California (Christopher Wanjek-LiveScience.com) – A spoonful of sugar might make the medicine go down. But it also makes blood pressure and cholesterol go up, along with your risk for liver failure, obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Oh here we go again, stand by for the nanny state to step in, for our own good in; 3… 2… 1…
Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). According to researchers out of blah, blah, blah, California… Figures. How much did THAT bit of research, cost us?
The researchers propose regulations such as taxing all foods and drinks that include added sugar, banning sales in or near schools and placing age limits on purchases. Geeze, it’s not even like they’re TRYING to bullshit us, any more. They want to “regulate” it so they can TAX it. Ban it near schools and place age limits on it? Why, so they can slap someone with a fine or a penalty if they are under age and possess it, or someone buys it for a minor? It’s SUGAR for Pete’s sake, a substance found in every plant on earth!
Although the commentary might seem straight out of the Journal of Ideas That Will Never Fly, which it does, the researchers cite numerous studies and statistics to make their case that added sugar — or, more specifically, sucrose, an even mix of glucose and fructose found in high-fructose corn syrup and in table sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beets — has been as detrimental to society as alcohol and tobacco. Detrimental to society? As detrimental as alcohol and tobacco? Sugar? Ok wait, yes they said “high fructose corn syrup,” but come on… With everything else dragging our society down the tubes, we’re now going to change our focus to high fructose corn syrup?
So I guess crappy parenting, an even crappier public educational system, crooked politicians, and an utter lack of self motivation on the part of our fellow Americans, is alright, then? Yeah, go ahead, screw all that, high fructose corn syrup is the REAL problem.
Sour words about sugar
The background is well-known: In the United States, more than two-thirds of the population is overweight, and half of them are obese. Two thirds are overweight and half of them are considered obese… well if that isn’t a convoluted statistic. About 80 percent of those who are obese will have diabetes or metabolic disorders and will have shortened lives, according to the UCSF authors of the commentary, led by Robert Lustig. And about 75 percent of U.S. health-care dollars are spent on diet-related diseases, the authors said. So how is a substance to blame for this? Furthermore, whose business is it, how an individual spends THEIR OWN health-care dollars? If people are obese, that’s the individuals problem; not society’s.
All the more reason to repeal the healthcare mandate. If you want to eat crap, get fat, and die; have at it… just don’t expect me to pay for it.
It’s all about choices.
Worldwide, the obese now greatly outnumber the undernourished, according to the World Health Organization. Alright HOLD UP! THIS is what I’m talking about; you have to watch these guys. Someone can be obese AND undernourished, at the same time. If you eat too much of something that is going to make you fat, and not enough of what is going to keep you healthy, guess what? Watch out for the do-gooders, folks, they love to mix and match their tragedies, in order to sound official. Obesity is a public health problem in most countries. And chronic diseases related to diet such as heart diseases, diabetes and some cancers — for the first time in human history — kill more people than infectious diseases, according to the United Nations. Are we sure all of that is all attributed to high fructose corn syrup? Is there a chance that the industrialization of 3rd world countries, where they dump hazardous wastes into their air and drinking water, may have anything to do with this? No of course not, if it were, then no one would bother reading this bullshit story….
Gotta love the drama.
Less known, and still debated, is sugar’s role in the obesity and chronic disease pandemic. Ah! See? They’re still DEBATING. You guys may want to go easy on that, you’ll go blind! From an evolutionary perceptive, sugar in the form of fruit was available only a few months of the year, at harvest time, the UCSF researchers said. Similarly, honey was guarded by bees and therefore was a treat, not a dietary staple. [6 Easy Ways to Eat More Fruits & Veggies] That’s a great story, brainiacs. That may be true for the northern hemisphere, but what happens in equatorial regions, where tropical, and consequently HIGHER sugar content fruit grows, year round? Funny, you don’t see alot of obese people in places like, say, BRAZIL.
Oh and now that we’re on the subject of the evolution of food and humans; as a species, we have only consumed cows milk for a few hundred years, because cows are expensive to raise. Some people are lactose intolerant; are you clowns going to “ban” cows milk next?
