The Fructose Tax
Jenson Hagen
The body has this natural process to balance its own weight as part of the endocrine system. Leptin secreted from adipose (fat) tissue communicates with the hypothalamus and sends off a neural and hormonal cacade that suppresses the appetite and increases metabolism. There has been a tremendous amount of research in the last five years about how a high fructose diet causes leptin resistance. Type fructose and leptin into Google and see for yourself. In other words, because we're loading up processed foods with fructose, the part of the endocrine system governing weight balance no longer gets the message about our body's level of fat storage.
Instead of leptin reaching the hypothalamus in the brain and letting the brain know when we have had enough to eat, we're sitting here counting calories and going on every fad diet imaginable. Obviously, with 2/3 of adults overweight and 1/3 clinically obese in Oregon, the diets aren't working. Fructose shows up in all these sweeteners in all these processed foods in too high of a quantity. Our liver was not made to handle fructose beyond the levels normally found in fruits and vegetables.
If we want to combat this epidemic of obesity and the associated co-morbidities, then we should consider a tax as well as labeling changes on high fructose products that contain such sweeteners as honey, maple syrup, evaporated can juice, turbinado sugar, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and the list goes on. We're overdoing it on these sweeteners and it's causing our medical system to get overloaded and it's causing a weight gain extravaganza.
Because of Coca-Cola and Cargill's efforts, the FDA has given the green light to Stevia, which Japan and other countries have used for decades as a natural alternative to sugar. It's starting to show up here in products as a result. Since I am not a doctor, consult with one before starting a weight loss program or altering your diet because rapid weight loss can exacerbate health issues.
Apr 13, '09
Maybe we ought to tell the economists and the wanna-be economists to stuff it and stop trying to add another layer of bureaucratic tinkering that is aimed at undoing the effects of the last one:
To wit, stop subsidizing corn, period. Start paying farmers who used to get corn subsidies a "soil health" payment based on the depth of their topsoil and the amount of carbon stored in it. That will pretty much eliminate the industrial corn nightmare we've caused, and get a lot of meat production tamped down too, which is also vital.
Presto, multiple self-inflicted problems solved at the root and a vital step towards responding to the climate crisis taken (ag produces about 1/5th of all greenhouse emissions).
Adding a tax on consumer products to counter the negative effects of a wholesale production subsidy is like trying to use knit with a baseball bat while wearing mittins.
11:58 a.m.
Apr 13, '09
Cargill and Coca-Cola's Truvia™ and Pepsi Co.'s PureVia™ are indeed moves forward by the two companies to shift away from the use of HFCS. The chemistry involved in corn syrup manufacturing is in and of itself a horrendously messy, expensive and inefficient process that such companies would welcome a change from continuing so they could favor a simpler water-extraction process.
Steviol glycoside, as derived from the stevia plant, also adds the additional benefit of not requiring artificial preservatives since it is does not agitate into fermentation processes.
What this shift in the use suggests to me is a move by snack food companies toward a "natural" labeling market where "organics" and Natural foods" are growing in both popularity, profit margins due to marked-up pricing and increased sales.
However despite the fact that stevia plants are more plentifully grown and easier to harvest than acre upon acre filled with rows of corn, stevia-derived sweeteners are currently banned for use in food within the European Union, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Perhaps it's not the United States that should consider a tax on HFCS and other sweeteners. Seems to me, the interest in shifting toward the Japanese and Canadian models in sweeteners is already more in keeping with the entrepreneurial spirit of America.
Apr 13, '09
I do my level best to stay away from processed condiments, and while I do eat some commercially canned products like beef stew, I tend to use that type of product more as an occasional treat (there are some brands I really like), than as a staple in my diet. The best thing for people to do is to do their own cooking as much as they can, rather than buy comercially produced products. I know this is easier for some than it is for others, but a person does what they can.
As far as the sweeteners, I use regular white sugar and brown sugar, molassas, and for Stevia, I grow the plants myself and use the leaves. I also use raw honey, but it's produced by local beekepers who I know, and you'll have to pry my locally produced fireweed honey from my cold, dead, hand. Although you can have the buckwheat honey....
On the other hand, I agree with you that the use of stevia as a commercial sweetener is no doubt a move by the commercial processed food and confection producers to make use of the 'Natural' labeling. Hey, if it's natural it's automatically good for you, right?
Apr 13, '09
This one hits me weird on a personal experience level. Yes, Cargill is a force of nature. They've been my favorite "hidden big corporate America" trivia source for 30 years. But I eat a liquid carbohydrate diet, no more than 500 solid calories a day, and stopped eating sucrose and dextrose, in favor of fructose and maltose decades ago. In spite of a horribly bohemian lifestyle, I was basically 25 for 25 years, so I can't complain about the results.
I know this much. The time scale is incredibly short. The effects of substitutes don't have any long term evidence. Effects are also highly dependent on individual physiology. An appropriate comparison would be the warning to PKU sufferers with Aspartame. It is serious for some physiologies, but not all. And that doesn't mean, as I implied, we don't need more research on the middle case.
How about the elephant in the room? American sugar subsidies are a disgrace.
