Are you drinking Coca Cola right now?
If so, you are one of 9 billion people doing the same today. And that just Coke. We’re not including other soft drinks, like the massive Pepsico products and a myriad other smaller ones.
The word is certainly spreading about soft drinks and their health issues, but soft drinks like Coke, Pepsi, and other sodas have retained millions of people. The only conclusion – given the totally damning health evidence, has to be that they (and you!) are addicted to them.
Around one in two Americans still drink soda on a daily basis.
Not just one glass, or can. They consume an average of 2.6 glasses per day.
But the Americans don’t hold the crown as soda squaffers.
Mexicans drink more than any other country in the world at roughly 163 litres (or 36 gallons) per person, every year.
So I wonder.. is there a connection between the 70,000 Mexicans who die every year and soda consumption?
(The number is probably much higher, since many people are not diagnosed, or may die of heart disease, strokes or cancer—all diseases that often stem from diabetes and soft drink consumption).
We already know from a vast number of studies that soda consumption in the Western world definitively relates to the steep increase in newly diagnosed diabetes patients as well. The difference, however, is that in western countries, the offending beverages are mostly sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, a seriously nasty and sneaky form of sweetener, (yes, more dangerous than regular sucrose, the commonly used sweetener in other countries). Any large amount of sugar is extremely hazardous to the body, but high fructose corn syrup is even worse than regular sucrose. It is particularly bad for the liver and for our blood sugar levels.
No matter what we choose, bad things happen within minutes of drinking a sugary soft drink:
- In just a few minutes, 10-12 teaspoons of sugar body-slam your system.
In a weird way, its formulation protects you from your body vomiting up this potent and toxic mix of sugar. Drink designers realised the problem and added phosphoric acid, carbonation, and other artificial flavours to mute its unacceptable vomit-prone sugary taste.
- Within 20 minutes, sugar in your blood surges to phenomenal levels, with an accompanying insulin response. Sensinga survival threat, your liver responds like a hero. To save you from all that sugar in your bloodstream it attempts to convert the sugar to fat cells. In the case of corn syrup, this is liver response is bordering on a death threat response. Naturally, our body has to suddenly store all that fat, so with no ability to do so immediately, it puts in the ‘wait lane’ AKA your blood stream. (Most people, told they have high triglycerides are never told what ‘triglycerides’ are? Imagine if your doctor cut the jargon and simply said, you have lumps of fat in your veins!) Eventually this fat gets stored on the body, or in the liver, and suddenly you are a target for Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.
It’s also, naturally enough, a primary causative factor in obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even many cancers.
- In a half hour, your body starts absorbing all the caffeine in the soda.
Your pupils dilate, your heart rate increases, you feel temporarily energized as your blood pressure rises, and your liver, in response to the caffeine, dumps even more sugar into the bloodstream. Insulin goes back up, you get hungry and that sugar gets stored as more fat.
- In ¾ of an hour, dopamine (a ‘feel-good’ hormone) is released, stimulating the pleasure centre of the brain.
Yes, just like heroin. And equally addictive. Imagine for a minute again, your doctor looking hard at you and telling you that you are a junkie. And you knowing it is true. This is right where the cognitive dissonance happens. A comfortable belief ( A few sodas can’t hurt me) clashes head on with science (You are an addict.) Why do so many people still drink the stuff?
It’s not logical. Neither is addiction. Can you see your cognitive dissonance at work?
- Within In an hour…
of squaffing that soda, the phosphoric acid in the soda binds onto usable calcium, magnesium and zinc in your digestive system. Here’s the in-body reason a soda drinker needs alkaline minerals. Every glass or can of soda grabs our available alkalis. Now you can’t put those essential minerals to use as they were intended. They attach to the phosphoric acid and pass from the body in the form of pee. About now you’ll probably want to visit the little room. Not because you have an excess of healthy water to your body’s needs. It’s caused by the caffeine. So if you decided on drinking a soda to quench your thirst, you’ll pee more than that away. You end up even thirstier and more dehydrated.. just how the drink designers wanted you to be.
- An hour later, caffeine and sugar hit has worn off,
and your mood and addiction starts showing up again in your familiar up and down mood swings. You are hungrier, tired, irritable, and sluggish.
- Even just one soda a day has massive consequences to your health. Not unlike the free hit of heroin the dealer offers our kids. He knows what we know. One is enough.
