Scientist Calls For Warnings, Tax On Soda
Soda makers headed down same road as tobacco: analyst
By Richard Morgan
September 16, 2014
Soda makers, which have seen sales in the US fall for nine straight years, appear more like this generation’s cigarette sector, one Wall Street report contends.
Both sectors are under attack for health reasons and both have seen a years-long decline in sales, the report from Cowen and Co. explains.
More recently, soda makers are “taking a page out of the tobacco playbook by focusing in styles, flavors and price/mix to manage volume declines,” Cowen analyst Vivien Azer writes.
“Youth consumption [of soda] is falling notably, which is unhelpful in terms of driving future volumes,” Azer writes. “What is more, both categories have an outsized exposure to an economically challenged core consumer.”
Azer, in her report, “Is Soda the New Cigarette?,” acknowledges differences between the products — but gives cigarettes an economic edge for “being dangerous but addictive.”
Soda, by comparison, is easily substitutable — with water being a cost-free option.
To manage volume declines, Azer says, both industries are emphasizing different styles, flavors and mix shifts.
Tobacco’s decades-old flight to filters and nicotine lights, for example, preceded soda’s rollout of diet and decaffeinated drinks.
Flavors encompass menthol, in one instance, and the reintroduction of Fanta, in the other.
Mix shifts have to do with packaging — different colors and designs — all in an effort to engage new consumer niches with a differentiated brand.
By Richard Morgan
September 16, 2014
Soda makers, which have seen sales in the US fall for nine straight years, appear more like this generation’s cigarette sector, one Wall Street report contends.
Both sectors are under attack for health reasons and both have seen a years-long decline in sales, the report from Cowen and Co. explains.
More recently, soda makers are “taking a page out of the tobacco playbook by focusing in styles, flavors and price/mix to manage volume declines,” Cowen analyst Vivien Azer writes.
“Youth consumption [of soda] is falling notably, which is unhelpful in terms of driving future volumes,” Azer writes. “What is more, both categories have an outsized exposure to an economically challenged core consumer.”
Azer, in her report, “Is Soda the New Cigarette?,” acknowledges differences between the products — but gives cigarettes an economic edge for “being dangerous but addictive.”
Soda, by comparison, is easily substitutable — with water being a cost-free option.
To manage volume declines, Azer says, both industries are emphasizing different styles, flavors and mix shifts.
Tobacco’s decades-old flight to filters and nicotine lights, for example, preceded soda’s rollout of diet and decaffeinated drinks.
Flavors encompass menthol, in one instance, and the reintroduction of Fanta, in the other.
Mix shifts have to do with packaging — different colors and designs — all in an effort to engage new consumer niches with a differentiated brand.
Daily Consumption of Soda Increases Aggressive Prostate Cancer Risk By 40%
April 20, 2013
A Swedish study coming out of Lund University that was recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1) examined the associations between carbohydrates and their food sources with regards to prostate cancer risk.
Ads aim to ridicule suits
March 17, 2006
Scott Van Voorhis
The fat wars are sizzling again.
An ad campaign mocking lawyers who target consumer product companies – arguing their clients have become addicted to everything from Oreos to soft drinks – kicked off in yesterday’s Herald.The full-page “Are You Addicted?” ad is designed to look like an ambulance chaser’s come-on, featuring the fictional law firm of “Shakem Downe & Bolt” and offered up both a phone number and Web site.
Scott Van Voorhis
The fat wars are sizzling again.
An ad campaign mocking lawyers who target consumer product companies – arguing their clients have become addicted to everything from Oreos to soft drinks – kicked off in yesterday’s Herald.The full-page “Are You Addicted?” ad is designed to look like an ambulance chaser’s come-on, featuring the fictional law firm of “Shakem Downe & Bolt” and offered up both a phone number and Web site.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, a Washington, D.C.-based group backed by the food and beverage industry, said the aim of the ad is to create buzz and sour public opinion on such increasingly trendy lawsuits. The group has taken on similar causes in the past, at one time fighting restaurant smoking bans across the country with money from a major tobacco company.
Those days, though, are history, with ties to the cigarette industry long since severed, the group insists.
“The lawsuits . . . have the patina of being in the public interest. They are being pursued by the same greedy trial lawyers that have pursued so many other American industries,” argued J. Justin Wilson, a research analyst at the center.
