me, we developed mechanisms where the food and thirst mechanisms are separate, which adds to the unique caloric qualities of sugary beverages.
“Not only don’t they benefit us but they a 100 percent to our poor health by adding to our calories,” he says. What’s more, research suggests that the fructose in sucrose (natural sugar) or high fructose corn syrup adds directly to visceral fat, which is the fat around the heart and liver—and it is the only substance known to do this. It is the most toxic type of fat in terms of diabetes and metabolic syndrome as well as some cancers, so removing sugary beverages is a prime prevention method. (You knew I’d circle back to prevention, right?)
What about the tax and health reform?
Comparing this to the decrease in smokers (and by extension, the health consequences of smoking) as a result of the cigarette tax, Popkin maintains that taxing soda and sugary beverages will reduce the risk of overweight, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. (He also has forthcoming research in this area). Massachusetts is one of a handful of states considering this kind of tax. Popkin also noted that on a larger scale, the United States lags behind many high-end nations in reducing the consumption of sugary beverages.
“We are good at causing disease but not good at fixing it,” Popkin says, a comment that goes beyond the idea of the soda tax and hits on the basic structure of our current medical system. Right now, we spend too much on band-aids for the problems rather than taking steps to correct them at the source. To that end, Popkin sees the beverage tax as a major way to help fund reform and improve health and quality of life.
What is the response to those who think such policies might go too far?
In response to this sentiment, Popkin pointed to previous public health initiatives that were initially met with resistance, like seatbelt use, measures to curb smoking, and putting fluoride in the water. “Clearly there isn’t a single public health initiative that hasn’t faced these arguments,” he says.
He also counters with the following facts: Right now, we’re ranked between 30-35th percent in life expectancy and health care costs are swamping us. Need more statistics on sugary beverages? Forty percent of soda drinkers consume a whopping 600-900 calories a day from their drinks. And, as many of us might now realize, he says natural sugar is just as bad as drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup—they both contain fructose, and both add to visceral fat and calorie count.
The way I see it, framing soda as the next big tobacco is also an extension of an even broader debate: if prevention is a fundamental component of health reform, what is the best way to accomplish it?
It’s your turn to weigh in: is soda the next big tobacco?
For more information, check out the video posted below, where Dr. Popkin and colleagues discuss the health impacts of sugary beverages at a recent International Chair on Cardiometabolic Risk (ICCR) conference: