A new story from Freakonomics Radio

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

To voluntary approaches but there's no doubt that dido there are tensions so robert mustered you like several others in in that camp argue that that sugar should be regulated substantially because it meets criteria for substances that should be controlled or regulated unavoidable adi tux this city potential for abuse and negative impact on society so i'm curious what your thoughts are on sugar fitting those criteria whether you think that's even a useful framework i think that we need to reduce excess sugar in our diets and in the products that we consume i think consumers need more education and information but i'm not sure that i can really embrace the you know the proposal to regulate sugar in that way because it would be too uh overreaching because it would be too difficult y it is a complex area to regulate in that sugars you know are intrinsic components of many foods many foods which should be part of a balanced nutritious diet fruit and vegetables and dairy products are good examples and i i think that you know some of the the concerns that have been raised it may not be fully grounded in the best possible science not fully grounded in the best possible science that you will recall was richard khan's main objection to the idea of regulating sugar but there's another one too though caso review reduce it or get rid of it or put of policies and laws regulating what good is it going to do and we have no clue no real good evidence that it's going to do any good whatsoever and therefore unintended consequences become a very important factor robert lusty ig meanwhile is as you of like we figured out by now in favour of just about any kind of sugar regulation you can imagine taxes for instance and pricehikes both of which worked to reduce cigarette smoking and are already being used on sugary drinks in a few places well.

Coming up next