Scientists Want Sugar Regulated As a Toxin

[Derf]

I can see their reasoning, but REALLY?!?!?

The story.

[AndyC]

Oh cripes. This kind of melodramatic BS always annoys me. Too much sugar is bad for you in the long term, but it ain't toxic. At least no more than anything else. Even water can be toxic if you drink enough all at once. I hate it when people abuse and misuse words to make a point.

And this particular nonsense is nothing new. I can remember in high school, back in the 80s, reading an article (by Dr. David Suzuki no less) about people treating refined sugar as poison, and why it was wrong.

[indianasmith]

Oh geez.  Yet another opportunity for the nanny state to run amok!

[WildHoosier09]

according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)."

The sad part about this story is that a journal as reputable as Nature carried it. Even though just as an opinion piece which it is.

[ulthar]

a journal as reputable as Nature

That "reputation" depends entirely on who you ask.

Some of us would NOT be surprised they carried this...

Really, if you look at the 'record' of Nature over the past, I don't know, let's say two decades, you start to think that the reputation of old can carry water only so long.

[Flick James]

Well, on one hand I think the rise in use of high-fructose corn syrup and the corresponding rise in obesity is a correlary that probably shouldn't be ignored. Also, the massive amounts of money spent by the corn industry in trying to convince us that the body treats fructose and sucrose the same is highly suspect. The whole "sugar is sugar" line is immediatly fishy to me. That's like saying "acid is acid." So, the body can't tell the difference between citric and hydrochloric acid? Hmmm.

On the other hand, we live in an age when objective science is nearly non-existent. Sadly, too many studies are funded by agenda-driven entities.

[tracy]

Tell me what to eat....tell me what to do...tell me what to think....tell me how to live....tell me how to breathe....

[alandhopewell]

     I'll take Paul Lynde to block....

[WildHoosier09]

a journal as reputable as Nature

That "reputation" depends entirely on who you ask.

Some of us would NOT be surprised they carried this...

Really, if you look at the 'record' of Nature over the past, I don't know, let's say two decades, you start to think that the reputation of old can carry water only so long.

I would come up with a whitty retort but then I think about the number of times I've actually referenced the journal Nature. ....,,, I think once or twice in college. I was young and experimental and Nature was just there lying on my bed, talking about its dreams for the future with its bra strap casually slipping off its shoulder...

Maybe you are right about Nature, afterwards that slut got referenced by my roommate too.

In all seriousness, in my field I spend alot more time using Journal of Controlled Release and Biomaterials.  So Ulthar as one scientist to another (and in case your curious I put a few teaspons of sugar in my coffee everyday) what is your favorite journal?

[ulthar]

So Ulthar as one scientist to another (and in case your curious I put a few teaspons of sugar in my coffee everyday) what is your favorite journal?

Favorite?  Don't really have one.

Read a lot of Journal of Chemical Physics, Journal of Physical Chemistry and International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes back in the day.

My first publication was in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, so, for that reason I guess, I always had a fondness, at least until it just became too diverse.

It's not really a journal, but the American Physical Society publication Physics Today was always a favorite, too.  More of a trade journal, it was different and INCREDIBLY informative...the articles were extremely well written for generalist audiences.

Another trade rag I really like (and regretted giving up my subscription) is Ocean Navigator.  It's pretty far off the topic of peer reviewed chemistry journals, though, but I did want to "plug" it.  Good stuff and very professional (at least it was ... )

JACS annoyed me more than anything, though there was the occasional gem.

I NEVER held Nature in much esteem.  It always seemed overblown and too rife with self-aggrandizement and shoulder patting...

I find most journals these days to be full of articles poorly written JAFMO (if you know that acronym), so specialized that the audience, even in so-called specialized journals, is extremely narrow.  The leaps of logic, non-sequitors and lack of focus on basic principles have really put me out of mind to even bother.

When I need something specific, the material I need is usually but a Chem Abstracts search away.

[WildHoosier09]

Must admit, I don't know JAFMO...?

I agree on the biggest pet peeves on these. Mine is spotty or poorly written materials and methods sections followed by grandiose claims.  Bad grammer and English (sorry, but by the time it hits print it should have been at least proof-read by a native speaker) have in my experience been downright dangerous. I've worked on a reaction where luckily I moved my hand fast enough to avoid the billowing HCl gas after misunderstanding the difference between "add reagents then heat solution to 80C" versus "heat solution to 80C then add reagents".

The "article" here is a perfect example of poor M&M:

"Fructose is processed in the liver, therefore fructose is the evil which the US govt should make priority one to get rid of."

To properly believe such grand policy suggestions I would expect this paper to have a materials and methods section written out roughly as follows:
"A randomly selected group of people large enough to be reasonably representative of the USA (minimum 1% of population so at least 3 million) was subjected to the proposed rules including minimum sugar age, taxes on sugar, etc. while a control group of equal size was not subjected to any regulations. These groups were followed over the course of 30 years. After 30 years the de-sugared group had a statistically significant reduction in incidence of obesity, diabetes, and other related diseases (p-Value <0.001) as compared to the control group" this you could make some (not all) but at least some claims to justifying a policy from a results perspective.

I'll need to check into this research maybe it was brought to us by the makers of truvia.  I disagree with this policy anyhow, while we tax sugar why not tax salt and lipids too since they are bad. Actually maybe we should all sit on the govt.'s knee and get our noses wiped, be burped, and swaddled for bed while we're at it.

[The Gravekeeper]

I see where they're coming from, because yes, sugar is way too abundant now. However, rather than taxing it, maybe educating the general public better about the health problems associated with high sugar intake (particularly if such habits are formed in childhood) and teaching people where to look for and how to prepare low-sugar meals would probably do a lot more good than just making people pay more for their groceries.

[Leah]

sayin sugar is a toxin is dumb, I thought these people wanted it to ;abelled as a drug, since it's more addicting than crack.

[indianasmith]

You can have my Dr. Peppr when you pry it from my cold, dead hands . . . .

[tracy]

You can have my Dr. Peppr when you pry it from my cold, dead hands . . . .

I miss Dr Pepper....that diet stuff is awful!