Nanny State

First They Came For Sugar Smacks, And I Didn't Care Because I Had Already Moved on to Mueslix…

|

A number of readers have alerted Reason to the latest silliness coming out of the Bay Area, this time in the form of a research paper arguing that sugar is toxic, an additive, and hence should be regulated. 

"We are now seeing the toxic downside," co-author and sugar researcher Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the UCSF Center for Obesity Assessment, Study, and Treatment, told WebMD. "There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient."… 

Hot Air's Allahpundit has an interesting gloss on the larger issues:

One of the co-authors has an op-ed at CNN making her case. She doesn't want prohibition — imagine trying to enforce an outright ban on sugar — but rather "gentle 'supply side' controls, such as taxing products, setting age limits and promoting healthier versions of the product." You would think that in an information age, as TVs and cell phones become ubiquitous even among the lower classes, nanny impulses would be channeled more frequently into public education campaigns than into regulation. Doesn't feel that way, though, does it?…

The more access to information you have, the dumber you supposedly are, and therefore the more your choices have to be made for you by your superiors. Isn't the future glorious?

Read the whole Allahpundit here.