Diabetes Self-Management Blog

Over the past few years, public-health officials across the country have mounted a variety of efforts to limit the consumption of sugary soft drinks. We’ve discussed some of these efforts here at Diabetes Flashpoints, including then-New York Governor David Paterson’s bid to tax soda in 2009 and then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2012 attempt to limit the size of sugary drinks sold in the city. While these proposals made headlines for their audacity, and were both ultimately unsuccessful (although Bloomberg’s rule could still be reinstated by an appeals court), smaller-scale efforts to rein in sugary beverages have often been carried out with little protest. For example, California banned the sale of sugary soft drinks and certain junk foods in public schools in 2005.

California is now poised to use a new tactic in the fight over sugary beverages. After rejecting a one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary soft drinks last year, the state Legislature is now considering a bill that would require such beverages to carry warning labels, as noted in a recent Reuters article. These labels would describe certain health risks associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, including tooth decay, obesity, and Type 2 diabetes. The bill has already passed the state Senate in a vote of 21–13. In order to become law, it must now be approved by the state Assembly and then signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Neither of these outcomes is a sure thing, and the beverage industry has mounted a strong publicity and lobbying effort against the measure.

Opponents of taxing or otherwise discouraging the consumption of sugary beverages often point out that these beverages are just one factor, out of many, that may contribute to obesity and related diseases. Some research, however, has pointed to a unique role for sugar in the development of Type 2 diabetes. As we noted last year, a high-profile study that analyzed eating patterns and diabetes rates around the world found that only sugar consumption — not meat, fiber, fruit, oil, or grain consumption — corresponded to the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. In fact, the study found that for every 150-calorie increase in average sugar consumption, a country’s diabetes rate rose by 1.1% — even after controlling for factors like total calorie consumption, incidence of overweight and obesity, and age of the population.

According to at least one survey, many Californians wouldn’t mind a tax on sugary beverages. Since legislators have already rejected that idea, however, warning labels may be a more politically viable alternative. Unlike taxes, warning labels can easily be ignored by people who wish to ignore them, and can be seen as educating consumers rather than directly trying to influence their behavior. But, of course, one can easily ask why only sugary beverages should carry warning labels, out of all foods and nonalcoholic beverages. As we’ve noted here at Diabetes Flashpoints, red meat and zero-calorie sweeteners have both been associated with a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, and a recent study found that eating white bread is associated with a higher obesity risk.

What’s your view on warning labels for sugary beverages — are they a good way to warn consumers of potential dangers, or would they unfairly single out just one potential cause of disease? Would you be more inclined to support a tax or a warning label on sugary beverages, or other foods and beverages that might be considered unhealthy? Should all potentially unhealthy foods carry a warning, or should all foods and beverages carry a nutrition score or set of symbols? Leave a comment below!

POST A COMMENT       
  

Comments
  1. When I was a kid (back in the 50s)we drank a boat load of “pop” — there weren’t very many fat kids around. I suppose we were much more active though.
    I have to wonder if there is a big difference in the sweeteners (sugars) now. Corn fructose certainly is much different than plain sugar we used to know. Maybe more research needs to be done on what is used to sweeten our foods and drinks nowadays.

    Don’t mind warning labels as long as they don’t go overboard. You would think it is obvious if you are overweight (or diabetic) you shouldn’t be drinking soft drinks.

    Posted by JohnC |
  2. This idea is wrong on many points’

    - why single out one industry?
    - the government should not be our Nanny
    - it does not work, look at cigarette warnings

    Posted by skyking90 |
  3. how stupid is the gov’t

    if they have warnings on pop then what about gum drops—candy bars—ice dream–macdonalds–wendys–dq

    many too numerous to mention

    all the soda–tecold tea–instant tea mik chocolate among others will need a warning

    what about all the other high carb products–potatoes chips–corn chips

    cheetoes—cracker jax–it is endless

    what si worse–sugar substtitue ofr sweetners

    Posted by ken mac |
  4. I am 54 yrs old and as an adult I have never drank regular sugared soda and I still have diabetes. Clearly this issue is more complicated than pop. When companies switched to high-fructose corn syrup instead of sugar, it was bad for everyone however there are also changes to the food supply that are clearly implicated as a cause for the rise in diabetes. Until they truly and honestly address the issue putting a warning label on pop seems unnecessary at best.

    Posted by Cindy |
  5. Simply put, warning labels won’t trigger healthier habits, and the notion of singling out one source of calories in this way is misguided. That’s frankly because all calories count, as does physical activity with regard to reducing obesity and preventing other health conditions as well. With a greater understanding of a healthy balance, consumers can make informed choices for themselves utilizing the calorie and ingredient information clearly displayed on products of all kinds. Therefore, levying this new regulation will only add to consumer confusion. What should be the focus instead? Education that comprehensively addresses overall diet and physical activity can change health behaviors. Regulatory attempts such as this one won’t make a measurable difference, however.
    -American Beverage Association

    Posted by American Beverage Association, ABA Communications |

Post a Comment

Note: All comments are moderated and there may be a delay in the publication of your comment. Please be on-topic and appropriate. Do not disclose personal information. Be respectful of other posters. Only post information that is correct and true to your knowledge. When referencing information that is not based on personal experience, please provide links to your sources. All commenters are considered to be nonmedical professionals unless explicitly stated otherwise. Promotion of your own or someone else's business or competing site is not allowed: Sharing links to sites that are relevant to the topic at hand is permitted, but advertising is not. Once submitted, comments cannot be modified or deleted by their authors. Comments that don't follow the guidelines above may be deleted without warning. Such actions are at the sole discretion of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. Comments are moderated Monday through Friday by the editors of DiabetesSelfManagement.com. The moderators are employees of Madavor Media, LLC., and do not report any conflicts of interest. A privacy policy setting forth our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of certain information relating to you and your use of this Web site can be found here. For more information, please read our Terms and Conditions.


Flashpoints
Insurance, Unclaimed (10/29/14)
Potatoes: Good or Bad? (10/20/14)
Sandwich Trouble (10/15/14)
Soda Surrender? (10/08/14)

 

 

Disclaimer of Medical Advice: You understand that the blog posts and comments to such blog posts (whether posted by us, our agents or bloggers, or by users) do not constitute medical advice or recommendation of any kind, and you should not rely on any information contained in such posts or comments to replace consultations with your qualified health care professionals to meet your individual needs. The opinions and other information contained in the blog posts and comments do not reflect the opinions or positions of the Site Proprietor.