The group’s decision to target Massachusetts – the Herald ad is the only one so far in its latest campaign – is no accident, either.?
The group’s decision to target Massachusetts – the Herald ad is the only one so far in its latest campaign – is no accident, either.?
Two activist groups with an eye to suing companies for allegedly contributing to the nation’s obesity crisis are considering launching their cases in Massachusetts courts.
In the target zone are a marketing campaign that uses SpongeBob SquarePants to sell sugared cereals to children and companies that hawk soda drinks in local schools.?
In the target zone are a marketing campaign that uses SpongeBob SquarePants to sell sugared cereals to children and companies that hawk soda drinks in local schools.?
However, the ad scored few points for humor among lawyers drafting obesity suits against big food and soda companies.”The beverage industry is very concerned that we may be filing a lawsuit to attempt to get high calorie and addictive sodas out of schools,” said Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University’s Public Health Advocacy Institute. “They are obviously trying to prevent it,” he said.?
Soda Pop Causes Cancer FDA “Quietly” Reveals: GEE, Thanks.
by: Kankakee Voice
March 13, 2006
Last month, the FDA quietly revealed that some soft drinks were found to contain the human carcinogen benzene in levels up to 10-20 parts per billion (ppb) — four times the acceptable limit found in drinking water. Benzene, a chemical linked to leukemia and other forms of cancer, forms in certain beverages under certain conditions, such as exposure to heat and light. (So nice to read this after I”ve been guzzling the stuff like a drunken sailor.)
by: Kankakee Voice
March 13, 2006
Last month, the FDA quietly revealed that some soft drinks were found to contain the human carcinogen benzene in levels up to 10-20 parts per billion (ppb) — four times the acceptable limit found in drinking water. Benzene, a chemical linked to leukemia and other forms of cancer, forms in certain beverages under certain conditions, such as exposure to heat and light. (So nice to read this after I”ve been guzzling the stuff like a drunken sailor.)
Scientists in food fight over soda
March 6, 2006
Low-fat, low-cal, low-carb. Atkins, South Beach, The Zone. Food fads may be distracting attention from something more insidiously piling on pounds: beverages.
One of every five calories in the American diet is liquid. The nation”s single biggest “food” is soda, and nutrition experts have long demonized it.
Now they are escalating the fight.
In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don”t just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it. Not that these drinks are the only cause — genetics, exercise and other factors are involved — but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.
A small point? In reality, proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold — maybe even a surgeon general”s warning on labels.
“We”ve done it with cigarettes,” said one scientist advocating this, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Comparing soda and obesity to tobacco and lung cancer is a baseless crusade, industry spokesmen say.
“I think that”s laughable,” said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association. Lack of exercise and poor eating habits are far bigger contributors to America”s weight woes, he said.
“The science is being stretched,” said Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He owns stock in beverage companies and has done extensive research in the field, much of it financed by industry but also some by government.
However, those making the case against soda include some of the nation”s top obesity researchers at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale.
“There are many different lines of evidence, just like smoking,” said Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard pediatrician who wants a “fat tax” on fast food and drinks.
Beverage companies seem worried. Some are making sodas “healthier” by adding calcium and vitamins, and pushing fortified but sugary sports drinks in schools that ban soda. This could help them duck any regulations aimed at “empty calorie” drinks, said Jennifer Follett, a USDA nutritionist at the University of California in Davis.
“Even defining ”milk” is getting tough these days,” with so many flavored varieties and sweetened liquid yogurts, she complained. “It tastes like you”re sucking on ice cream.”
Proving that something causes disease is not easy. It took decades with tobacco, asbestos and other substances now known to cause cancer, and met strong industry opposition. It would be especially tough for a disease as complex as obesity.
Diet is hard to study. Most people drink at least some sweetened beverages and also get calories from other drinks like milk and orange juice, diluting the strength of any observations about excess weight from soda alone.
Children are growing and gaining weight naturally, “so we have this added complication” of trying to determine how much extra gain is due to sweet-drink consumption, said Alison Field, a nutrition expert at Harvard-affiliated Children”s Hospital in Boston.
“Given these caveats, it”s amazing the association we do see,” she said.
She was among hundreds of scientists who packed a “mock trial” of such drinks at a conference of the Obesity Society last year in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Here is the “food police” indictment of soda and its sugar-sweetened co-conspirators. You be the judge:
Count One: Guilt by association.
