Although 1 in 5 Americans continues to smoke cigarettes, many doctors and public health professionals are now setting their sights on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, which many consider to be nothing less than the “new tobacco.”
There is good evidence to support this view. The average American consumes approximately 50 gallons of soda each year, which is a major contributor to the current epidemic of obesity, the details of which I discussed in a previous post. In 2004, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that obesity killed almost as many people in the U.S. per year (about 400,000) as tobacco did, and predicted that it would soon surpass it as the number one cause of death.
Taxes on cigarettes have proven to be very effective at discouraging their use, and early versions of the U.S. health reform bill sought to do the same by taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. In addition to reducing soda consumption, the penny-per-ounce tax would have raised billions of dollars to expand coverage for the uninsured and fund public health campaigns targeting other lifestyle behaviors that lead to obesity, such as physical inactivity.
Using time-tested tactics borrowed from Big Tobacco a generation ago (when Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies openly attacked and distorted the science linking smoking to lung cancer, heart disease, and other causes of death), the beverage industry quickly flooded Washington, DC with lobbyists and challenged research linking soda consumption to obesity. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, an industry-funded coalition calling itself “Americans Against Food Taxes” spent millions of dollars in key states to discourage Congress from including the tax in the bill – and won. State governments lost, too. Earlier this year in New York State and in Washington, DC, websites and airwaves were blanketed with “anti-tax” messages that were so effective at generating political opposition that neither of these proposals even came to a vote.
I admit that connecting soft drinks with obesity and premature death isn’t quite as instinctive as knowing that inhaling a burning carcinogen-delivery system is bad for you. After all, the beverage industry argues, extra calories can come from many sources other than what people drink. But sugar-sweetened beverages are unique among junk foods in that their calories don’t make us feel “full.” We just keep on drinking, adding empty calories in 40-ounce Big Gulp containers or going back to the dispenser for free refills.
The president of the American Academy of Family Physicians recently defended her organization’s decision to accept a grant valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from Coca-Cola in order to produce educational content. As a family physician, I disagree. No one expects an organization of family doctors to say that soft drinks are good for you, but in taking Coca-Cola’s money, what we are effectively telling patients (few of whom will ever visit the FamilyDoctor.org website) that soft drinks aren’t really bad for you. That’s the message that smokers were hearing a few decades ago, and most of them aren’t alive today to wish that they had been told otherwise.
__________________________________________________________________________
Family Health Guide brings you daily news from well-regarded sources such as JAMA, BMJ, Lancet, BMA, Leading Universities, plus articles from our own editorial team of experts. Join the 105,000 people following @famhealthguide, RSS Feed, Email Newsletter,
____________________________________________________________________
