Scientists say sugar is as toxic as alcohol – and there should be a drinking age for soda

[The Straight Story]

Scientists say sugar is as toxic as alcohol – and there should be a drinking age for soda

Sure, sugar's bad for you. But should we establish a drinking age for sugary sodas? According to UC San Francisco pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, the answer is emphatically yes. He says that added sweeteners have health effects comparable to alcohol and tobacco, and should be regulated accordingly. In a comment piece for the journal Nature, Lustig and his colleagues argue that the state should selectively block access to sugar, using some pretty stiff rules.

For years, Lustig has advocated against added sugar, specifically sweeteners that include fructose. In the recent opinion piece, Lustig and his colleagues Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis point out that fructose and other sugars can cause liver toxicity, among other chronic diseases. They write:

A little is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly. If international bodies are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose - which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole.

To restrict sugar, the researchers start with ideas drawn from existing alcohol and tobacco restrictions. They suggest establishing taxes on "sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal." In addition, they advocate that we reduce the availability of sugar, particularly to children. This restriction would make it more difficult for vending machines to sell sweet drinks and sugary snacks in schools and in workplaces, building on already existing regulations that have removed sodas from some schools.

http://io9.com/5881328/scientists-say-sugar-is-as-toxic-as-alcohol-+-and-there-should-be-a-drinking-age-for-soda

[DJ13]

1. I think we should all be locked up and fed what the experts want us to eat

[HockeyMom]

3. Or just live in a bubble

being TERRIFIED of living our lives and dying.

[Initech]

10. That's what Fox News is for. *rimshot*

[renie408]

12. It's not about being afraid to live.

It's about knowing which things are going to shorten that life and what little things you can change to help your family live healthier. We aren't health nuts by a long shot, but as a family we are limiting sugar, white rice and white bread. Since November we have lost right at 30 pounds as a family with doing little else. My daughter has sworn off of sodas (diet or otherwise) and her skin is amazing now. We still have the occasional sweet treat, but we used to eat so much sugar. Instead of sugar we are using stevia in our coffee and tea. It isn't exactly the same, but it is pretty good. I don't think it hurts to be knowledgeable about stuff like this. That way you can make an informed decision.

[The Genealogist]

51. No, this is about legislating what people choose to eat

"To restrict sugar, the researchers start with ideas drawn from existing alcohol and tobacco restrictions. They suggest establishing taxes on "sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal." In addition, they advocate that we reduce the availability of sugar, particularly to children. This restriction would make it more difficult for vending machines to sell sweet drinks and sugary snacks in schools and in workplaces, building on already existing regulations that have removed sodas from some schools. "

So, we see they want to treat sugar like alcohol and tobacco. They want to establish a sin tax on it. They want to limit its availability in work places. This is not simply about leading people to make informed decisions; it is about restricting procurement and otherwise limiting the availability of certain legal products.

Are we to have $5 taxes added to bags of sugar and soft drinks then? Are we to have sugar counties and non-sugar counties? Will there be limits to how much soda and sugar one can transport legally across state lines? Will cities begin passing sugar and non-sugar sections in restaurants, then banning public consumption of sugar, in case a child might see the sugary products being eaten? Juice drinking and driving checkpoints? Expulsions from school for possessing sugar? Will we have the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Sugar department? Of course I am being a bit absurd, but I just wonder how far down the slippery slope of loss of personal freedoms people like those who came out with this study will take us.

[FrodosPet]

74. Jack the taxes up on sugar and create another black market!

Tobacco is legal, yet there is still a significant black market selling untaxed smokes.

[PVnRT]

89. Excellent! Regressive taxes like that are awesome!

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. I would like you to check these stats

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.HTML

and sorry for the photo



Right now depending on what sets of stats you read, we and Mexico are in the running for first place in obesity world wide. It is a public health emergency. They act like it down there. It is time we do as well.

[Autumn]

2. Let's try sugar and forget the fucking corn syrup.

There is a difference. "For years, Lustig has advocated against added sugar, specifically sweeteners that include fructose" Anything in moderation. My Granddaughter gets maybe 2 sodas a week, and I only buy the ones with real sugar.

[madokie]

8. Yes high fructose corn syrup is to be avoided

they put the stuff in about all processed foods now.

[gateley]

4. There is sugar in EVERYTHING. Sugar has no redeeming value nutritionally, but they'll never

sell this idea.

[RZM]

32. Of course not

Sugar has been enormously important in world history. And the main reason for it is that there's always been incredible demand for it. Sugar was known before the discovery of the New World, but was rare enough that only the wealthiest could afford it.

