The Correlation Between Sugar And Artificial Sweeteners

In their 2012 article, "The Toxic Truth about Sugar," Lustig et al argue that sugar, like alcohol, ought to be regulated by governments due to the harm it can cause to individuals' health and the public good. Their argument, at first glance, appears to be highly logical and virtually unassailable: alcohol is regulated because it is bad for health and causes other problems for society, and so sugar which is the cause of much greater and more pervasive health problems and is also detrimental to the social and cultural fabric of the peoples of the world in a variety of ways involving the agricultural industry and global development should also be carefully regulated and controlled. The researchers cite actions taken in other countries along the same lines as a further justification of their call for more control when it comes to sugar content and consumption, and clearly spell out some of the concrete harms that increased sugar consumption has had and will have on the world's population, not just in developed/industrialized countries but in all countries adopting similar diets. This adds up to a very compelling picture of the threat that sugar specifically and "junk food" (calorie-dense and nutritionally-lacking consumables) generally constitutes to the world population.

Sugar was so high in consumer demand and addicting that in certain areas an average person would consume sixteen pounds a year. Evidence of this is shown in document G. The document conveys the annual per capita consumption ( in pounds ) from the year 1700 to the year 1770 in England. When analyzing document C, readers realize that the high amount of consumption is due to sugar’s highly addictive property. This document written by Benjamin Moseley, M.D. in the year 1800 states, “¬¬¬The increased consumption of sugar, and increasing demand for it, exceeded all comparison with any other article,

The past fifty years has seen a spike in the consumption of sugar, that number totaling a tripling increase. However, sugar is not the only risk factor here, alcohol and tobacco can also be attributed with the spike, albeit not as prevalent as sugar. The biggest question that Lustig et al. poses to its’ readers is this: “What aspects of the Western diet should be the focus of intervention”? (par. 3) The current USDA has been deemed “boogeymen” of diets, as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Lustig et al. all believe that our attention should be turned towards “added sugar”, which is a sweetener that has fructose in it. Perhaps the biggest controversy from the past fifty years has been none other than a severe culprit that experts know as high fructose corn syrup or HFCS.

Sugar is everywhere in our lives. When you eat, sugar is in the food such as hamburger, sandwiches, pizza, bread, etc. When you drink, sugar is in the beverage like soda, juice, coffee and even milk. Furthermore, sugar exists in snacks such as cookies, cupcakes, biscuits and so on. I cannot list everything with sugar here. Actually, when we eat, we eat sugar. Unfortunately, sugar is now considering a toxic to our bodies. It causes diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart attack and cancer, etc. As sugar threatens the public health, government is considering curb sugar consumption by taxes on sugar; restrictions placed on food production and even age requirements on purchasing sugary foods. For this research project, I decided to pursue the question, Should sugar be regulated? This question deserves to be examined because we need to make some change for life to reduce sugar intake but at the same time it’s controversial that whether the government should intervene and regulate sugar. I wonder how the government will take appropriate measures to regulate sugar as well as improve public health.

Ultimately, the debate continues as to whether the US government should create strict sugar regulations or not. Sugar regulations should be enforced in order to decrease the rate of diabetes, risk of liver failures, and sugar addiction problems. These problems outright can ruin a person’s life, even leading to death. These problems give the necessary reason for the government to take action for a stricter sugar regulation for population

The author’s for the article “Regional Differences in Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Intake among US Adults” are Sohyun Park, PhD; Lisa C. McGuire, PhD; and Deborah A. Galuska, PhD. All of the author’s credentials are the same which is a Doctor of Philosophy, which is short abbreviated as PhD where a person who attains a doctorate of philosophy is awarded the academic title of a doctor. Sohyun Park is also an epidemiologist, Lisa McGuires is the lead epidemiologist and Deborah Galuska is an associate director for science, division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity. I believe that the author Deborah Galuska is a credible source for nutrition because first and foremost she has a PhD, and is also an Associate Director for Science for Division

After reading the article "Sweeteners: Facts and Fallacies" the alternative sweetener I have chosen is stevia. Upon the completion of reading facts on stevia, I refute the toxicology safety of consumer use on this alternative sweetener. According to the article "The Sweet Facts on Stevia" it was only sold as a dietary supplement in the 1980's after being linked to cancer and reproductive problems in animals. In 2008, stevia manufacturers petitioned the FDA until Reb A, the plants sweetest sugar molecule, was deemed "generally recognized as safe" or GRAS. "According to CSPI, the FDA did not perform the amount of testing usually required for GRAS status, and further testing on Reb A is needed (Palmer, 2013). With the number of different