Let’s look now beyond the addiction process. Let’s look at what evryday users can expect.
Obesity and Diabetes ‘One a day?’
The Nurse’s Health Study monitored 90,000 women for 8 years. This huge study discovered that one soda a day added about 10 pounds of fat in 4 years.
One a day also doubles your chances of type 2 diabetes. Given that your odds of becoming a diabetic are now one out of three, I’m guessing that there’s a possibility that if you really love yourself and your family, there’s a choice to be made!
Excessive sugar intake actually dumbs you down. A 2002 UCLA study discovered how. A brain chemical called “brain derived neurotrophic factor” or BDNF, makes it harder for you to remember, and even harder to learn. A supporting study from University of Copenhagen linked low BDNF levels to depression and dementia.
BDNF levels are also connected to insulin resistance, which kickstarts not only diabetes, but also puts you into the high risk zone for Alzheimer’s disease.
This last problem seems like some sort of Frankensteinian creation. Imagine the glee from shareholders in soda companies when they learned that continual sugar consumption dulls the brain’s mechanism for knowing when to stop, making you definitely more susceptible to weight gain and obesity.
(According to a 2010 study from the University of Minnesota)
Bacon doesn’t cause heart attacks. Soda causes them. We now know a strong correlation between soda and heart disease is a real thing. One recent studies from Harvard (2012), concluded that just one can of soda a day increased heart disease by 20%. Yes, we have said that this risk can be associated with the increased risk of high blood sugar, and diabetes, but heart disease and stroke risk also increase significantly. Another study from the University of Miami showed that those who had a daily diet soda habit had a 61% increased risk of “cardiovascular event,” including heart attack and stroke, than those who drank no soda — even when factors such as smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption and diet were controlled.
Drink soda, or other sugary beverages, and you’ll certainly score high on the scorecard for cancer risk, especially gallbladder and bile ducts around the liver, according to a Swedish study. The study suggests that obesity, and elevated blood sugar levels also increase the risk of malignancies. We know already that many cancers feed on sugar, so.. once again, the answer to the problem stares us in the face.
One particularly nasty, fastmoving and painful form of cancer is cancer of the pancreas. It’s also tied in with drinking a soda or two a day. Researchers at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C studied and concluded that risk of pancreatic cancer increases by about 87%, according.
As we said earlier, sSoda drinking is also one of the biggest causes of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, which can lead to cirrhosis of the liver and liver cancer.
Researchers at the University of Adelaide recently concuded that soda consumption is also strongly related to COPD and increases risk of asthma attacks.
Soda Bones and Meth User’s Teeth
- A 2006 study published in the Academy of General Dentistry journal found that drinking soda is nearly as harmful for your teeth as drinking battery acid and the damage is comparable to what happens to a meth user’s teeth.We all know that sugar leads to tooth decay, but what about the phosphoric acid? It’s far worse! Look it up and you’ll discover it’s also used in cleaners for toilet bowls, grout, tile, automobile rims, and some general-purpose cleaners/degreasers.Look up how you should handle it and you’ll find this: Eye/face protection: wear tight-fitting government approved safety goggles (NIOSH or EN 166).
- Skin protection: Nitrile-rubber gloves are recommended for all handling conditions. Inspect gloves prior to usage for tears, holes, weak spots. Contaminated gloves should be disposed of according to all laws and regulations.
- Body protection: complete chemical-protective suit recommendation is dependent upon concentration and amount of phosphoric acid to be handled.
- Respiratory protection: use full-face air-purifying respirators with multi-purpose or type ABEK respirator cartridges as a backup to the engineering controls and when proper risk assessment recommends its usage.
To prevent exposure, the CDC recommends taking serious precautions to prevent the generation of mists, avoiding potentially hazardous exposure to eyes, skin, and nasal passageways. The CDC also recommends no eating, drinking, or smoking when handling phosphoric acid to avoid the possibility of ingestion.
..and we drink the stuff!
It’s a double whammy.
Citric acid and phosphoric acid added to offset the sweet taste of the large amounts of sugar, and they actually corrode tooth enamel, supporting the corrosion happening from the sugar. right alongside the sugar. The Colgate Oral and Dental Health Resource Center, says that soft drinks are among the most significant dietary sources of tooth decay.
“Acids and acidic sugar byproducts in soft drinks soften tooth enamel, contributing to the formation of cavities. In extreme cases, softer enamel combined with improper brushing, grinding of the teeth or other conditions can lead to tooth loss.”
