I know I’m a sugar addict. If I take just one bite, it’s all over. I’m sucked into a vacuum of a few more bites…and a few more…and a few more…until I’m finally eating more sugar than I am real food. It doesn’t happen right away. It usually takes me a few weeks to be back in a place where I start feeling like crap (excuse my language), trying to muddle through brain fog, and wondering why the heck I let myself fall into old habits again.
So, I admit that.
But, it doesn’t really help my situation.
That stuff is addicting!
But does that mean it should be regulated?
A commentary in the February issue of Nature written by Robert H. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist, and his colleagues Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argue that it should. They base their argument that sugar consumption needs to be forcibly cut from our diets on the many studies that have shown the damage excessive sugar consumption can wreak on a body. The authors state that sugar and alcohol are both addictive and when consumed, trigger the same “I need more” part of the brain. They also argue that, “it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society.”
I think we can pretty much all agree sugar isn’t good for us. And most people would probably like to consume less. Lustig and his colleagues propose the the government regulate sugar like it does tobacco and alcohol–with taxes, age restrictions, and limiting the amount that is distributed. I don’t even know how this is possible. And you may not feel that the governments should even be regulating tobacco and alcohol. Personally, as much as I hate sugar and what it does to me, I don’t think it’s the government’s job to keep me from eating it. I’m in charge of what I put into my body.
So, what do you think about this? Should the government be trying to save us from ourselves? Should it regulate sugar just as it does tobacco and alcohol?