It's often forgotten that an important precursor to the European voyages of exploration and settlement in the 15th century were smaller-scale colonizations of Mediterranean and Atlantic islands. On a lot of these islands, sugar was planted and sold almost immediately.

Sugar is a major reason (one of the most important, if not THE most important) that blacks were imported as slaves to the New World. It's a labor-intensive crop and native slaves died too fast to be replaced (they also died in large numbers in the mines). It's not for nothing that the overwhelming majority of slaves imported to the New World ended up in Brazil, a major sugar area, and also on the sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean.

People love them some sugar. There's just no getting around it. Like anything, it's fine in moderation. But I can attest to that fact that as I kid, I absolutely loved soda and I drank it as much as I could. As soon as I got an allowance and could ride a bike, my friends and I were always going to the store to buy it. I've finally pretty much weaned myself off of it, but I still fall off the wagon every once in a while

[gateley]

63. Thanks for the interesting history. I try to stay away from Coke, too, but when

I can get the stuff from Mexico -- with REAL sugar and not high fructose corn syrup -- I imbibe. Man, it's just as good as it used to be -- the Real Thing!

[RZM]

65. Pepsi marketed a real sugar version a few years ago

Not sure what it was called. I think it was 'Pepsi Throwback.' I think they did the same with other Pepsi products like Mt. Dew and Dr. Pepper. There are real sugar sodas out there if you're willing to look. Some friends of mine have a bar and their lemon-lime soda is called 'Lemon Up,' which is apparently a real sugar soda marketed to bars. So they can be found.

[gateley]

73. Yeah, well I don't need to find them! Besides, I was a Coke snob (although I did try the Pepsi

Throwback and it WAS good -- of course, the sugar!). And real Dr. Pepper would be nice, too.

[Occulus]

107. and they tasted a hell of a lot better and didn't have the aftertaste of the regular kind.

I actually bought a couple two-liter bottles of that stuff, and I never drink sodas.

[hifiguy]

110. There's a big difference in flavor

between HFCS-sweetened drinks and sugar-sweetened drinks. I am not a huge soda drinker, but sugar-sweetened ginger ale sold at Whole Foods tastes like the pre-HFCS ginger ale I remember as a kid. The ginger flavor is sharp, not syrupy, as it is in HFCS-sweetened versions. Coke with sugar has a crisp crack to the flavor. With HFCS it is thick and syrupy.

[qb]

5. Unintended consequences: switching kids to Splenda & NutraSweet

Who sponsored this research, anyway?

[Luminous Animal]

7. Or, better yet... drink water and/or juices.

[FrodosPet]

75. Water tases "Blecch!"

And as much as I love the taste of OJ, it DOESN'T like me. I get some wicked stomach cramps.

Grape juice is OK in moderation, but still pretty sweet.

Why does so much "good for you" stuff taste so bad?

[Luminous Animal]

81. I love water. I've started having a pitcher of cucumber water in the fridge...

Yum. And I like plain, too.

My grandmother had the funkiest tasting well water (lots of minerals) and I loved that, too.

[FrodosPet]

82. Our tap water has too much chlorine in it.

It smells like clorox bleach.

As for bottled water, it's cheaper to buy soda. I can get a 2 Liter of Coca Cola for $1.25+deposit, a 2 Liter of Faygo for 99 cents, or a 1 liter bottle of water for $1.70.



I know soda is bad for you, but it tastes so good and gives you a boost when you are dragging ass.

[Luminous Animal]

83. Why don't you get a filter? After the initial investment...

it's much cheaper than soda. I recommend a filter system with a replacement filter. WAY more expensive initially but WAY cheaper in the long run.

My husband and I bought a similar unit to this ... http://www.multipure.com/750sc.htm... 25 years ago (much cheaper then, of course, but I've seen used on Craig's list for half the current price). Since then, we've paid from $40-(now)$70 a year on a filter. And we use that chlorine free water for every thing that we ingest for an entire year... drinking and boiling and steaming foods.


And as for a boost? Water and a couple of slices of fruit or a few crackers does the same thing.

One thing that I do love is bubbly water and this year I am going to build my own bubbly water system.

[FrodosPet]

85. Thank you. I'm sure it would help.

I'll have to check into water filters.

As for bubbly water, I've considered the SodaStream, but is there a cheaper way to make carbonated water? I could probably (somewhat) wean myself from sweet soda easier with sparkling than with flat water.

[Dorian Gray]

91. Sparkling water

with a splash of juice. (Pomegranate, Grape, Cranberry, Apple, lemon... any of the will do). I still imbibe a couple of Diet Cokes a week, but I love seltzer with a splash of juice.

