11 votes

Sugar is 'addictive and the most dangerous drug of the times'

Soft drinks should carry tobacco-style warnings that sugar is highly addictive and dangerous, a senior Dutch health official has warned.

by Bruno Waterfield | 17 Sep 2013 | The Telegraph

Paul van der Velpen, the head of Amsterdam's health service, the Dutch capital city where the sale of cannabis is legalised, wants to see sugar tightly regulated.

"Just like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is actually a drug. There is an important role for government. The use of sugar should be discouraged. And users should be made aware of the dangers," he wrote on an official public health website.

"This may seem exaggerated and far-fetched, but sugar is the most dangerous drug of the times and can still be easily acquired everywhere."

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Paul Van Der Velpan is a Dutch Government Bureaucrat

Did you see the word, 'government' in my title? This should send up a red flag.

Mr. Van Der Velpan wrote in his article, "This may seem exaggerated and far-fetched, but sugar is the most dangerous drug of the times ..." The most 'dangerous' drug? Are you getting the feeling the psychology of fear is being employed here?

How about these words he used, "Sugar upsets that mechanism. Whoever uses sugar wants more and more, even when they are no longer hungry." Do you really believe that once you eat sugar you want more and more, even when no longer hungry?

I don't reject the idea that when people are emotionally upset they eat food, drink alcohol or ingest recreational drugs. But some persons also put on their running shoes and go for a jog, or simply walk a few miles or ask their honey for a little 'honey' or to listen to whatever is bothering them.

Is too much sugar in the diet bad for you? Of course, too much of anything consumed in the body is not healthy. But to put sugar in the same category as the narcotic drugs: alcohol, heroin, opium, morphine, crack cocaine, hydrocodone, etc. is ridiculous.

By the way, I made homemade oatmeal raisin cookies with white and brown sugar as the sweetener last night and had two with my coffee this morning. They were a delicious treat and I enjoyed every bite!

Wheat is just as bad for you

if not worse than sugar. Personally I live sugar.

According To A Georgia Doctor Named Betty Martini:

Diet sodas may actually increase a persons chance of getting diabetes..

I use to drink diet sodas, however, about 5 years i quit "COLD TURKEY"


It's true that

... studies comparing consumption of diet soda and regular soda showed that people drinking diet soda are more likely to suffer from obesity and diabetes. Then smart people like you and Dr. Betty Martini draw the incorrect conclusion from this that diet soda must cause (or at least contribute to) diabetes and obesity.

However the reality is, people wake up one day and find themselves obese, or find themselves diabetic and then they switch from sugary drinks to diet sodas to protect their health in any small way they can. So it's actually very obvious why you find more obese and diabetic people drinking diet soda, and it has nothing to do with diet soda causing either of those conditions.

By the same logic, if a person is dieting, they're more likely to be overweight or obese. Therefore, dieting causes overweight and obesity. All this dieting is making us fatter! It's nonsense logic.

Artificial sweeteners can

Artificial sweeteners can illicit an insulin response in the body similar to sugar.

It's one thing to claim that diet sodas are worse than regular sodas with respect to diabetes. It's quite another to merely claim that diet sodas still are somewhat to blame for diabetes, albeit not as bad as sugar sodas. (ie: with sugar sodas you get the sugar as well as the insulin response. with diet sodas you're not completely in the clear, as you still get the insulin response.)

EDIT: Basically it's unclear what is meant by the statement: "Diet sodas may actually increase a persons chance of getting diabetes".

If it means diet sodas increase your risk of getting diabetes as compared to water, then sure... as you go from a drink that provides no sugar and no insulin response to a drink that provides no sugar but an insulin response. I believe this is the person you're responding to's point, but who knows.

However if it means that diet sodas increase your risk of getting diabetes as compared to drinking regular soda, then your counterargument is sound.

I'm not defending artificial sweeteners

I avoid them, myself. I'm only saying that blaming them for the obesity epidemic is unfounded.

Your claim that artificial sweeteners illicit an insulin response similar to sugar is false. Several studies have been done on many different artificial sweeteners and most do not have any effect on insulin levels apart from a Pavlovian response. This includes aspartame and saccharin. Mark Sisson collects many of those studies in a blog post here: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/

"apart from a Pavlovian

"apart from a Pavlovian response."

a.k.a. placebo effect.

That could be enough, though. And I think this is the point.

I'm not the OP (well the OP you initially responded to) nor the Dr. he quoted so I don't know what they mean when they say artificial sweeteners can cause an increase in diabetes. The word "increase" implies a baseline. Is their baseline water? If so, then it's more than plausible that this Pavlovian response is more than sufficient to account for any relationship between diabetes and artificial sweeteners.

I don't read the OP as saying that artificial sweeteners are in any way worse than sugar. (again he can chime in at any time and speak for himself). Merely that one should be cautious to get a false sense of security from artificial sweeteners. Simply avoiding Coca Cola and replacing it with a 2 liter a day Diet Coke habit might not necessarily get him completely in the clear; again, depending on how the artificial sweeteners affect him.

Artificial sweetners inducing

Artificial sweetners inducing insulin response is not a placebo but rather a well established physiological response (brain-reward-response process).

Even organic stevia (a natural sweetener) has been show to elicit an increased insulin response in the body, but maybe at slightly reduced levels than sucrose would. Still one shouldn't overload on Stevia.

If you consider the artificial sweetners such as Aspartame, they not only interfere with our insulin sensitivity but also greatly damage the brain. So drinking a 1-calorie or 0-calorie soda will literally make us dumber while conferring no positive effects on weight or fat loss.

Note that there is a recent trend to include sugar alcohols such as maltitol as sweetners in low-calorie sugar-free products. In reality, these sugar alcohols may provide upto 3 calories per gm and tend to have a GI greater than sucrose itself and likewise should be avoided.

Drinking soda boggles

my mind. Too much, too often.

Sounds like a bad habit that needs breaking...and a way to drop lots of empty calories.

But it's still a person's choice...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Sugar is what fueled the British Empire

To almost complete world domination, most of it in the form of Rum. Lol. Just had to share that tidbit.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Did you watch this

Did you watch this documentary?


We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Thank you

This had some great info.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Hey, look what I found browsing Amazon's top books:

Hey, look what I found browsing Amazon's top books

Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar--Your Brain's Silent Killers

The devastating truth about the effects of wheat, sugar, and carbs on the brain, with a 30-day plan to achieve optimum health.

Renowned neurologist David Perlmutter, MD, blows the lid off a topic that's been buried in medical literature for far too long: carbs are destroying your brain. And not just unhealthy carbs, but even healthy ones like whole grains can cause dementia, ADHD, anxiety, chronic headaches, depression, and much more. Dr. Perlmutter explains what happens when the brain encounters common ingredients in your daily bread and fruit bowls, why your brain thrives on fat and cholesterol, and how you can spur the growth of new brain cells at any age. He offers an in-depth look at how we can take control of our "smart genes" through specific dietary choices and lifestyle habits, demonstrating how to remedy our most feared maladies without drugs. With a revolutionary 30-day plan, GRAIN BRAIN teaches us how we can reprogram our genetic destiny for the better.

He's the man.

Oh, Michael. The idea that food and disease are

related is pseudoscience! Well, according to the brilliant minds at TED. Scroll down to "Red Flag" topics.

A Letter to the TEDx community on TEDx and bad science.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


After being on a successful, low carb diet, I have to agree with this. After consuming good carbs and protein, I never noticed being hungry. Eating these, (not wheat, but processed flour as in bread)highly processed carbohydrates, I noticed a hunger pang in about two hours.

Although it is nuts to call them drugs, these compounds, in a person consuming, more than, adequate caloric intake, are processed in the liver into fats. When there is an over load, it seems that those fats also can cause the production of, too much, cholesterol by the liver. (especially in the more genetically susceptible people)

The fact that the recurrent hunger would cause one to eat more highly processed carbohydrates, thus increasing the likelihood of gaining weight, thus increasing the cholesterol. I think it is best to limit highly processed carbohydrate as well as fat, to be the healthiest. But as in everything in moderation. The Adkins' diet did not limit fat. In some, on that diet, the cholesterol was uncontrollable. That is why I advocate less fat, but more protein.

The other reason I came to these conclusions include another anecdote, about my mother's dog. Her vet told her that her little dog was getting heart disease from "too much meat"! I asked myself, "Why would a carnivore get sick from eating too much meat?" My conclusion was the dog was fed too much processed carbs in its, store bought, dog food!

As a, graduate school educated, scientist/MD, past certified in general surgery and pain management, I have to admit anecdotal evidence is not equal to scientific evidence. I still feel my theory is, also, logically feasible. Now, all we need is the research to prove it!

