In an editorial published [Wednesday] in the journal Nature, University of California at San Francisco doctors Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt, and Claire Brindis argue that the ballooning rates — and costs — of obesity, diabetes, and other diseases, mean it’s time for regulators to lump sugar into the same category as booze and cigarettes and put similar restrictions on its sale and availability. — ABC News

Before I get to the merits of the idea, I just want to say, like, wow. That is one bold suggestion, by information-driven professionals, and I salute them. So often, public people are reluctant to be bold because they have worked hard for their public capital and they're unwilling to spend it.

I don't think I'm one of those people, but I do feel and see myself veering between wanting to throw bombs at boneheads and wanting to have credibility with those I might hope to influence. That's why I would have hesitated to make the suggestion the doctors do — which, most definitely, is not to say I think they're wrong.

It's my opinion that people who say they're not affected by ingesting refined sugar do not know it that is true — not "they are wrong," but "they can't know." How can anyone know how they're affected by something they take in daily whether they seek it out or not? And that description does fit refined sugar in our collective diet — it is an IV drip, present in practically every meal eaten by every American, unless the eater is making a concerted effort to avoid the stuff. And even they (we) are getting some — my standard, for example, is not eating something unless refined sugar is fifth or lower on the ingrediant list, but that's not the same as not having any.

I do believe that a great many of us are affected by refined foods, with refined sugar as the first offender, in ways we are unaware. I've said many times that a great many people would freely choose to forego refined sugar if they could try life without it for a month, and have usually added that I fear no contradiction on this point because the vast majority of people would never even consider such a drastic measure, even to experiment. "Give up sugar? I'd rather die."

But those are just opinions, and I don't do research the way the UCSF doctors do. Here's where I get my view on their point: The effect of how we eat, in the broadest sense, has brought a public health crisis, and so far, I see no action or initiative that is making a difference. Either we continue on this path or we agree on a way to change.

It doesn't matter if we'd "rather die" than change. What matters is that we will die early, after a degraded existence, if we don't change. If you don't like this suggestion, what's yours?