Not a day goes by without a new proclamation about the health risks or the health benefits of some food or drink. All this talk about digestion is enough to give you indigestion. But better indigestion than cancer.
So what’s the truth in this? Let’s look at our friends, the Italians, and others who live on the Mediterranean Sea. They suffer from less heart disease than we do in the US. Dietary habits? Is it the pasta, the red wine, the late night eating, or the olive oil? But is it their more active lifestyle or extended social/family networks? Notice, though, they don’t consume large amounts of sugary (or dietetic) soft drinks.
But for the sake of argument (and believe me, there are plenty of arguments in this area), for one moment let’s take the dietary route to good health. I am a big believer, although admittedly not always as good as the advice I dispense. I spend a lot of time in my office trying to convince parents that their families need to change their diets. One of the major food groups that need to be curbed is soda pop.
What will they get in return? Healthier sinuses, sleep without obstructing their airway and, yes, even decrease the incidence of ear infections. And while I am not surprised by an occasional teary-eyed child who leaves my office already mourning the loss of their favorite, generally unhealthy foods and drinks, I continue to be stymied by parents who are often more upset about these simple, cost-effective interventions than are their children. “That’s all my kid eats!”
Here are some examples. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is on the rise and is a potentially life threatening condition. OSA causes accelerated heart disease and high blood pressure. Obesity and foods associated with acid reflux (such as the caffeine, the calories, and the fizzy CO2 in soda pop) are both associated with OSA.
A recent study showed that sugary soft drinks are also associated with a drastic increase in pancreatic cancer. The precise mechanism is as yet unknown, but regulation of sugar that is delivered in this carbonated drink (as opposed to fruit juice) has been suggested. Another reason not to drink soda pop. Add that to the other negative effects these drinks have, e.g. the development of diabetes, often a pre-cursor to pancreatic cancer.
Carbonation, calories and caffeine in soda pop leads to an increase in gastro-esophageal reflux.
Ongoing, unrecognized, untreated and undertreated reflux leads to Barrett’s esophagus, which is the pre-cursor adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Never heard of it? Well it is the cancer that is increasing at the fastest rate in the US today. And it is occurring in younger people, mostly men.
So why don’t we limit the intake of this dangerous beverage? Regulate it as we do tobacco. Put a tax on soda pop to curb consumption and pay for its adverse health effects. How many people have to die before this association reaches the high alert level that tobacco received almost 50 years ago? Heart disease due to sleep apnea and obesity, cancers of the esophagus and pancreas. Sounds pretty serious? It is.
My advice: Drink more water and pay attention to these studies. It may seem like something our kids will not or cannot live with right now. But down the road, having these drinks may not seem so important when a tragic diagnosis is delivered.
The evidence is mounting. So I am all for taxing these drinks as we tax tobacco. The inevitable does not have to be inevitable if we act now.
Oh, I lament how difficult it will be to give up my diet Dr. Brown’s Cream Soda! But for this important cause, I will give it my best. Good luck to you, too.
My Website
Follow me on Twitter
5 Comments
Hmmm, what’s more important, your kid’s health or his or her consumption of hot dogs and sodas ? Any type of carbonated or caffeinated beverage is bad for the reflux crowd — so diet soda is out, too. If you have a kid with reflux, abiding by the diet (even if it is restrictive) is called responsible parenting.
But taxing is not the answer; that will not be a disincentive for people to purchase soda and it is also a slippery slope. Government should not use its taxation powers on things like this.
Responsible parenting is a funny thing. What one parent thinks is responsible another does not. And the information out there is fuzzy at best and very, very confusing at worst. What is healthy is always being argued.
But when, as in this case, there are societal shared risks (obesity and cancer), what is the role of government? Should we not tax tobacco? What would be your solution? Should we think about issuing licenses to become a parent? After all you need one to fish. Love to hear from you (again)!
That is very true about responsible parenting being variable and there being too much conflicting and ever-changing information out there. However, when your child is diagnosed with a medical condition and a doctor gives a specific directive about a diet appropriate for that condition, then the issue becomes clearer — it is responsible parenting to follow that advice. No matter how unpalatable or inconvenient it may be.
I am not sure tobacco tax works as a deterrent for smoking rather than as a revenue-generator for the state. I believe it likely does not have a deterrent value at all; that may be in part why the surgeon general is contemplating using the more graphic photo warnings that are used in other coutnries with better success than our small text warnings. Isn’t the tobacco tax a tax on the addicted ? If we start to tax soda, then perhaps we should also tax donuts, candy, fast food, baked goods, fried foods, etc. Too much fruit juice is bad for children, too. Perhaps that should be taxed. This also raises the ugly spectre of the disproportionate impact this taxation scheme could have on those least able to afford it. The government is on the right track with essentially taxing people on traffic violation and criminal convictions via mandatory surcharges — at least those people are paying for their misdeeds.
It is always easier to tear down a house than to build one. So I’ll have to think about a solution. Clearly personal responsibility and self-restraint don’t always get it done.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your always interesting blog.
Your point is well taken about personal parental responsibility. That hasn’t always been my experience.
Taxes may not deter, but they can help pay for the ravages of the negative behaviors we all end up paying for as a society.
As I said in a previous blog, personal responsibility is at the crux of many of our social problems from healthcare to education to gender discrimination. More on that to come. Thanks for the dialogue!
I was told that carbonation also decreases bone mass.
About 10 years ago, I was with my friend Marianne and I ordered a diet coke – she looked at me and said “you drink diet?” I laughed her off and said, “yes, but only 1 a day…” Her eyes grew and she said , YOU DRINK ONE EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!” Needless to say, that was my last diet coke, I had already given up all the other fake sweetener stuff…Add that to the carbonation and it really is a toxic drink!
So now, if I really want a treat – I have a real coke – but not more than once a month – I work with people who drink diet EVERYDAY by the gallon! They will probably live to 100! LOL