at 4:47 AM

liberalism is totalitarianism.

therightwinger on February 2, 2012 at 5:11 AM

They can pick a cheek and not on my face. You can not regulate good health of habits. I eat the wrong things at times, but I am aware of it and cut somewhere else to make up for it. I do not need the State or Federal or any other Government telling me what and how much to eat as a mandate. Educate folks, I have no problem. The schools used to teach health classes that taught that type of thing. The Health class now teaches how to put on a condom and properly have anal sex with you best friend. (guys) You know important things every queer should know. BTW Political Correctness is a violation of my First Amendment Rights so I am not always PC and to the PC police I say TS. If you do not know what that means try thinking, something new for some. The government acts as if We the People do not have intelligence enough to watch and control what we eat. They might be right, we keep electing them to Office even if they are idiots.

old war horse on February 2, 2012 at 5:18 AM

it’s a war on bakers- who unlike drug dealers, gang bangers,terrorists, and other violent criminals- are the real evil in our society. little debbie IS the devil- thugs who fly planes into buildings or honor kill their daughters not so much.

in truth it’s heavily processed foods that are the problem. once one stops eating heavily processed crap (nearly all of it sweet or savory containing corn syrup- another heavily subsidized item that has ruined farming and eating in our country) and reacquaints oneself with real fresh food, the better off one will be.

pie crust has been ruined forever by blue state nannies outlawing types of fat-nearly every wholesale producer of fats for baking and cooking reformulated their shortening products rendering most of them sucky for baking. it required massive reformulation of recipes and flakey goodness became so so elusive.

( in boston it is illegal to produce treats for sale within the limits that contain banned fats but buying up illegal weapons from those destroying the inner city is an annual joyous city sponsored holiday event.)

thank goddess for asian and latin markets where one can still buy lard…mmmm lard…

mittens on February 2, 2012 at 5:19 AM

Of course regulating and restricting sugar does not mean that the sugar lobby won’t keep getting subsidies in future.

All of this, all of it needs to be ripped out of government.

Spots the Dog on February 2, 2012 at 5:51 AM

Food is addictive. So is oxygen.

Did you know that too many carrots can make your skin orange? Drinking too much water can flush out your electrolytes and kill a grown man. You can choke on grapes, too by the way.

If we could just regulate politicians and liberals. I think you could make a strong case for that in court.

JellyToast on February 2, 2012 at 5:52 AM

As long as it’s local government that’s doing the regulating and not the feds

Why this need to conflate the two? To pretend that the distinction is something bordering on trivial? You do know that if you don’t like the laws in your state you can move to another one, right? That this was the system that our founders intended. That one of the biggest the problems with this nation is that Fed-zilla has taken over the powers of state and local governments making the grasp of such rules inescapable. So why this rash of BS posts that pretend that the state and local lawmakers are the problem rather than the Feds?

MJBrutus on February 2, 2012 at 6:06 AM

MJBrutus on February 2, 2012 at 6:06 AM

Just to be clear, I find this a tremendously stupid idea and I would be tempted to move if my local government were to enact such rampant idiocy. Fortunately, in America, I would be free to do so.

Annoy Sarah Palin, vote Mitt!

MJBrutus on February 2, 2012 at 6:08 AM

by making pixy stix cost 10 dollars.

don’t be touchin’ the stix bub :)

cmsinaz on February 2, 2012 at 6:22 AM

how much longer on this slippery slope?

seriously

cmsinaz on February 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM

mika is giddy about this news…just giddy

cmsinaz on February 2, 2012 at 6:27 AM

Niall Ferguson in his book Empire, points out that while the other European empires drug of choice was alcohol, a depressant, the British Empire seems founded on a sugar high. He links the fast expansion of Rule Brittanica to the fact that the English consumed much more sugar than anyone else in the world, four times more than the French, for instance.

Could this be yet another attempt to reduce American drive and energy?

Johnny 100 Pesos on February 2, 2012 at 6:29 AM

Define ‘addictive’. Is it because people use it everyday?

You can substitute sugar with lots of other stuff then.

Rationing (Soviet long lines) here we go.

Sir Napsalot on February 2, 2012 at 7:28 AM

First they came for the smokers…….…..and I was fine with that because I didn’t smoke.

Then they came for the salt on the tables and I said nothing because it was just Bloomberg and it was only one big city….