[Luminous Animal]

127. You can make your own under the sink system.

http://www.etsy.com/blog/en/2011/how-tuesday-build-your-own-seltzer-maker/
http://www.truetex.com/carbonation.htm

[renie408]

14. I didn't see where it said you should switch to Splenda or Nutrasweet.

You can always use stevia instead of either of those. It works well in coffee, tea and oatmeal and would work in other things, too, I imagine.

[HuckleB]

30. That's not what these folks are saying.

So why are you intimating that that is what they're saying?

[Autumn]

138. Damn fine question there

That's what I would like to know.

[surrealAmerican]

6. ... but the reason we restrict alcohol to minors has nothing to do with toxicity.

It's about the potential for intoxication, and the effects on behavior.

[Johonny]

100. and sugar is not as toxic as alcohol anyways. It just isn't.

LD 50 ethanol ~2080g/kg
LD 50 sucrose ~29700g/kg

So it's not as toxic and toxicity isn't the reason we restrict it anyways. Besides that the person makes a good point.

[JVS]

102. There is no way that your numbers are right.

2080g/kg would mean that half the people who consume twice their weight in alcohol survive.

29700 g/kg would push the absurdity up to 30 times their body weight. I've never heard of such massive consumption

[former9thward]

116. The correct numbers are 1000 times lower.

Ethanol LD 50 is 7000 mg/kg and Sucrose is 29700 mg/kg.

[Marrah_G]

9. It is definitely addicting

I've dropped 26 pounds since cutting sugar out completely and severely limiting anything made with wheat flour

[Odin2005]

11. Dr. Atkins was telling people this for decades.

All the while "Conventional Wisdom" said "fat is bad, carbs are good".

[HuckleB]

38. Not exactly.

[TheWraith]

46. Following the Atkins diet is just as unhealthy long term.

A reasonable diet contains a broad array of foods in moderation--including sugar, which is not "toxic" in reasonable quantities no matter what one attention-grabbing scientist wants to say. The solution to living healthy isn't that complicated: eat in moderation and get plenty of exercise. You don't need to completely abstain from anything in order to do that.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Sugar is actually a nutrient that the body needs in order to survive, unlike alcohol and tobacco.

The monosaccharides, mostly glucose but others as well, provide most of the fuel for our biological process through the release of their energy during metabolism.

Presumably the good scientist meant sugar that's in excess of the body's needs, or that is highly processed and without other nutrients. I wish that they would say what they mean.

I hate scientific illiteracy, especially when it's promulgated by alleged scientists.

[renie408]

15. Your body doesn't need sugar.

How much sugar were our ancient ancestors getting?? White sugar is a relatively new thing and not anything your body 'needs'. Your body needs carbs, proteins, fats and vitamins. And probably some other stuff, but sugar isn't one of them. You are far better off getting your energy from complex carbs than from sugar or HFCS.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Our ancient ancestors didn't live very long, so I don't think they are a very convincing example. nt

[renie408]

21. Their life expectancy wasn't limited because they didn't have access to refined sugar.

I would imagine a lack of antibiotics coupled with living in proximity with large predators had more to do with their shortened lives.

Jesus, are you guys SERIOUSLY defending sodas, HFCS and refined sugar?? Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. I swear to god, there are people here who would argue with you if you said it was Wednesday.

[ZombieHorde]

35. I am not defending anything, I was attacking your argument strictly on tactical issues.

Critiquing arguments is a hobby of mine.

[hfojvt]

59. well it is not Wednesday

in many parts of the world. Not everybody lives on your side of the international date line.

I am certainly gonna defend soda. I am drinking one now, and anybody who wants to double its price with supposed 'sin' taxes can fuck off and die as far as I am concerned.

[trof]

132. And now you know how smokers feel.

[hfojvt]

142. well with a few huge ginormous differences

There are not soda butts littering every street. And when I drink a soda the people next to me are not forced to breathe second hand soda and leave a restaurant or a bowling alley reeking of soda. When you enter a soda free building you do not have to walk through a gauntlet of soda drinkers once again splashing you with their second hand soda. Nobody ever fell asleep drinking a soda and burned down an apartment building or started a thousand acre forest fire by tossing a lit soda out of a car.

But yeah, it is brutal the way cigarette prices have been jacked up with punitive taxes.

I also had a thought a few weeks ago (for a change). I figured that I have spent something like $6,000 just on pop over the last twenty years. That's kind of a sizeable sum.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. Are you saying that our ancient ancestors didn't eat carbs?

What exactly do you think carbs turn into once they've been digested?

I wasn't talking about refined or table sugar, but glucose (sugar) is the primary fuel used to provide energy for biochemical processes in our cells. This is not a new development in our evolution.