As we discussed earlier, phosphoric acid binds to calcium, magnesium and zinc—all vital bone and teeth minerals. It co-opts them, removing them from the body, making them useless for bone and tooth material.
The acid doesn’t just erode the outer surfaces of tooth enamel. It eats away at the inherent structure of teeth and bone, causing massive tooth decay, and osteoporosis as well.
Are you still reading? It only gets worse so how about making a decision? I speak from deep experience.
In high school I decided to be some sort of hero who could quaff a whole bottle of Coke art morning recess, lunch and afternoon recess. My teeth became so bad that I had them all removed. My happy smile isn’t mine. Not only that, I discovered some 5 years ago that my other legacy of my brief heroism was advanced osteoporosis.
An change of diet or a change of mind?
Soda consumption, to me, is the ‘gatekeeper’ of a whole fortress of ideas about what we can ‘get away with’ in our diet.
I can suggest a simple change from soda to good healthy water, and I would be totally justified. But if our overall diet is still high in sugar – and carbs, which quickly convert to sugar in our body to give us that sugar hit when we stop drinking Coke) then you’re still an addict.
I read many ‘experts’ suggesting reducing sugar. All I can say is ‘Good Luck”.
And I also understand that an addict cannot think outside of his or her addiction and so I have concluded that most people won’t take this advice unless they are really in some form of pain. What a terrible idea! To actually consciously degrade your own health through an addictive habit, and to be able to read a page like this and continue degrading your health because you are ‘not too bad’.. yet.
So I’m telling you the ‘bad’/good news. The ‘bad’ news is that the only certainty of recovery from your degrading addiction is to go cold turkey. The good news is the same. So it’s your attitude and whether you trust what I say that will ultimately determine whether you have the courage to drop the sweeties.
I can say this only because that is what I did. And my life is so much better because of it. At age seventy I do not have the luxury of another decade in which to think about getting well.
Ian is the inventor of the UltraStream, the world’s first natural water ionizer and hydrogen infusing water system.
Visit any supermarket. You see them stacked, row after row, brand name upon brand name.
We are spoiled for choices … but we are fast learning that the ‘plastic habit’ can indeed be quite costly when added up.
And then there’s the plastic question. Naturally, it’s better to choose glass rather than cheap plastic which leaches toxic chemicals such as Bisphenol-A which could affect health when taken frequently and long term.
We are, of course, talking about bottled water. So why should we have to buy bottled drinking water? Why is this massive industry, totally dependent upon plastic, transport costs and robbing local areas of their good water?
Remember the sixties? The idea of someone charging for water in bottles would have been laughable. I still have a somewhat sinister regard for the fact that we’re being charged for water, and not without reasoning: There just could be something covertly sinister and devious going on.
There are indeed a number of people who have educated themselves enough to realize that they don’t want to choose drinking tap water with fluoride and other chemicals.
But why should we even have a need to choose the more expensive bottled water option and put up with the chemically-treated tap water?
Surely, it’s up to us to do something about this?
Fracking and our water supply
As a water lover I have to ask: why has the dangerous process of fracking technology been allowed to carry on without due study of the effects on our water supply?
Fracking uses hydraulic pressure blasts (some 40,000 plus gallons of water containing over 600 toxic chemicals) to fracture shale rock to get at its contents of gas and oil to be extracted. Much of this toxic chemical water contains methane, formaldehyde, mercury, uranium, lead and carcinogens – and is is never recovered. It inevitably finds its way into our groundwater. It can pollute wells, thus polluting our water supplies.
As well as environmental damage, the reckless insanity of fracking has now been linked to earthquakes and ill health with people and animals living in nearby areas.
It’s pretty obvious that fracking corporations are buying off the politicians and people connected.
So am I right? Is there something devious going on. Let’s look at the link between tap water to fracking.
Water, one of the most essential of life’s commodities is deliberately becoming more and more precious to obtain.
When you control the water supplies you can control the people.
It’s a crazy thought but.. perhaps the reason for fracking with its water-polluting deadly toxic chemicals going by unchecked is that it puts the people in a situation whereby their local water supplies in wells and taps is not longer usable so they have no other choice than to go to the stores and buy the corporation’s water supplies.
Think of the astronomical amounts of money the manipulators of all this could make from the quantities of water needed from folks all over the world in their everyday lives!
