Diet and Sugar Consumption

My favorite meal to pick up is from a fast food restaurant is Chicken McNuggets, with fries and sweet tea. A meal with nearly 475 calories, 30 grams of fat, 30 grams of carbs, and well over 500 mg of sodium. I can admit that this is most definitely not nearly a healthy diet or source of nutrients, but I can also admit that it is quick, cheap, and convenient. Americans started the “Western diet” trend of processed foods that are unhealthy and high in sugars. Countries such as Denmark and the United Nations have picked up these habits and are struggling with the same issues. In this article, the authors argue that adding artificial ingredients to our diets can lead to health issues, and should be controlled by the government.

If I had to guess the most prevalent reasons for mortality, my answer would probably be that most deaths are caused by criminal acts such as murder. According to “Public Health: The Toxic Truth About Sugar” I would be wrong. The authors of this article makes it clear, and states more than once that most deaths come from noncommunicable diseases.    A diet that is not nutritious and helpful in aiding the body carryout normal functions, can lead to obesity and or malnutrition. More importantly though, these diets can deter the body’s rate of metabolism, leading to seriousness such as; obesity and cardiovascular disease. Heart disease, diabetes, and cancer lead to nearly 35 million deaths and this number is steadily growing as the consumption of poor diets continue to become more and more common.

What can be done to stop this ongoing issue? Well, the UN feels as if tobacco, alcohol, and diets are the central factors in noncommunicable disease. Since they regulate tobacco and alcohol they feel as if diet should be regulated as well. However that is tricky because unlike tobacco and alcohol, food is a necessity. In Denmark, there is a tax on foods that are high in saturated fats; interesting, since fat is not considered to be the issue. The country is now contemplating on if sugar should be taxed as well because it can be defended and proven to lead to these noncommunicable health factors.

The authors give their readers an idea of how the government could and should intervene. The first raise the point of controlling taxation, distribution and age limits of products with added sugars. They propose the idea that adding taxes to soda, for example, would decrease the amount and how often people will go out and by the product, and it would also allow the government to benefit economically. Yet to do so and be affective, the price of a 2 Liter would have to go from two dollars a bottle to four. What better way to reduce consumption that limit distribution? The government should control the hours retailers are open, make a obtaining vending machine license more difficult, and limit the number of fast food restaurants in low-income communities. If that doesn’t work, why not limit sales during school hours and put an age limit on the purchase of soda? “Sugar is cheap, sugar tastes good and sugar sells, so companies have little incentive to change.”  

Although I feel the authors raise logical as well as ethical points in trying to convince people to change their diets, I do not necessarily agree with the ideas on intervention. Its not fair to consumers or business owners to tax or limit food consumption because it is a choice. It is up to the consumer to decide what they would like to purchase for dinner, not the government. However what they can do is raise awareness of what a healthy diet consists of, or teach children that healthy diets can taste good as well. Either way, regulating sugar consumption will not be easy, and it may take years to come to a conclusion as to what should be done to put an end to poor diet choices.