It’s Time to Treat Sugar Like Cigarettes - As consumers, we deserve the right to easily understand our foods’ nutritional value in order to make informed decisions about what we consume and how that will impact our health and well being.

sugar.png
Getty Images

The food we eat impacts every aspect of our lives and our bodies: our hormones, brain chemistry, immune system, microbiome; the list goes on. As consumers, we deserve the right to easily understand our foods’ nutritional value in order to make informed decisions about what we consume and how that will impact our health and well being. This is especially important when it comes to ingredients that are detrimental when eaten in excess, such as sugar. As researchers in functional medicine, longevity, AI, and nutrition, as well as inventors of health-enhancing and life-saving solutions, we have dedicated our professional lives to improving the health and well-being of millions everywhere. And while we applaud the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) taking important strides to pass mandatory front-of-package labeling for packaged foods in the U.S., this is a change that cannot come soon enough. Everyone’s health depends on it.

The FDA recommends adults consume no more than 50 grams of added sugar per day (based on a 2,000 calorie diet), but the average American consumes closer to one-third of a pound of sugar daily, more than three times the recommended amount. To put that into perspective, the average American consumes over 100 pounds of sugar per person per year. With that much sugar consumption, it is no wonder that 49% of American adults are diabetic or pre-diabetic. What’s worse is that much of the sugar we consume occurs without our even realizing it. There are over 60 different ways sugar is identified on nutrition labels, making a consumer’s attempt to regulate their sugar intake unfairly complicated.

Extensive academic research published in medical peer-reviewed journals backs common knowledge that excess sugar consumption can lead to serious chronic conditions, as well as fatigue, anxiety, memory loss, ADHD, and even to a shorter life.

Seventy four percent of packaged foods in the U.S. contain added sugar, including seemingly healthy foods, such as salad dressing, coleslaw, and even baked beans, marinades, and yogurt; some sweetened yogurts contain more sugar than a can of soda. The fact that sugar is so biologically addictive — studies indicate it is eight times more addictive than cocaine — makes the reality that it’s hidden in so many foods even more harmful. Most of us are addicted to sugar and we don’t even know it.

This cycle of addiction is relentless and hard to break: we eat food with sugar, which then triggers a blood sugar spike, which lights up the pleasure center in our brain. When the inevitable sugar crash comes, we seek that spike again in the form of craving more sugar. Without easily discernible food labeling, shoppers unknowingly create this cycle inside their own bodies, even while they erroneously think the food they’re buying is healthy.

In many countries, labels on packaged foods serve a similar function to labels on cigarette cartons: to warn consumers of risk. In Chile, a policy of “high in” labels on the front of sugary drinks dramatically reduced the consumption of those beverages. In Israel, a front-of-package labelling system, wherein a red label indicates an item high in sugar, has led to significant positive changes in 76% of the population’s food buying habits. We’re excited to see what a similar program in the U.S. would yield.

Those in the U.S. lobbying against this front-of-package change, unsurprisingly, have an interest in the continued popularity of their products. In a February 2023 joint filing, the nation’s largest cereal producers threatened a lawsuit after proposed changes would not allow them to label products as “healthy” if they didn’t meet nutritional standards.

This dynamic is similar to changes made in cigarette advertising in the 20th century. In the 1940s, a famous Camel cigarettes campaign featured the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels.” By 1969, a mandatory warning label was added to cigarettes, giving consumers clearer access to information about risks, allowing them to make more informed choices about their health. Today the percentage of Americans who smoke is 11% compared to nearly 50% back in the day when “more doctors smoked Camels”. Life expectancy rose nearly 11 years in that span of time too, and the decrease in smoking certainly contributed.

While front-of-package labeling on packaged foods is a crucial first step towards a healthier society, education and awareness alone will only get us so far. To drive even more significant change in the way most Americans eat, a change that will lead to a healthier population, we must also incentivize the production and widespread distribution of healthier alternatives. These alternatives—a packaged cookie with healthier ingredients, for instance—must be just as delicious, and readily available as those loaded with sugar. The recently announced new standards by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will limit added sugars in school meals can greatly help with the availability of healthier alternatives, especially when children form their eating habits. For the rest of us, though, front-of-package labeling is an important step one in this journey towards national wellness and it will also encourage producers to create healthier options for consumers; readily available healthier alternatives is step two.

FDA leadership ensuring labeling of high contents of sugar in packaged foods could increase awareness and reduce the negative impacts of sugar and help millions live healthier longer lives. This change would help us make more informed choices about our food and our health. We believe it is our right, and every American’s right, to have clear and visible information about the sugar content of the foods we are eating in order to make those decisions.

Article Link

Archive
 
Read the ingredients. Look at the nutritional info. Just don't eat sugar or processed food, you lazy cunt.
I agree but the problem is they sneak a lot of this stuff in and bury it in "added sugars" which most people never notice or understand. These added sugars are nothing but adulteration to pad out calorie counts and improve the taste of inferior quality products.

If there is nothing to be concerned about, you should have no problems listing it in big, bold letters on the front of the box.
 
The FDA recommends adults consume no more than 50 grams of added sugar per day (based on a 2,000 calorie diet), but the average American consumes closer to one-third of a pound of sugar daily, more than three times the recommended amount
Daily sugar and daily added sugar are two different things. You could eat five pounds of sugar a day and consume no added sugar. I can't tell if this is a journalist being a moron or a journalist being bad at writing, but it's one of the two.
 
"Five warnings on the box aren't enough, we need a new government department for a sixth warning! Or people will DIEEEEEEE!!!!!"


I'm so ill of seeing the social tinkerers blather on about "Informed choice" when they won't just come out and say "you shouldn't have a choice at all!" because that's what they want with their demand for endless warnings and regulations. They want you to be so scared and scolded and tired of filling out forms you just don't buy the product, as they all refuse to believe or acknowledge that even with all the "informing" in the world, a rational person can still come to a different conclusion than they have.
 
What we really need to crack down on in vegetable shorteners and oils.
 
Seed oils and suspicious additives that are oddly banned in every country except the U.S for some mysterious reason are a much much bigger deal than sugar.

Food 70 years ago was absolutely loaded with sugar and grease and cancer and obesity rates have skyrocketed since then. It's obviously something else.
 
Food 70 years ago was absolutely loaded with sugar and grease and cancer and obesity rates have skyrocketed since then. It's obviously something else.
Yes and no. Sugar was still limited to the vast majority of the population until after WW2. Only the well-to-do could afford it on a regular basis, not the poorest in society who made do with what they could get. That's changed a lot now; cheap cuts like oxtail and lobsters are seen are very attractive and high-end these days when back then they were so cheap it was considered insulting to give them to the wealthy. Grease, fat and lard would have been commonplace for the plebs as even they needed a lot of calories to help fuel them for the day, but that's exactly one of the biggest differences between pleblife then and pleblife now. We can be sunning ourselves in the Canary Islands in less than a few days given the funds whereas actually getting there years ago would have taken weeks in a ship. We have cars, television, all sorts of tools and gadgets to make life a lot easier. There was a shitload of pollution of course, depending on where you lived. Industrial Britain was so filthy that the Thames stank like a rotting corpse and could make one ill, and the smog so thick that light-coloured moths became a rarity as they were more easily spotted against soot-encrusted buildings than their darker brethren.

There are too many factors to contend with but modern privileges have definitely added to it on top of plastics, chemicals and other shit that didn't exist in nearly the same numbers as it did back then. Then again, sugar is notorious for feeding cancer so processed food could almost certainly be a contributing factor. A fresh apple is very different from a pack of goyslop processed candy bars, and chocolate bars back then (made with whole milk) is much healthier than most chocolate now, stuffed with palm oil and shit.
 
Both sugar and vegetable fats are the problem. Sugar is probably easier to deal with, though, as it is simpler and more blatantly in products it has no right to be in such as canned vegetables, processed meats, and plain bread. There's a reason other countries consider US bread a cake and it has 100+ calories a slice.
 
I think its time to let adults kill themselves however they see fit, be it sugar, tobacco or fentanyl. Who are these writers to decide what I put into my body go fuck yourself. You wanna be super healthy and live forever be my guest
 
Rather, treat sugar like Cigarettes you can use to get things after the Kike-Run ponzi economy dies over the next few months/years. Sugar and cigs will be highly sought after commodities in a collapse. Iudea Delenda Est Aeterna.
 
