In an article published in the influential science periodical Nature, researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) have called for a federal tax on sugar to moderate the incidence of obesity and liver disease. The authors claim sugar has the same high health risk factors as alcohol and tobacco, and should be treated by legislators in the same way.
In addition to the imposition of a sugar tax Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis of UCSF say that sugar accessibility for under 17-year-olds should also be restricted, and foods that encourage high sugar intake should carry further taxation constraints.
Identifying a 200% increase in global sugar consumption that has also seen a commensurate increase in long term diseases, the article declares, ‘Authorities consider sugar as ‘empty calories’ – but there is nothing empty about these calories. A growing body of scientific evidence is showing that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills – slowly. ‘
The article also attributes the increase in long term diseases to improving living standards in countries such as China, Brazil and India. ‘There are now 30% more people who are obese than who are undernourished. Economic development means that the populations of low- and middle-income countries are living longer, and therefore are more susceptible to non-communicable diseases; 80% of deaths attributable to them occur in these countries.’
United Nations data states that long term diseases such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease contribute to 35 million human deaths each year.
The list of processed foods the authors recommend taxing include ‘…sweetened fizzy drinks (soda), other sugar-sweetened beverages (for example, juice, sports drinks and chocolate milk) and sugared cereal …’
According to one of the authors of the article, Dr Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF, “The only method for dealing with this is a public health intervention. Everyone talks about personal responsibility, and that won’t work here, as it won’t for any addictive substance. These are things that have to be done at a governmental level, and government has to get off its ass.
“Everybody yells, ‘Nanny state, this guy is trying to control our food’, ” Lustig said. “But it’s already being controlled. It limits consumer choice when so much of our food is controlled by these industries. I’m actually trying to undo the nanny state.”
Related posts:
