Recently an American doctor called Robert Lustig has been calling for laws
that restrict sugar as if it were alcohol or tobacco. Like many people, I
suspect, my initial reaction upon hearing this was: give me a break. Lustig,
who thinks sugar is a dangerous poison, has considered several strategies.
For instance, we could double the price of fizzy drinks, so children can’t
afford them. We could get sweet shops to close in the afternoons, when
children are going home from school. We could restrict the advertising of
foods with added sugar.
We could even set an age limit for fizzy drinks, possibly 17, so younger kids
can’t buy cans of Coke.
Dear me. Whatever next? It’s easy to understand the reasons for controlling
tobacco and alcohol — these things are toxic and costly for everyone. If you
smoke or get drunk, I end up paying your hospital bills; if you don’t smoke
or drink, I pay less tax. So of course alcohol and tobacco should be
restricted. Tobacco causes an array of diseases; alcohol can destroy your
liver, and it also makes people shout and fight and vomit in the street.
Both are addictive.
But sugar? The stuff you sprinkle on your cereal? That makes cakes and
chocolate taste nice? My first thought was: yes, I know it’s bad for you.
Yes, it rots your teeth — if you don’t clean them afterwards. Yes, if you
eat too much, you get fat. Yes, it can tinker with your metabolism, so when
you eat sugar, you crave more. And I know first-hand about the phenomenon of
the sugar high — I have a six-year-old son.
Source - Telegraph
Source - Telegraph