I’m copy and pasting this article from ANH International. It’s by Dr Harald Gaier ND DO DHomM DBotM, and Robert Verkerk PhD
A recently published study from Tufts University in the US has found that sugary beverages have been estimated to kill around 200,000 people every year. That’s the equivalent of over 330 Jumbo jets going down annually, courtesy of ‘soda pops’. The authors found that 72% of these deaths were attributable to type 2 diabetes, 24% from heart disease and the remaining 4% from cancer.
Coca-Cola, the originator of the ‘soda pop’ has, it seems, been doing all it can to refuse any responsibility….echoing Big Tobacco’s thirty year cover-up. But in the wake of the scandal overVW’s emission-cheating chip, Coca-Cola finds itself under the spotlight following a detailed investigation by The Times newspaper of London. Courtesy of Alexi Mostrous’s journalism, murky dealings of how the company has tried to manipulate both research findings and public opinion were littered across the UK’s number one broadsheet newspaper.
The birth of the ‘soda pop’
In 1886, twenty-0ne years after the American Civil War, the Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, USA was by founded by Confederate Colonel John Pemberton, a pharmacist who suffered injuries in the war that led him to become a morphine addict.
As the name suggests, for the first 17 years, the leaves of the Coca plant (Erythroxylum coca) were used in the preparation of Coca-Cola. The naturally-occurring cocaine in the beverage gave the drinker an addictive “buzz”. The company claimed a wide range of medicinal properties and health benefits for their drink, including treatment of impotence, dyspepsia, neurasthenia, headaches, nausea, and morphine addiction, as well as being a general stimulant and health booster. It proved especially popular among war veterans dealing with their morphine addiction.
Today, despite the ensuing formulation changes, people still use flat Coca-Cola as a hangover cure (there are of course many foods and nutrients that can do a much better a job at supporting detoxification from excessive alcohol exposure). Unsurprisingly, consumption as well as sales during the early period increased exponentially. According to Coca-Cola’s own published records, the company removed cocaine from the drink’s formula in 1903, substituting caffeine as the stimulating ingredient, but that was done without much fanfare. That was its first chameleon-like change. The so-called ‘hobble skirt’ bottle of Coca-Cola, over the years, also underwent some minor changes, but it still retains its original iconic, unmistakable design of the cacao pod and not the fictional ‘hobble skirt’ with which myth the company likes to hoodwink the public. That was perhaps the first sign of Coca-Cola’s impious, chameleon-like behaviour.
Busted! By the Times of London
Last Friday and Saturday, on the 9th & 10th October 2015 respectively, The Times published two consecutive, highly revealing articles by its special correspondent, Alexi Mostrous. In the Saturday piece, Alexi Mostrous exposed Sense About Science’s association with Coca-Cola. Sense About Science is the charity with which anti-alternative medicine skeptics like Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre are associated, that claims to be independent yet often acts as a voice for Big Food, Pharma and Biotech.
Simon Singh faces his comeuppance (courtesy What Doctors Don’t Tell You, www.wddty.com)
Below, I’ve attempted to capture some of the salient findings of the Mr Mostrous’ investigative reports. These are linked specifically to the UK, so one has to consider just how far the company’s tentacles stretch globally.
Recently Coca-Cola has poured millions of pounds into British scientific research and healthy-eating initiatives to counter claims that their sugary drink does, indeed, help to cause obesity. Coca-Cola has financial links to more than a dozen high profile, influential British scientists and government advisors. It would seem the main game plan has been to ensure they cast doubt on the commonly-accepted link, one supported by none other than the Harvard School of Public Health, between sugary drinks and the growing obesity crisis.
It is common knowledge that many scientists blame increased sugar consumption for Britain’s obesity epidemic, which kills up to 53,000 people a year and costs the NHS £5.1 billion annually. A report in the British Journal of Sports Medicine argued that poor diet was the cause of more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined.
