Regulate sugar like alcohol.

[formerroomate99]

www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/health/opinion-regulate-sugar-alcohol/index.html?hpt=he_c2

Apparently, there is a movement to start regulating sugar the same way we do alcohol.

In some ways, I get their point. Food manufacturers put sugar, specifically high fructose corn syrup, in everything, and it is cheap to do since corn is heavily subsidized.

One the other hand, we as individuals are still able to read food labels and control what we put in our mouths and what we serve our children.

Your thoughts?

[Deleted]

I think I would take a beer over a POP any day!

(OOPS! Wrong board. So sorrry. )

[thyme4change]

Why don't they just stop subsidizing it? I think the only food we should be subsidizing is green beans and brussel sprouts.

The reality is, if they make it more difficult to use a natural ingredient (like corn or sugar) they will just find some frankenfood totally made-up chemical to replace it (like nutrasweet) and everyone will say "Hurray! We made all foods lower in calories." And in 20 years we will find out that everyone has extra arms and what-not growing inside them. You can't regulate people being healthy, and I can't point to the thing that the government has done so well that I feel they should take over all control of food ingredients. Sounds like just another beuracratic disaster that will cost us more money.

On top of that, what are the real upsides of alcohol regulations. I haven't studied this area - but is our population better off, are there less drunks in the USA than in other countries with less restrictive alcohol policies? Are there less deaths due to DUIs? Do we have some proof that we, as a whole, are better off because of the drinking age?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Sugar Tariffs Cost Americans $3.86 Billion in 2011


mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/01/sugar-tariffs-cost-americans-386.html



The chart above displays annual refined sugar prices (cents per pound) using data from the USDA (Tables 2 and 5) between 1982 and 2011 for: a) the U.S. wholesale refined sugar price at Midwest markets, and b) the world refined sugar price. Due to import quota restrictions that strictly limit the amount of imported sugar coming into the U.S. at the world price, the domestic producers are protected from more efficient foreign sugar growers who can produce cane sugar in Central America, Africa and the Caribbean at half the cost of beet sugar in Minnesota and Michigan.

Of course, there's no free lunch, and this sweet trade protection comes at the expense of American consumers and U.S. sugar-using businesses, who have been forced to pay more than twice the world price of sugar on average since 1982 (28.6 cents for domestic sugar vs. 14 cents for world sugar, see chart). How much does this trade protection cost Americans?

We can estimate the cost of sugar protection, using some additional data from the USDA (Table 1) about sugar:

1. American consumers and businesses consumed 10.18 million metric tons (22.44 billion pounds) of sugar last year, and therefore every 1 cent increase in sugar prices costs Americans an additional $224.4 million per year in higher prices.

2. The U.S. produced 7.15 million metric tons (15.76 billion pounds) of sugar last year.

3. Due to quotas, Americans were only allowed to purchase 3 metric tons (6.67 billion pounds) of world sugar, or about 30% of the total sugar consumed. Domestic sugar producers ("Big Sugar") are allowed to control 70% of the sugar market every year through protectionist sugar trade policies that strictly limit foreign competition.

4. If sugar quotas were eliminated, and American consumers and business had been able to purchase 100% of their sugar in 2011 at the world price (average of 31.68 cents per pound) instead of the average U.S. price of 56.22 cents, they would have saved about $3.86 billion. In other words, by forcing Americans to pay 56.22 cents for inefficiently produced domestic sugar instead of 31.68 cents for more efficiently produced world sugar, Americans pay an additional 24.54 cents per pound for the 15.76 billion pounds of American sugar produced annually, which translates to $3.86 billion in higher costs for American consumers and businesses.

(Note: This is an estimate based on the assumptions that: a) the amount of sugar consumed in the U.S., and b) world prices, wouldn't change if the U.S. sugar market was completely open.)

Bottom Line: The cost of most trade protection is largely invisible and hard to calculate, but the cost of sugar protection is directly visible and measurable, since the USDA and the futures markets regularly report prices for both high-cost domestic sugar and low-cost world sugar. Like all protection, sugar tariffs exist to protect an inefficient domestic industry (sugar beet farmers) from more efficient foreign producers (cane sugar farmers), and come at the expense of the U.S. consumers and the American companies using sugar as an input, and make our country worse off, on net.

I'm reminded of the recent Quote of the Day from Bastiat: "Treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race." U.S. sugar policy has a long history, going back to 1789 when the First Congress of the United States imposed a tariff upon foreign sugar, and is a perfect illustration of trade protection that ignores the viewpoint of disorganized, dispersed consumers in favor of the concentrated, well-organized interests of producers.

