UCSF Researchers Continue Crusade Likening Sugar to Alcohol and Tobacco
Anti-sugar crusader Robert Lustig has joined University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) colleagues Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis to co-author commentary in the February 2, 2012, edition of Nature that advocates regulating fructose like alcohol and tobacco. A specialist in neuroendocrinology at the UCSF School of Medicine, Lustig has garnered attention in national venues such as The New York Times for comparing sugar to a poison and linking it to metabolic dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, liver cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. Details about his previous work appear in Issue 391 of this Update.
Titled “The Toxic Truth About Sugar,” the latest article in Lustig’s arsenal maintains that because people in the developed world consume “an average of more than 500 calories per day from added sugar alone,” fructose now meets the four criteria used by public health advocates to justify regulation; that is, “unavoidability (or pervasiveness throughout society), toxicity, potential for abuse and negative impact on society.” With this framework in mind, the authors not only cite evidence of sugar’s alleged health effects and “dependence-producing properties” but highlight “the long-term economic, health-care and human costs of metabolic syndrome,” including the $150 billion that the United States purportedly spends on related resources each year.
“Ultimately, food producers and distributors must reduce the amount of sugar added to foods,” contend Lustig, Schmidt and Brindis, who also urge policymakers to curb the availability of sugar by co-opting strategies from the fight to reduce alcohol and tobacco use. In particular, they propose (i) “adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars”; (ii) restricting the sale of sugary products in workplaces, near schools or to minors; (iii) banning TV ads and other forms of marketing for added-sugar products; and (iv) revoking sugar’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status with the Food and Drug Administration.
“Regulating sugar will not be easy—particularly in the ‘emerging markets’ of developing countries where soft drinks are often cheaper than potable water or milk,” concludes the commentary, noting how once divisive policies like smoking bans are now widely accepted. “These simple measures—which have all been on the battleground of American politics—are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.”
Meanwhile, the opinion piece has already drawn kudos from health advocates such as the director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, Kelly Brownell, who told Time magazine that despite the food industry’s insistence on “a calorie is a calorie,” “this and other research suggests there is something different about sugar.” As Schmidt herself reportedly elaborated on CNN, “When you think about it, this actually makes a lot of sense. Alcohol, after all, is simply the distillation of sugar. Where does vodka come from? Sugar.” See Time Magazine, February 2, 2012.