Food 70 years ago was absolutely loaded with sugar and grease and cancer and obesity rates have skyrocketed since then. It's obviously something else.
If you ate stuff like that then, you'd be right at the age for developing a lot of cancers in the past 20 years. I think people today greatly overestimate how healthy people actually were in the 1950s and prior due to false nostalgia vs. what it was actually like. All of the ultra-processed foods and chemical additives were developed and popularized during those decades.

To say nothing of the unregulated pollution and toxic waste dumps scattered all over the country that are still being cleaned up which had an enormous, negative effect on peoples' health.

It's been bad for a long time but has actually gotten better in some ways, there are far more options for healthy and nutritious food than ever. The only problem is how expensive it is vs. this stuff.
 
All it takes is a week cutting out sugar to suddenly understand how unbelievably sickly sweet pretty much everything that comes in a box or a bottle is from the grocery store. I don't mean switching out for some kind of artificial sweetener. I mean don't eat sweet shit for a week. You'll taste the difference and things you didn't even realize are sweet will taste sweet and sugary. That's the thing about sugar, the more of it you eat, the more of it you need for things to taste sweet.

Also, sugar addicts are fucking annoying. They remind me of cokeheads. They eat some sugar and they're all go go go go go ahhh happy and talking and shit, then they crash and get all fucking moody and miserable and start craving more sugar and just like cokeheads they want everyone else around them to do their shit with them. "Don't you want some?, not even a little line? How could you not want any coke?/Do you want something nice? Don't you want some candy? How about a pop? Why don't you want anything?" Like no fuck off with your fucking garbage.
 
"Five warnings on the box aren't enough, we need a new government department for a sixth warning! Or people will DIEEEEEEE!!!!!"


I'm so ill of seeing the social tinkerers blather on about "Informed choice" when they won't just come out and say "you shouldn't have a choice at all!" because that's what they want with their demand for endless warnings and regulations. They want you to be so scared and scolded and tired of filling out forms you just don't buy the product, as they all refuse to believe or acknowledge that even with all the "informing" in the world, a rational person can still come to a different conclusion than they have.
Your right, but its not just social tinkerers but the monopolies that fill out, and often own, our grocery stores as well. They want MORE regulations and requirements because it means that smaller competitors have a much harder time keeping up with all the regulations and requirements while lowering their profit margins due to reprinting and fines. Its the same reasons they championed "trans/non-binary bathrooms" a few years ago, because small businesses can't afford to pay for a whole new bathroom and the floor space it would consume while larger businesses could.

The monopolies already know the loopholes, because they often ghost write the legislation and incoming regulation through lobbyists, and can adjust months ahead of when the change is coming as a result.

All we see on the surface is useful idiots who are being influenced by the paid shills and bots (lots of bots) pushing the narrative that the useful idiots then run with on their own. Its a remarkably effective, cheap and subtle tactic that monopolies have perfected over the last few decades.
 
If you ate stuff like that then, you'd be right at the age for developing a lot of cancers in the past 20 years.
Cancer rates are expected to increase by aprox. 70% by 2050, you'd think they'd be on the decline considering less and less people smoke tobacco in the first world.
Also, sugar addicts are fucking annoying. They remind me of cokeheads. They eat some sugar and they're all go go go go go ahhh happy and talking and shit, then they crash and get all fucking moody and miserable and start craving more sugar
You don't realize how bad it is until you try cutting it out of your diet completely, mood swings, lack of energy coupled with headaches etc.
 
Cancer rates are expected to increase by aprox. 70% by 2050, you'd think they'd be on the decline considering less and less people smoke tobacco in the first world.
Sure, but that applies almost exclusively to a specific kind of cancer. Smoking can increase your risk of other types but it's lung cancer that is really driven by changes in smoking rates. Of course, another cause of increased cancer risk is obesity. That may help explain why Japan and China have much higher smoking rates than the West but not the same burden from cancer.

The other issue is whether the projected increase is due to better detection and much longer survival rates for cancer patients.

50 years ago, a lot of cancers weren't caught until you were at the point where it was a terminal illness or required harsh chemotherapy/radiotherapy treatments.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo