Over 130,000 cases of diabetes now linked to soda consumption, HFCS

www.naturalnews.com...

Quote from source:
For years, advocates of natural health have been hammering away at the message that soda causes diabetes and obesity. The soda industry, meanwhile, has remained in denial mode, mirroring the ridiculous position of the tobacco industry that "nicotine is not addictive." Soda doesn't cause diabetes, the industry claims, and it's perfectly safe to consume in essentially unlimited quantities.

The Corn Refiners Association has joined the denial with its own spin campaign that seeks to convince people High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is totally natural and completely harmless. HFCS is, of course, the primary sweetener used in sodas and soft drinks.

Now comes new research presented at the American Heart Association's Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention annual conference in San Francisco. This new research reveals that over the last decade, soda consumption has conservatively caused:
130,000 new cases of diabetes

14,000 new cases of heart disease

50,000 more "life years" with heart disease over the last decade
"The finding suggests that any kind of policy that reduces consumption might have a dramatic health benefit," said senior study author Dr. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo (associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco).

The American Beverage Association, meanwhile, says this study hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal yet and therefore it doesn't count. Soda consumption doesn't cause diabetes or heart disease, they claim, because "...both heart disease and diabetes are complex conditions with no single cause and no single solution."

It's silly logic, of course: Diabetes obviously has a cause. It's not some spontaneous disease that appears out of nowhere. And when you go looking for the cause, you obviously have to look at dietary factors since diabetes is a disease related to the consumption and metabolism of dietary sugars. Once you do that, sodas immediately raise a red flag because they're liquid sugar in a highly-concentrated form that does not exist naturally in nature.

HFCS doesn't grow on trees, in other words. Nature provides sugars locked into insoluble fibers that slow digestion and lower the effective glycemic index of sugars that are consumed. In nature, sugars are always combined with minerals, too, and many of those minerals help prevent diabetes and heart disease. But High-Fructose Corn Syrup is stripped of virtually all those minerals. It contains no fiber and no healing phytonutrients that you might encounter in plants. As a result, HFCS -- sometimes dubbed "liquid Satan" -- might be called a dietary poison that causes disease while contributing to nutritional deficiencies that accelerate disease.

It is amazing how big companies can get away with anything. What I love is that if this was little companies they would have to go bankrupt and pay all of the people affected by this.

I am happy to say I drink no soda's and stick with stuff that doesn't burn my throat.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

Looks like the 'news' to start selling the soda tax that'll save you and your family's lives has started showing up. I'm personally surprised it's taken so long for this 'news' to 'surface'.

In the spirit of diplomacy, here is a more neutral source, in case someone doesn't like NaturalNews.

BusinessWeek

Increasing Soda Consumption Fuels Rise in Diabetes, Heart Disease

And here is the agenda for this 'news' coming out at this opportune time.

Pizza, soda tax may curb obesity

Putting 18% tax on pizza and soda would likely spur U.S. adults to reduce their calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds a year, a study by the Univ. of N.C. found. Calif. and Philadelphia have introduced legislation to tax soft drinks to try to limit consumption. The researchers estimate that an 18% tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories a person. Two-thirds of Americans are either overweight or obese, and policymakers are looking at taxing those foods to address the issue.

I have to agree with FB.

I smoke cigarettes.

Now is my time to say-

I told you so!
I told you so!
I told you so!
I told you so!
I told you so!
I told you so!


And we all know fat is no good for you, so welcome to high taxes on McD's, Burger King etc etc

Welcome to the new Country of Taxation.

Nope, the government cannot control their spending so expect everything that they currently do not tax to be taxed.

You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.

Not suprising, after documenteries of fast food chains, I started really paying attention to labels. All labels. solids and liquids, any store, anything edible. One of the things I figured out from reading labels is why fast food chains always push soda, yes, water is free, and they can charge for soda. But there is another reason, HFCS calms upset stomachs, read a few labels from indigestion OTC meds. Also try a little experiment. Go, scarfe down a DBL QTR Pounder with cheese and wash it down with a glass a water and see how you feel in ten minutes

Nothing new here.

The New England Journal of Medicine proposed this last year(oct. 2009) in an article.

The Public Health and Economic Benefits of Taxing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

reply to post by jjjtir


How about rather than taxing this garbage why do we not ban it or find a healthy solution?

If a dog would just keep eating until he kills himself we don't tax him, we limit him or remove the food.

The answer is not to tax but to find another solution. To tax is to treat the symptom, I would rather deal with the problem personally...

Pred...

...and in case anyone has a problem with epidemiology, here is the abstract from a clinical study (not observational) published in 1988 (just goes to show how far behind mainstream thought is):

Effects of sucrose vs starch diets on in vivo insulin action, thermogenesis, and obesity in rats

High intake of simple sugars is generally seen as a detrimental factor in the etiology of both obesity and insulin resistance. To examine possible deleterious effects of sucrose, independent of changes in energy intake, rats were fed equal amounts of high-sucrose or high- starch diets over 4 wk. Energy expenditure was assessed by open-circuit respirometry and carcass analysis. In vivo insulin action in individual tissues was assessed with the hyperinsulinemic (1 nmol/L), euglycemic clamp combined with tracer glucose and 2-deoxyglucose administration. Whole-body glucose disposal was impaired by sucrose feeding (clamp glucose infusion rate of 77 +/- 4 vs 124 +/- 6 mumol/[kg.min], p less than 0.001, for sucrose and starch, respectively) because of a major impairment of insulin action at the liver with a smaller contribution from peripheral tissues. Sucrose feeding affected neither basal or stimulated energy expenditure nor accumulation of body fat.

