Upping the ante on the war on sugar?

[SweetandSimple]

I know that I'm addicted to sugar, and my kids are, too. It is just so hard to cut back! We never have soda, but our family of 5 can drink a few gallons of orange juice every week.

[regentrude]

Sadly there is some kind of sweetener in almost every packaged food. Most people don't care enough to read the labels. ..

Instead of a tax there ought to be a law against putting sugar/sweeteners in for the sake of feeding the country's sugar addiction.

 

We don't need HFCS added to canned corn.

We don't need sugar added to pasta sauce.

We don't need aspartame added to canned apricots.

 

We can choose not to buy these products.

I do not see why we need a law to take care of what we can and should do for ourselves.

 

And I really do not want the government to regulate when and how I eat sugar. That should be MY choice.

[regentrude]

And as the article says, when soft drinks are often cheaper than milk or water, it's going to be an uphill battle and people have to be fairly determined to win it.

 

Tap water is so cheap that it is almost free. Even if you add the expense of a filter it is by far cheaper than the cheapest soda.

[Parrothead]

We can choose not to buy these products.

I do not see why we need a law to take care of what we can and should do for ourselves.

 

And I really do not want the government to regulate when and how I eat sugar. That should be MY choice.

As much as I hate the nanny state, people won't/don't check labels. So many people have absolutely no idea what they are buying. As far as they are concerned if the USDA doesn't shut down production of the ingredients everything is okay.

 

I'd rater see a law against sweeteners in most processed foods than a tax on the same.

[regentrude]

As much as I hate the nanny state, people won't/don't check labels. So many people have absolutely no idea what they are buying. As far as they are concerned if the USDA doesn't shut down production of the ingredients everything is okay.

 

I do not think the government has to protect people from their own ignorance.

If they choose not to read the labels, if they choose to be fat and sick, that is their right.

 

I'd rater see a law against sweeteners in most processed foods than a tax on the same.

 

I want to have CHOICES. I want to be able to exercise the choice to eat junk - occasionally, in moderation. So, a tax would mean it costs more, but the choice is still available. I do not want anybody to decide what I may and may not eat - just as I do not want anybody to decide that, because some people are unable to consume alcohol in moderation, alcoholic drinks should be banned completely. I want the freedom to enjoy my wine - even if I have to pay the higher taxes on it.

[Laurie4b]

As has been pointed out by other posters the majority of the sugar in fruit is fructose. This is discussed inn the video lecture by Dr Lustig.

 

Before I continue let me make a couple disclaimers. One, it has been some time since I listened to the lecture. Two, I don't pretend to have any expertise in this field and at best have a lay-persons understanding of Dr Lustig's position.

 

If memory serves, Dr Lustig in his lecture makes the point that drinking fruit juice (stripped of its natural fiber) is not much different in it metabolic load on the liver than drinking a soda (aside from the side benefits of vitamins and trace nutrients). He would argue that fruit juice consumed in quantity should not be considered a healthful beverage.

 

His argument, which I will admit to not fully understanding on this point, is that whole fruit is metamobized differently (is it just more slowly?) due to the natural fiber in the fruit. So combined with other foods and the natural fiber in the whole fruit itself the metabolic process is slow enough that the liver in not overwhelmed by a rush of fructose. My appologise to Dr Lustig (and y'all) for less than fully adequate summation of the lecture. It is far better to listen to the man speak, but this is my best "nutshell" remembrance on the point.

 

To address points raised in other posts, he was not suggesting that many other items can be metabolized in the liver, his point was that fructose can ONLY be metabolized in the liver. This means the liver can be overwhelmed with more fructose to process than it can handle, and when that happens there is a cascade of reactions that can negatively effect health. Fat storage and obiesity being directly linked to fructose over-consumption.

 

I would urge people to watch the video. Lustig goes through his scientic reasoning for his position point by point, methodically explaining how different sugars are metabolized in the body—and why that matters.

 

Bill

 

Thanks for the explanation. I don't wanna watch the whole video!:tongue_smilie:

[Ester Maria]

There actually seems to be a consensus amongst a fairly large number of doctors, pharmacists, and biochemists, about sugar being effectively a substance which can be classified right along with tobacco and alcohol. One of those which you can hardly underuse, but it is extremely easy to overuse them and which are potentially addictive. I (over)hear these conversations a lot. According to my husband as well, fructose has zero positive health effects on the body and it is pretty much pure poison as regards the long-term effects of the negative ones. He considers it pretty much one of the core medical problems in the developed world today, since most major health issues are direct consequences of massive sugar intake.

 

It is not even that you should never eat sugar and that that is the only way to go about this, but "okay" doses of sugar (as in, not overly toxic, within limits that their effects will be counterbalanced by an otherwise very healthy diet) are already what most people in the developed world would consider drastically low. Even with treats - an occasional icecream or pancake will not ruin you... but occasional means that you ideally go entire weeks between such "occasions", not that you have such an "occasion" implemented into your regular routine.

[Deb in NZ]

Actually my point was that if HFCS and other sweeteners were not artificially introduced into our foods, a little bit of table sugar once in a while (birthday cake, anyone?) wouldn't be too bad.

 

Sadly there is some kind of sweetener in almost every packaged food. Most people don't care enough to read the labels. I've actually had folks get miffed because dh and I don't reach right up there and take one. We will stand in front of all of the tomato sauce and read each brand's label. :D

 

Instead of a tax there ought to be a law against putting sugar/sweeteners in for the sake of feeding the country's sugar addiction.

 

We don't need HFCS added to canned corn.

We don't need sugar added to pasta sauce.

We don't need aspartame added to canned apricots.

 

I make my own sauces & can some fruit. Sugar is necessary helps to preserve the foods in some degree. Now in saying that I am NOT supporting the way HFCS is added to most processed foods, but to say sugar is not needed at all is not true.

 

JMHO,

[Retired]

I'm with Icelmer (sp?) - well, except for the sin part - I don't think sugar and sin belong in the same category.

 

I'm sick and tired of things that should be personal responsibility falling into the legislative realm.

 

I used to be skinny, now I'm not. It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers, it isn't the fault of the various food companies. It is my fault for sitting on my @ss and writing on this board instead of exercising.

 

Here - I'll invoke Godwin's Law (since we're studying the rise of the 3rd Reich right now): the government taking over all aspects of a person's life doesn't happen suddenly/overnight - it happens gradually, bit by bit. Regulate something seemingly innocuous here, take something little away there. It's a slippery slope until one day you find yourself at the bottom, wondering where everything went.

 

a

 

I love your way with words and totally agree except that I'm working on getting skinny again because my @ss was getting big:lol:

[vmsurbat]

.

 

It is not even that you should never eat sugar and that that is the only way to go about this, but "okay" doses of sugar (as in, not overly toxic, within limits that their effects will be counterbalanced by an otherwise very healthy diet) are already what most people in the developed world would consider drastically low. Even with treats - an occasional icecream or pancake will not ruin you... but occasional means that you ideally go entire weeks between such "occasions", not that you have such an "occasion" implemented into your regular routine.

(bolded part by me).

 

In overcoming some health issues (thyroid-related) and improving our diet, I've spent the last two years visiting websites, updating myself on the latest nutritional controversies, visiting "good food" sites of various persuasions.

 

I am astounded at the amount of sugar even "healthy" recipes call for. (I am not against sugar per se). A modern "healthy" muffin recipe, often called "low-sugar" calls for a cup of sugar (perhaps some white, some brown, some honey, some maple syrup, often several kinds adding up to even MORE than one cup of sweetener) per 12 muffins. Yes, it may include flax, ww flour, oats/bran, pumpkin puree, but all of that does not overcome the sheer amount of sugar.

 

I am also astounded at many of the typical portions sizes.

 

Take a look at an older cookbook (I happen to have a Joy of Cooking from the 70's). A muffin recipe in there (found in the bread section, incidentally) calls for 1/4-1/3 cup sugar and between 1 1/2-2 cups of flour for 18-24 muffins. My Better Homes and Garden cookbook muffin recipe calls for 1/3 cup sugar and the same amount of flour for 12 muffins. A modern Fine Cooking/Eatingwell/Cooking Light muffin recipe calls for 1+C sugar and makes between 8-12 muffins for the same amount of flour. The "diet" muffins have much less fat, not less sugar.

 

Most people are completely out of touch with reasonable amounts of added sugar AND proper portions--I know I was..... I used to scoff at the idea that a 9x13 pan would make 24+ servings of cake--I'd have cut it into 12-15 pieces...

Edited February 4, 2012 by vmsurbat
typo

[Tigger]

 

Then again I can see where some of this might be helpful. For example, in my district they serve whole wheat Poptarts, french toast sticks, or some crap they call "healthy doughnut" for breakfast. For many kids in my area THIS is what they are getting as their regular nourishment (we have a very high percentage of students receiving reduced and free lunch). Regulations might stop that crud from being allowed to be served and labeled as healthy/good nutrition.

 

The schools are serving that because they are deemed "healthy" in the guidelines and regulations for the school lunch program!

[Tigger]

 

It is not even that you should never eat sugar and that that is the only way to go about this, but "okay" doses of sugar (as in, not overly toxic, within limits that their effects will be counterbalanced by an otherwise very healthy diet) are already what most people in the developed world would consider drastically low. Even with treats - an occasional icecream or pancake will not ruin you... but occasional means that you ideally go entire weeks between such "occasions", not that you have such an "occasion" implemented into your regular routine.

 

This is part of the problem with the mantra "everything in moderation" - what's repeated over and over with regard to diet and health; what exactly is the definition of "moderation"......it is subjective and so many have no idea how to translate the phrase into a reasonable level of intake because no one defines it adequately.

[meggie]

Bill, thank you for posting that link. I watched it last night and all I can say is wow. I've been on an anti-soda crusade for awhile now and my jaw still dropped when he said what the Coca Cola conspiracy actually was. Believe me, I've looked at the label of MANY a soda can and it still escaped my notice somehow.

 

I really want DH to watch it with me. The best thing about this video is that it's not a documentary. Yes, documentaries are good an all, but with DH's training in film, we're well aware that most have an angle and we try to search for that angle. The fact that this guy is a scientist and presents all the facts and the boring scientific evidence is what backs him up, makes this worth more than five documentaries.

[snickelfritz]

Bill, thank you for posting that link. I watched it last night and all I can say is wow. I've been on an anti-soda crusade for awhile now and my jaw still dropped when he said what the Coca Cola conspiracy actually was. Believe me, I've looked at the label of MANY a soda can and it still escaped my notice somehow.

 

I really want DH to watch it with me. The best thing about this video is that it's not a documentary. Yes, documentaries are good an all, but with DH's training in film, we're well aware that most have an angle and we try to search for that angle. The fact that this guy is a scientist and presents all the facts and the boring scientific evidence is what backs him up, makes this worth more than five documentaries.

 

Maybe we couldn't sleep at the same time?;). I watched it last night, too. I have dh interested in watching it and I need to re-watch the last 30 minutes--I finally got sleepy.

[LizzyBee]

I'm with Icelmer (sp?) - well, except for the sin part - I don't think sugar and sin belong in the same category.

 

I'm sick and tired of things that should be personal responsibility falling into the legislative realm.

 

I used to be skinny, now I'm not. It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers, it isn't the fault of the various food companies. It is my fault for sitting on my @ss and writing on this board instead of exercising.

 

Here - I'll invoke Godwin's Law (since we're studying the rise of the 3rd Reich right now): the government taking over all aspects of a person's life doesn't happen suddenly/overnight - it happens gradually, bit by bit. Regulate something seemingly innocuous here, take something little away there. It's a slippery slope until one day you find yourself at the bottom, wondering where everything went.

 

a

 

:iagree: But otoh, even the founding fathers talked about democracy being dependent upon the citizens' ability to govern themselves. Unhealthy eating is a public health problem that affects more than the person doing the eating; otoh, the government contributes to the problem, so I don't see the government being very effective at eliminating the problem. I am not as self-disciplined as I ought to be, but my kids are terrible about eating processed foods and candy instead of veggies and fruit. Unfortunately, their dad buys a lot of junk for them, and my 18 yo has her own money that she uses to buy junk. This thread inspired me to stop everything and have a serious talk with my kids about what excess sugar will do to them over time. They seem very willing to work on making some changes. :001_smile:

Edited February 4, 2012 by LizzyBee

[LizzyBee]

(bolded part by me).

 

In overcoming some health issues (thyroid-related) and improving our diet, I've spent the last two years visiting websites, updating myself on the latest nutritional controversies, visiting "good food" sites of various persuasions.

 

I am astounded at the amount of sugar even "healthy" recipes call for. (I am not against sugar per se). A modern "healthy" muffin recipe, often called "low-sugar" calls for a cup of sugar (perhaps some white, some brown, some honey, some maple syrup, often several kinds adding up to even MORE than one cup of sweetener) per 12 muffins. Yes, it may include flax, ww flour, oats/bran, pumpkin puree, but all of that does not overcome the sheer amount of sugar.

 

I am also astounded at many of the typical portions sizes.