[rockon]

My DW is doing some continuing education studies for her nursing degree and one of the more recent ones was about the how they are making some connections between cancer and sugar. It seems cancer cells have many sugar receptors and appear to grow primarily from this source.
Can you image how this kind of diet change could affect our health care costs if this were proven true?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 2, 2012 10:47:59 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/health/opinion-regulate-sugar-alcohol/index.html?hpt=he_c2

Apparently, there is a movement to start regulating sugar the same way we do alcohol.

In some ways, I get their point. Food manufacturers put sugar, specifically high fructose corn syrup, in everything, and it is cheap to do since corn is heavily subsidized.

One the other hand, we as individuals are still able to read food labels and control what we put in our mouths and what we serve our children.

Your thoughts?

i would be in favor of it for HFCS. the mechanism used to metabolize it is IDENTICAL to alcohol.

[thyme4change]

Did you know that everything ending in -ose was a sugar when you were six or eight

I remember learning the difference between sucrose and fructose, and I believe I was 8 or 9.

Honestly, education won't work. If it did nurses wouldn't be so heavy. As a profession, that group has a higher than average understanding of the body, a higher than average understanding of nutrition and is disproportionally overweight. I know, we are going to get into a long discussion about how hard it is to eat healthy at their job - but really, they could slip a sandwich and an apple in their purse before coming to work. They don't. But now we are expecting that everyone else will. And the government will make it all better?

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

What about naturally occuring sugar, say like in fruits.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

In some ways, I get their point. Food manufacturers put sugar, specifically high fructose corn syrup, in everything, and it is cheap to do since corn is heavily subsidized.

Someone with a better memory than I can jump in, but way back in the 70s, there was a sugar shortage, and the price spiked to outrageous levels. I think this is when high fructose corn syrup started to be used a substitute and put into widespread use.

While corn is subsidized I do not believe it has anything to do with the use of HFCS.

[Deleted]

Good thing I don't have much of a sweet tooth...pass the chips and salted nuts. Oh wait, sodium is also bad for you.

Meh, we're all going to be taking a dirt nap sooner or later.

[mmhmm]

Feb 2, 2012 11:06:10 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Feb 2, 2012 11:02:46 GMT -5 rockon said:

My DW is doing some continuing education studies for her nursing degree and one of the more recent ones was about the how they are making some connections between cancer and sugar. It seems cancer cells have many sugar receptors and appear to grow primarily from this source.
Can you image how this kind of diet change could affect our health care costs if this were proven true?

In the natural health care community this has been known for years. Cancer feeds on sugar! Period! This is nothing new. The hippies in my day were saying it, but few listened.

Most of the cells in your body feed on sugar, lonewolf. It's their energy source. Cancer cells are ... cells. They, too, feed on sugar; however, sugar is necessary to drive the rest of the body. Chemical interactions within your body will change proteins and carbohydrates to sugar in order to make it useful. Your brain, by the way, feeds ONLY on sugar.

In short, it's misleading to say cancer feeds on sugar. It doesn't, any more than any other body cell does.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 2, 2012 11:24:58 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Sure it does SF. It is a direct effect of corn production. If you get the chance, pick up a copy of "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Pollen. Corn, of all crops, has a unique ability to create biomass from carbon. For this reason, corn production is at the heart of modern American factory farming. It makes for mass production of food, albeit not always the best food.

Right, I concur. But HFCS has been in use since the 70s when sugar prices went nuts.

[mmhmm]

Feb 2, 2012 11:16:07 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

What about naturally occuring sugar, say like in fruits.

To the body, sugar is sugar.

[handyman2]

Government is getting into all parts of our lives. Having said that it should be a parents responsibility for sugar intake for children and themselves. The problem that is not happening.
My wife taught school for many years and she could see the impact of sugar on childrens ability to focus on sitting still and learning. After lunch at school there were some kids that were on such a sugar high they just could not focus. With a sugar coated breakfast and sweets for lunch the children had as they say ants in their pants. As the years went on she could see the increase of sugar in kids diets.

[thyme4change]

A lot of nurses and teachers, from what I've seen, have a real problem with it.

So, which comes first - the chosen profession or the sugar addiction. I don't see what one has to do with another. If sugar is an addiction, how will education help?

What about naturally occuring sugar, say like in fruits.

Uh oh - you are getting pretty detailed. Maybe we should just ban all food, and have the government produce perfectly balanced nutritional goo ration which you can get by going to a local agency each day.