Soft drink consumption rose more than 60 percent among adults and more than doubled in kids from 1977-97. The prevalence of obesity roughly doubled in that time. Scientists say these parallel trends are one criterion for proving cause-and-effect.
Numerous studies link sugary drink consumption with weight gain or obesity. One by Ludwig of 548 Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink consumed per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.
Another at Harvard of 51,603 nurses compared two periods, 1991-95 and 1995-99, and found that women whose soda drinking increased had bigger rises in body-mass index than those who drank less or the same.
Count Two: Physical evidence.
Biologically, the calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are fundamentally different in the body than those from food.
The main sweetener in soda — high-fructose corn syrup — can increase fats in the blood called triglycerides, which raises the risk of heart problems, diabetes and other health woes.
This sweetener also doesn”t spur production of insulin to make the body “process” calories, nor does it spur leptin, a substance that tamps down appetite, as other carbohydrates do, explained Dr. George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
“There”s a lack of fullness or satiety. The brain just seems to add it on,” said Dr. Louis Aronne, a Weill-Cornell Medical College doctor who is president of the Obesity Society.
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn”t vary, no matter what they drank.
The second study gave 44 women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Total intake was 104 calories greater for those given caloric beverages than those given diet soda, water or no beverage. Caloric drinks didn”t help women feel any fuller either.
Then there is the “jelly bean study.” Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
Count Three: Bad influence on others.
Sugar-sweetened beverages affect the intake of other foods, such as lowering milk consumption. Popkin contends they also may be psychological triggers of poor eating habits and cravings for fast food.
He examined dietary patterns of 9,500 American adults in a federal study from 1999-2002. Those who drank healthier beverages — water, low-fat milk, unsweetened coffee or tea — were more likely to eat vegetables and less likely to eat fast food.
Conversely, “fast-food consumption was doubled if they were high soda consumers and vegetable consumption was halved,” he said.
Harvard epidemiologist Eric Rimm saw a similar effect in a different federally funded study of more than 5,000 young adults. With high soda consumption, “you see this pattern of less healthy intake across the board,” he said at the obesity meeting.
Count Four: Consistency of evidence.
Many studies of different types link sugary drinks and weight gain or obesity. Some even show a “dose-response” relationship — as consumption rises, so does weight.
Collectively, they meet many criteria for proving cause and effect, Dr. William Dietz, director of nutrition at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in an editorial accompanying a study in February”s Journal of Pediatrics.
In rebuttal, Adamson, the beverage industry spokesman, sees no such consistency. He cites a 2004 Harvard study of more than 10,000 children and teens. Consumption of sugar-added beverages was tied to body-mass index gain in boys but not girls, a gender difference that warrants a “jaundiced eye” to claims that soda is at fault, he said.
He also points to a Harvard study finding no link between weight changes and soda consumption among 1,345 North Dakota children ages 2 to 5 — a group that arguably drinks far less soda than teens and adults.
“Whatever association there is doesn”t seem to be large,” said Richard Forshee, deputy director of the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland who has received research funding from the beverage industry and global sugar producers.
As for soda being linked to poor eating patterns, “you don”t know which is cause and which is effect,” Drewnowski said.
People who consume lots of fresh-squeezed juice, vegetables and fruits are fundamentally not the same as those who subsist on colas and bologna sandwiches, he contends.
“There is a difference: The first group is rich,” Drewnowski said. He thinks government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would be better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories.
He also disputes the claim that soda calories are not satisfying. He did a study in which 32 men and women were given either colas or fat-free Raspberry Newtons before lunch on four separate occasions.
“There was absolutely no difference in satiety” as measured by how much they ate or how hungry they said they were, he said.
That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food.
When you look at studies according to who footed the bill, “the literature parts like Moses parting the ocean,” he said, referring to the biblical parting of the Red Sea.
Does the evidence add up to a conviction of soda?
One of the nation”s leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the American Cancer Society”s Dr. Michael Thun, thinks it does.
“Caloric imbalance causes obesity, so in the sense that any one part of the diet is contributing excess calories, it”s contributing causally to the obesity,” Thun said. “It doesn”t mean that something is the only cause. It means that in the absence of that factor there would be less of that condition.”
Does it merit a warning on soda cans?
