Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Mar 20, 2013 09:37 AM

180,000 deaths worldwide may be associated with sugary soft drinks

From the American Heart Association March, 2013 meeting:

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. Not to mention the environmental impact of using all that energy to make this poison, to package it, and to schlep it all over the world. A totally useless product - literally no one needs sugary soft drinks - that is bad for us, bad for the environment. Kind of like cigarettes.

    6 Replies
    1. re: Just Visiting

      Most sodas are bottled locally. The flavoring concentrates might be shipped a long ways, but the bottles, water, and sugar are local (especially in sugar producing countries of Latin America). The real-sugar Mexican Coke, Peruvian Inca Kola, Brazilian GuaranĂ¡ Antarctica that we can buy in the USA are exceptions that prove my case.

      How many deaths are prevented by bottled drinks providing a safe alternative to impure drinking water? Often tourists are told to drink sodas rather than tap water.

      1. re: Just Visiting

        Look at it this way. No one needs chocolates. No one needs wines or beers. No one needs meat. No one needs carrots. No one needs spinach.

        A high meat intake is probably more harmful than high sugar intake because of the resoures required to raise the animals as well as their effect on the environment. Then there's the health effects of a high meat / low veggie diet. But I don't see people running around screaming about cheap fatty meats or restricting meat portions.

        At the end of the day it really isn't anyone's business to tell me what I may or may not eat or in what quantities.

        1. re: Roland Parker

          The AHA is not in the business of telling you what you may or may not eat or in what quantities. They make recommendations that you are perfectly free to ignore. And they don't run around screaming, but they certainly do recommend limits on the consumption of meats and fats (and sodium, and cholesterol), in addition to sugar.

          So you're absolutely right, sugar is not the only problem. But that doesn't mean that it's not a problem and that it shouldn't be talked about. And talking about it doesn't limit your freedom in any way.

          1. re: Roland Parker

            DD is correct, the AHA hasn't told you what you may or may not eat. All they have done here is provide a forum for a group of researchers to publish its results.

            1. re: Roland Parker

              Quite the opposite, a lot of us, most of us need animal protein and fats, too. We have zero need for sugar or starch in human biology, and both are highly proven to cause advanced aging progression and disease.

          2. "May be associated"???

            Wake me up when you develop a thesis with a little more backbone than day-old, overcooked ramen noodles.

            And this just in ... Masturbation may be associated with blindness later in life.

            1. We could talk about how many deaths worldwide are associated with cars.

              We could talk about how many deaths worldwide are associated with sedentary living habits.

              We could talk kabout how many deaths worldwide are associated with diets heavy in meats.

              You get the idea. Sugar is just a fashionable item to attack.

              1 Reply
              1. re: Roland Parker

                Yes, we (that is, various researchers) try to quantify effects such as traffic deaths and deaths for various causes. That is what these researchers are trying to do — put a number on it. We try to quantify and track such things not because it is "fashionable" but because progress depends on information.

              2. I've never understood why taxpayers subsidize agribusinesses to plant corn to make into HFCS then turn around and try to pass higher taxes on sodas to try and stem obesity.

                1 Reply
                1. re: monkeyrotica

                  The OP article is about worldwide consumption; you are focusing on one country. Within the USA we have multiple jurisdictions. It's city and state governments that try to tax junk food.

                  Agricultural 'subsidies' are a complicated web measures enacted by the federal congress and administered by the USDA. Many of those Acts have their roots in the New Deal era, aiming in one way or other to protect farmers from wild swings in commodity prices, swings that could drive farmers out of business. There are some countries that subsidize commodities to make them cheaper for consumers (e.g. Egypt on wheat), but that is the case in the USA.

                  Are you aware that USA sugar prices are well above the world market? If the government dropped the various price supports and tariffs on sugar, our prices would drop significantly. The USDA programs do affect the relative price of sugar and corn syrup, but don't make sodas cheaper.