Obesity News: Why 96 Health Organizations Downplay The Link Between Sugary Drinks and Obesity

Share this blog

Based on the search results provided, there is evidence to suggest that Coca-Cola and other soda companies have engaged in practices that could be seen as attempting to influence health organizations and potentially keep them silent on certain issues.

Here’s a summary of the key points:

1. Extensive sponsorships: Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have sponsored numerous health organizations, including prominent medical groups. A study identified 96 health organizations that received sponsorships from these companies between 2011 and 2015.
2. Conflict of interest: These sponsorships raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as many of the sponsored organizations are involved in public health issues related to obesity and nutrition.
3. Lobbying against health initiatives: During the same period that they were sponsoring health groups, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo lobbied against at least 28 public health bills aimed at reducing soda consumption or improving nutrition.
4. Potential silencing effect: The study authors suggest that these sponsorships may lead to a “silencing effect” on health organizations that might otherwise support public health measures against the soda industry.For example, Save the Children withdrew its support for soda taxes after receiving substantial funding from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.
5. Strategic alliances: Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor, argues that soda companies’ success is partly due to their strategic alliances with various groups, including medical professionals and health organizations.
6. Influencing research: There is evidence that Coca-Cola has funded research institutes and studies that downplay the link between sugary drinks and obesity, instead focusing on exercise as the primary factor in weight management.

Both companies claim that their sponsorships are part of their commitment to public health. The American Beverage Association, representing Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, stated that they engage in public health issues because they want a strong, healthy America and have a long tradition of supporting community organizations across the country.

While the soda companies maintain that their sponsorships are intended to support public health efforts, critics argue that these financial ties create a conflict of interest and may influence the sponsored organizations’ stance on soda-related health issues.

That being said, there is substantial evidence that links  the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) to weight gain and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Here are the key findings from various studies and reviews:

Weight Gain

1. Meta-Analyses and Reviews:
   • A comprehensive review of 85 studies involving over half a million participants found a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain in both adults and children. Each additional daily serving of SSBs was linked to a higher body weight and body mass index (BMI) over time.
   • Another meta-analysis of 88 studies confirmed that higher intakes of SSBs are strongly associated with weight gain in both adults and children. Reducing SSB consumption was shown to result in weight loss.
2. Mechanisms:
   • SSBs contribute to weight gain due to their high sugar content, which leads to excess calorie intake. These beverages do not induce the same feeling of fullness as solid foods, leading to increased overall calorie consumption.
   • Liquid calories from SSBs are less satiating, which means people do not compensate for these calories by eating less food later.

Type 2 Diabetes

1. Epidemiological Studies:
   • Regular consumption of SSBs has been associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. One meta-analysis found that individuals with the highest intake of SSBs had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those with the lowest intake.
   • Another study involving over 90,000 women found that those who consumed one or more servings of SSBs daily were twice as likely to develop type 2 diabetes compared to those who consumed less.
2. Biological Mechanisms:
   • The high levels of rapidly absorbable sugars in SSBs, such as fructose, can lead to insulin resistance, inflammation, and impaired beta-cell function, all of which are risk factors for type 2 diabetes.
   • Fructose metabolism in the liver can promote the accumulation of visceral fat and dyslipidemia, further increasing the risk of diabetes.

Other Health Risks

1. Cardiovascular Disease:
   • SSB consumption is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. The sugars in these beverages can raise blood triglycerides and small, dense LDL particles, contributing to heart disease.
2. Metabolic Syndrome:
   • Higher intake of SSBs is associated with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome, a cluster of conditions that raise the risk of heart disease, stroke, and diabetes.

Public Health Implications

Given the strong evidence linking SSB consumption to weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and other health issues, public health authorities recommend limiting intake of these beverages. Policies aimed at reducing SSB consumption, such as taxes on sugary drinks and public education campaigns, are considered effective strategies to combat obesity and related chronic diseases.

The evidence clearly indicates that frequent consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to weight gain and increases the risk of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders. Reducing SSB intake is a critical public health goal to improve overall health outcomes.

It’s important to note that not all sponsored organizations have necessarily remained silent or changed their positions due to funding. Some, like the American Heart Association, claim that such funding does not influence their science or policy positions.

However, the overall pattern of sponsorships and lobbying efforts raises questions about the potential impact on public health advocacy.

While there is no direct evidence of Coca-Cola explicitly paying medical groups to keep silent, the extensive sponsorships and potential conflicts of interest suggest that the company’s financial support may influence the behavior and positions of some health organizations on soda-related health issues.