[Paulie]

76. Lustig's is very clear about the fructose being a poison

And a chronic hepatotoxin. Glucose is fine. Lactose is fine. But sucrose is 50% poison and though may be iso-caloric it's NOT iso-metabolic. Glucose is a 6 carbon ring Fructose is a 5 carbon ring. They are NOT the same. Any ingested substance that can only be metabolized in the liver is a poison.

Go to YouTube and search for "sugar the bitter truth". He explains it all especially covering metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and leptin disfunction, hypertension, etc.

I cut as much fructose as I could from my diet. No soda, no juice (only whole fruits with their fiber), no sweets except for a couple grams of dark chocolate every once and a while. And I'm down 100 lbs with no other changes. I even get full signals whilw eating now, after 20 years of only feeling full when my stomach was distended. I'm not going back to the sugar "daze" ever again.

[Dorian Gray]

92. There are sugars

in all food, so yes, our body does need sugar. Maybe not Corn Syrup or processed white sugar added to everything you make, but it does need a certain about of natural sugars. Lactose, glucose, fructose, etc. found in foods.

[Jennicut]

101. I need it when my blood sugar goes too low but I am a diabetic.

When I get really low and I might pass out I take pure glucose tablets. But "needing" it nutritionally, probably not. I do have to watch the carbs and can only have a set amount per meal because carbs are energy like you said.

[IDemo]

122. Yes, it does

I think there may be a misunderstanding about the difference between processed sugar and glucose.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/food2.htm

A complex carbohydrate is made up of chains of glucose molecules. Starches are the way plants store energy -- plants produce glucose and chain the glucose molecules together to form starch. Most grains (wheat, corn, oats, rice) and things like potatoes and plantains are high in starch. Your digestive system breaks a complex carbohydrate (starch) back down into its component glucose molecules so that the glucose can enter your bloodstream.

[mike_c]

16. yes BUT there is no dietary need for added sweetening in most foods....

One can eliminate refined culinary sugars entirely-- fructose, sucrose, and products that contain them like honey, agave syrup, corn syrup, and most especially HFCS-- and get more than enough monosaccharides just from eating a balanced diet. Consider this-- anyone who eats meat ALREADY obtains pretty much exactly the correct nutrients for maintaining animal tissue in just about exactly the best proportions, assuming the animal the meat came from wasn't malnourished.

[renie408]

18. Ok, his sounds better than mine, but its the same idea. n/t

[niyad]

22. I find it interesting that you treat one of the most natural foods in the world--honey, the same as

hfcs.

[Ms. Toad]

25. The sugar ratios of honey and HFCS are virtually identical.

The glucose-to-fructose ratio in HFCS is nearly 1:1; similar to the ratio in sucrose, invert sugar, and honey.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1716S.full

[niyad]

27. and one is completely natural, and one isn't

[Ms. Toad]

44. Sugar content is sugar content

from a nutritional standpoint, your body does not care how that particular sugar ratio was created, (absent contaminants), only what it is.

[MattBaggins]

96. Crude Oil is natural

hemlock is natural
nightshade is natural

[NNN0LHI]

97. Don't forget that "natural", tobacco

I have watched "natural", become synonymous with all things good in advertising since I was a kid. It sure worked.

Just shake my head.

Don

[renie408]

26. I don't think he mans it's the same, just that there is no specific dietary need for either.

I would imagine that if you were going for a sweetener, honey would be better than HFCS. Especially raw honey.

[mike_c]

39. honey is an interesting case....

It really isn't that much more "natural" than HFCS when you think about it, although I know that's the general prejudice. But honey is a manufactured sweetener just like HFCS-- it's manufactured by bees, but it's still manufactured, and in much the same way as HFCS. It is NOT nectar any longer-- the raw material is arguably a real "natural sweetener."

Honey is made by blending regurgitated flower nectar with enzymes in salivary glands, along with some other components produced by bees, and evaporating the mixture while its chemical conversions take place. The enzymes convert the sugars in nectar to monosaccharide fructose and glucose, just as glucose in corn syrup is enzymatically converted to fructose in HFCS. Typical honey is approx. 40% fructose, 30% glucose, 20% water, and the remainder is other monosaccharides in small amounts, like maltose, etc. The most commonly used HFCS, HFCS 55, is 55% fructose and 42% glucose, but that is only the sugar content, i.e. it ignores the water, which is about 24% (I know, it's confusing, but that's because the numbers for honey and HFCS are derived differently, due to USDA regulations). The upshot is that honey contains nearly identical quantities of both fructose and glucose as HFCS contains, so if that mix is bad for you in HFCS it's likely not good for you in honey.