[gavinsnana]

I have cut out much of my sugar intake.. but I won't give up my glass or two of Merlot or Chardonnay.. That is just too much of a sacrifice.. ;D

[gavinsnana]

I have heard many have opted for the "raw sugar" looks like brown sugar... I know some diebetics use it. I have tried it once and it seems ok.. Anyone know much about it? Do you gain weight if you use it like white sugar? I don't use white at all.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

The notion behind "raw sugar" is it that it somehow retains more "nutrients" than white because it is less processed therefore it is better for you than processed white sugar.

Which isn't the case it is still freaking sugar, just costs three times as much and suckers you into believing you are eating better.

I found it great for baking, I used it in place of brown sugar for cinnamon rolls. It doesn't melt down as much so it lent a wonderful crunchy texture.

I hated it in tea, it made my tea taste funky. Something about the brand of tea I drink and raw sugar just don't mix.

[gavinsnana]

Wow, guess raw sugar isn't good either..

[thyme4change]

What about Stevia - isn't that going to save our country, or whatever?

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2012 11:28:34 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Feb 2, 2012 11:23:18 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Good thing I don't have much of a sweet tooth...pass the chips and salted nuts. Oh wait, sodium is also bad for you.

Meh, we're all going to be taking a dirt nap sooner or later.

Robert. I volunteered for a couple of years in a nursing home and one of the things I heard many times from the residents was they'd wished they had taken better care of their health.
Yes, we're all going to die, but do you REALLY want to spend those precious retirement years, that you're working so hard for, disabled and sick?
Think about it. What you spend today, you'll need tomorrow.

lonewolf, I was being slightly flippant. I do my best to eat healthy and lead an active life. But it does seem that every time you turn around, someone is telling you that this or that is bad for you, and a few weeks later another study tells you that those very things, in moderation, always in moderation, are in fact good for you. It gets a little dizzying.

In terms of government regulation, or outlawing things that are not good for you, I am rather ambivalent. I believe, for instance, that marijuana should be legalized…but that is another discussion.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I thought it only saved women from pigging out on desserts, that's what the commericals tell me.

[gavinsnana]

Moderation is the key... (except for pot, no, I don't think it should be legalized)

[mmhmm]

Feb 2, 2012 11:31:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Feb 2, 2012 11:27:06 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Most of the cells in your body feed on sugar, lonewolf. It's their energy source. Cancer cells are ... cells. They, too, feed on sugar; however, sugar is necessary to drive the rest of the body. Chemical interactions within your body will change proteins and carbohydrates to sugar in order to make it useful. Your brain, by the way, feeds ONLY on sugar.

In short, it's misleading to say cancer feeds on sugar. It doesn't, any more than any other body cell does.

Yes, you're right, but the problem is the kinds of sugar we're consuming. Processed sugar kills. A whole orange is good.

As I said, lonewolf, to the body sugar is sugar. It doesn't differentiate. It converts what comes in to what it needs and goes from there. The problem isn't the type of sugar you eat, it's the amount, just as it's the portions you eat that result in obesity more than the foods you eat. You need to burn off a sufficient number of the calories you take in to maintain a healthy weight. Anyone who eats a nutritious diet and still gets heavy needs to cut portions. Same is true with sugar. If your body isn't able to use it correctly (as in diabetes), you need to be much more careful with what you take in and how much.

[Deleted]

Feb 2, 2012 11:42:48 GMT -5 gavinsnana said:

Moderation is the key... (except for pot, no, I don't think it should be legalized)

Yes, moderation is the key, but sometimes I feel like stepping over the line, but that too, in moderation. ;D

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Cancer feeds on sugar

Wow. I'll tell my grandfather next time his brain cancer comes out of remission that he should cut down on the coffee and he'll be cured in no time.

Shame no one told DH's uncle this before he died of pancreatic cancer.

[thyme4change]

Doesn't have to cut down on coffee - just drink it black.

[thyme4change]

However, I've NEVER heard that whole organically grown fruits, veggies are bad.

I know that there are restrictions around which types of fruits you can eat when adopting a diabetic diet - like apparantly grapes really mess with your sugar levels, etc.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Russet potatoes can royally screw up your blood sugar if you are diabetic. Sweet potatoes are safe. Corn can screw with your blood sugar.

There are others but those are two I know off the top of my head. Pretty much vegetables with a high starch content or natutal sugar content.

Diabetics don't need to just avoid processed foods and cane sugar.

[thyme4change]

www.sweetleaf.com/