RedState asks: Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?

I

In a post on Wednesday, RedState contributor Seton Motley asked, "Why Does The Media Hate (Poor) People Having Cheap Food?" His question came in reaction to a series of reports on and criticisms of the EU's decision to reduce the regulation of sugar in Europe. After all, Motley argues, reduced regulation will mean "sugar prices will fall". This is, on the surface, a very good thing, to be sure. Nevertheless, it may come with a cost (literally). If Europe begins consuming sugar the way the US does, might they risk an obesity epidemic similar to the American epidemic (almost 80 million Americans are obese, according to the CDC)? One might think that obesity is not a public problem but a personal problem--that is between you and your doctor, or your family. Nevertheless, the "estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008" USD. In other words, the purpose of such regulations is not "so we can lose weight", as Motley suggests, (although, 'so that we can keep ourselves healthy' would not be an unreasonable response), but, at least in part, to save the money we'll otherwise spend to treat diabetes ($245 billion in 2012, up from $174 billion in 2007), heart disease, and stroke ("In 2010, the cost of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. was about $444 billion").

There are other considerations Motley's analysis has overlooked, including the highly addictive nature of sugar and the amount of money the sugar lobby spends to keep us from being made aware of just how much (or what kinds of) 'added sugar' is in our food. 

However, even on the purely economic level, Motley's question is shortsighted by far.