“I think it would be a good candidate for a warning,” Thun said. “It”s something that should be seriously considered.”
Scientist Calls For Warnings, Tax On Soda
2 March 2006
A fight is brewing between health researchers and the beverage industry over whether a warning should be put on soda.
University of North Carolina scientist Barry Popkin is pushing for a warning label for sodas and linking their consumption to obesity. He said the nation got heavier at the same rate soda became more popular.
Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association said it”s unfair to hold one product responsible for the nation”s obesity problem. He said children are much less active now than a few years ago.
Popkin is also in favor of a soda tax, such as the one on tobacco. He said studies involving the links of soda and obesity are at the same stage as studies on tobacco and health problems several years ago, when those warnings were issued.
Keane said linking soda consumption with smoking cigarettes is “absolutely ridiculous.”
Muth”s Truths
March 5, 2006
?
March 5, 2006
?
THE WAR ON BIG SODA
“Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that drinking soda can be hazardous to your health.”
Look for that warning label on bottles and cans of Coke, Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper and even Hawaiian Punch in stores near you in the not too distant future…that is, if the Health Nannies and the Trial Lawyers get their way.? An Associated Press story this week reports that nutrition “experts” are “escalating the fight” against obesity, and they appear to be changing their focus from fast-food to soft drinks.
“In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don”t just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it,” the AP reports.? “Not that these drinks are the only cause, but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.”
And once “science” takes that leap, the AP predicts the results could be “higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold – maybe even a surgeon general”s warning on labels.”? As Barry Popkin, a “scientist” at the University of North Carolina boasted, “We”ve done it with cigarettes.”
Yes, they did.? And many of us fought the three-headed hydra of government bureaucrats, trial lawyers and junk scientists in their war against Big Tobacco.? The bottom line for our side was simply that no one was pointing a gun at anyone”s head and MAKING them smoke cigarettes – just as no one is MAKING anyone drink sodas today.? But that didn”t matter to a lot of fair-weathered conservatives who willingly joined the War on Tobacco simply because they didn”t like cigarettes.? Freedom and responsibility?? Fuggetaboutit.? Let”s just get rid of Joe Camel, right?
Well, we tried to warn you people.? And I”m not hesitant in the least to say, “I told you so.”? You allowed the hydra to get its nose under the tent.? And now, flush with cash and success in “getting” Big Tobacco, they”re coming for your Yoo-Hoo and your Pepsi.? Serves you right.
Of course, some of you will STILL blow off this encroachment on freedom as nonsense.? The government would never crack down on Gatorade the way it did Marlboros, right?
Wrong. They”re already doing it.? In legislatures and local governments across the country, a quiet but growing movement is already well underway to ban soda machines in schools. After all, what self-respecting social engineering project would dare move forward without a “for the kids” component, right?
In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – who should know better – signed two bills last fall banning vending machine sales of sodas, chocolate bars, crackers, chips, candy and other “junk” foods.? The bills” sponsor, Democrat/Socialist state Sen. Martha Escutia, justifies her Big Brother bill thusly:? “The benefits of having kids in class who are not on a sugar high, who are going to be able to concentrate and learn better – that”s just as important as the obesity aspect.”
Yes, dear reader, you read that right.? The War on Soda is actually an effort to help kids learn better!
Forget about hiring competent teachers, paying them more, raising standards, dumping No Child Left Behind, getting back to basics, breaking up the government monopoly on education, providing school choice and kicking the teachers u nion out of the classroom.? No, all we really need to do to raise student performance is kick the Coke machine out of the school cafeteria.
Good grief.
The California bans take effect in July 2007, and let me tell what”s going to happen.? Kids will continue to drink their favorite beverages.? They”ll continue to eat Snickers and Ding-Dongs.? And if they can”t purchase them on campus, they”ll purchase them off campus.? In addition, a black market in Fritos and Reese”s Peanut Butter Cups will pop up under the gymnasium stands, as young entrepreneurs recognize the new demand and fill it from their back-packs.
Psssst.? Wanna buy a Twix?
Eventually, the Dudley Do-Gooders such as Sen. Escutia and Gov. Schwarzenegger are going to pursue legislation to crack down on the Twinkie black market, banning not just the vending machines on campus, but? penalizing mere possession, thus equating snacks with the likes of marijuana – which is already sold on campuses and the use of which only fuels an even greater demand for potato chips and donuts.
