Talking Toxic Sugar at KUOW in Seattle Yesterday
Yesterday, I participated in The Conservation run by host Ross Reynolds at the Seattle public radio station KUOW. The topic centered on regulating sugar in much the same way that the government already regulates alcohol and tobacco based on a new article published in Nature, The Toxic Truth About Sugar [sub required]. The program featured Laura Schmidt, a sociologist working at the San Francisco School of Medicine arguing in favor of regulation. She outlined some of her proposals in a CNN op/ed including a "substantial tax on products loaded with sugar," imposing age limits on purchasing high sugar products, and controlling the opening hours of fast food outlets near schools.
I was called in to "balance" the discussion. First, excessive consumption of sugar is bad for you. So don't do it. That's what public health officials should be focusing on rathering than figuring how to jigger taxes and regulations to make our behavior conform to their views on what's best for us. The chief problem is that nearly everything we do or don't do can affect our health. That means from public health bureaucrats' points of view there is no aspect of our lives in which they may not meddle for "our own good."
In any case, during the segment of the program in which I got to speak, I argued against further infantalization of Americans by health nannies who assume that people are too stupid to know what's best for them. I note that Schmidt's editorial says, "We think that the public needs to be better informed about the science of how sugar impacts our health." Yes. That is the proper role for public health bureaucrats. And they have had notable successes. For example, per capita cigarette smoking began to decline from nearly the moment that the Surgeon General declared it a health hazard back in 1964.
During the program, I argued that I surely must be considered a shining example of a public health success. I took to heart all the warnings about tobacco. I used to be a 3-pack per day smoker, but I stopped smoking 27 years ago. And I quit when cigarettes cost under a dollar per pack.
With regard to public health warnings about excessive consumption of sugar and carbohydrates, I again took public health warnings to heart. In the last three years I have lost 45 pounds dropping my body mass index from nearly 30 (borderline obese) to a healthy normal 23 now. (It's only been a couple of years, so let's see if I can keep the weight off.)
I expect that public health information about various disease risks posed by eating too much sugar can and will help my fellow Americans to make the same sorts of risk/reward decisions on their own.
During her segment, Schmidt pointed out that excessive sugar consumption is associated with metabolic syndrome, a kind of pre-diabetes, if you will. She's absolutely right. But so are a lot of other activities (or inactivities). For example, as I pointed out during the program, television viewing is also associated with metabolic syndrome. Is the next proposed public health recommendation going to be regulations on how much TV people may watch per day?
The host Ross Reynolds, asked me about the possibility of adding sugar warning labels to sweets the same way the government requires warning labels on cigarettes. I asked if this meant that he would favor big pictures of morbidly obese people on the front of cookie packages? He responded (jokingly), what about tiny pictures of morbidly obese people? The conversation ended there.
Go here to listen to the KUOW segment, Just How Bad Is Sugar?
For a superb discussion of the totalitarian implications of public health read "An Epidemic of Meddling" by my colleague Jacob Sullum.