In conclusion, sucrose feeding produces a major impairment of insulin action, predominantly because of an effect at the liver.

High fructose corn syrup is essentially sucrose (table sugar; a combination of glucose and fructose). The "effect" is generally caused by the fructose part.

In summary, sucrose, especially HFCS, causes an insulin impairment, one that undoubtedly impairs the sensitivity of insulin receptor sites that allow the uptake of glucose into cells and, subsequently, the lowering of blood glucose. Or, sugar causes insulin resistance and diabetes.

It's really nothing NEW. This is an idea that has been hypothesized for quite some time and is supported by over a half-century of clinical research.

-Dev

reply to post by predator0187

FEED the people lots of soda and fats then develope DIabetes a sure way to cut the population down, i know i have the ba$^#*d -from soda and junk food along with shiftwork and a lack of keeping fit,now i do my hardest to avoid sugar and fats, and keep fit, now going blind cause of the sweet stuff causes sugar bleeding near retna which has to be regularly lazered NOT to mention heart, kidneys, liver...............Remember the ad coke ads life........-bulls%^t.

reply to post by predator0187


The worst is when the "company store" with "guaranteed customers" has a "coke machine" since it keeps the "workers happy." More like the workers don't have time to leave work and so they spend their earning on the crap pushed right by their work area. Sad but true that nonwhites are more susceptible since they are not used to the "white trash" diet. I saw two African-American coworkers get diabetes at my work place after they relied on the coke machine to finish their shift -- and I worked at an environmental nonprofit!! But the white trash culture is too brainwashed so if you protest against Coke then they just get self-defensive with the whole "holier than thou" come-back. One of my African-American coworkers had his foot amputated and his eye sight failed.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Yeah but I think the lie has been that corn syrup is mainly fructose and therefore not as bad or something -- so it really is table sugar and REFINED -- not like eating fruit.

Besides the benzene levels in many soda flavors are really dangerous:

www.commercialalert.org...

Soft drink manufacturers are not adding benzene to the drinks directly. Rather, the compound is formed by a reaction of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and sodium or potassium benzoate (which are used as preservatives)—especially in the presence of light or heat. Soft drinks that contain ascorbic acid and sodium or potassium benzoate include Diet Pepsi Wild Cherry, Fanta Orange, Hawaiian Punch, Mug Root Beer, Pepsi Vanilla, Sierra Mist, Sunkist and Tropicana Lemonade, among others.

I guess many of the benzene sodas were forced to reformulate but some are not covered in the law suit:

scienceblogs.com...

[edit on 10-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by jacksmoke


Ten minutes, hell, more like about 4 the last time I wolfed one of those down.

I was lucky I was 3 minutes and 45 seconds from home.

reply to post by predator0187

Don't be fooled by this, it is a smokescreen for the real cause.

Type 2 diabetes did not exist before the 1930's...
...when engineered food oils were introduced...
...cheap food oils produced by heat and chemical extraction methods are responsible...
...and have replaced traditional oils in every country...
...because they are cheap and don't go rancid.

But it is oils ability to bind with oxygen that makes them valueable in your body.

See my thread: Deadly Diabetes Deception
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was in Indonesia recently and I couldn't buy quality oils anywhere...
...they were simply not available...
...this is why Type Diabetes is turning up even in the third-world.

Soda only becomes a problem once the 'feed-back crisis' has begun...
...but they are not the cause.

reply to post by troubleshooter


Huh?

I thought Indonesia and Malaysia had coconut? Isn't that a good oil?

reply to post by drew hempel


It's nothing like eating fruit; there's no fiber to slow the absorption of sugars when you drink a soda. Plus, the amount of sugar (fructose and glucose) in one serving of fruit compared to one serving of soda is...well, there is no comparison. Depending on the fruit, you'd have to eat from 2-10x the servings.

And, just to clarify, Sugar (sucrose) and HFCS are nearly identical. The only significant difference being that HFCS consists of monosaccharides (individual fructose and glucose molecules) while sucrose molecules are disaccharides of glucose and fructose chemically LINKED. Metabolically speaking, they ARE identical.

The most commonly used form is HFCS 55, meaning 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose breaks down into about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

-Dev

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by predator0187

 

Don't be fooled by this, it is a smokescreen for the real cause.

Type 2 diabetes did not exist before the 1930's...

You shouldn't be fooled either....Type II diabetes didn't exist because there was no distinction between the types. You see, insulin wasn't discovered until 1921. It was simply a disease of high blood sugar; before that, it was glycosuria (sugar in the blood). Diabetes Mellitus literally means "sweet urine".

2000 years ago, Hindu physicians thought it was a disease of the rich caused by the over indulgence of sugar.

Fructose causes insulin resistance and glucose then exacerbates it.

-Dev

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


You know the one chemical makeup of molecules in biology class I can still remember.

Your breakdown brings me back to that class and what we had been given on the lecture.

C6 H12 O6

I still do not know why, to this day, that this molecule is still in my head.

Anyway, what I remember about the lecture was that the body can use mono sacharides without any delay. The body is able to almost instantaneously use it for energy. Where as the more complex molecules, di saccharides, tri saccharides and things like starch require either energy or other molecules (starch requiring the saliva to break the starches down into simpler forms of saccharides) to produce the energy.

I think I got all that right. It has been quite some time since that class.

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by troubleshooter

 

Huh?

I thought Indonesia and Malaysia had coconut? Isn't that a good oil?

Raw Coconut oil is great but was not readily available...
...but gallons of plastic bags of engineered oils are easily obtained everywhere...
...and that's what they cook with now.