Hmm.? I guess marijuana IS a gateway drug after all.
Eventually, our kids are going to be sent to the principal”s office or suspended for getting caught sneaking a Hershey”s bar between classes.? Somehow I don”t think this is what the Founders had in mind when they promoted the need for an educated populace in order to maintain our liberty.? But does anyone care any longer?
Food Fight: Scientists take on sodas as ”cigarettes” of obesity
03/05/2006
MARILYNN MARCHIONE?
MARILYNN MARCHIONE?
Low-fat, low-cal, low-carb. Atkins, South Beach, The Zone. Food fads may be distracting attention from something more insidiously piling on pounds: beverages.
One of every five calories in the American diet is liquid. The nation”s single biggest “food” is soda, and nutrition experts have long demonized it.
Now they are escalating the fight.
In reports to be published in science journals this week, two groups of researchers hope to add evidence to the theory that soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks don”t just go hand-in-hand with obesity, but actually cause it. Not that these drinks are the only cause – genetics, exercise and other factors are involved – but that they are one cause, perhaps the leading cause.
A small point? In reality, proving this would be a scientific leap that could help make the case for higher taxes on soda, restrictions on how and where it is sold – maybe even a surgeon general”s warning on labels.
“We”ve done it with cigarettes,” said one scientist advocating this, Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Comparing soda and obesity to tobacco and lung cancer is a baseless crusade, industry spokesmen say.
“I think that”s laughable,” said Richard Adamson, a senior science consultant to the American Beverage Association. Lack of exercise and poor eating habits are far bigger contributors to America”s weight woes, he said.
“The science is being stretched,” said Adam Drewnowski, director of nutritional sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. He owns stock in beverage companies and has done extensive research in the field, much of it financed by industry but also some by government.
However, those making the case against soda include some of the nation”s top obesity researchers at prestigious institutions like Harvard and Yale.
“There are many different lines of evidence, just like smoking,” said Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard pediatrician who wants a “fat tax” on fast food and drinks.
Beverage companies seem worried. Some are making sodas “healthier” by adding calcium and vitamins, and pushing fortified but sugary sports drinks in schools that ban soda. This could help them duck any regulations aimed at “empty calorie” drinks, said Jennifer Follett, a USDA nutritionist at the University of California in Davis.
“Even defining ”milk” is getting tough these days,” with so many flavored varieties and sweetened liquid yogurts, she complained. “It tastes like you”re sucking on ice cream.”
Proving that something causes disease is not easy. It took decades with tobacco, asbestos and other substances now known to cause cancer, and met strong industry opposition. It would be especially tough for a disease as complex as obesity.
Diet is hard to study. Most people drink at least some sweetened beverages and also get calories from other drinks like milk and orange juice, diluting the strength of any observations about excess weight from soda alone.
Children are growing and gaining weight naturally, “so we have this added complication” of trying to determine how much extra gain is due to sweet-drink consumption, said Alison Field, a nutrition expert at Harvard-affiliated Children”s Hospital in Boston.
“Given these caveats, it”s amazing the association we do see,” she said.
She was among hundreds of scientists who packed a “mock trial” of such drinks at a conference of the Obesity Society last year in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Here is the “food police” indictment of soda and its sugar-sweetened co-conspirators. You be the judge:
_Count One: Guilt by association.
Soft drink consumption rose more than 60 percent among adults and more than doubled in kids from 1977-97. The prevalence of obesity roughly doubled in that time. Scientists say these parallel trends are one criterion for proving cause-and-effect.
Numerous studies link sugary drink consumption with weight gain or obesity. One by Ludwig of 548 Massachusetts schoolchildren found that for each additional sweet drink consumed per day, the odds of obesity increased 60 percent.
Another at Harvard of 51,603 nurses compared two periods, 1991-95 and 1995-99, and found that women whose soda drinking increased had bigger rises in body-mass index than those who drank less or the same.
_Count Two: Physical evidence.
Biologically, the calories from sugar-sweetened beverages are fundamentally different in the body than those from food.
The main sweetener in soda – high-fructose corn syrup – can increase fats in the blood called triglycerides, which raises the risk of heart problems, diabetes and other health woes.
This sweetener also doesn”t spur production of insulin to make the body “process” calories, nor does it spur leptin, a substance that tamps down appetite, as other carbohydrates do, explained Dr. George Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La.
