Not very long ago, the question would have seemed absurd. Now it is on the lips of respected scientists; MPs  are beginning to talk of "a war on sugar", and even England's chief medical officer has said sugar may have to be, like the old enemy tobacco, taxed in order to protect the nation's health.      There came a time in the evolution of public attitudes to smoking, when the doctors had been shouting for long enough that the public was broadly aware of the risks and the only question left,for Government was: what should we do about it?      Some believe we are now at the same point in our attitudes to sugar. Others - largely but not only representatives of the food and drink industry - say the entire debate has been skewed,  by those who spread stories deliberately to make people nervous.      More or less everyone agrees that eating too much sugar is bad for you. There is also no doubt obesity is a growing problem which is putting a significant, avoidable burden on the NHS by increasing the rates of diabetes, heart disease and other long-term conditions.       But to what extent is sugar - rather than saturated fats, or salt, carbohydrates or proteins, or any of the other devils of modem diets - the cause of obesity and how much should we worry about it?      Yesterday, hopes of achieving anything resembling clarity  from the World Health Organisation (WHO) were confused once again, which, widely expected to reduce the recommended sugar intake by a half in new draft guidance, instead said it would continue to recommend that sugar make up no more than 10 per cent of the energy we consume, while adding that cutting this to five per cent would have "additional benefits". The decision will now go out to public consultation.      Simon Capewell, professor of the University of Liverpool, said that he suspected "dirty work" on the part of food and drinks companies might lie behind the WHO's less than resounding message.      "The food industry say Govemment has no business interfering  in families, we must protect personal choice," Professor Capewell said. "We say there is no personal choice. At the moment, a mother can walk into a supermarket with a choice of four tomato soups - with three, or four, or five teaspoons of sugar in them. She has a choice of thousands of ready meals - with five, or six, or even nine teaspoons of sugar in." When reporting the argument about sugar, the author seems to
remain objective stand by those against it believe it harmless hold the view of "wait-and-see"