San Francisco's War on Sugar
There's a steep price to pay for living in the beautiful City by the Bay. You've either got to learn to coexist with the nanny statists, or else be driven to madness until you leave the city. Most days I cope just fine. But I don't want to make peace with this:
Like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is a toxic, addictive substance that should be highly regulated with taxes, laws on where and to whom it can be advertised, and even age-restricted sales, says a team of UCSF scientists.
A sin tax on sugar?! Why, yes, says an approving neighbor in Berkeley. She argues on Facebook:
How are we supposed to regulate our own intake of these substances when we don't even know half the [expletive] that's being put into our food? "...most people aren't even aware of the various ways sugars sneak into their diets, often via breads and cereals and processed foods." Nobody but health gurus realistically read every label or even understand what the hell is written there.
Got that? It's simply outrageous for people to be permitted to make their own decisions about what to eat because they don't—and can't—know what's good for them. The government needs to step in to help us out. A fellow San Franciscan concurs:
Exactly! And they are not trying to BAN sugar, just REGULATE it. Which they really, really should.
Pediatric endocrinologist Dr. Robert Lustig of UCSF, one of those championing this new war on sugar tells the San Francisco Chronicle that he expects resistance from the plebs.
"Everybody yells, 'Nanny state, this guy is trying to control our food,' " Lustig said. "But it's already being controlled. It limits consumer choice when so much of our food is controlled by these industries. I'm actually trying to undo the nanny state."
(NB: Pictured above is the most supremely delicious sugary pastry I've ever had the pleasure of eating. If ever you find yourself in San Francisco, do yourself a favor and pick up a Morning Bun or three from Tartine Bakery.)
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
"We have to [eat the food] so that You can find out what's in it."
Aug '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
I find it interesting how so many articles about this kerfuffle focus on the San Francisco angle.
What disturbs me about it, however, is that the originating paper was published in Nature, which is supposed to be a respected scientific journal, not a political rag.
Jun '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
If it has two inches of icing on it, it's fair to assume it has sugar in it.
If, after having eaten it, you feel really, really good, it probably had a lot of sugar in it.
Edited on Feb 2 at 12:13pmJan '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Sugar is also a preservative.
Jul '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
If you eat too much pastry your buns will be mourning.
The Pediatric Endocrinologist at UCSF wants the government to regulate the nanny state food industry? That's priceless. Some doctors have the arrogance of intellect and cannot exist outside of universities.
He is correct in the harm sugars do to us. Can we agree that feeling bad and dying early is punishment enough or should we let the nanny state handle it?
May '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
I love that liberal reaction and I believe we should adopt it.
Aug '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Diane Ellis, Ed.
"Everybody yells, 'Nanny state, this guy is trying to control our food,' " Lustig said. "But it's already being controlled. It limits consumer choice when so much of our food is controlled by these industries. I'm actually trying to undo the nanny state."
The corporatists are controlling our food!
This is the same backwards view that is often used to defend Obamacare's rationing. "Insurance companies already ration! We're going to make sure they ration fairly!"
Feb '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
When Michael Bloomberg is finally term limited out of office in NY City, he might consider moving to San Francisco and running there. Sounds like he would be a good fit.
Dec '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
I so completely want one of those.
Jan '12
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
I'll send a copy of this article to my daughter-in-law. She writes up the scripts for some of the anchors on KPIX. Maybe they'll say something about how ridiculous this is.
Frankly, if my son and she did not live in S.F., I'd boycott the place altogether.
Edited on Feb 2 at 3:49pmAug '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Re-reading Diane's original post, and I'm confused by the logic of one of her friends:
If you can ban sugar, that means you know it's in the food.
If you ban sugar, that means one less ingredient that you knew about, leaving only ingredients that you don't know about.
[facepalm]
My sister happens to be a crazy, sunflowers and rainbows, health food eating, trend-watching, know-it-all, busybody, leftist moonbat. However, she's very pro-sugar.
Me, I make my Kool-Aid with Sugar Twin instead of sugar. She tells me that in her house, the kids get sugar. It's a natural ingredient, she says, and any replacement for sugar is gonna be some chemical whose effects you cannot really understand.
Me, I like my Sugar Twin, but I can see her point. At least she's more rational than the San Fran statists.
Oct '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
For all it's faults, San Francisco used to be a foodie's paradise. Do they really want to give that up?
Where are all their celebrity chefs? Aren't they screaming about this?
Jan '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
mmmm, those morning buns look so good!
Jan '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Hey, I have an idea -- let's ban alcohol!
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Misthiocracy: Re-reading Diane's original post, and I'm confused by the logic of one of her friends:
Forget logic. It's so...ugh...18th century white male. Let's just argue in slogans!
My body, my choice!
Sep '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Shouldn't they criminalize the harvesting of sugar beets and sugar cane too?
Aug '10
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
You, sir, have the boorish manners of a Yaley!
Jan '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
The really sad part of this is that this comes from UCSF "scientists", probably using NIH funding. They are taking their lead from their global warming colleagues - a little dash of science mixed with a generous helping of political commentary (at taxpayer expense).
Mar '11
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
EJ, we can't ban idiocy in San Francisco. What would we do, deport 700,000 people? (I'm figuring SF has a non-idiocy rate of about 12.5%, but I'd have to defer to Diane on that.)
And even if we do deport them, where do we put them? Is there an idiot shortage anywhere?
Re: San Francisco's War on Sugar
Not CRIMINALIZE. Just REGULATE. They really, really should.