[renie408]

40. Well, shit.

We use stevia for most stuff. It works fine in coffee, iced tea, my morning oatmeal (steel cut oats and cinnamon with two boiled egg whites on the side every morning) and stuff like that. But there are some things that just need the oomph of the truly sweet and that's where I have been experimenting with honey as opposed to refined sugar. So you are telling me that I might as well go for the hard stuff, huh? Buggers...

[HuckleB]

42. And...?

You're one of the few people I "know" who can stand the stuff.

[Odin2005]

56. I love stevia!

[HuckleB]

57. Good for you.

Most people hate the stuff.

[mike_c]

64. I like it too...

...although I have to admit, I've pretty much weaned myself off most sweeteners most of the time, so although I like stevia just fine, I rarely use it. I have found that many people I've known who dislike stevia haven't used it long enough to learn how to substitute it properly, so they end up getting something that's cloyingly sweet or artificial tasting. Used judiciously, stevia is just sweet, like sucrose. It's a neutral sweetener.

[HuckleB]

67. That sounds like a lot of work.

At the end of the day I see the stuff as helpful for a very small portion of the population.

It is what it is.

[ohheckyeah]

79. It tastes

like chemicals. I hate the stuff.

[Dorian Gray]

93. I like it too

but there was a "learning curve."

[mike_c]

43. the primary difference between honey and HFCS...

...is taste. Arguably a few trace components as well-- I mean, that's where the taste comes from-- but the major ingredients are virtually identical.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Try having unsweetened coffee

That's very popular, and you might find it gives you a taste for have other things unsweetened too.

[xmas74]

58. Strange thing about honey

(for me, personally) is that I use less honey, compared to other sweeteners. (And I mean quite a bit less honey.)

[hfojvt]

60. I use honey for allergies

It seems to reduce their impact, at least on my eyes. I doubt I would get the same benefits from HFCS.

[xmas74]

71. I've done that in the past

but it has to be local honey or it doesn't work.

[mike_c]

61. that's probably because it doesn't have a neutral sweet taste....

It has flavor, other than sweetness. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure you really know how much you use relative to other sweeteners. Say you achieve an acceptable flavor with one tablespoon of honey (or whatever). How confident are you that that's significantly less than the amount of HFCS or sucrose in an equivalent amount of soda, or some other sweetened product? Unless you NEVER consume commercially sweetened products, how do you know you use less honey than an equivalent amount of another sweetener?

on edit-- sorry if it sounds like I'm picking a fight over this, I'm really not. Just trying to make the point that unless you're the only one who ever measures sweeteners into your foods and beverages, you really don't know how much you consume relative to honey. Hope I made the point without sounding like a dick!

[xmas74]

72. I know you're not picking a fight.

I use much less-less than a teaspoon at a time. Honey is something I can usually use in a very thin, light drizzle, compared to heaping a few tablespoons of sugar on something else.

I've noticed that Nutrasweet, Splenda, etc are things I use (when I do use them) in much larger amounts. I seem to be more aware of how much honey I actually use, possibly because honey was a treat growing up. With honey I always want a much lighter taste while sugar and sweeteners I want more "sweet".

[Crunchy Frog]

50. I quite agree with you on that.

I wish the good scientists had been a little more clear in their statement.

[FarCenter]

54. Agave syrup is really bad -- up to 90% fructose -- much worse than HFCS

It is made by depolymerization of inulin from the starchy bulb of the agave. Concentrations of fructose vary depending on the species of agave, but are typically around 90%.

[mike_c]

62. yup, it's marketed as a "natural" replacement sweetener and it's worse than HFCS....

eom

[obamanut2012]

109. That's not really true

It has a much lower glycemic load and glycemic level than table sugar, and the 90% stat is from agave from one vendor source. Other vendors agave tests as low as 40%. It is composed of a long-chain polymer of fructose. Like anything, the less processed it is, the better it is for you, and raw, organic agave nectar is much better for you than more processed agave nectar. Like any sweetener, it should be used sparingly. It is, indeed, a natural sweetener, and is sweeter than sugar. Due to my blood sugar problems, it is the only sweetener that doesn't mess my levels up.

It is also nothing like HFCS, and comparing it to that floor wax garbage is really, really stretching it.

You should research who first started the "agave nectar is more evil than HFCS" and "starchy bulb" misinformation. It's very enlightening. (hint Mercola) There is a definite agenda behind it.

[FarCenter]

126. The reason that it has a low glycemic index is that it contains mostly fructose and little glucose

The glycemic index is largely controlled by the amount of glucose. Fructose has little effect on the glycemic index since it has to be processed by the liver first.

Xagave, for example, claims 47% fuctose. However, they also claim 17% glucose for a total of 64% sugar. The balance would appear to be unconverted inulin and other components.

