Thursday 2 February 2012

"No thanks, we're sweet enough," say lying puritans

As you may have noticed from headlines such as "Sugar 'is toxic and must be regulated just like cigarettes', claim scientists", "Tax and regulate sugar like alcohol and tobacco, urge scientists" and "Experts say sugar is as dangerous as alcohol and cigarettes", the slippery slope got a little bit more slippery today. We did try to warn you, you know.

I'll be writing about the absurd Nature article that spawned all this later (it was written by 'public health professionals' from San Francisco. Fancy that!), but for now take a look at the picture that accompanied the piece. It gives you an insight into the twisted minds of the health crusader.

Yes, that's Mary Poppins, and I'm pretty sure that sugar is in plain packaging with a large graphic health warning. A sign of things to come?


Anonymous said...

I would like to meet the person who can survive without sugar, fat and salt. At least for more than a week. These people are mad, quite mad. Sadly, if newspaper comments pages are anything to go by even sillier people believe them. Ah well the hospitals will be kept busy with the hyponatremic, acidotic individuals suffering from peripheral neuropathy who will be crawling into casualty in their thousands.

Anonymous said...

Slippery slope - hah.

These people have fallen over the edge of the cliff and are in uncontrollable free-fall!

Gary K.

Anonymous said...

Remember the good old days when on hearing of these crackpot ideas we used to shake our heads in disbelief and say "it could only happen in America"

Now each time a chill runs down my spine.


Anonymous said...

Not just from San Francisco, but from UCSF, Stanton Glantz's school in San Francisco, the one beholding to big pharma and NWO payola as its benefactors. Of course, bear in mind, San Francisco is also headquarters for Al Gore's cable TV network, Gorbachev's one-world-government research center, UCSF's one world health control center, the Tides Foundation money laundering scheme to fake-charities, Google, Yahoo, eBay and other's one-world internet headquarters - plus over 1300 "progressive" "charities" that exist soley for the purpose of the same kind of idiocy that is now declaring sugar toxic and needing controlled like tobacco and alcohol. Who said that tobacco bans based on fraudulent untruthful second-hand-smoke fabrications would not lead to what it is leading to now obviously does not understand the source from whence it is coming, which is not from the interests of science, but from that of political control.

Anonymous said...

Just left a comment over at AOL:

"They're soo right - have you seen kids who are high on fizzy drinks, nightmare! Also diabetic comas are caused by sugar.

What I'm really worried about is getting to much sugar from someone else. Just think - people sweat especially in summer when they're drinking loads of sugary drinks like Pepsi. That sugar is going to be coming out through there sweat if there skin contacts yours your going to absorb that sugary sweat - a bit like when you breath smoke. We should just ban sugar altogether but I bet the goverment wont do it because of Big Sugar."

I know, I know - childish, but what fun (wouldn't put it past some idiot to take it seriously) :)


Anonymous said...

What gives? We have come to expect this kind of stuff from Lancet and NEJM, but Nature??

Anonymous said...

So anyhting that gives us pleasure is an addiction ie.. the pleasure center is what some call the addiction pathway!

Stopping Addiction to Sugar: Willpower or Genetics?

As I reviewed in my previous article on food addiction, the science demonstrating that people can be biologically addicted to sugar in the same way we can be addicted to heroin, cocaine or nicotine is clear. Bingeing and addictive behaviors are eerily similar in alcoholics and sugar addicts. In fact, most recovering alcoholics often switch to another easily available drug: sugar.

It seems that we all vary a bit in our capacity for pleasure. Some us need a lot more stimulation to feel pleasure driving us to a range of addictive pleasures that stimulate our reward center in the brain – drug and alcohol addictions, compulsive gambling, sex addiction and, of course, sugar, food addiction and compulsive eating. We often see these as moral failures or results of character defects. In fact, it may be that addicts of all stripes are simply unlucky and born with unfortunate genetic variations in our reward and pleasure mechanisms.

Malenfant said...

"Not just from San Francisco, but from UCSF, Stanton Glantz's school in San Francisco, the one beholding to big pharma and NWO payola as its benefactors."

There's a You Tube vid of an academic explaining about sugar, specifically corn syrup, and obesity. The academic mentions his good friend Stanton Glantz.

It was very persuasive. I'll see if I can track it down.

Malenfant said...

Found it:

Anonymous said...

If Glantz has been in command there for some time, then it is almost certain that he has been filling positions there with anti-smoking zealots for years. The whole faculty will be composed of zealots. No surprise there then.