1장
The Sweet Poison That Conquered Our World
Sugar is everywhere, yet few of us recognize it as the prime suspect behind our most devastating modern diseases. In Gary Taubes' meticulously researched expose, he presents a compelling case that this crystallized sweetness we crave may be slowly killing us. The book has become a cornerstone text in nutritional science circles, with celebrities from Tim Ferriss to Joe Rogan citing it as transformative to their understanding of diet. When published in 2016, it sparked fierce debate within the medical community, challenging decades of nutritional orthodoxy that had blamed dietary fat while giving sugar a free pass. What makes this investigation particularly powerful is how it traces sugar's journey from rare luxury to ubiquitous staple, revealing the industry machinations and scientific missteps that allowed a toxic substance to become the foundation of our food system. As diabetes rates soar globally and obesity affects more than two-thirds of American adults, Taubes' work stands as a clarion call to reconsider our relationship with what might be the most dangerous food we consume.
2장
Drug, Not Food: Sugar's Addictive Nature
What if sugar isn't just food but actually an intoxicant, a drug? Unlike substances that must be injected, smoked, or snorted, sugar delivers its sublime effects simply by mouth, mixing seamlessly with virtually any food or drink. When given to infants, it provokes such profound pleasure that pursuing it becomes a driving force throughout their lives.
Sugar's unique appeal explains why parents inevitably use it to calm children, celebrate achievements, communicate love, and mark special occasions. As anthropologist Sidney Mintz noted, sugar has demonstrated "a near invulnerability to moral attack" in our culture. What makes sugar uniquely require rationing for children when other desirable things don't?
The response of entire populations to sugar has mirrored children's reactions-once exposed, they consume as much as they can easily obtain, limited primarily by availability and price. As sugar's price dropped over centuries, consumption steadily climbed. Even during the Great Depression, candy sales increased, with The New York Times noting, "The depression proved that people wanted candy, and as long as they had any money at all, they would buy it."
Unlike alcohol or caffeine, sugar doesn't cause immediate visible physiological effects like flushing or staggering, which partly explains why it escaped religious-based criticisms that affected tea, coffee, and chocolate. Sugar's price is paid years or decades later, with no immediately discernible consequences. Most people never experience withdrawal symptoms because they never go long enough without sugar to find out.
Historians consider sugar one of several "drug foods" from the tropics upon which European empires were built-alongside tea, coffee, chocolate, rum, and tobacco. Once sugar was added as a sweetener to tea, coffee, and chocolate in the seventeenth century, consumption of these substances exploded across Europe. Sugar was even used to sweeten liquors, wine, and opium-based medicines.
The human sweet tooth appears hard-wired from birth. Newborns given sugar water show "a marked relaxation of the face" and eager licking movements, while rejecting bitter solutions. Sugar stimulates the brain's reward center just like nicotine, cocaine, and alcohol, releasing dopamine. Rats find sweetened water more pleasurable than cocaine or heroin, and addicted rats will switch from cocaine to sweet solutions within two days. This explains why sweets and sugary beverages help wean addicts off harder substances-candy consumption in America doubled during Prohibition as people turned from alcohol to sweets.
By the early twenty-first century, sugar had become virtually unavoidable in prepared and packaged foods, requiring determined effort to avoid. It appears not just in obvious sweet foods but in peanut butter, salad dressing, ketchup, barbecue sauces, canned soups, cold cuts, breads, and more. When manufacturers began producing low-fat foods in the 1980s, they replaced fat calories with sugar to maintain palatability, often disguising it under fifty-plus different names.
Sugar has become synonymous with love and affection in our language ("sweetie," "honey," "sugar") and the primary contribution to our celebrations and accomplishments. It's how we reward ourselves and our children, becoming "the currency of childhood and of parenting." While nutritionists have blamed virtually every other dietary component for chronic diseases, they've been reluctant to single out sugar as playing a uniquely harmful role beyond simply contributing to overconsumption.
3장
From Luxury to Necessity: Sugar's Global Conquest
Sugar exists in all plants, though in varying concentrations. Throughout history, humans have attempted to extract sweetness from numerous sources. Before sugar became dominant, honey was consumed throughout Europe and Asia, while Native Americans used maple syrup, which Thomas Jefferson favored because it didn't require slave labor.
Sugarcane was first domesticated in New Guinea approximately ten thousand years ago, where it was so revered that creation myths depicted humans emerging from the union of the first man and a sugarcane stalk. Early farmers cultivated it for the sweetness obtained from chewing the stalks and the energy it provided. The domestication spread throughout Asia long before refining techniques were developed.
Modern sugarcane produces more calories per acre than any other plant or animal. The refined product has no distinctive taste or aftertaste-it's simply the crystallized essence of sweetness. Unlike honey or maple syrup, it's colorless and odorless, and along with salt, it's one of only two pure chemical substances humans consume.
From India, Buddhist missionaries carried sugar to China and Japan. Muslim explorers later discovered it in China and brought it to Arabia via Persia. The Muslim Empire spread sugarcane cultivation throughout the Mediterranean. By the tenth century, major sugar production existed in the Persian Gulf and Egypt's Nile Valley, where Egyptians developed refining techniques still used today.
Sugar reached Northern Europe with returning Crusaders in the eleventh century. Italian city-states began shipping sugar to Northern Europe, and it appears in Henry II's kitchen expenditures in the twelfth century, listed as a spice. By 1288, Edward I's household used over 6,200 pounds of sugar.
Initially, sugar diffused through Europe primarily as a medicine, decorative element, spice, and preservative. For five centuries, sugar was ingested medicinally as much as for any other purpose, believed to benefit "almost every part of the body, for the very young, for the very old, for the sick and for the healthy."
As sugar's price gradually decreased, its use as a sweetener increased. By the fifteenth century, it was indispensable in wealthy households. "No food refuses, so to speak, sugar," observed an Italian gastronome, evidenced by medieval English recipes for sugar-sprinkled oysters.
Sugar and slavery became inseparable from the earliest times. Muslims imported East African slaves for Middle Eastern sugar fields in the seventh century. As Portugal and Spain began exploring Africa in the fifteenth century, they established sugar plantations on Atlantic islands using African slaves. Columbus brought sugarcane to the New World in 1493, where it thrived in Hispaniola's fertile soil.
From the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, sugar was economically and politically equivalent to twentieth-century oil. By 1775, "King Sugar" constituted almost one-fifth of all British imports. Many wealthy New York families built fortunes as sugar refiners, confectioners, and middlemen in the triangular slave trade.
Sugar transformed from a "luxury of kings into the kingly luxury of commoners" by the early nineteenth century. By 1874, the British government abolished import duties, declaring sugar "exceedingly nutritious and wholesome" and a necessity the poor should access equally.
Two factors drove sugar's final transformation to dietary staple: beet sugar development and industrial technology. Beet sugar could be grown in temperate climates across Europe, Asia, and North America. By 1880, beet sugar had surpassed cane sugar globally, with total sugar production increasing fivefold in forty years.
The industrial revolution dramatically transformed sugar production. By the 1920s, refineries produced in a single day what would have taken an entire decade a century earlier. As sugar became affordable for everyone, consumption patterns changed. The dessert course emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, and industrial workers began taking breaks with cigarettes, caffeinated drinks, and sweet snacks.
Four industries emerged beginning in the 1840s that did for sugar what cigarettes did for tobacco: candy, chocolate, ice cream, and soda. By 1908, Pepsi had 250 bottlers across 24 states. After a brief setback during World War I, sugar consumption in America reached 100 pounds per capita annually by the 1920s, with Americans consuming over three billion bottles of soft drinks yearly.
4장
Sugar's Hidden Partnership with Tobacco
While diabetes was rare before the industrial revolution's sugar boom, lung cancer was similarly uncommon until cigarettes surged in popularity. Only 150 cases were diagnosed in America before 1900, but by 2005, over 163,000 Americans died annually from lung cancer. What few people realize is the critical role sugar played in this epidemic.
