Ban fruit juice now!

Sugary soft drinks kill 184,000 adults every year, scientists claim.
And there could be a ticking time bomb because those under 45 consume more artificially sweetened drinks and are more at risk of diabetes and obesity.
The worldwide study is the first to estimate deaths and disability from diabetes, heart disease, and cancers caused by the drinks.

26 thoughts on “Ban fruit juice now!”

  1. “artificially sweetened drinks”: how does a fructose or sucrose or glucose molecule know whether it’s artificial or not?

  2. I’m still waiting on the vCJD Armageddon to kick in. I find I can only concentrate on apocalyptic events due to befall me, one at a time as I get older.

  3. “Sugary soft drinks kill 184,000 adults every year, scientists claim.”

    Name one.

    Oh, and show me the death certificate and the results of the post mortem.

  4. Just waiting for Christopher Snowdon to tear this a new one.

    Looks like the Telegraph is in a fight to the death to be even more “Daily Mail” than the Daily Mail, a fight it can never win.

  5. “There are no health benefits from sugar-sweetened beverages, and the potential impact of reducing consumption is saving tens of thousands of deaths each year.”

    The assumption from Public Health is that everything should have a health benefit. Why?

    None of the following confer any sort of health benefit: watching football, playing chess, reading, travelling to work, posting on Internet forums.

    Ban the lot.

    In fact, does Public Health produce any health benefit? Ban it.

  6. “The study did not include pure fruit juices.”


    “The study did not include Any drink consumed by middle class people or academics”

    They should be careful though – the real loonies on sugar see no difference between Sunny Delight and orange juice. For them sugar is a deadly poison.

  7. According to this ONS publication, the leading cause of death in 2013 was ischaemic heart disease, responsible for 37,797 male and 26,075 female deaths. No mention of sugary soft drinks.

  8. Here’s an idea for any public health ‘doctors’ looking for a new take on this issue to garner some of those lovely, taxpayer-funded research grants.

    Now we all know that sugars, of various kinds, are an easy way to transport fuel round the body. And we also know that every cell has little energy producing factories, (mitochondria) inside that need this fuel. Then there’s the usefulness of sugars as building blocks in the constant cell replacement of our bodies.

    Now here’s the Nobel prize winning thesis.

    Fat people have more cells than skinny people therefore they have more mitochondria needing more fuel to power them and also they have more cells to replace over time.

    Therefore, the notion that people drink lots of sugary drinks and then get fat is exactly arse-about-face.

    Fat people need more energy therefore they need to drink more sugary drinks to survive!


    Forget the Nobel, just send money.

  9. In addition to this, medical pukes now want long kitchen knives banned because half of all attacks (prob mostly domestics)are carried out with them.

    That one has the EU stench on it though. Some years ago the same shite was being exorted at high EU level. An attempt to further disarm and weaken people. Then it all went quiet and now this mouthy medical pork returns to the topic.

    The other one was some EU Norwegian puke who wanted the entire bloc to drive around with their headlights on all day. Because Norwegian winter? No more has been heard about that but I see more and more new cars with these putrid LED lights around the headlight on all the time.

    At any rate medicos need to charged with gross misconduct and de-frocked if they shoot their gobs off on any topic whatsoever. Unless a disclaimer accompanies it stating clearly it is only like, his opinion man.

  10. i thought smoking caused all cancer and heart attacks? Is it sugar now? What about sugar coated fags?

  11. Don’t suppose any of you read the Matt Ridley article in the Times yesterday.

    He was writing that we have the best health service infrastructure and that we should be exporting it.

    Yes, it was Matt Ridley. Against the fragmentation of the NHS.

  12. ‘“artificially sweetened drinks”: how does a fructose or sucrose or glucose molecule know whether it’s artificial or not?’

    It doesn’t. But you’d not drink as much sugar-water if it didn’t have phosphoric acid or lemon juice in it to make it less overpoweringly sweet, and you couldn’t drink as much phosphoric acid or lemon juice if it wasn’t topped up with sugar.