Then they came for my thermostat, and my shower head, and my faucets, and controlling my car thru GPS and then the door on the oven shut and no one could hear me as I screamed “Why didn’t someone stop this!!!”.

Not headed in that direction? Rrrrrrrrrright.

PappyD61 on February 2, 2012 at 7:37 AM

I am so sick of these nanny-staters attempting to protects us from everything. It was bad enough when it was tobacco and forcing us to wear seat belts, but now they want to go after sugar?

Once you let the feds into the health care business, they figure they have a right and a duty to tell us how to live, right down to what we eat. After all, the taxpayers bear the brunt of the cost!

At what point does living in this country suck so much that people start leaving like the mass exodus of Brits from the UK? We’re all gonna find out.

DRayRaven on February 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM

It’s this simple:
All people who eat sugar will die.
Government action is needed.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 2, 2012 at 7:46 AM

how much longer on this slippery slope?

seriously

cmsinaz on February 2, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Hopefully less than one year…

right2bright on February 2, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Little story about the idiocy of nanny staters. I get together with retired friends once a month for breakfast and to solve all the world’s problems. One of my friends has some leftist leanings. He’s not really a progressive but he plays one at our breakfasts. We usually end up taking opposite sides on some issue. One week it was healthy eating habits. He started goading me a little about my weight and the things I eat. Bacon, eggs, gravy etc. He’s pretty small in stature and not a bit overweight. I listened patiently and continued with my breakfast letting him dig himself deeper nodding and smiling every once in a while as he expounded on the virtues of healthy eating and weight maintenance. Finally I looked up and said loudly “Yeah, I’m a little overweight but I’m older than you too and I’ve never had any heart problems. How may heart attacks have you had?” Silence settled around the table. He stammered a bit and said “Well just the one.” I said “Yeah, but then they had to go back in again and install another stint didn’t they? To open up another of your clogged arteries. You know so you wouldn’t have another one?” “Well Yes, but…?” I looked up from my bacon and eggs and said “No buts buddy, what I eat is my decision and none of your business, so piss off and eat your styrofoam and dog puke and leave my eggs alone.” Everybody at the table broke up in laughter, even my semi-liberal buddy grinned sheepishly and admitted that he’d been had nicely.

Oldnuke on February 2, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Hopefully less than one year…

right2bright on February 2, 2012 at 7:57 AM

353 days 15 hours and some minutes. But who’s counting?

Oldnuke on February 2, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Thanks r2b and on

:)

cmsinaz on February 2, 2012 at 8:07 AM

toxic

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Dirty Creature on February 2, 2012 at 8:12 AM

EaterOfBeef on February 2, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Methinks the writer/originator is heavily invested in US sugar. And sees either a huge crop from Haiti/Caribbean or an opening of trade with Cuba… both of which would dump the wholesale price of sugar to the floor.

orbitalair on February 2, 2012 at 8:12 AM

“You know I can see how this is more than reasonable.”

Ann Coulter.

DVPTexFla on February 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM

MORE government regulation?! Save America – FIRE a Politician!

easyt65 on February 2, 2012 at 8:28 AM

“Gentle, moderate ways of shaping the availability of the substance.”

As Shakespeare would, no doubt, have said– Piss off, bitch.

morganfrost on February 2, 2012 at 8:28 AM

This is soooo disingenuous. Toxicity is all about dosage. Everything is toxic at a certain dosage.

tommyboy on February 2, 2012 at 8:38 AM

Since they’ve been able to get into our bedrooms, why not get into our cupboards. Every kook scientist who wants a grant to study something potentially harmful to society has a hand out and a report to give the nuts in charge a new freedom to suppress. Has the cost of health care gone down any at all since they’ve been taking such good care of us? Didn’t think so.

Kissmygrits on February 2, 2012 at 9:00 AM

So, we can say that the same mandate which produced Obamacare would, of necessity, produce a mandate to legislate healthy eating and exercise.

unclesmrgol on February 2, 2012 at 1:26 AM

“The telescreen thrusts Winston out of his dream state with a loud whistle; it’s time to get up. An instructor on the telescreen leads everyone through their morning exercises, known as the Physical Jerks” – George Orwell, 1984

Orwell was a modern prophet.

Lost in Jersey on February 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM

This is soooo disingenuous. Toxicity is all about dosage. Everything is toxic at a certain dosage.

