The latest target of the bansturbators is that poison, sugar:
Last week, a trio of American scientists led by Robert Lustig, professor of clinical paediatrics at the University of California, published an article in the journal Nature, outlining the toxic effects that sugar has on humans and arguing for governmental controls on its sale and distribution. While the authors come short of labelling sugar a “poison” outright, in a 2007 interview with ABC Radio about excess sugar consumption, Lustig said: “We’re being poisoned to death. That’s a very strong statement, but I think we can back it up with very clear scientific evidence.”
This being the land of the Grauniad, bansturbation is the only possible response to what is likely to be more junk science:
Most of us have known for some time that excess sugar is not good for us, but education and knowledge are clearly not enough.
Yes, it is, because what we eat is nothing to do with anyone else, least of all, government.
Regulation is required.
No, it isn’t because… what we eat is nothing to do with anyone else, least of all, government.
This is no longer an issue of personal responsibility,
Yes, it is, because what we eat is nothing to do with anyone else, least of all, government.
but one of public expenditure and public health.
It is not a public health issue, it is a personal one and we not government pay for healthcare.
The only thing that needs regulating here is the bloody socialists who, yet again, are trying to interfere in the private sphere.
Last week, it was a tad more nuanced, it turns out their is a difference between sucrose (good) and fructose (bad). This week it’s just “all sugar’, see also the way that rules against blue and brown asbestos (really nasty) were also applied to white asbestos (a completely different mineral and quite harmless).
Public health? There is no such thing. There is my health, there is your health, there is no OUR health.
Great to see her getting a right caning in the comments, even from Guardianistas. My personal favourite was “Oh God. Look, I’m an unapologetic lefty and this made me cringe.”
🙂
Yes, I noticed that. Sometimes they go too far even for their natural supporters to follow.
Meh. I learned in biology class (US, early 1970s) that there is a nutritional difference between sucrose and fructose, although the calories are the same.
During that time, my late aunt who lived in the San Francisco area told me repeatedly that sugar is poison, so it was a notion which was alive and well back then. That means that two generations of Californians have been brought up to believe it.
That said, even then, ‘sugar is poison’ referred to refined sugar and not all sugar. See how the boundaries move over the years?
And Lactose, and Glucose …..
Different absorbtion aptterns, different up-take in the body, etc ….
ANd of course, the other “villain” – “Starch” (a catch-all nomenclature).
Starches are chains of sugars joined together – thaty’s why they are sometime called polysacchirides.
Never let facts get in the way of a good scare, eh?