Sugar woes

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down...unless you're diabetic.

What sugar did was awaken and then feed an appetite; a great desire for sweetness on the tongue. Perhaps this comes from mother's milk or our primate ancestors' delight in ripe and more easily digested fruit - nobody can be sure. In northern Europe a thousand years ago the appetite had only the rare treats of honey or fruit to satisfy it, now we have an abundance of the stuff – sugar is rampant!

On the 16th March, George Osborne (the wonderful Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom everyone loves dearly) announced reform plans, one budget reform was the sugar tax – an announcement people weren't expecting. The announcement came following pressure from various health groups (of which Jamie Oliver is part of) to do something about childhood obesity. The sugar tax is expected to raise £520m in 2018-19 (its first year), £500m the following year and £455m in 2020-21 . The Office for Budgetary Responsibility forecasts a 0.8% - 1% reduction in demand for sugary drinks for every 1% rise in price as a result of the new levy. It also expects the rates, which equate to 18p or 24p per litre unit charge, to be passed entirely on to consumers. The levy, which will come into force in two years, will increase the price of a can of Coca-Cola by around 8p. Sugary drinks and all that, i'll start with this topic somewhere and finish elsewhere - onwards!

Sugar:

Sugar's history is not all that sweet. Europeans shipped slaves from Africa to the Americas and the Caribbean to harvest the cane (13 million of them between 1500 and 1850). But why was the white world so keen and ruthless to have it? Sidney Mintz calls it one of the tropical "drug foods", whose consumption rose rapidly among European populations from the 17th century. With the harvesting came with it the selling, and that's not always been such as sweet deal. The sticky stuff as you well know was known to have started tensions between America and Britain, as the 'Sugar Act' was implemented in 1794.The Sugar Act (AKA the 'American Revenue Act'), was a revenue-raising act passed by the British Parliament in April,1764. Taxes from the earlier Molasses Act of 1733 had never been effectively collected, largely due to colonial evasion as the molasses trade grew, so they passed this act as another way of obtaining funds. These incidents increased the colonists' concerns about the intent of the British Parliament and helped the growing movement that became the American Revolution.

Like tea, coffee, tobacco, chocolate and rum, it had physiological, consoling effects, particularly in children, but they were barely visible. In this way, sugar escaped moral censure until late in the 20th century, when doctors began to worry about the results of eating - or over- eating - a food so high in calories and low in nutrients, and, thanks to new techniques in food processing, is now omnipresent on supermarket shelves.

Fatties:

Obesity; the plague of the fat is weighing down on the medical practices around the world. Not only is being overweight generally an inconvenient and debilitating disposition, it impacts on the culture around them too; and in turn causes problems which throb through the chunky thighs of the nation.

People are eating their way to new waste-lines to rival even the most elite of sumo wrestlers. Fat fingers have been pointed in various directions, and sugar us one of those big targets. Added sugar is a common feature of many processed foods and drinks, and not only is it a prime cause of tooth rot, it does add hollow calories to the diet. The ubiquity of sugar sweetened beverages and their appeal to younger consumers has made their consumption a subject of particular concern by public health professionals, a consumption of which can lead to excess weight and obesity in those who overindulge.

Trends indicate that soda consumption is declining in many developed economies, but growing rapidly in middle income economies such as Vietnam and India. Currently however, the United States is still the single biggest market for carbonated soft drinks; consumers annual average per capita purchase of soda was 170 litres last year. Britain, not wanting to be far outdone, isn't much better; it has an average of 103 litres; the highest sugar intake in Europe (these stats do range from which source they obtained, but all have the same leaders of consumption). And while slavery had been abolished (lastly in Cuba, in 1884), cheapness was sustained by new flows of indentured labour from India, Africa and China. Suddenly many things become clearer: why our mothers and grandmothers had their teeth pulled out in their early 20s, why our fathers loved jam, why obesity is more a British problem than, say, a French one and even why Lyle's Golden Syrup has a Biblical illustration on the tin.

Sugar Substitutes:

With the implementation of a sugar tax on sweet carbonated drinks, you'd think there would be a likely move by business towards adopting sweeteners in drinks instead. So, are these any better or worse? Essentially, the receptors your body uses to detect sweetness are "really awful," according to Eric Walters, author of "The Sweetener Book." In other words, the body's sweet-taste receptor is not very sensitive. It really only detects sugar in large quantities.

But "artificial sweeteners randomly fit the receptor better and it triggers the receptor with far smaller quantities of the material," Walters said. That's why if you were to taste a packet of sugar and a packet of Sweet'N Low, the Sweet'N Low would taste sweeter.

They are hundreds to thousands of times sweeter than table sugar. It is possible that people who routinely use them may wind up desensitized to sweetness. Healthful, satiating foods that are less sweet—such as fruits and vegetables—may become unappetizing by comparison. As a result, the overall quality of the diet may decline. The calories removed from the diet by the sugar-for-sweetener swap may sneak back in, in the form of refined carbohydrates and low-quality fats.

The Purdue University scientists believe the fake sugar in diet sodas teases your body by pretending to give it real food. But when your body doesn't get the things it expects, it becomes confused on how to respond. On a physiological level, they say, this means when diet soda drinkers consume real sugar, the body doesn't release the hormone that regulates blood sugar and blood pressure. Another concern is that sweetness receptors have been identified in fat tissue. “That raises the possibility that artificial sweeteners could cause weight gain by directly stimulating the development of new fat cells,” says Dr. Ludwig, (a professor of paediatrics at Harvard-affiliated Children’s Hospital Boston)

So what now?

So, as we can see, sugar's history and its current place in our lives isn't nearly as sweet as it tastes. Although a tax would raise prices for consumers, this does not necessarily mean they would be any more educated about their diet. What’s more, taxing essentials such as food and drink would take a larger share of income from those already struggling with rising costs.

No substantial evidence supports the theory that artificial sweeteners are inherently bad for you, so business moving more towards sugar substitutes such as sweeteners may not be the worst thing that could happen. An over-abundance in the consumption of sugars however, has strong eveidence to support its consequences.

Though as always, there are no shortcuts to solving a long-term problem such as obesity. More complex proposals to help tackle the crisis include reformulation; reduced portion sizes; restriction on advertising and marketing to children of certain products high in fat, salt or sugar; promotions of healthier food ranges; and further voluntary proposals for clearer labelling.

Education also plays a central role in healthier lifestyle choices, with investment essential in sports resources, particularly for children and young adults, and policy reform needed to ensure healthy procurement choices for public bodies such as schools, hospitals and prisons.

The concept of a sugar tax is a good one, however, if this idea of reducing obesity is extrapolated to its logical conclusion there should be a sliding scale of tax on calories, and therefore on all food.