Note however that the 47% is actually 73% of the total sugars.

So while the amount of fructose can indeed vary, in general it is higher than the 55% in soft drink HFCS and always at least as high as the 42% in baking HFCS.

Regualar corn syrup, the old fashioned kind that has not been converted to HFCS, would be healthier than either HFCS or agave nectar, since it is only glucose and some unconverted corn starch.

[bhikkhu]

17. Scientists would specify what sugar they were talking about

and would probably avoid a story with a headline intended to grab attention and stir controversy, beyond which any useful information is well hidden.

ed. sp

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. They did, but editorial decisions suck at times

Sadly I know enough about the subject to go... I bet they mean HCFS... read into it and BINGO!

[undeterred]

20. At what age can we stop listening to experts?

[niyad]

23. yes, let's talk about sugar, and not all the chemicals and other crap that is in our food and our

entire agricultural system

[renie408]

29. Hey, I have a better idea! Let's multitask and talk about all that stuff.

You can say sugar is bad and that doesn't mean that chemicals are good. It means they are all not so great or downright bad.

[HuckleB]

33. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Well to be exact they are talking of HCFS

which is a byproduct of corn and yes, it is different than the sugar you and I evolved to use.



So you could call it an additive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. No, they're attacking added sucrose too

they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HFCS and sucrose

'Evolved to use'? As someone else pointed out above, honey has roughly the same proportion of fructose to glucose that HFCS has, and that's the sweetener that's been used for millennia by many cultures. Fructose and glucose are present in roughly equal amounts in most fruit juices; and I think we can agree eating fruit is something our species is adapted for.

[demosincebirth]

24. Oh my God, how did I ever live to a ripe ol' age?

[renie408]

28. How old are you? I am shooting for a healthy 100.

So, I am limiting refined everything.

[demosincebirth]

114. We should have been dead 40 years ago. I'm heading to a healthy 75. 100, eh? Congrats. I eat

everything. I just try and keep my weight down... still 25lbs over my fighting weight.

[HuckleB]

31. Oh my GOD! Aren't pointless anecdotes AWESOME!

[NeedleCast]

34. The No Fun Gestapo At It Again I See

Health 'experts' taking things to the n-th degree.

[HuckleB]

37. Nice logical fallacy you've offered up!

Cool.

[HuckleB]

36. Video on the topic by the authors of the Nature editorial:

&feature=player_embedded

Can we cut the knee-jerk BS, and show that DU is a place where people think?

Please!?

[HuckleB]

41. A MUCH better link to the story about this editorial in NATURE...

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-added-sugar-tax-lustig-20120201,0,5626906.story

[cbrer]

45. Capitalism at its finest!

Man we can't even legalize grass, and these people are pushing THIS agenda?

I gotta' get me some McDonalds!

[HuckleB]

47. Wow!

That's a whole gob of red herring in one post.

I'm impressed.

[2ndAmForComputers]

49. Nah. Patronize your local bakery instead.

[FarCenter]

55. Sugar, starch and fat -- the three major food groups!

Actually, too much protein is really bad for you, since the body can't store much of it and has to either burn it or metabolize it enough to excrete it in the urine. This puts another load on the liver.

[Crunchy Frog]

139. You forgot bacon.

[burrowowl]

52. K&R

[provis99]

53. having too much dihydrogen monoxide will kill you, too.

I won't lose any sleep over the "toxicity" of sugar.

[hobbit709]

90. Beat me to it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. High Fructose Corn Syrup

Yup, we are starting to see what it does.

My view... time to revert back to well SUCROSE... (and yes limit it in kids since they really do not need the empty calories)

But yes, there is a difference.

In fact, a few experts believe it is TIED to our obesity epidemic. Oh and how different is it to our bodies? You know that naturally occurring sugar in your apple, or banana is not the same chemically as HCFS. It also tastes different. You don't believe me... get a bottle of Coke made in the US, and Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.

[HuckleB]

69. It's not just HFCS.

If only that were the only issue...

[Major Nikon]

77. Other experts will tell you that is baloney

http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1716S.long

So it really just depends on who you want to believe. High intake levels of sucrose is related to all sorts of health problems just like HFCS. So if you're just substituting sucrose for HFCS, I wouldn't bet the bank on heading off getting fat, developing heart disease, diabetes, and all sorts of other health issues. Eating less simple carbohydrates and more complex carbohydrates is the key to a healthy diet. Any doctor or dietician worth their salt will tell you that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. It is all the combined crap we put in food

But the direct relationship is there...

And not just in the us either. If this was one population, ok...but we know it s not.

As to the incidence of diabetes Et al, don't forget the genetic factor here.