Since nearly the invention of commercially sweetened foods and advertising that celebrates their goodness, sugary foods and drinks have been identified as the cause of several chronic diseases, contributing to poor health. When a person’s diet contains a lot of sugar, especially when it begins early in life, it is likely to cause health problems and possibly death at a young age. For these and many other reasons, it is essential to carry out research in order to establish the extent to which these foods affect people’s health. In gaining more information on this issue, the argument can be made that the government should ban sugary foods and drinks should be sold in elementary and middle schools.

Aspartame is in over 6,000 products like yogurt, and milkshakes. It is made up of aspartic acid and phenylalanine. Aspartame is believed to have caused to brain damage to a fetus in sensitive individuals. We often don’t hear about the dangers of aspartame because not many of the population is aware of the dangers and most people don’t associate their symptoms that they have with the long term effects of Aspartame.

An increase in reports has given rise to speculation of the relationship to artificial sweeteners combined with the increased risk of metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, obesity, and heart attacks. The same health risks sweeteners were created to prevent are presently correlated to their use. In fact, an increase of 36% for metabolic syndromes and 67% for type II diabetes alone has occurred. Regular consumption of one diet coke per day for seven years could double the chance of cardiovascular diseases as well. The health problems artificial sweeteners cause are long-lasting on top of increasing a person’s average yearly medical

High fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, is an artificial sweetener that is used extremely frequently in the US. In many commercial or ads, people discuss the amount of sugar in a can of soda, for example. However, “More than 90 percent of the caloric sweetener supplied for beverages in the United States is high-fructose corn syrup, not sucrose” (Sugar.org). So, in actuality, there is no sugar in the drinks mentioned, but really just a sugar substitute. Many of the problems attributed to HFCS are paired with sugar, when really sugar has nothing to do with it. Agriculture Department data shows that “U.S. per-capita consumption of real sugar (sucrose) is 34 percent lower now than it was 40 years ago, while over the same period obesity and other metabolic diseases started to rise” (Sugar.org). This shows that while sugar consumption went down, diseases went up, so they can be attributed to sugar substitutes such as HFCS. In fact, the Sugar Association is currently in “several related, ongoing efforts to obtain rulings that impact public policy as it relates to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), to broaden public awareness and encourage public participation” (Sugar.org). They are basically using HFCS corporations for putting sugar and HFCS in the same category, which makes sugar out to be the problem. HFCS is just one of the many artificial sweeteners used, and the negative light that they

From the term of economy, there is a controversial regard using the artificial sweeteners in food and beverages as a sweeten materials. Some studies proved that the use of artificial sweeteners has some positive effects on the economy, for example increasing the production and creating new jobs. Moreover, some studies indicated that these sweeteners reduce the obesity and treat diabetic. Consequently, this could reduce the health care cost for treat cancer and obesity. On the other hand, few studies claimed that the use of artificial sweeteners could lead to negative impacts on the economic side, for instance, studies mentioned that whereas artificial sweeteners used with a huge amount it could lead to some diseases. Therefore, the health care

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900's.

Next, I observed the study from Chan, Wang and Holly’s experiment. These researchers examined the correlation between sweets, sweeteners and Pancreatic cancer (Wang et al, 835). The results show that certain sugars and sweets do increase the risk for pancreatic cancer. Sweeteners and sweets were thought to be the cause of this health risk but it happens to actually be the low calorie drinks that increase the risk of this disease (Wang et al, 835). By looking at this research I was able to determine that soft drinks can have the ability to play into health risks later in life. The nation needs to alert the world of these little dangers because it can affect many Americans in the long run.

Sugar-sweetened beverages have high caloric values and low nutritional value. The positive association between SSB consumption and cases of increased weights and risks for diabetes has certainly drawn public attention. Other medical problems that are correlated include “metabolic syndrome, hypocalcemia, kidney stones, increased blood pressure, hypertension, and coronary heart disease” (DeSantis). According to a study commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), 20% of weight gain over thirty years in the US was caused by SSB consumption in children and adults. An additional serving of one SSB per day is equated to an additional 0.06-unit increase in body-mass-index per year and one-half pound of