Sugar Labeling Proposal Summary

In the Article “Your Favorite Drinks Can Wreck Your Body” by Russ Lloyd that said “Yes” to having labels on Sugary Drinks. People think that having sugar in your drinks is good because they know what they are drinking and what is going to happen to them if they drink too much of it. Then there are others that think that it is not ok having labels on the drinks. They say that they will ruin the drinks and they will ruin the company's money that they are getting from making the sugary drinks. I agree with putting “Sugar Labels” on the sodas that we drink. The reasons why people say that it is good to have the labels on it is if they drink too much of the drink them they can get sick, how much sugar is in the drink and if they do get rid of the sugar them the taste. In conclusion, sugary drinks should have a warning Label because people need to know what is about to go into there body and what might happen to them if they consume too much of the drinks.

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.

U.S. Sugar is one of the largest producers of sugarcane in the country. Its farms lie in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), which consists of 700,000 acres of drained farmland that were formerly part of the Everglades its self. (Duke University, 2016). U.S. Sugar’s facilities process sugarcane into about 800,000 tons of raw sugar annually (U.S. Sugar, 2016a). Agricultural production generally requires significant amounts of water, but growing sugar cane in Florida’s dry climate requires even more.

(3)Many of the food industry officials say that the proposal is unnecessary. The current food labels give the total amount of sugar in the product. Many of the grocery manufacturers think that this change in the labels will help consumers with buying the products. There are people that believe that the sugar pack campaign will help people realize how much sugar is really in a can of soda and a candy

It todays society, health problems are becoming the norm.”Adult obesity rates now exceed 35 percent in four states, 30 percent in 25 states and are above 20 percent in all states”(Trust for America 's Health and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). Some of these major health problems can be prevented such as some diabetes, obesity that is not genetically inherited, as well as a reduced insulin production. To do this we need to start by looking at the foods that we eat, as well as the FDA’s food standards. High Fructose Corn Syrup is in almost every processed food out there. This additive has replaced cane sugar because it is cheaper and easier to produce, even though is poses commonly know health risks like liver failure, obesity, and a reduced insulin production, and lesser known concerns such as mercury that are not spoken of that often. The federal government needs to get rid of High Fructose Corn Syrup in our processed foods because of the known health risks in both the production and consumption.

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 Labeling and Education Act of 1990 was the last major government action involving nutrition labeling, which did not take effect until 1994. This action required that serving size and nutrition labeling to be clearly displayed on packaged foods that were being sold at the grocery stores. Restaurant and other ready-to-eat food were exempted from this new law. But in 2014, twenty years after this action went into effect; the FDA released a proposed rule to renew the nutrition-facts label, which required packaged foods to include the amount of sugar, and to increase the size of the calorie label font, making it easier for consumers to read the labels.

Its seems obvious that the organization with food in its name, the Food and Drug Administration, should be in charge of our country's food safety and food labels. This agency has the experience and knowledge to devise a labeling standard that incorporates all pertinent information. I have confidence in the FDA.

Vermont maple syrup companies should be allowed to keep their own unique packaging and labels. “Sugarmakers, as industry professionals call

It is challenging subject to determine whether government should have jurisdiction on sugar consumption to reduce obesity. In my perspective, government should provide alternative approach to regulate the use of sugar in the food that is consumed regularly. Legislation might interfere with the freedom of choices that public hold. FDA oversees and manages the food industry regulation for the safety of public. Information on the food labels are insignificant to read and comprehend at times if you are not careful. Moreover, some of the marketing claims may mislead the consumer. Long-term effect of sugar and fat intake can lead to obesity and chronic disease. However, effect of ingredients in the food is not labeled unlike drugs. Instead

Canadians consume an average of 110 grams (26 teaspoons) of sugar from all sources (milk, vegetables, fruit, and other products) per day which represents 21% of total energy intake using a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet.148 Approximately 1/3 of sugar intake comes from vegetables and fruit a source with associated good health outcomes.148 The largest source of sugar (35%) can be attributed to the ‘other’ foods category of Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide, including sugar-sweetened soft drinks, desserts and candy.148 Canadians consume an estimated 13% of their total caloric intake from added sugars.34, 149 However, this estimate does not take into account free or extrinsic sugars (those added or not bound to food) which is a broader category and also includes fruit juice, honey, purees, etc. and as such, it is thought that Canadian intake of free sugars is greater than 13%.40 In Canada, sugar intake through consumption of both confectionary items and soft drinks increase with age and peaks in early adulthood.34

Recent evidence linking sugar to non-communicable disorders shows that we need to rethink and re-evaluate what we know about sugar and how we consume it. According to the World Health Organization, sugar should not be more than 10% of the calories you consume daily. This is about 30-50 grams or 6-10 teaspoons of added sugar, depending on the age. Are all types of sugar bed? What are the common sources of added sugar? Are you concerned about eating too much sugar? Should you? Consider the answers to 3 most common questions about sugar and their answers

However, the one area of healthy living promotion is lacking and that is food information. The United States must change their source of food information; the food label must be changed. Currently the food label is inaccurate, loose in regulations, and hard to read. By changing the food label to an easier, clearer, and more accessible source of information, then the American public will have easier access to information. Furthermore, the American public will have an easier time choosing healthier options towards food.

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.

When most people think about sugar, their first thoughts are not: heart disease, addiction, or slow and painful death; yet, unfortunately, these conditions are very real consequences of the unregulated and excessive consumption of sugar. In Nature’s article, “The Toxic Truth About Sugar” (2012), Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist; Laura Schmidt, Professor of Health Policy at UCSF; and Claire Brindis, Professor of Pediatrics and Health Policy at UCSF, evaluate the world’s ever-increasing and toxic struggle with the substance sugar – also discussing counter measures to promote healthier diets amongst American’s and other societies. Lustig and his colleagues develop their argument using statistical evidence as they address the global impact of sugar, refuting minor oppositions, before dissecting each harmful aspect of the substance – even comparing it to substances more known for their toxicity. Eventually, presenting readers with possible routes of regulation, the authors firmly suggest government intervention in the production and sale of sugary foods. Although the argument is well executed, I remain unconvinced that government intervention is actually necessary.