Author Archives: Ben Wōden

Is there a scientific basis for the sugar levy?

Discussion of the sugar levy has focused on effectiveness and moral/political hazards. I want to focus on one problem that makes those redundant: Does it make scientific sense?

Not obviously.

A popular narrative: In the past, we thought obese people were that way because they lacked willpower and ate too much food, particularly fat, which obviously made you “fat” – it’s called fat! Then, scientists who had previously been silenced by the nutrition science establishment (which was in Big Sugar’s pocket) bravely spoke up and educated us on the Science!™, and now we know that it’s sugar, not fat, that makes you obese.

Reality is more complicated.

The supposedly debunked “fat = evil” paradigm was never a scientific consensus, but merely a pop-science one. It was less the work of the nutrition scientists than of sugar companies and the makers of low-fat diet products. The supposedly triumphant “sugar = evil” paradigm also has little support amongst nutrition scientists. At best, they are marginally more concerned with the impact of sugar on health than they were 50 years ago, and marginally less concerned about fat.

It isn’t hard to blow the simplistic anti-sugar position out of the water. This graph does it impressively, and should make everyone update their beliefs significantly away from thinking that sugar is a major cause of obesity, and should absolutely torpedo the simplistic “sugar = evil” position that has taken hold in many parts of the population and, seemingly, in government.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 23 Comments
Advert



Recent Comments

  • Tristan Ward
    There's a lot of knee jerk reaction to the idea of "Tory-lite". I understand it but I think it is the wrong way to think about the issue. There will always ...
  • Peter Martin
    @ John Hills, Yes, good points! Your calculator is probably OK after all! :-)...
  • John Ralph Tristan W
    " the UK’s general election saw the end of fourteen years of calamitous Conservative governance". No it didn't. The first Parliament of the 14 years was a...
  • John Hills
    @David Rogers and @Peter Martin I did worry for a moment about my arithmetic! But if Tories are on 121 and the Lib Dems take the 20 seats that we are currently ...
  • Peter Martin
    @ David Rogers, You are quite right with your arithmetic and it is a pity that John Hills' calculator might have been misfunctioning, but his point about nee...