Should There Be a Minimum Age for Sugar Consumption?

A provocative new report from the prestigious science journal Nature suggests that sugars are so unhealthy that they should be regulated.

Nature, the prestigious science magazine from Great Britain, has just published a commentary with a provocative title, "The toxic truth about sugar," and an even more provocative subtitle: "Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol."

The authors, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt, and Claire Brindis, are researchers at the University of California Medical Center in San Francisco (UCSF).

They argue that although tobacco, alcohol, and diet are critically important behavioral risk factors in chronic disease, only two of them -- tobacco and alcohol -- are regulated by governments to protect public health.

Now, they say, it's time to regulate sugar. By sugar, they mean sugars plural: sucrose as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Both are about half fructose.

Their rationale?

Consumption of sugars has tripled over the last 50 years.
Many people consume as much as 500 calories a day from sugars (average per capita availability in the U.S. is about 400 calories a day).
High intake of fructose-containing sugars induce metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, insulin resistance), diabetes, and liver damage.
Sugars have the potential for abuse.
Sugars have negative effects on society (mediated via obesity).
Too much of a good thing can be toxic.

Therefore, they argue, societies should intervene and consider the kinds of policies that have proven effective for control of tobacco and alcohol:

Taxes
Distribution controls
Age limits
Bans from schools
Licensing requirements
Zoning ordinances
Bans on TV commercials
Labeling added sugars
Removal of fructose from GRAS status

In a statement that greatly underestimates the situation, they say:

We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.

But, they conclude:

These simple measures -- which have all been on the battleground of American politics -- are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It's time to turn our attention to sugar.

What is one to make of this? Sugar is a delight, nobody is worried about the fructose in fruit or carrots, and diets can be plenty healthy with a little sugar sprinkled here and there.

The issue is quantity. Sugars are not a problem, or not nearly as much of a problem, for people who balance calorie intake with expenditure.

Scientists can argue endlessly about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of metabolic dysfunction, but most people would be healthier if they ate less sugar.

The bottom line? As Corinna Hawkes, the author of numerous reports on worldwide food marketing, wrote me: "there are plenty of reasons for people to consume less sugar without having to worry about whether it's toxic or not!"

Image: Yurchyks/Shutterstock.

This post also appears on Food Politics, an Atlantic partner site.

About the Author

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”