“There”s a lack of fullness or satiety. The brain just seems to add it on,” said Dr. Louis Aronne, a Weill-Cornell Medical College doctor who is president of the Obesity Society.
Two studies by Penn State nutritionist Barbara Rolls illustrate this. One gave 14 men lemonade, diet lemonade, water or no drink and then allowed them to eat as much as they wanted at lunch. Food intake didn”t vary, no matter what they drank.
The second study gave 44 women water, diet soda, regular soda, orange juice, milk or no drink before lunch. Total intake was 104 calories greater for those given caloric beverages than those given diet soda, water or no beverage. Caloric drinks didn”t help women feel any fuller either.
Then there is the “jelly bean study.” Purdue University researchers gave 15 men and women 450 calories a day of either soda or jelly beans for a month, then switched them for the next month and kept track of total consumption. Candy eaters ate less food to compensate for the extra calories. Soda drinkers did not.
_Count Three: Bad influence on others.
Sugar-sweetened beverages affect the intake of other foods, such as lowering milk consumption. Popkin contends they also may be psychological triggers of poor eating habits and cravings for fast food.
He examined dietary patterns of 9,500 American adults in a federal study from 1999-2002. Those who drank healthier beverages – water, low-fat milk, unsweetened coffee or tea – were more likely to eat vegetables and less likely to eat fast food.
Conversely, “fast-food consumption was doubled if they were high soda consumers and vegetable consumption was halved,” he said.
Harvard epidemiologist Eric Rimm saw a similar effect in a different federally funded study of more than 5,000 young adults. With high soda consumption, “you see this pattern of less healthy intake across the board,” he said at the obesity meeting.
_Count Four: Consistency of evidence.
Many studies of different types link sugary drinks and weight gain or obesity. Some even show a “dose-response” relationship – as consumption rises, so does weight.
Collectively, they meet many criteria for proving cause and effect, Dr. William Dietz, director of nutrition at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in an editorial accompanying a study in February”s Journal of Pediatrics.
In rebuttal, Adamson, the beverage industry spokesman, sees no such consistency. He cites a 2004 Harvard study of more than 10,000 children and teens. Consumption of sugar-added beverages was tied to body-mass index gain in boys but not girls, a gender difference that warrants a “jaundiced eye” to claims that soda is at fault, he said.
He also points to a Harvard study finding no link between weight changes and soda consumption among 1,345 North Dakota children ages 2 to 5 – a group that arguably drinks far less soda than teens and adults.
“Whatever association there is doesn”t seem to be large,” said Richard Forshee, deputy director of the Center for Food, Nutrition and Agriculture Policy at the University of Maryland who has received research funding from the beverage industry and global sugar producers.
As for soda being linked to poor eating patterns, “you don”t know which is cause and which is effect,” Drewnowski said.
People who consume lots of fresh-squeezed juice, vegetables and fruits are fundamentally not the same as those who subsist on colas and bologna sandwiches, he contends.
“There is a difference: The first group is rich,” Drewnowski said. He thinks government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would be better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories.
He also disputes the claim that soda calories are not satisfying. He did a study in which 32 men and women were given either colas or fat-free Raspberry Newtons before lunch on four separate occasions.
“There was absolutely no difference in satiety” as measured by how much they ate or how hungry they said they were, he said.
That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food.
When you look at studies according to who footed the bill, “the literature parts like Moses parting the ocean,” he said, referring to the biblical parting of the Red Sea.
Does the evidence add up to a conviction of soda?
One of the nation”s leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the American Cancer Society”s Dr. Michael Thun, thinks it does.
“Caloric imbalance causes obesity, so in the sense that any one part of the diet is contributing excess calories, it”s contributing causally to the obesity,” Thun said. “It doesn”t mean that something is the only cause. It means that in the absence of that factor there would be less of that condition.”
Does it merit a warning on soda cans?
“I think it would be a good candidate for a warning,” Thun said. “It”s something that should be seriously considered.”??????????
Benzene once again found in soft drinks; FDA silent in 1990
03.05.2006
?
WASHINGTON – When small amounts of benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, were found in some soft drinks 16 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration never told the public.
That”s because the beverage industry told the government it would handle the problem and the FDA thought the problem was solved.