    Equally you wouldn’t eat six oranges at a sitting, which is what you’d do to get the amount of sugar that you get from a pint of orange juice.

  13. Well, no. That would mean paying money to Murdoch.

    Don’t tell your friends you read the Times. They’ll cut up your “whining lefty pillock” club membership card.

    Matt Ridley isn’t the second coming of Jesus (or Buddha), you know. He can be wrong from time to time.

    And is here. We clearly don’t have anywhere near the world’s best health service infrastructure.

  14. Superficial Penis

    I think you’ll find I’m not much of a whiner, nor a member of any such club. So again the cluelessness.

    Ridley is much liked in places like these. I just found it funny.

    The Times is free in the pub. I read it for balance. You didn’t read the piece so you can’t really comment, can you? Or are you another omniscient bigot like SMFS or Interested or Ian “Puritan” B. ffs

  15. Snodgrass – takes me a few days to drink a pint of orange juice. If i did eat oranges could i eat 6 over the course of a few days?

    Personally I happen to like sugary drinks – I drink them because I like them. If i die at age 60 rather than 80 because of eating and drinking the things I like then so be it. It will be a life well lived.

    I pity those who follow every health warning and change their eating habits. They do not seem to enjoy life.

  16. Ian

    I didn’t think smoking was banned. Or sugar. Or alcohol.

    Or fucking.

    So where are these Puritans? And why are you fixating about them. Are you writing a book or something, judging by your tldrs?

    Good luck with that.

  17. Arnald:

    By ‘health infrastructure’ Matt Ridley did not mean the NHS. (Indeed, he makes it clear that he does not like the NHS model.) He meant the Royal Colleges, NICE, academic research, the GMC and scientific journals. Here is the text of the article from Monday’s edition of ‘The Times’:

    “If the 19th century saw extraordinary changes in transport, and the 20th saw amazing changes in communication, my money is on health as the transformative industry of the current century. It is already arguably the biggest industry in the world and it is growing at a phenomenal rate, especially in Asia, where India and China are expanding their health sectors at 15 per cent and 12 per cent a year respectively. And health is ripe for a series of revolutionary advances in biotechnology, digital technology, robotics and materials.

    “A new report commissioned by three parliamentarians, Meg Hillier, MP, Lord Crisp (former chief executive of the NHS) and the surgeon Lord Kakkar, and written by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, makes the case that Britain is well placed to become the world’s “health hub”. Just as the City of London is the world’s financial centre and Wimbledon is the centre of tennis, so Britain is already a surprisingly dominant player in research, practice, policy and regulation when it comes to health, and widely emulated around the world. There is an opportunity here.

    “The sheer breadth of our dominance in global health came as a surprise to me. I was aware that Britain has played a prominent role in biomedical research. After all, “we” found or invented antibiotics, DNA’s structure, cloning, in-vitro fertilisation, mitochondrial donation and much more. But I had not realised how much clout — or “soft power” to use the fashionable term — we wield in health policy and regulation: in rules as well as tools.

    “Take, for example, the Cochrane Collaboration. In 1992 in Oxford, a group of health researchers set up a centre named after the Scottish doctor Archibald Cochrane, who had realised while treating fellow prisoners of war in Germany that there was “no real evidence that anything we had to offer had any effect on tuberculosis, and I was afraid that I shortened the lives of some of my friends by unnecessary intervention”. He pioneered the use of randomised control trials.

    “Today that centre has grown into a network of collaboration in 120 countries whose database has reviewed the effectiveness of 8,700 treatments. The reviews are free from commercial sponsorship and are considered the gold standard in providing the evidence base to justify using a drug or procedure.

    “Or consider Nice International, the global offshoot of the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence — the body that decides, often to the fury of some pharmaceutical firms and patient groups, that some treatments are not cost-effective. It turns out that the Nice model is in demand around the world from countries keen to work out how best to spend limited health budgets. Set up in 2008, Nice International does not make a profit but charges fees to client countries as well as aid agencies and foundations.