 

Take a look at an older cookbook (I happen to have a Joy of Cooking from the 70's). A muffin recipe in there (found in the bread section, incidentally) calls for 1/4-1/3 cup sugar and between 1 1/2-2 cups of flour for 18-24 muffins. My Better Homes and Garden cookbook muffin recipe calls for 1/3 cup sugar and the same amount of flour for 12 muffins. A modern Fine Cooking/Eatingwell/Cooking Light muffin recipe calls for 1+C sugar and makes between 8-12 muffins for the same amount of flour. The "diet" muffins have much less fat, not less sugar.

 

Most people are completely out of touch with reasonable amounts of added sugar AND proper portions--I know I was..... I used to scoff at the idea that a 9x13 pan would make 24+ servings of cake--I'd have cut it into 12-15 pieces...

 

I have a box of old cookbooks in the back of my van to take to Goodwill. Maybe I should hold onto them! Living in the South, I am astounded by the amount of sugar called for in Sweet Potato Casserole recipes. I use about half and I constantly have people tell me my SPC is the best they've ever had.

[PiCO]

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to above, called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. The video refutes the notion that all sugar is the same.

 

Thanks for the link. I watched the entire thing- learned a lot of specifics I was not aware of. Very interesting!

[Julie in CA]

Julie in CA would have to get a license to hock her creations. :D

Actually, it sounds like I'd either be taxed on the ingredients to such an extent that it would no longer be practical to make anything, or I'd be fined and would eventually have to suffer whatever consequences there would be for not paying the fine. :001_huh:

 

I see the humor here, and I also see the seriousness of the sugar issue.

I don't eat very much sugar, and people are very surprised to hear that I rarely (almost never) bake for my family. At the same time, I worry about my dc, who certainly inherited their father's very dedicated sweet tooth. The kids are almost adults now, and I have little to no control over what most of them eat. It's possible that I've done the wrong thing in *not* making lovely sweet things for my family, because now they simply grab a candy bar while they're out, or drink a large soda with their lunch in order to feed their sugar craving. If I'd baked for them, at least they'd be having more "real" ingredients: cream, eggs, good chocolate, cream cheese, organic fruit, etc.

 

Possibly it's hypocritical, but I like my job. I enjoy making people happy with food. I expect though, that when they come out to dinner and follow it up with a really rich & decadent dessert, that it's sort of an exception to their usual eating habits, and not an everyday occurrence. I'm continually surprised when folks come in as a group and *each of them orders their own dessert*. For my part, I like to order one or two really finely prepared desserts and share with everyone I'm dining with. A bite or two of three different desserts shared among 6 people is much more satisfying, imo, than each diner plowing through an entire serving on their own.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure how to respond to the sugar issue, but thought I'd post just so folks know I really am considering the issue, and not mindlessly (or intentionally) poisoning other human beings with my deadly arsenal of sweet toxins. ;)

[wapiti]

I haven't read the whole thread, or watched the links, but I wanted to share one anecdote. (I admit I do eat sugar.)

 

A friend of mine has gone through a difficult few years, having stage IV skin cancer with a 6% chance of survival (she's younger than I am, and her child was an infant when she was diagnosed) (and no, I don't think the sun had anything to do with it). Somewhere along the way, after nearly not surviving the experimental chemo, she was advised to eat only organic, whole foods, etc. - not unusual advice, but interestingly she was told, by whom I'm not sure, to avoid sugar entirely. All of it, even the other forms of sugar. (She does use Stevia.) It's a miracle that she just passed the two-year mark, in remission.

[LarlaB]

Dr Lustig explained the scientific reasoning for his position in some detail in a talk called Sugar: The Bitter Truth that many of us may have seen due to past threads.

 

It is a fascinating lecture and, while it runs long, is well worth watching.

 

http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717

 

Bill

 

Thanks for the referral

[Spy Car]

Thanks for the referral

 

I first saw the video because of a post on an earlier thread by board member "Kathleen in VA," so I want to acknowledge her for referring me in the first place.

 

It is a fascinating video though, yes?

 

Bill

[justamouse]

I do not think the government has to protect people from their own ignorance.

If they choose not to read the labels, if they choose to be fat and sick, that is their right.

 

 

 

I want to have CHOICES. I want to be able to exercise the choice to eat junk - occasionally, in moderation. So, a tax would mean it costs more, but the choice is still available. I do not want anybody to decide what I may and may not eat - just as I do not want anybody to decide that, because some people are unable to consume alcohol in moderation, alcoholic drinks should be banned completely. I want the freedom to enjoy my wine - even if I have to pay the higher taxes on it.

I totally agree with you..though I hate farm subsidies...but, I can't help but think that the people who are too poor to be able to make good choices don't deserve to be given the dregs just because they're too poor to avoid better. Those are the people we need to protect..not force to eat crap.