The British Government rejected recent calls for a sugar tax on consumers despite support from the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies DBE FRS (born 1949), the British Medical Association and some celebrities such as Chef James Trevor Oliver (born 1975). Coca-Cola spent millions of pounds setting up the European Hydration Institute (EHI) — an apparently independent research foundation to promote hydration, which has recommended that people consume sports and soft drinks of the sort the Company sells, which far from slaking any thirst may often arouse one. The chairman of the body’s scientific advisory board is a respected professor whose university received nearly £1 million from Coca-Cola during the period he provided nutritional advice to leading sports bodies. Coca-Cola have provided financial support, sponsorship or research funding to British organisations including UKActive, the British Nutrition Foundation, the University of Hull, Homerton University Hospital, the National Obesity Forum, the British Dietetic Association, Obesity Week 2013 and the UK Association for the Study of Obesity. Coca-Cola spent €6.6 million (£4.86 million) setting up the European Institute between 2010 and 2015. Guidance and studies it funded often recommend that the public, including children, consume sports and soft drinks of the sort sold by Coca-Cola. Two of the company’s most senior scientists are vice-chairwomen of the EHI, whose public pages on social networks make no mention of Coca-Cola, although its website reveals on a back-page that the company is a founding partner. Ron Maughan, chairman of the EHI’s scientific advisory board, is an emeritus professor of sport science at Loughborough University, which has received £817,292 from Coca-Cola in research funding since 2007. Professor Maughan, who has advised UK Athletics and the Football Association, has acted as a consultant for Coca-Cola and other drinks companies since the Nineties.
Through its trade organisations, Coca-Cola representatives have met government officials and ministers more than 100 times over a period of 36 months between 2011 and 2014, that is nearly three times each month. Coca-Cola hosts an annual parliamentary dinner. Organisations it funds often promote a message that physical activity is more important to public health than an “obsession” with obesity. In 2013, Fred Turok, chairman of UKActive, an organisation set up to promote physical activity that lists Coca-Cola as a sponsor, criticised Britain for being “fixated” by obesity at a Coca-Cola-organised event. Mr Turok quoted Steven Blair, a US academic whose university has received more than $3 million from Coca-Cola, by telling delegates: “You can be fat and fit.”
UKActive’s board includes Baroness Grey-Thompson, the Paralympian, Dame Carol Black, the Prime Minister David Cameron’s health adviser, and Liz Lowe, Coca-Cola GB’s director of corporate responsibility. Coca-Cola Company has also given money to government advisers including Dr Carrie Ruxton, a board member of Food Standards Scotland. In 2010 she co-wrote a study sponsored by the UK Sugar Bureau, the lobbying group for sugar manufacturers that found no proven association between sugar intake and obesity. On her website she states separately: “When I correlated sugar consumption with obesity levels, there didn’t appear to be any relationship.” Dr Ruxton said that the UK Sugar Bureau had no control over her study and that she highlighted a “potential concern” over sugary drinks and obesity in the report. She said that her later comments were consistent with a recent government report and that she had not undertaken work for Coca-Cola since joining Food Standards Scotland. She denies writing favourable reports for Coca-Cola.
Other government advisers who have received funding from Coca-Cola include Ian MacDonald, chairman of the state-funded scientific advisory committee on carbohydrates, who stepped down from the Coca-Cola advisory board last year. His university has since received a payment from EHI after he gave a talk at a hydration “workshop”. “I do not regard links with both industry and the government as being in conflict,” he said. “Both the public and industry are entitled to access the best advice available.”
The Coca-Cola Company is also ceaselessly advertising. It seems that the art world is a favourite backdrop. For example, at the third, bigger-than-ever contemporary African art fair (over 150 artists are exhibiting) in Somerset House, Strand, London WC2R 1LA, the prominent back-drop is a very large (±3×5 metre) red Coca-Cola placard [depicted: TimeOut London, No.2350, 13-19 October 2015, column 3 on p 103].
On 31 December 2013, Spanish researchers found that scientific papers on sugary drinks that were sponsored by or had potential conflicts of interest with the food and drink industry, including Coca-Cola, were five times more likely to find no link with obesity than similar papers that were independently funded. They recommended “special efforts to preclude funding by parties with vested interests at all levels”.
For anyone trying to lose weight, drinking soft drinks may be one of the worst things you can do – and that includes “diet’ or low calorie versions. The high sugar versions are by no means the only offenders. Nature magazine published research findings that show that artificial sweeteners like sucralose, aspartame and saccharin cause changes in the beneficial bacteria that live in the human gut and contribute in regulating our metabolism. These artificial sweeteners also reduce our body’s ability to process glucose. The side-effects conspire to play a significant role in raising the overall risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
For those feeling they’d rather go back to real sugar, think again: a Harvard study suggests one can expect a 26% elevated risk of type 2 diabetes from just consuming between 1 to 2 drinks a day. If diabetes doesn’t get you, a heart attack might. A further study that followed 40,000 men for two decades found that those who averaged one can of a sugary beverage per day had a 20% higher risk of having a heart attack or dying from a heart attack than men who rarely consumed sugary drinks.