[Snake Alchemist]

134. I blame the bees. The original peddlers of fructose. nt

[Paulie]

78. Sucrose is the same. It still has fructose.

It's chemically the same as HFCS. The body treats them the same. It's the fructose half which is a poison. Ban juice and soda in schools. Water and milk only (chocolate milk is both a glass a milk plus half a glass of orange juice in sugar).

Please, listen to Lustig's talk on YouTube, search for "sugar the bitter truth". It opened my eyes a year ago and changed my life (lost 100lbs just by cutting fructose,
Still eat pasta as that starch converts to glucose)

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. No it does not

But that's ok.

[Major Nikon]

128. Sure it does

Table sugar is a disaccharide composed of fructose and glucose. HFCS also has fructose and glucose in pretty close to the same proportions which is why it has pretty close to the same relative sweetness as table sugar, which was the intent. HFCS is designed to be a direct replacement (as far as sweetness goes) for table sugar. It's made from corn starch that has gone through enzymatic processing to convert the starches to glucose which is the first step (this produces essentially the equivelant of Karo light corn syrup). An additional enzymatic process converts some of the glucose to fructose and you get HFCS.

Now certainly many people have made arguments that the body reacts differently to HFCS vs table sugar, but chemically speaking they are nearly identical. The biggest difference is HFCS is not in disacharide form like table sugar.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. Read what you wrote, second paragraph

That's your key. Many people include endocrinologists who have noticed the sudden rise of certain things like adult metabolic syndrome. Is this the only cause? No, but it is one of them. It would not be the first time humans did omething stupid like this. I mean Romans used lead to preserve wine.

[Major Nikon]

131. Read what you wrote

The previous poster said table sugar contains fructose which is correct. You said, "No, it does not". That may not be what you meant.

Certainly there are a lot of ideas floating around that the human body metabolizes HFCS and sucrose at different rates. More recent research has cast doubt on those ideas. That's why many dieticians and those in the medical field are changing their opinions about HFCS being worse than sucrose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Well to each it's own

I avoid it with a passion...

Have a good day

(I am sure them studies will be fully overturned by tomorrow)

[Major Nikon]

130. It's not exactly the same, but the effect on your body is pretty much identical

With table sugar there is a chemical bond between the glucose and the fructose. With HFCS there is no chemical bond between the two. Initially people suspected that because your body had to break the chemical bond before it can use those sugars, the effect on blood glucose was thought to be greater with HFCS because the body doesn't have to break the chemical bond between the sugars before it can use them. Early animal research seemed to bear this out. However, reasearch on people has shown this not to be the case because the two are absorbed and used by the body at the same rate.

[ohheckyeah]

80. Just what we need.

More restrictions and more taxes. Inform people and let them make their own decisions.

[Akoto]

84. I have an alcoholic family member.

When my soda does to me what the booze has done to their body, maybe I'll start to worry.

[Paulie]

88. It does, just takes years to show

the chronic disease you see in alcoholism like hypertension, fatty liver, and several other diseases also show with long term fructose use. Lustig in his "sugar the bitter truth" lecture which is on YouTube, reviews this.

[Akoto]

123. Then I must ask how long, because ...

I'll be 27 as of Friday, and I've been drinking soda for most of that time. During that same span, said alcoholic has sure as hell fallen apart a lot more than I have, and that's even considering the stress of my chronic pain issues.

If that pain has taught me anything, it's that I wasted many good years worrying about crap that didn't deserve the attention.

[BlueIris]

94. The best nutritional decision I made was giving up refined sugars.

Yes, I still get the sugars found in fruits, fruit juice, etc. I'm not on a crazy celebrity diet. But ever since '07, when I flat out gave up all artificial sweeteners, excess refined sugars and extra sweets, I've been eating (a lot) better, have had clearer skin and better mood balance. I tell everyone to ditch that crap. After a couple of months, you won't miss it, and your body will be in much better shape as a result.

[slackmaster]

117. I did that about 25 years ago and have not regretted it

I've probably bought less than three pounds of it in that time. I do use brown sugars in dry rubs for meats, and I use sugar in pickling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. I've finally found a group to be called 'Health Nazis': adults intimidating children at convenience

stores:

States could apply zoning ordinances to control the number of fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities, and especially around schools, while providing incentives for the establishment of grocery stores and farmer's markets. Another option would be to limit sales during school operation, or to designate an age limit (such as 17) for the purchase of drinks with added sugar, particularly soda. Indeed, parents in South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, recently took this upon themselves by lining up outside convenience stores and blocking children from entering them after school. Why couldn't a public-health directive do the same?