America, use your heads… This is how they hoodwink you, into believing their bullshit.
Today, added sugar, as opposed to natural sugars found in fruits, is often added in foods ranging from soup to soda. Americans consume on average more than 600 calories per day from added sugar, equivalent to a whopping 40 teaspoons. “Nature made sugar hard to get; man made it easy,” the researchers write. Very nice, but what the hell does that have to do with you clowns pushing for regulations on sugar? WHO THE HELL, are you?
Many researchers are seeing sugar as not just “empty calories,” but rather a chemical that becomes toxic in excess. At issue is the fact that glucose from complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains, is safely metabolized by cells throughout the body, but the fructose element of sugar is metabolized primarily by the liver. This is where the trouble can begin — taxing the liver, causing fatty liver disease, and ultimately leading to insulin resistance, the underlying causes of obesity and diabetes. So? This stuff in high quantities can be bad, according to those who are still debating the topic, according to you. So what?
Added sugar, more so than the fructose in fiber-rich fruit, hits the liver more directly and can cause more damage — in laboratory rodents, anyway. Alright, show of hands… Who out there is a rodent? Some researchers, however, remained unconvinced of the evidence of sugar’s toxic effect on the human body at current consumption levels, as high as they are. Ta-da! What’d I tell you? Let the well-paid scientists, fight it out.
Economists to the rescue
Lustig, a medical doctor in UCSF’s Department of Pediatrics, compares added sugar to tobacco and alcohol (coincidentally made from sugar) in that it is addictive, toxic and has a negative impact on society, thus meeting established public health criteria for regulation. They just pulled a fast one again, folks. Sugar is addictive? Um, do you know what your body’s cells use for energy? C6-H12-O6, otherwise known as GLUCOSE, or SUGAR. Yes, you need proteins, vitamins, and minerals, to live, but SUGAR is the fuel that your cells burn, in order to function. Addictive? Try NECESSARY. By that definition, they’ll soon want to regulate water! Lustig advocates a consumer tax on any product with added sugar. There’s that word “tax” again. Interesting… I wonder why that is?
Among Lustig’s more radical proposals are to ban the sale of sugary drinks to children under age 17 and to tighten zoning laws for the sale of sugary beverages and snacks around schools and in low-income areas plagued by obesity, analogous to alcoholism and alcohol regulation. BAN?!?!?!? ZONING LAWS?!?!?!?!?! Oh and my personal favorite, “low-income areas plagued by obesity.”
Think about that for a second, America. I’ll overlook that nanny-state “ban” and “zoning laws” bullshit, for right now, and instead, focus on that fast one, they whizzed past us, in that last statement. “Low-income areas, plagued by obesity”… What the hell is that? How is it, that in areas of lower-income, where we’re basically painting this picture of people who are destitute, and in dire poverty, that we find OBESITY???
India is an impoverished country, with millions living in low-income areas, and in dire, crippling poverty. From the people I know PERSONALLY, who are both from India and my colleagues who travel back and forth, to that country, I’m told that there aren’t many obese people there. How is it that OUR POOR, in OUR COUNTRY, who have little or no means to provide for, let alone FEED themselves, wind up FAT? Is it HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP’S fault?
Or is it because they’re lazy and over fed?
Economists, however, debate as to whether a consumer tax — such as a soda tax proposed in many U.S. states — is the most effective means of curbing sugar consumption. Of course, you’ll just create a black market for the stuff. People who want crap, will find a way to get it. Economists at Iowa State University led by John Beghin suggest taxing the sweetener itself at the manufacturer level, not the end product containing sugar. An ECONOMIST said this? Hey dipshit, think back to Freshman Micro 150. When you figure out all of your fixed and variable costs, taken from what revenue you generate, anything left over is profit. Remember how that works? When the cost of business goes up, in this case, from an additional tax, doesn’t the price of your product rise, as well?