The American blended cigarette, particularly R.J. Reynolds' Camel introduced in 1913, transformed smoking habits worldwide through a critical innovation: blending sugar-rich flue-cured tobacco with nicotine-rich air-cured Burley tobacco. The flue-curing process preserved natural sugars in tobacco (increasing from 3% to 22%), creating acidic smoke that could be deeply inhaled without triggering coughing. Meanwhile, Burley tobacco was "candied up" through a sugar-saucing process where the porous leaves absorbed sugar solutions containing honey, maple syrup, molasses, and licorice.
By 1929, U.S. tobacco growers were using 50 million pounds of sugar annually to sauce tobacco for over 120 billion cigarettes. This sugar addition made cigarettes more inhalable, delivered nicotine more efficiently to the lungs, and created a sweet caramelized flavor appealing to women and adolescents. The Sugar Research Foundation in 1950 celebrated this "marriage of tobacco and sugar" as an opportunity for industry growth, not recognizing the connection to the lung cancer epidemic that would be officially acknowledged in the 1964 Surgeon General's report.
As one USDA official noted, without sugar, "the American blended cigarette and with it the tobacco industry of the United States would not have achieved such tremendous development." This hidden partnership between two addictive substances helped create the perfect delivery system for nicotine while making cigarettes palatable to millions of new smokers.
5장
The Military-Industrial Sugar Complex
The military's embrace of sugar during World War II transformed American consumption patterns forever. The army purchased over 100 million pounds of candy annually as "fighting food," with candy bars constituting 40% of servicemen's supplemental mess purchases. The candy industry capitalized on this with advertising campaigns touting candy's "fighting food value" and attempting to counter "misinformation that candy is fattening and causes tooth decay."
Coca-Cola and Pepsi made extraordinary efforts to serve troops worldwide. Coca-Cola won exemptions from sugar rationing for military sales and established 64 bottling plants globally, maintaining its nickel-a-bottle policy for servicemen regardless of cost. This strategy created "friends and customers" of 11 million GIs and accomplished international expansion that would have otherwise taken "25 years and millions of dollars." By 1950, a third of Coca-Cola's profits came from international sales, while Pepsi's foreign sales increased fivefold in the 1950s.
Post-war sugar consumption patterns shifted dramatically. Beyond soft drinks and candy, sugar transformed American breakfasts through fruit juices and sugar-coated cereals. Canned juices emerged during Prohibition and gained popularity through vitamin-focused marketing. By the late 1990s, Americans were drinking nine gallons of fruit juice annually-equivalent to eight additional pounds of sugar per person not counted in official consumption figures.
The breakfast cereal industry's transformation from health food to sugar delivery system began with John Harvey Kellogg and C.W. Post, both health-focused entrepreneurs. The pivotal shift came when Jim Rex created the first pre-sweetened cereal, Ranger Joe, inspired by watching his children over-sugar their cereal. Post followed with Sugar Crisp, rationalizing that pre-sweetened cereals actually contained less sugar than children would add themselves.
Despite initial resistance from nutritionists, market forces drove all major cereal companies to create sugar-coated products, some deriving half their calories from sugar. By the 1960s, the industry spent $600 million annually marketing these products, creating iconic characters and Saturday morning cartoons to sell directly to children, while nutritionists justified them as vehicles for milk consumption or as "better than no breakfast at all."
6장
The Science That Exonerated Sugar
By the early twentieth century, physicians were attributing numerous health problems to sugar's dramatic consumption increase. Beyond diabetes, sugar was blamed for ailments ranging from rheumatism and liver disease to neurological disorders and cancer. As physician Alexander Gibson noted in 1917, sugar consumption had "exceeded every other stimulant, even including tobacco, coffee, tea and alcohol," with modern schoolchildren consuming more sugar in penny candies than Elizabethan feast-goers consumed in a month.