So far, it is only the nutritionists who come up with these conclusions!

Michael G Langley, MD

Good Find Mich~ael

Good for a bump pal...


COINTELPRO? Pure, White and Deadly?

Is that some kind of anti-European race-baiting propoganda? That's the first thing I thought when I saw the title of the book mentioned below and posted on the side.
Didn't they have that same kind of propoganda back in the day equating 'black' as being 'dirty'?
Or how about the FBI's coloring book for black children?
'White' sugar will kill you but it's okay if it's 'brown'?
The fact that you are born means you are going to die so for me, I'm going to continue to enjoy the little time I have here by having a piece of chocolate hazelnut torte every now and again. And ice cream.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

if you're

going to downvote my questions can you at least say why? I had just seen the title of the book, had no idea what the book was about, was actually thinking the book was about the Martin case somehow, wrote what my first thought was, then questioned why there would be a title like that.
Or have we already forgotten about the race-baiting in the Martin case?
I see a lot of subtlety going on, that BO et al has been trying to create racial tensions starting with the Prof Gates incident which he should have stayed out of.
Or are people really downvoting chocolate hazelnut torte and ice cream? Wow. The small pleasures in life are on the verge of extinction.
Just wish people would say why they downvote.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

it's The Cream, ...

... cacoa and nut that will save you. But try it straight up with just a slather of raw honey and see if that doesn't help the medicine go down.

Then boil split cane

or use the water from boiled corn. Sweet and delicious. Great for root beer.

Corn Syrup & Aspartame not cane sugar in everything.

Stop using these two products and see what happens.

Want something sweet, make it yourself with organic cane sugar.

Natural Order

Sugar is still sugar

Corn syrup, if anything, is safer (I use the term "safer" almost ironically here) than cane sugar because it is much higher in glucose and other complex sugars. Cane sugar is a 50/50 split between directly-accessible-by-the-body glucose and liver-processed fructose.

People need to stop claiming that if you just eat this kind of sugar or that kind of sugar as opposed to these other kinds, you will be healthier or lose weight. Just attaching the label "organic" to some product doesn't make it good for you. I thought we already learned this from the "low-fat!" era.

Want to regain your health? Just STOP EATING SUGAR. Of ANY kind.

Most supermarket sugar is beet sugar.

Beet sugar is 100% GMO since 2010, Monsatan made sure they put it out even against Judges orders not to. The same thing happened with alfalfa, and Obama even got into the act with this one.

What a way to run a company, Monsatan, through fraud and deception.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Genetically modified

sugar beet. Cane sugar is not GMO I believe.

So much BS being spouted about biochemistry

I am a fan of the paleo diet, but it is more of a trick to consume less calories than anything else. Sugar is not a poison, and the Nanny State authoritarians trying to regulate it are morons.

There is a ton of pseudoscience and emotional arguments coming from the "natural" health crowd in the comments (and anytime nutrition is mentioned.)

van der Velpen is fear-mongering and his recommendations regarding government regulation are offensive.


It's "fewer calories", not

It's "fewer calories", not "less calories", technically.

Which metabolic process uses

Which metabolic process uses "calories"? Do you know the difference between cause and effect? Between boundary conditions and initial conditions?

I am a fan of the paleo diet, but it is more of a trick to consume less calories than anything else.

You're a fan of a diet, but don't know how or why it works. Sounds a bit religious. Please continue with your pseudoscience.


My pseudoscience? LOL. Your question doesn't make sense.

What metabolic processes use calories?


Calories is just energy. Metabolism requires energy.

I've been studying the biomedical sciences for nearly a decade and I have a deep understanding of biochemistry and physiology. The arrogance of some of you keyboard alternative medicine advocates is unbelievable. "Doctorz R stupid because I read internet blogs!"

There is a lot of bullshit claims about paleo and it's incredibly ironic that you accused me of sounding "religious" and then link to gnolls.com.

I understand why paleo works. It's because it restricts food intake, which means you take in less calories. That is about it. There are few other minor and debatable biochemical arguments that I don't feel like getting into, but the main reason is calorie restriction. It is a marketing gimmick to claim "Calories in calories out is a lie because bullshit bullshit bullshit."

Calories in- calories out. Get the 60 essential nutrients and that is nutrition. You are falling for marketing gimmicks. "My diet works best because all the other scientists are wrong!?