It’s not greedy, it’s logical. Think about it kids; if you had a lemonade stand, and the cost of supplies to make your product goes up, you’re going to have to charge more. Shrinking profit to revenue margins, usually drives people out of that business, into another. Since that will decrease the supply of that product, the price of that product will consequently increase, in order to avoid a shortage.
Either way, the COST to the consumer is going to rise.
You guys have to be the WORST economists I have ever heard of. America, I think I found another way to fix the budget.
This concept, published last year in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, would give companies an incentive to add less sweetener to their products. After all, high-fructose corn syrup is ubiquitous in food in part because it is so cheap and serves as a convenient substitute for more high-quality ingredients, such as fresher vegetables in processed foods. What? When the hell is the last time you heard of corn syrup being used as a substitute for a vegetable, in processed food? I was under the impression that HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP was a sweetener.
Some researchers argue that saturated fat, not sugar, is the root cause of obesity and chronic disease. Others argue that it is highly processed foods with simple carbohydrates. Still others argue that it is a lack of physical exercise. It could, of course, be a matter of all these issues. Uncle Gaslamp would like to toss a number four, into this argument: blatant stupidity, on the part of the consumer.
Alright America, here’s what it is; people are obese because they take in more fuel than they burn. That is what your body does when it has excess fuel. Any extra carbohydrates are converted into fat and are stored, in case you need fuel later.
Think of it like this; your body is a bank account. You take in your daily paycheck, and you have to spend so much of that daily paycheck, on things like walking, running, carrying, breathing, talking, and my personal favorite, screwing your significant other once the kids are asleep. The idea should be, to only take in what you intend to spend, and NOT save.
Yes I realize that this is counter productive to what a real bank account is supposed to do, but in terms of your body, the idea is to break even. If you aren’t real active, then you require less fuel. If you swim 50 laps and run 5 miles a day, then you may require more. If you eat more than you use, you’re going to put on weight. End of story.
Here’s my bitch with the whole notion of some elitist wind bag, proposing regulations, bans, and taxes on this stuff; WHO THE HELL ARE THEY? Last time I checked, this is America, and we are a free society. We are free to live and die by our own means, providing that we do not interfere with anyone else’s ability to do so. The nanny-stater’s never seem to get that people who drink alcohol, do so, because they like to drink. Those who eat junk food, do so, because they like to eat junk. Those who smoke, do so, because they want to.
No amount of regulation, and government interference, is going to stop that. Did we learn NOTHING from prohibition?
But see, here is the real thing that lies just beneath the surface, of this story; they never mention a “ban” on this stuff, do they?
Does anyone honestly believe that this bit about research, and concern over obesity, and the restriction of sales to children, has anything to do with concern about you? Of course not! This research and “feel good” speech, was all about JUSTIFYING another tax, that’s all. Think about it, if it were truly as hazardous to society, as they claim it is, why wouldn’t they ban it outright?
They’ve done it before with asbestos, molybdenum additives in water, lead water pipes, etc. The increased legislation and taxes, disguised as concern for the public welfare, is another way to screw with you, hamper your rights, and nickle-and-dime you, because the jackasses in office, are running out of money to both toss to their buddies, and keep the country running. I’d like to draw your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to our current president who has been on more vacations since he has taken office, than I have had in over a decade.
Wait… I haven’t HAD a vacation, in over a decade.
Envious? Not hardly. I just find it difficult to stomach, that while I’m tightening my belt and working my ass off, like he said I was supposed to do, MY EMPLOYEE is on the golf course, or on Air Force One, off on another vacation with his wife and kids.
Think about that, America. We’re broke, and the guy who pisses your money away, says you’re not paying enough.
The age of the feel good message spouting, self-promoting, intellectuals, needs to end. We don’t need more philosophers, we need Americans who are willing to stand up and take responsibility for their own lives. More laws and taxes aren’t going to fix obesity, in fact, it’s not the job of the government or society to fix.
It’s all about choices.
Source for story: http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-regulated-toxin-researchers-180605186.html