No. You didn’t go anywhere near far enough.

Sugar is an essential nutrient. It is nothing less than the very substance that our cells run on. To call it toxic, which means poisonous, at ANY ‘dosage’, is preposterous. It makes exactly as much sense as saying water is toxic because you can drown in it.

Which is to say, none. For a doctor, of all people, to say this when he of ALL people surely knows better, is a testament to just how stupid liberal activists need us to become for their agenda to have any likelihood of being adopted.

What does that say about the nature of that agenda? Seriously. Think about it. These people want something for us that, if we only knew the most basic facts about how the body works, the 2nd grade level facts, now – not even the high-school level facts much less the grown-up level facts, we would laugh them out of town. BUT THEY STILL WANT IT FOR US.

Does anyone – ANYONE — still posit that the liberals are the good people, the moral people, the ones who know what’s best for us, the ones who should be in charge? No, go ahead….

Dirty Creature on February 2, 2012 at 9:11 AM

So now we hand over all personal responsibility to the government? No one person can make someone stop smoking drinking lose weight etc thats something the person has to do for themselves. Shaming them only makes them feel more worthless. Telling someone they cant have something makes them want it more. People arent machines they are overweight for lots of reasons.

ldbgcoleman on February 2, 2012 at 9:29 AM

These are probably the same stunning geniuses who declared that all conservatives are stupid and racist.

ZK on February 2, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Idiot doc recommending this just spoke on FOX. Idiot may be vast understatement.

jeanie on February 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Better yet, let’s remember that the people of the USA have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If eating a lot of sugar makes someone happy, then so be it. If you are fat, then you have chosen taste over being in shape.

Alcohol infringes on other people’s rights because drunks will drive and kill people. I have never heard of anyone driving while under the influence of sugar.

Holy crap! This country needs a top to bottom reboot!! Unfortunately Obama did us like Russia. He promised a reset button, but gave us a button that said overcharge!

jeffn21 on February 2, 2012 at 10:24 AM

The ‘do-gooders’ will never be satisfied until they can dictate EVERY moment of your life. And don’t forget SALT!

GarandFan on February 2, 2012 at 10:28 AM

When me and the bride were honeymooning in Spain 12 years ago we came across Coca Cola Light. Absolutley the best tasting soda ever. It was real coke with half the sugar.

Thicklugdonkey on February 2, 2012 at 10:41 AM

We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive.

Even if this were so, the only way addictions are overcome is on a person’s own. Those around them can beg, plead, threaten, and cajole, but each person chooses whether to do or not do something in the next minute, then the next, then the next.

DrMagnolias on February 2, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Sare they wanting to tax everything made with every form of sugar — not just sucrose (table sugar), but high-fructose corn syrup, maple syrup, molasses, honey, etc., etc.?

How many people in the food industry would lose their jobs? Rather, how many more?

KyMouse on February 2, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Well then, sex by people who can’t afford to have children (welfare recipients, etc.) should be taxed or forbiden since they can’t stay away from it by themselves, and sex could cause pregnancies. Therefore, government must intervene and ensure that poor people don’t have sex.

rjulio on February 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM

I really want to ask every Progressive I meet:

“Is there any area in which you DON’T think the government should tell us how to live — other than who we can f**k?”

philwynk on February 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Come on, Lustig is a Bay Area Liberal. Of course he views Government as the cause and answer for whatever ails society.

The right answer is simple. All the CDC, AMA and numerous health agencies major media need to do is treat SUGAR like they treated cholesterol and saturated fat for the past 40 years. Societal pressure for eating healthy low-carb foods with high saturated fat content will convince the population that sugar and grains are the cause of diabetes, heart disease, obesity and cancer. /sarc off.

Pharmaceutical companies aren’t going to give up on $30Billion in statin drugs, hypertensive meds and other dangerous chemicals to develop drugs which neutralize fructose and glucose in the diet. The Agriculture department ain’t going to push farmers to produce more beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, veggies and less wheat and corn. Too much institutional investment to admit they are wrong.

Lustig also knows that will never happen, which is why he would prefer pushing the government control sugar in foods.

I object to Lustig’s reliance on coercion and control, just as I am dubious that the media, medical, industrial and pharmaceutical organizations and their regulatory agencies will wage a war on sugar and grains. It is not going to happen.