The emerging science of nutrition should have provided clarity about sugar's effects, but instead became trapped in early thinking that persisted despite new revelations. The ninety-year gap between nutrition science's focus on energy balance and the 1960 development of radioimmunoassay (which enabled accurate hormone measurement) critically shaped how nutritionists interpreted sugar's risks. This timing disconnect explains why nutritionists still define sugar as "empty calories" rather than considering its hormonal effects.
By 1900, researchers had identified different types of sugars and how they combine in more complex forms. They discovered that muscles use these sugars efficiently for fuel "without any waste and leaving no residue," and that the body burns carbohydrates preferentially, sparing protein. Harold Higgins at the Carnegie Institute found in 1916 that fructose and sucrose metabolize more quickly than other sugars-the biochemical basis for sugar providing "quick energy."
Laboratory research confirmed sugar's "unexpected stimulating properties," distinguishing it from other carbohydrates. German experiments showed that an ounce of sugar could restore work capacity to fatigued muscles within forty-five minutes, helping subjects perform "extraordinary muscular labor." This supported field reports of lumberjacks, Alpine climbers, and polar explorers using sugar instead of alcohol to combat fatigue.
Despite sugar's growing reputation as an energy food, conventional wisdom held it should be "avoided like poison" by those prone to obesity, diabetes, or gout. After saccharin was discovered in 1878, medical authorities immediately recognized it could "with benefit wholly or partially replace sugar" for the obese and diabetic.
As diabetes rates slowly rose in the late nineteenth century, physicians began considering sugar's potential role in causing the disease. Frederick Allen, following Elliott Joslin as an early American diabetes specialist, published a 1913 textbook that extensively discussed sugar's possible causal role in diabetes. Allen noted the correlation between increasing sugar consumption and diabetes rates, observing that "to a considerable extent, its incidence is greatest among the races and the classes of society that consume most sugar."
After insulin's discovery in 1921, Joslin's clinic pioneered its use in America, allowing diabetic patients to eat carbohydrates while controlling their blood sugar. Joslin believed sugar was valuable in the diet and unlikely to cause chronic disease, fundamentally misunderstanding that sugar had unique properties different from other carbohydrates. He repeatedly cited the Japanese example-who ate carbohydrate-rich diets but had low diabetes rates-to argue against sugar causing diabetes, never considering that Japanese sugar consumption was actually much lower than American levels.
By the 1971 edition of Joslin's textbook, the question of whether sugar caused diabetes had vanished entirely, with researchers assuming obesity itself was the cause rather than sugar specifically. This scientific blind spot would have devastating consequences for public health in the decades to come.
7장
The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Sugar Industry's Perfect Defense
Since the 1930s, nutritionists have embraced two misconceived ideas that shaped our understanding of healthy diets. First, that dietary fat causes chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and obesity-a belief that emerged from observing "nutrition transitions" as populations became more Westernized. This hypothesis ignored counterexamples like the Inuit, Masai, and Tokelau islanders who experienced more chronic disease despite consuming less fat during their transitions.
The second, more damaging pillar is the concept that obesity results simply from consuming more calories than we expend-the "energy balance" paradigm that became so ingrained that contrary arguments were dismissed as quackery. To the sugar industry, this calorie-focused approach has been "the gift that keeps on giving," serving as the ultimate defense against evidence of sugar's unique toxicity.
The energy-balance theory originated in the early twentieth century when nutrition researchers were quantifying food energy content with calorimeters. German diabetes specialist Carl von Noorden first applied thermodynamics to obesity in 1907, proposing that consuming more food than required leads to fat accumulation. This idea spread to America primarily through Louis Newburgh, who insisted that "all obese persons literally overeat" due to "perverted appetite" or insufficient energy expenditure.
German and Austrian clinical researchers challenged this simplistic view. Gustav von Bergmann criticized energy balance as a tautological description rather than an explanation-like saying rooms get crowded because more people enter than leave. Julius Bauer demonstrated obesity's genetic basis, reporting that three-quarters of his obese patients had at least one obese parent. These European researchers concluded that hormones must regulate fat accumulation, making caloric balance an inadequate explanation for obesity.
