A team of researchers at the University of California
- San Francisco asserts that “sugar” presents enough health risks against it
that it should be a “controlled substance” such as alcohol and tobacco. In
their argument and studies, they write: “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.” In addition to the harmful
effects, the proverbial sugar high that almost everyone has heard of, or
personally experienced, looks unfavorably when compared to the “sugar high” of
Vodka – for vodka is a distillation of sugar.
The UCSF report also emphasizes the metabolic effects of sugar. Sugar
alters a person’s metabolism, raises their blood pressure, and skews the
signaling of liver damage. Ultimately, the team wishes for cities to agree,
along with the other 20-or-so that already have, with a sugar tax on items that
carry an excess amount of sugar – such as sodas. In their concluding statement,
the UCSF’s director of the study says: “We recognized that there are cultural
and celebratory aspects of sugar. Changing these patterns is very complicated.
[But] We’re not talking prohibition. We’re talking about gentle ways to make
sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the
concentrated dose.”
People who are determined to eat – and drink – unhealthily will find
ways to do it. Asking to invoke a sugar tax, and even a soda-tax, is pretty ridiculous
to ask, as well as reminding people of those great years in the past when we
had to answer to someone across the pond and pay a tax on this, that, and the
other. I do agree that sugar needs to be cut down in all societies, especially
the US (17% of US children and teens are obese); and across the world sugar
intake has tripled in the past fifty years.
On a social problems scale, I find that “banding” sugar (in a way) is going
to make people want it just that much more. People want what they can’t have,
and if prices go up, people are going to go out of their way to get what they
want. This will also create a new stigma on the more “sugary’ items, which will
separate people on a critical basis on who eats what. I think researchers
should put more time and money into coming up with better advertisements and
awareness on the harms of bad quality food items – such as sugar, as well as
the production of healthier foods at a lower price; rather than trying to bring
back specific tax laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment