He Wants To Ban Sugar

The food police are on the prowl again and this time their target is sugar. Robert Lustig, the leading expert in childhood obesity at UC San Francisco’s School of Medicine, is on a crusade against my favorite food item The article, “Is Sugar Toxic?”, explored Lustig’s efforts to convince the American public that sugar is a toxin, He even calls sugar “evil.”. In partnership with two other health policy researchers they write in February 4 issue of the journal 'Nature' that the government should regulate sugar to protect public health. There are few things I would start a revolution against, but banning sugar is one for which I would fight to the death.

Those three sugar deprived doctors claim that fructose is a slow killer, and that though eating a little sugar is harmless, over time allot will destroy the liver and kidneys. Well, a lot of celery or broccoli would do the same. Asking the government to be another mom, to tell us "no sweets", is not only anti democratic, but is insulting to person's right to freely choose his or her food intake. It is contrary to all research that says that sugar is a harmless empty calorie. It's mom who started the sugar kills nonsense, all in order to get junior to eat more of her asparagus casserole, not because mom ever believed sugar would kill her boy.

Why do the health nuts always pick on the fun, good tasting foods to ban? Other food police types have suggested taxing those sugary soda pop drinks or products with added sugars, and want to curb the availability of sugary foods in schools and the advertising that promotes them. Lustig goes further by theorizing that he is combating this societal ill of c sugar by calling for even more nazi tactics against sugar. He wants the U.S government to remove sugar from the Food and Drug Administration’s “Generally Regarded as Safe,” honor roll and....the mad man wants to impose an age limit on those allowed to buy sugary beverages; and legally prohibiting children from patronizing convenience stores.

Hnmmm Making stores that sell sugar into crack houses, equating sugar with cigarettes makes me wonder if Lustig is sugar deprived and needs more sugar for his brain. One wonders what other "bad" foods or ingredients would be next on Lustig's list. In truth any food eaten to excess will cause harm to the body. Even water will destroy the kidneys if taken in in excess.

Foods or products we ingest should only be banned when they cause a direct and proven health hazard.. Sugar does not. If people are fat or have health problems because they like sugar too much, they should make the decision whether to ban it for their own diets. Most people who eat sugar do not abuse their intake of it. Banning sugar would cheapen real bans, as in the bans on various bans on cigarettes and drugs, by equating a harmless natural ingredient with the real evils.

A government can not ever save us from ourselves (or our poor eating habits), nor should it try to. (I am eating a candy bar as I type this!)