Take measures to control the sweet stuff: Front Burner

July 18, 2014|By Steven Masley Guest columnist

As a physician, I strive to empower my patients to make better health decisions and to enjoy vitality and optimal health. Unfortunately, I am up against a $1 trillion food industry that wants us addicted to toxic food and a government that supports this food institution.

Sugar is our No. 1 enemy in the food supply today. Sugar isn't just an enormous source of empty calories; it is harmful. Even without weight gain, increased sugar intake adds to our risk for multiple diseases; studies suggest it is the leading cause of heart attacks and diabetes, and is strongly linked to memory loss and cancer. Sugar is also addicting.

In the past few decades, our country has been overwhelmed by an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Almost 75 percent of our health-care budget is now dedicated to chronic illness, much of which could be prevented with a few simple lifestyle changes, and the most effective one would be eating less sugar. Health-care costs are increasing at 7 percent to 8 percent per year. The biggest threat to our future American economy is growing health-care spending, and it is fueled by sugar.

Solid scientific evidence shows that increased sugar intake contributes to rampant weight gain in Americans, and that evolutionarily, our brains are hard-wired to crave sugar. Considering our innate yearning for sugar, the subsidies that make it so inexpensive, and the companies that market it to us from infancy, our ability to use willpower alone to limit sugar intake is anemic. If we rely on individuals to control the sugar in their diets, we may lose the battle against obesity — and face national economic ruin.

Many argue that it is not the government's role to interfere in our diets or limit our food choices. I would argue that the government is already interfering in our food choices. First, through subsidies it gives to the food industry to produce sugar. Second, through feeding our children sugar in schools and addicting them at this critical stage. And third, by encouraging people to use food stamps to buy cheap food loaded with sugar.

Should there be a tax on sugar consumption? Many states and cities already tax soda and snack foods effectively, so that's not a new idea. Tobacco taxes have decreased tobacco use and offset health-care dollars spent on tobacco-related illnesses.

Here's what I propose as reasonable regulations:

•Have food producers disclose added sugars on nutrition-facts panels and require that they group all kinds of sugars under one designation — sugar. Sugar is hidden in food. It comes in the form of sucrose, corn syrup, cane syrup, food starches and dozens of other names. Currently, I can't tell the difference between fresh blueberries and high-fructose corn syrup when reading a food label. This needs to change.

•Don't let people use food stamps to buy inexpensive food loaded with sugar.

•Remove sugar from food served to children at school. School meals should provide wholesome food — not addictive toxins.

•Stop government subsidies for foods that can ultimately kill us — like sugar. If we are going to offer farmers food subsidies, let's do so in a way that encourages farmers to produce vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and clean protein.

•Lastly, just like we have a tax on tobacco, we should have a tax on sugar consumption. When people choose to eat sugar, they increase health-care expenses for everyone — not just themselves. Why not let people share responsibility for how their choices impact their own long-term health-care expenses?

For my part, I will keep counseling my patients to make healthy and delicious food choices — and hope that soon it will be much easier for them to make optimal food choices and to stop contributing to soaring national health-care expenses.

Steven Masley is a physician, nutritionist, trained chef and president of the Masley Optimal Health Center in St Petersburg. His latest book is "The 30-Day Heart Tune Up."

Orlando Sentinel Articles