Full disclosure: I worked 4 years as a Cargill foreman.
Apr 14, '09
I have to agree with the fellow who worked for Cargill. The problem is not fructose, sucrose, or any of the other sugars we eat. I think the problem is the ammount, which is why I try to cook as much as possible from whole foods. It I'm making my own meal, and using my own seasonings, and fructose and other sugars are seasonings, then I know exactly how much and of what I'm consuming.
My boyfriend used to love Karo Syrup on busciuts when he was a kid, this was back in the 1930's, that's corn syrup. If you're using corn syrup as corn syrup, and putting it on something you're eating as a seperate sweetener or as an ingredient in a recipe, you know exactly how much you're consuming.
The problem with HFCS, and other sweeteners, is not that they're consumed, but how much. These ingredients are already listed on packaged, processed foods, drinks, etc. I think that what we have here is not a tax problem, but an education problem. Education works, but it takes time.
Putting a tax on something like fructose won't stop people from using those products, all it will do is raise the cost of living for people who are having a hard time paying for food as it is.
Apr 14, '09
lets introduce a fat tax.
tax all the fat people and then put it into a fund that helps starving people eat.
we can call it equalizing the food budget.....food socialism.
Apr 14, '09
The frustrating thing about HFCS is that it is everywhere. I try to avoid it, but virtually all of my "old favorite" products now contain HFCS instead of whatever sweetener was used before. B&M Baked Beans, supposedly a 100 year old recipe, now lists HFCS as a primary ingredient. Virtually every national brand bread product includes HFCS. Not to mention the obvious sodas, juices, sauces, and who knows what else. Avoiding HFCS is expensive and time consuming. Sure you can eat only raw foods, or buy only premium healthy products at Whole Foods, but for the average family, neither are practical. So we just keep getting fatter and fatter and sicker and sicker.
Apr 14, '09
there is a thing called exercise.
instead of asking the govt to regulate sugar how about you get off your fat asses and work out a bit?
i swear all you progressives are truly anti freedom losers who need the govt to hold thier hand wherever you go.
Apr 14, '09
Any policymaker considering a sugar tax would need to consider the response by individuals. Would people eat the same and just pay for it (inelastic) or would they cut back (elastic). There is research that in the case of changes in dairy prices people just paid the price and quantity did not change much (0.10 elasticity). Also other research has shown that people are already paying a tax for being overweight in the form of lower wages (not to mention potential discrimination). Finally, these taxes are considered regressive regardless of the individual's response.
This does not create an air-tight argument against discouraging sugar with a tax. However, I think before taxing sugar we have to make the public fully aware of the effects of sugar and why their body may not process it in the way they expect. If that evidence is solid AND people have shown some kind addiction or increased cost to the public, then an optimal tax may be justified.
Apr 14, '09
Greg, you don't have to eat only raw products. But cooking your own foods does help lower the consumption of HFCS. And, if a tax on fructose, from what ever source, is imposed, people will shift consumption of fructose rich products to sucrose or lactose rich products. If that happens, companies using fructose products will shift to sucrose or lactose to sweeten their products, and we'll be right back where we all started.
As to the consumption of fructose in general, if you have a juicer and make your own juice, and you drink a lot of juice every day or most days, you'll probably wind up consuming more fructose than you should every day too.
I still don't think that a tax is the solution or even a part of a solution. Teaching proper nutrition in the schools, and encouraging people to cook/teaching them to cook, etc. is the real solution.
Apr 14, '09
you loser liberals want to tax and ban everything.
just about every blogger on this site is a fat ass.
i agree with dan.
how about we tax carla axtman?
Apr 15, '09
As Kathleen J Melanson et al state in their December 2008 article, " although Fructose is present in fruit, honey, and some other carbohydrate sources, the quantities consumed from these sources are not as large as is found in foods and beverages sweetened by HFCS".
In contrast, the most common sugar in nature is Glucose. Glucose comes in the form of starch (in plants) and glycogen (in animals). Glucose and Fructose have inherent differences in their chemical properties. Within the stomach, they use different transport channels to enter the body. Glucose can activate insulin release, but fructose can't. Also, Fructose can bypass a critical step in fat synthesis that Glucose cannot.
The current research also suggests Fructose plays a much more noxious role than was previously assumed. For example, many studies have demonstrated that Fructose effectively inhibits the feeling of fullness while eating. "Stimulation of the AMPK/malonyl-CoA signaling pathway from fructose leads to more eating, while glucose intake leads to less eating, as glucose levels rise in the brain" states Kathleen Blanchard RN reflecting on recent research out of Johns Hopkins University.
Increased Fructose consumption has also been shown to decrease Leptin concentrations. Leptin is a hormone that regulates appetite throughout the day and is associated with energy expenditure. Therefore, as Kimber L Stanhope and Peter J Havel suggest prolonged Fructose consumption could be "contributing to weight gain and obesity as a result of reduced insulin and leptin signaling in the brain".
As George A. Bray, MD, stated, "it is interesting to note that nature did not select fructose to circulate in the blood." "Human milk has essentially no fructose, nor do the foods that comprise most traditional diets."
<h2>www.mentalpestilence.com</h2>