A decade and a half later, benzene has turned up again. The FDA has found levels in some soft drinks higher than what it found in 1990, and two to four times higher than what”s considered safe for drinking water.
Both the FDA and the beverage industry said the amounts were small and that the problem didn”t appear to be widespread.
“People shouldn”t overreact,” said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. “It”s a very small number of products and not major brands.”
“The issue here is not something that should cause anyone alarm or terrific concern,” said George Pauli, a top food-safety expert at the FDA, “but if there”s something that can be reduced, we want to reduce it.”
They wouldn”t identify the drinks being tested because the investigation is still under way.
Pauli said that people ingest more benzene by breathing than they would if they drank a can of soda containing the chemical. Small amounts of the chemical also are naturally present in some foods such as fruits, vegetables and dairy products. Still, Pauli added, “You want to avoid it in any degree you can.”
Of the 60 or so varieties of sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks and bottled waters that the FDA has tested so far, benzene levels have ranged from two and three parts per billion to more than 10-20 parts per billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency”s safety standard for benzene in drinking water is five parts per billion. If it exceeds that, authorities are required to notify the public.
Benzene is an industrial chemical that”s found in tobacco smoke, car exhaust and vapors from household products such as paint, detergents and furniture wax. Long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other cancers of the blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Benzene can show up in soft drinks when two common ingredients react: ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C, and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. Both are preservatives used to prevent growth of bacteria. But the presence of these chemicals doesn”t necessarily produce benzene.
Pauli said that a catalyst such as temperature or light is needed to trigger the formation of benzene. That”s what scientists suspect occurred in 1990 when authorities found benzene in products made by Cadbury Schweppes and Koala Springs, an Australian company.
But a health safety watchdog organization said the FDA should inform the public.
“Most people would prefer there are no known human carcinogens in what they drink,” said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. “This is a case where industry agreed to get it out of the products, and all the evidence says they didn”t.”
“People shouldn”t overreact. It”s a very small number of products and not major brands.”
?
WASHINGTON – When small amounts of benzene, a known cancer-causing chemical, were found in some soft drinks 16 years ago, the Food and Drug Administration never told the public.
That”s because the beverage industry told the government it would handle the problem and the FDA thought the problem was solved.
A decade and a half later, benzene has turned up again. The FDA has found levels in some soft drinks higher than what it found in 1990, and two to four times higher than what”s considered safe for drinking water.
Both the FDA and the beverage industry said the amounts were small and that the problem didn”t appear to be widespread.
“People shouldn”t overreact,” said Kevin Keane, a spokesman for the American Beverage Association. “It”s a very small number of products and not major brands.”
“The issue here is not something that should cause anyone alarm or terrific concern,” said George Pauli, a top food-safety expert at the FDA, “but if there”s something that can be reduced, we want to reduce it.”
They wouldn”t identify the drinks being tested because the investigation is still under way.
Pauli said that people ingest more benzene by breathing than they would if they drank a can of soda containing the chemical. Small amounts of the chemical also are naturally present in some foods such as fruits, vegetables and dairy products. Still, Pauli added, “You want to avoid it in any degree you can.”
Of the 60 or so varieties of sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks and bottled waters that the FDA has tested so far, benzene levels have ranged from two and three parts per billion to more than 10-20 parts per billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency”s safety standard for benzene in drinking water is five parts per billion. If it exceeds that, authorities are required to notify the public.
Benzene is an industrial chemical that”s found in tobacco smoke, car exhaust and vapors from household products such as paint, detergents and furniture wax. Long-term exposure can cause leukemia and other cancers of the blood, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Benzene can show up in soft drinks when two common ingredients react: ascorbic acid, otherwise known as vitamin C, and either sodium benzoate or potassium benzoate. Both are preservatives used to prevent growth of bacteria. But the presence of these chemicals doesn”t necessarily produce benzene.
Pauli said that a catalyst such as temperature or light is needed to trigger the formation of benzene. That”s what scientists suspect occurred in 1990 when authorities found benzene in products made by Cadbury Schweppes and Koala Springs, an Australian company.
But a health safety watchdog organization said the FDA should inform the public.
“Most people would prefer there are no known human carcinogens in what they drink,” said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. “This is a case where industry agreed to get it out of the products, and all the evidence says they didn”t.”
“People shouldn”t overreact. It”s a very small number of products and not major brands.”
?
