Three scientists want to class sugar with tobacco and alcohol. If sugar's consumption is linked to the rise in noncommunicable diseases like diabetes and hypertension, and if its effects on the body mimic those of alcohol, should we regulate it to protect public health? Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, all researchers involved in health policy, argue that we should. In the Feb. 4 issue of Nature magazine, they write: Authorities consider sugar as "empty calories" - but there is nothing empty about these calories. A growing body of scientific evidence shows that fructose can trigger processes that lead to liver toxicity and a host of other chronic diseases. A little is not a problem, but a lot kills - slowly. If international authorities are truly concerned about public health, they must consider limiting fructose - and its main delivery vehicles, the added sugars HCFS (high fructose corn syrup) and sucrose - which pose dangers to individuals and to society as a whole. Robert Lustig is the researcher at the center of last year's New York Times Magazine article Is Sugar Toxic? He hasn't moderated his stance. Among familiar ideas such as taxing added sugars or sodas, limiting sugary products available in schools and reducing the advertising of foods with added sugar, he and his co-authors add the suggestion that the Food and Drug Administration remove sugar from the "Generally Regarded as Safe" list. They propose putting an age limit on those allowed to purchase drinks with added sugar and creating laws to restrict the access of children to convenience stores after school. Those ideas are paternalistic, and perhaps that's the point. Many of us, as parents, have effectively already imposed similar limits on our own children, some stricter than others. Free-for-all access to soda, advertising and convenience foods isn't on most of our menus. Public policy could support our parenting, and offer similar limits for those children whose parents are less vigilant. But I, for one, am having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we should class sugar with tobacco and alcohol, and even more trouble with ceding my parental prerogative to hand my child a dollar and send her up to the concession stand for a soda during her brother's hockey game (let alone the theory that public policy should stand in for allegedly poor parenting, which might in fact be mine). I find myself perched on the infamous slippery slope, though: I'm willing to hand the child a dollar and a dime for a taxed soda, but not to stand behind her and produce my government-issued identification. And that's exactly the reaction the writers both fear and expect. "We're not talking prohibition," Dr. Schmidt said in a press release. We're not advocating a major imposition of the government into people's lives. We're talking about gentle ways to make sugar consumption slightly less convenient, thereby moving people away from the concentrated dose. What we want is to actually increase people's choices by making foods that aren't loaded with sugar comparatively easier and cheaper to get. Should we, really, regulate sugar? Is governmental action the only way to persuade our entire population to eat less of the added sweet stuff, and more of the whole foods version? It may be that I'm hopelessly behind the times - after all, beer was once considered a healthy drink for adults and children alike, and tobacco was marketed to women as a healthier alternative to candy. Is sugar the next health threat for the list?