As the German and Austrian medical research communities collapsed during Hitler's rise and World War II, their sophisticated understanding of obesity as a hormonal regulatory disorder virtually disappeared. In postwar America, Newburgh's simplistic caloric theories dominated, despite animal models consistently refuting his arguments.
In 1960, Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson developed the radioimmunoassay, a revolutionary technology that finally allowed accurate measurement of hormones in the bloodstream. This Nobel Prize-winning invention revealed that insulin was a lipogenic (fat-forming) hormone that signals fat cells to store fat and hold onto it. Even more revelatory, they discovered that both type 2 diabetics and obese individuals had abnormally high insulin levels, not deficiencies as previously assumed.
A simple hypothesis emerged: since insulin is secreted in response to rising blood sugar from carbohydrate-rich meals, perhaps excessive insulin secretion was causing fat accumulation. This led to carbohydrate-restricted diets becoming fashionable by the mid-1960s, typically promoted by physicians rather than academics.
The sugar industry exploited conventional nutritional wisdom, defending their product on the basis that a calorie of sugar was no more fattening than a calorie of any other food. Their 1956 advertising campaign insisted "sugar is neither a 'reducing food' nor a 'fattening food'" because "all foods supply calories" equally. For the sugar industry, this remarkably resilient yet naive conception of obesity was indeed "the gift that keeps on giving."
8장
Big Sugar's Playbook: How Industry Shaped the Science
In 1928, facing a market glut and plummeting prices, the sugar industry formed the Sugar Institute to promote cooperation among wholesalers and refiners while marketing sugar directly to consumers as a health food. World War II brought new challenges when 40 percent of military draftees were rejected for medical reasons, primarily tooth decay. Nutritionists like Russell Wilder declared sugar "of all foods, unquestionably the worst."
In 1943, the sugar industry formed the nonprofit Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) to counter the growing anti-sugar sentiment. With approximately one million dollars in annual funding from sugar producers and refiners, the organization aimed to defend sugar as a food and expand post-war markets. By 1951, renamed the Sugar Association Inc. (SAI), they had distributed three million dollars in research grants to prestigious institutions like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT.
The link between sugar and tooth decay had been observed for centuries, from Aristotle questioning why figs damaged teeth to Queen Elizabeth's notoriously black teeth from excessive sugar consumption. The sugar industry acknowledged internally that carbohydrates, including sugar, played a causal role in tooth decay, but publicly argued there was nothing unique about refined sugar compared to other carbohydrates.
By the early 1960s, the Sugar Association shifted to a more aggressive strategy against artificial sweeteners, particularly saccharin and cyclamates, which threatened their market. Between 1963 and 1969, the Sugar Association spent over $700,000 (equivalent to $4 million today) on research examining cyclamates' potential negative health effects. Though the FDA was initially skeptical of this industry-funded research, in 1970 researchers working at the FDA's request found that high doses of cyclamate caused bladder cancers in male rats, leading to a ban.
The sugar industry nearly succeeded in banning saccharin as well. In 1972, the FDA removed saccharin from the GRAS list based on unpublished research claiming rats developed bladder cancer when consuming massive amounts of saccharin. Despite studies from Japan, Germany, England, and the Netherlands showing no harm, the FDA moved to ban saccharin in 1977 after Canadian researchers reported similar findings. The ban never materialized due to public outcry, though warning labels remained on products like Sweet 'N Low until 2000.
In 1976, Sugar Association president John Tatem launched a vigorous defense of sugar, calling it "the purest and most economical carbohydrate available" while dismissing sugar's critics as "persuasive purveyors of nutritional rubbish" who used "Goebbels' 'Big Lie' technique." When Jean Mayer published "The Bitter Truth About Sugar" linking sugar to obesity and diabetes in The New York Times Magazine, the Sugar Association successfully pressured Reader's Digest not to run an excerpt, calling it a "scientific farce."