Net effect? Informed people alter their diets to exclude sugar, grains and low-fat (high carb) prepared foods, while the poor and those who believe their doctors & government continue to get diabetes, heart problems and cancer, because that is what sugar and grains do to you.

Shmuli on February 2, 2012 at 11:41 AM

This type 1 diabetic is just about to indulge in a Snicker’s bar after reading this article. Screw them, those pious rightous a-holes who want to control our lives.

NOMOBO on February 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol

No, it doesn’t. The power to regulate (or even prohibit) alcohol sales and consumption is expressly granted to the states in the Constitution. Not so with sugar, or anything else.

acasilaco on February 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Maybe Newt’s moon colony idea is not so bad after all. I have an idea of how it can be populated.

Strike Twice on February 2, 2012 at 11:57 AM

…there’s no comparison, the taste, between Mexico Coke and the crap they sell in stores here.

I don’t know what they put in the Coke they sell in Italy, but when I was in Rome, I couldn’t get enough of it.

SukieTawdry on February 2, 2012 at 12:33 PM

All you liberal Coke drinkers….. Pepsi Throwback is the way to go! Even the name is conservative! ;)

GWB on February 2, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Let me borrow from Al Gore (no, not the Internet): carbohydrate credits. For people. To ensure equality of consumption and control health care costs. But with a credit market, so it’s still capitalism, baby!

Master_Blaster on February 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

And while we are at it, shouldn’t people that breath more be subject to higher taxes? If you are using more oxygen than your neighbor, shouldn’t you pay a your fair share for that?

(this is meant as sarcasm, but I won’t be surprised if the EPA takes the idea and runs with it)

Axion on February 2, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Funny how many doctors and scientists – all smart folks – want to see their concerns derived from their research, graven into laws to control and guide the ignorant masses. I see the same effect on some tech sites *cough* slashdot *cough*, peopled by other smart folks who have similar attitudes. Hell, Chu said as much; the people are children to be guided. Screw the Constitution, we know better.

A sort of know-it-all elitism that desires a grand state to direct the lives of the lesser classes because they just can’t be trusted to make the ‘right’ choices. Gee, sounds like your average, everyday Progressive.

Venril on February 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM

As long as the government requires hospital emergency rooms to serve anyone and everyone, and gov is spewing out money for ssi, medicare, medicaid, yes, it should start regulating sugar! That is OUR money, the taxpayers, that are paying for most of the medical bills for all the fat slobs out there with health problems costing an enormous amount of TAXPAYER money. If the gov can get into anyones business by paying for their medical problems, from a know issue causing ingredient like sugar, then surely it can be regulated. Other wise, let the people that inbibe it pay for their own health care.

boogieboy on February 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

As long as the government requires hospital emergency rooms to serve anyone and everyone, and gov is spewing out money for ssi, medicare, medicaid, yes, it should start regulating sugar! That is OUR money, the taxpayers, that are paying for most of the medical bills for all the fat slobs out there with health problems costing an enormous amount of TAXPAYER money. If the gov can get into anyones business by paying for their medical problems, from a know issue causing ingredient like sugar, then surely it can be regulated. Other wise, let the people that inbibe it pay for their own health care.

boogieboy on February 2, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Because the government has already gotten to large; we need to enforce slavery of the citizenry and remove all choices.

If you have a problem, what you need to do is to make it worse; as bad as possible as quickly as possible… whatever you do don’t try to fix the problem itself.

Good call… remind me not to come to you for advice in the future.

Choice is bad, having the government make all your decisions for you is good? Yeah, sorry; still not seeing that one.

gekkobear on February 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

If they do this, there goes my cake business. Yay.

LickyLicky on February 2, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Sugar The growth of government programs acts on the same areas of the Liberal’s brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake…”

The more the libs have the more they want…

Therefore we need to limit the growth of government

QED

Not-a-Marxist on February 2, 2012 at 5:51 PM

boogieboy – I’m a little confused by your position. Let us assume for a moment that you are “pro-choice.” The mantra of that movement, if I recall correctly, is something like “my body, my choice.” If it’s my body, then can’t I chose what I put in – or take out – of it? And since the costs of freeloaders is such a concern to you, why not limit by law sexual contact between people, especially the poor? That would save us a lot, wouldn’t it? One indigent sugar eater can breed many, and so on.

Master_Blaster on February 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4