Coca-Cola, in its characteristic chameleon-like manner, has been busy adapting itself to the variety of different consumers out there, from the ones who want the full sugar, original offering, to the groups who still feel that calorie reduction is key but will do it at the cost of synthetic sweeteners (and addiction), while the latest offering caters for those who like it ‘natural’.
To get to this place, Coca-Cola has ‘chameleonised’ its famous drink by making four versions of it available, with colour-coded labels, leaving the choice of whether or not to consume sugar, or artificial sweeteners, or a natural non-sugar sweetener with some sugar to the individual consumer.
Here are the choices:
- the original sugared Coke (red label),; containing carbonated water, sugar, caramel (E150d), phosphoric acid, natural flavourings, caffeine;
- the Diet Coke (vegetable extracts with sweeteners) (silver label); containing carbonated water, caramel (E150d), aspartame, acesulfame K, natural flavourings, caffeine, phosphoric acid, citric acid, contains a source of phenylalanine;
- the Coke Zero (i.e. zero calories); containing vegetable extracts with sweeteners) (black label); containing carbonated water, caramel (E150d), phosphoric acid, aspartame, acesulfame K, natural flavourings, caffeine, acidity regulator sodium citrate, contains a source of phenylalanine, and;
- Coca-Cola Life (lower calorie drink from natural sources); containing vegetable extracts with sugar and sweeteners) (green label) – carbonated water, sugar, caramel (E150d), natural flavourings, caffeine, phosphoric acid, as sweetener: steviol glycosides. Steviol glycosides are high intensity sweeteners, 250-300 times sweeter than sucrose; they are isolated and purified from the leaves of the Stevia plant (Stevia rebaudiana), which hails from the Amazon. Stevia typically leaves behind a distinctive and somewhat unpleasant aftertaste which the 22 g of sugar per 330 ml can seems to be designed to obscure. This amounts to almost the total daily “free sugars” quotient for an adult, consuming 2000 kcal a day, as recommended by the UK’s Scientific Committee on Nutrition (SACN) in its latest report on carbohydrates. Some of these also come in different flavours, such as ‘cherry’, or ‘lemon & lime’, or ‘coffee’. These flavour variations do not, however, affect the four basic formulae. The distinction between them seems to reside principally in the variations of the sweetening agents used and the chameleonic colours of the labels. It remains to be seen how well Coca-Cola can manage against the sliding tide of consumer interest in its products.
Helping to burst the sugary bubbles
The fact that consumption of sugary drinks is on the decline is testament to the fact that public awareness of the risks associated with sugary drinks is on the increase, despite the efforts of Coca-Cola and others. Sales of the low calorie versions are also on the decline.
The bottom line is we all need to adapt to lower levels of sweetness intensity in beverages, whether this sweetness comes from sugar or sugar replacements, natural or otherwise. This is because the non-nutritive sugar replacements appear to trip the same opioid receptors in the brain as sugars, causing both addiction and an insulin response as the body is ‘tricked’ into thinking it’s been exposed to sugar.
Yes, we could do with more research, but it needs to be honest, solidly founded and truly independent. And that’s easier said than done in a world — as Alexi Mostrous points out— in which the corporations exert so much control over research institutions, especially as they relate to the food industry.
The big move has to be one in which we — the grassroots — say no to an ever greater degree to highly sweetened foods and beverages, whether this sweetness comes from sugar or a non-nutritive sweetener. Adjusting the palate of children is right up there as a paramount concern. That typically means trying to help kids to abstain from eating regularly highly sweetened foods.
The trend has already begun, with soft drinks now hitting their 10th year in decline. Two facets of public education will continue to drive the trend. One relates to the damage the products do to teeth, guts and brains, leading to premature disease and death. The other relates to the distorted science and twisted corporate ethos that now means it is no longer plausible for any health authority to claim that ‘soda pops’ might be an acceptable component of any healthy diet and lifestyle. This notion, one to which Coca-Cola continues to try to cling to, is rotten to its core.
Please play your part in educating those around you, especially if they are ‘soda pop’ or fizzy drink addicts.