The Sugar Association found an ally in Ancel Keys, whose laboratory they had supported since the 1940s. In 1970, Keys publicly ridiculed John Yudkin, describing his arguments as "tendentious" and his evidence as "flimsy indeed" and a "mountain of nonsense." In 1971, Yudkin retired from his position at the University of London, hoping to continue his research. However, the university replaced him with Stewart Truswell, a firm believer in Keys's dietary-fat hypothesis, who broke the agreement to provide Yudkin with office space and laboratory access, effectively ending his research career.
The Sugar Association hired Madison Avenue PR firm Carl Byoir and Associates to design a campaign establishing "the safety of sugar as a food." They recruited a Food and Nutrition Advisory Committee of supposedly "eminent and objective medical scientists" who would defend sugar. The Sugar Association's point man was Fred Stare, founder of Harvard's nutrition department, which had received industry funding since the early 1940s. Though Stare personally avoided sugar in his coffee and cereal (saving calories for "a martini at night"), he argued it was "unsound and may be hazardous" to recommend anyone avoid sugar.
9장
The Metabolic Syndrome Connection
By the late 1980s, medical understanding shifted dramatically as researchers recognized insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome as major risk factors for heart disease and diabetes. This syndrome ties together previously unrelated disorders-obesity, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol, heart disease, high blood sugar, and inflammation-as products of insulin resistance and high insulin levels. The CDC now estimates 75 million American adults have metabolic syndrome, marked first by expanding waistlines.
The fundamental question became what causes insulin resistance that triggers this vicious cycle. Many researchers assumed obesity was the cause, with sedentary behavior explaining cases in lean people. Meanwhile, researchers discovered that feeding laboratory rats large amounts of fructose was the easiest way to induce metabolic syndrome.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) emerged as another epidemic linked to metabolic syndrome, now affecting an estimated one in ten adolescents and 75 million adults-even appearing in infants. Growing evidence suggests fat accumulation in the liver may actually cause the insulin resistance at the heart of metabolic syndrome.
Since the 1990s, researchers have unambiguously established that feeding animals enough fructose or sugar causes their livers to convert much of the fructose into saturated fat-ironically the same fat supposedly causing heart disease when consumed directly. This fat accumulates in the liver, causing fatty liver and insulin resistance that spreads to other cells, resulting in metabolic syndrome. In a striking 2011 study, twenty-nine rhesus monkeys given fructose-sweetened beverages all developed insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome within a year, with four progressing to type 2 diabetes.
Human studies show similar results, though typically only with pure fructose rather than sugar. Luc Tappy at the University of Lausanne found that subjects consuming fructose equivalent to 8-10 cans of soda daily developed insulin resistance and elevated triglycerides within days. Lower doses produced the same effects over a month or more.
Despite this evidence, critics argue these studies aren't conclusive-rodent studies may not apply to humans, and experiments use unrealistically high sugar doses over short periods. But if sugar actually causes insulin resistance, as biochemistry and animal experiments suggest, then it likely triggers excess fat accumulation and obesity. Remove sugar, and insulin resistance improves and weight is lost-not because subjects ate less, but because their insulin resistance resolved.
10장
The Native American Tragedy: A Case Study in Sugar's Effects
The dramatic rise of diabetes among Native American populations, particularly in Arizona, provides a window into understanding the global diabetes epidemic. In February 1940, Elliott Joslin traveled to Arizona to investigate why the state had such low diabetes mortality compared to northeastern states. His comprehensive survey identified just 755 cases in the entire state, with only 73 among Native Americans-a prevalence of roughly 3-4 per thousand people.
By the 1960s, however, this same Native American population was experiencing diabetes rates exceeding 50% in adults, the highest recorded anywhere in the world. This extraordinary transformation provides critical insights into what's now happening globally, including the 900% increase in diabetes prevalence in the United States between the 1960s and today.
Three Arizona tribes-the Pima (Akimel O'odham), the Papago (Tohono O'odham), and the Navajo-remained isolated and impoverished until World War II, when they began integrating into "white society" through military service and factory work. This period represented their "critical juncture with modernity."
By the early 1950s, evidence of a diabetes epidemic began appearing among Native American tribes. University of Arizona researchers found diabetes mortality rates two to three times higher than what Joslin reported in 1940. By 1954-55, physicians estimated at least one in twenty-five Pima had diabetes. The epidemic's full extent became clear in 1963 when NIH researchers found diabetic blood sugar levels in 30 percent of Pima surveyed, with half of those over thirty being diabetic. By 1971, researchers confirmed the highest diabetes rates ever recorded in a population, with two-thirds of Pima men and over 90 percent of women overweight or obese.
Three factors explain the diabetes epidemic among Native Americans. First, Westernization brought dramatic dietary changes. Though researchers initially focused on increased caloric intake and sedentary behavior, sugar emerged as a prime suspect. From Hrdlicka's 1906 observations to later Indian Health Service reports, sugar consumption featured prominently-from trading post purchases to government rations with "large quantities of refined flour, sugar, and canned fruits high in sugar." By the 1990s, Navajo adolescents were consuming sugared soda at twice the national average.
Second, genetics clearly played a role in susceptibility. Third and most alarming was the "vicious cycle" of metabolic programming: NIH research revealed that children born to diabetic mothers were far more likely to become obese and diabetic themselves-45 percent became diabetic by their mid-twenties, compared to just 1.4 percent of children whose mothers remained healthy. This "perinatal metabolic programming" occurs because high maternal blood sugar leads developing fetuses to overproduce insulin-secreting cells, predisposing them to metabolic disorders later in life.
11장
How Much Is Too Much? The Impossible Question
It's impossible to determine how much sugar is "safe" to consume. When the FDA concluded in 1986 that sugar was safe at forty-two pounds per capita annually, the necessary clinical trials to answer this question were never pursued. The traditional advice to consume sugar "in moderation" is tautological-we only know we're consuming too much when symptoms of metabolic syndrome appear, at which point damage may already be done.
Those who advocate for "moderation" in sugar consumption tend to be relatively lean and healthy individuals who define moderation as what works for them. This creates a circular logic: if someone develops health problems, they must have failed to eat in moderation. This reasoning resembles suggesting that smokers who don't get lung cancer are smoking "in moderation" while those who do must be smoking "too much." How can we know what constitutes moderation before the consequences appear, which may take decades?
Any discussion of sugar limits must account for its potentially addictive properties. Even if people merely "act like" sugar is addictive, trying to consume sugar in moderation may be no more successful for some than attempting to smoke cigarettes in moderation. Some find it easier to consume no sugar than to consume a little.
George Campbell's estimate of seventy pounds of sugar per capita before diabetes epidemics appear may be reasonable, but this ignores generational effects. If insulin resistance and diabetes predisposition pass from mother to child in the womb, the threshold might actually be much lower-perhaps thirty pounds per capita a generation or two earlier. Once a population crosses this threshold, physiological changes may become programmed into subsequent generations, making them respond differently to sugar.
Historical observations challenge modern concepts of "moderate" sugar consumption. Hindu physicians noted 2,000 years ago that sugar promoted corpulence. Thomas Willis first identified sweet diabetic urine in the 1670s, coinciding with sugar's first flow into England. Frederick Slare in 1715 noted women "inclining to be too fat" should avoid sugar-when average consumption was only five pounds annually.
Ultimately, how much sugar is too much becomes a personal decision, just as we decide what level of alcohol, caffeine, or cigarettes to consume. To truly understand sugar's effects, you must experience life without it. Former smokers often report being unable to imagine life without cigarettes until they quit-struggling for weeks, months, or years before reaching a point where they couldn't imagine smoking again. A similar experience is likely with sugar, but we'll never know until we try living without it for more than just days or weeks.