I have to say that limiting fast-food outlets and convenience stores in low-income communities is intrusive, condescending, over-reaching and anti-democratic. Especially as a proposed solution to "there's too much sugar added to food and drink". But I'm gobsmacked at adults blocking children from entering convenience stores. Who gave them the right to coerce other people's children and which stores they legally use? They wouldn't have the right to prevent other adults doing it; but doing it to children, who may not have the courage to stand up for their own rights, is so authoritarian it takes my breath away.

[HappyMe]

98. Good grief!

That is really going way, way too far. Not your kid, not your business. Besides a bunch of Health Nazi adults, blocking the kids way will probably scare the pee out of the kids. This will end badly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Use the google to search the term "food desert."

Good grief indeed.

[Nye Bevan]

103. So alcohol is just as safe as sugar..... excellent news!

[Dreamer Tatum]

104. Another topic on which everyone is an expert.

Sheesh.

I wish there was a substance known by DU to be utterly benign to all people at all times.

Other than water and marijuana, that is.

[HappyMe]

105. lol! Dream on, DreamerT!

[Occulus]

108. ....water can kill you if you drink too much of it in one sitting.

[bighart]

106. I say add a huge tax to sugar just like is on tobacco and alcohol.

It is causing a lot of added cost to health care via obesity and diabetes. TAX SUGAR NOW.
Disclaimer: I use almost no sugar, don't eat much in the way of "sweets" and drink virtually no soda.
I do smoke.

[slackmaster]

113. I use very little refined sugar, but this is the dumbest "sciencey" thing I've read in a long time.

No wonder my home state of California is seen by many as a laughingstock.

[Swede]

115. Why are folks not getting informed on this before posting uninformed comments?

I thought DU was against antiScience.

[Rex]

119. Fine...how do I get all this sugar out of my blood?

Good thing we never ate sugar as proto-humans. We would have never made it to this stage. Picked a hell of a day to become a Fruitarian.

[Crunchy Frog]

140. Just take an insulin overdose.

That will get all of that nasty, poisionous sugar out of your bloodstream and restore you to purity.

[Spike89]

120. Alcohol isn't regulated because it's toxic

it is regulated because it is a powerful mind-altering substance. Both Alcohol and tobacco are discrete products with limited benefits and well-documented downsides.

Sugar is in almost everything that is edible, or if it isn't already in there, the body metabolizes it. Do many kids get too much sugar, sure, but government regulation is not appropriate.

[Dreamer Tatum]

121. + one million - a cool breeze of reason. nt

[Avalux]

124. Sugar in what form? Sucrose? Fructose? Glucose?

The idiots proposing to restrict 'sugar' will have their hands full trying to figure out which is the most toxic, and how much should be allowed.

STUPID.

[Yo_Mama]

125. This should be a lesson to us all not to trust some scientists

Really, when's the last time you ate a doughnut and couldn't drive?

I guess this is true if you are a diabetic, but most aren't.

[IDemo]

137. A doughnut wouldn't affect my ability to drive

It would just send my blood glucose level up somewhat. Now, if my BG level was down in the 30's or 40's, the lack of a doughnut or other carb (preferably more rapid acting) could have adverse effects.

[Yo_Mama]

141. True, true, such as death.

I didn't think of that, but many diabetics carry some sort of quickly available glucose for that purpose. I suppose they would still allow the sugar pills they sell in the drugstore, but maybe you'd have to be 18 and show ID to get the drugs? Or need a prescription?

If sugar were actually toxic, we'd all be dead. Too much sugar is handled well by most people's bodies - low blood sugar will kill you.

Human beings are adapted to binge eating and to eating high-energy sources, and chomping down a bowl of pasta effectively delivers a whole lot of sugar into the system.

Too much oxygen is bad for you too. I'm waiting for the scientists to jump on that.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-oxygen-dilemma

[roamer65]

133. Ok, drink sucralose (Splenda) and aspartame (Nutrasweet) and see what happens.

[Doomy_Tunes]

143. I've been drinking diet sodas since their advent to good effect!

Seattles tax measure goes into effect the first day of the new year!

UKs measure takes effect on thee most special day of the year, for those in the know!

Chicago, blew it by taxing non-sugar sweeteners too, because as were seeing in the UK taxing the bad stuff is causing reformulation of the most harmful drinks.

Thanks to Berkeley and Boulder following on the heels of Mexico, and Philly even though they mistakenly applied the concept, at least the funds collect are used for a good purpose.

Anyone in Seattle that can provide a local perspective?

[fujiyama]

136. A minimum drinking age for pop is stupid

but parents should use much better discretion. I know some parents that allow their kids to have energy drinks.

I also don't think pop/soda machines should be in public schools. The state shouldn't be legislating what people eat, but at the same time, they need not actively encourage unhealthy eating habits.