Regulating sugar like Tobacco and Alcohol is becoming a valid issue in the 2012 election with Researchers out of California claiming that sugar is “Toxic” and among other things, is bad for you.
I agree that sugar is bad for me.
These researchers then blindly go from the position of claiming that sugar is bad for you, to claiming that sugar should be regulated by the Government.
I disagree that my position or the scientific position of the healthiness of sugar should influence whether or not people are allowed to choose what they put in their own bodies.
The idea that we should research and educate on what we think is unhealthy or healthy is fine. I completely support it. Research and education are key in understanding the human body and how the foods we eat and we create interact with the body.
Especially with sugar, where in the case of these researchers, the claim is that Americans consume around 450 calories, or 112.5 grams, of sugar a day. Sugar consumption in the US has climbed, along with imports of sugar to the US.
Correlating with the increase in high fructose corn syrup consumption (a form of sugar), we’ve seen increases in obesity, disease, and daily consumption of calories.
High Fructose Corn Syrup consumption has gone from .1 servings a day in 1970, to 10.3 servings a day in 2010, for each American. A serving of sugar has consistently been considered 4 grams [Source: Table 52]
Correlation is not causation, but this at-least points in one direction we should be taking a serious look at. I personally subscribe to the Primal theory best explined by Mark Sisson and Robb Wolf. Briefly, it’s the idea that our excessive consumption of carbohydrates as a whole (where sugar is included) has resulted in a decrease in the consumption of quality nutrient filled foods-ones that deliver proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals-and has resulted in insulin resistance-the resistance of liver and muscle cells t0 insulin and the resulting storage of sugar as fat.
This issue also goes deeper than the nutritional opinions and interpretations of years of research because it has to deal with making decisions for others in a situation where another’s decision doesn’t necessarily affect everyone else’s rights.
I’ve demonstrated my dislike for massive consumption of sugar and grains on this blog, while also praising protein and fat. But, I refuse to say that just because I do not have the will power to eat healthy all the time and maybe I don’t reach my health-related goals, I and other individuals who may share this problem should use the Government to impose a sugar ban or something related on everyone else.
This is where “Restoring Responsibility” comes in, and also where I think the Fox News Host from above was getting at with the Ron Paul mention. Despite the other Fox’s host attempt at discrediting his co-worker by shouting “freedom to be fat and eat sugar”, that freedom is the same freedom to be fit and eat fruits, proteins, or fats.
Freedom may be somewhat of a double-edged sword, but to give the authority to the Government to ban an “unhealthy” food, is to give the authority to the Government to ban a “healthy” food. And just because the current or past holders of authority may not abuse that power (I disagree), are those individuals for bans willing to predict and guarantee all future holders of that authority will not abuse it?
The right idea here was what the researchers were doing first. Research the issue, form an opinion, use that opinion to give examples and argue with competing ideas, and let the public as individuals decide how to react. Don’t take the shady route and cower to the fear that the public will discredit you and your idea. Do not cower and instead of making a better approach or prodct use Government to make your product the winner, while other hard working businesses and citizens in need of good information and good products suffer.