The man who penned the word 'sugar is killing us" has another
set of telling phrases where a sugar tax* is concerned:
"All tax is regressive to an extent, but the poorer you are the
more likely you are to drink sugary drinks and have tooth decay and
be type 2 diabetic.
"People say sugar tax is regressive against the poor. What's
more regressive, the tax? Or the diabetes?"
Dr Robert Lustig, American obesity expert and author
of a number of books on the sweet stuff,
including Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth About
Sugar, and Sugar Has 56 Names says sugar is
killing us and will bankrupt healthcare systems.
But he'd rather talk of sugar and diabetes than sugar and
obesity for, he says, the correlation between sugar and obesity is
weaker than it is with sugar and type 2 diabetes and when it comes
to deciding on a tax on sugar "… it's not about obesity, it's about
If we're looking to sugar taxes as obesity solutions, the
beverage industry knows we won't find them, Lustig says
in his interview with New Zealand's Stuff.
"They will do their best to talk about obesity, 'cause then it's
calories in, calories out, balanced diet, diet and exercise.
All their mantras basically stem from this notion of
"It's not about energy balance, it's
That's the medical term for when non-diabetic people get
higher-than-normal insulin levels.
"And that's specifically driven by sugar and sugary
"The evidence is a slam dunk."
Lustig and researchers at the University of California took
"all the data in America" and looked at what effect a 20 per cent
or 50 per cent reduction in sugar would have on lives, healthcare
costs and diseases.
A 20 per cent reduction would reduce annual direct medical costs
for US adults by more than US$10 billion (2015 dollars) annually by
the year 2035.
A 50 per cent reduction would mean healthcare savings
of $31.8b in two decades' time.
So if we drastically chopped our sugar intake, how long
would it take to see an effect on diabetes?
"Three years," Lustig says. "You would start seeing the
change in disease three years after the reduction took effect."
It's backed up by an earlier study he did, which looked back in
time over 10 years. It also found a delay of three years
between changes in sugar consumption and diabetes prevalence.
Lustig says there is "hard causation" for sugar and type 2
diabetes, fatty liver disease, heart disease and tooth decay.
"Sugar causes insulin resistance. Insulin resistance promotes
cancer progression. It's an easy jump to go 'sugar causes insulin
resistance [and] causes cancer progression', but no-one has
actually proved that in a prospective, causative model."
Otago University Professor Jim Mann, who specializes in obesity
and diabetes, says sugar should get some credit for obesity,
because obesity and type 2 diabetes are so closely linked.
"It's extremely difficult to disentangle type 2 diabetes and
obesity. There's very strong evidence to say intake of sugar
increases the risk of obesity, and obesity drives type 2
"I might see 10 people with obesity and eight of them will have
Lustig is a childhood obesity expert
and neuroendocrinologst based at the University of
California, San Francisco (UCSF).
*Diabetes Queensland is advocating for a tax on soft drinks,
along with a raft of actions including restriction on junk food
advertising, setting food reformulations targets, mandatory Health
Star Ratings, developing an active transport strategy and more to
tackle growing obesity in Australia.