    “Unlike in manufacturing or agriculture, we really are top of the league in health. We have three of the top five universities in the world for clinical, pre-clinical and health subjects. We have the top science journal and two of the top four medical journals. We have the world’s second largest charity (Wellcome) and the world’s largest cancer research charity (Cancer Research UK). We rank top among G7 countries for the quality of research in clinical medicine, pre-clinical and human biological sciences, and infection and immunology.

    “The world’s top-selling drug Adalimumab (for rheumatoid arthritis) came out of Cambridge. The stunning decline in malaria in recent years — global mortality down by 47 per cent since 2000 — though heavily funded by the Gates Foundation, is to a large extent down to British research, including the discovery of artemisinin therapy and promising trials last month of a malaria vaccine, both from Oxford University.

    “We also punch above our weight in health aid. We are the second largest aid donor in the world, and health is the top category of aid spend in most countries. Britain is the second largest donor to the Global Fight Against Aids, TB and Malaria and the largest state donor to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative. We dominate research in the battle against “neglected tropical diseases” such as blinding trachoma and Guinea worm.

    “Apart from patting ourselves on the back for this, what’s the opportunity? After all, London’s dominance in international finance leads directly to large fees, whereas a lot of our dominance of global health battles comes from our willingness to spend money generously — especially taxpayers’ money. Getting rid of tropical diseases is a good thing in itself, and it eventually must enrich our potential trading partners, which benefits us too. But it is not immediately profitable.

    “In fact, the one sector where the report finds we are not quite so dominant is the commercial sector. We have one big medical technology company (Smith & Nephew) and cannot match Switzerland’s and America’s dominance of the pharmaceutical industry. We have (only) the fourth biggest biotech pipeline in the world. It’s South Korea that is pouring money into data management for medical purposes.

    “That, says Lord Crisp, is where the opportunity comes in: to turn some of our soft power into commercial opportunities. DfID, anxious not to confuse aid with trade, still does too little to exploit the expertise of the NHS. Sierra Leone, where 800 British NHS workers volunteered during the ebola epidemic, is surely the place to start.

    “I have my doubts as to whether a centralised monopoly is the best way to deliver healthcare for Britons, but given that this is what we have, it’s worth noting that it brings certain opportunities that more fragmented health systems lack and other countries are keen to learn from: central accreditation of doctors, or the ability to share and analyse huge amounts of data.

    “We can train doctors from other countries, set up overseas campuses and market the services of the royal colleges and General Medical Council as model regulators and standard setters. This already happens to some extent: the Tropical Health Educational Trust has projects in 26 countries reaching 25,000 health workers, while Newcastle medical school has a campus in Malaysia and Moorfields Eye Hospital one in Dubai. The Royal College of General Practitioners accredits an exam for doctors in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as well as other countries.

    “If America is the world’s soldier, Germany its engineer, Brazil its farmer, China its manufacturer and India its service provider, then Britain can be the world’s doctor.”

  18. As he wrote in the last three paragraphs, my interpretation is that he nods his head at doubting centralisation, because he has to pander to your crude ideologies, but admits that the nhs model is under exploited internationally considering its proven successes, and it’s various contributions to the advancement of medical innovation has been a feature of centralisation. Even NICE.

    It’s a success of generous spending of tax raised. Something a fractured health provision simply can’t deliver.

    Reading anything else into it is just bizarre.

  19. Surreptitious Evil

    It’s a success of generous spending of tax raised. Something a fractured health provision simply can’t deliver.

    Why, you pathetic moron, does the source funding of something manifestly impact the delivery of it? I would say “non sequitur” but you are clearly to stupid to process anything more complicated than “Ug like. Ug cheer. Ug hit not cheer.”


  20. Arnald:

    You said, “He was writing that we have the best health service infrastructure and that we should be exporting it.Yes, it was Matt Ridley. Against the fragmentation of the NHS.”

    But Ridley says “health infrastructure”, not your “health service infrastructure”. By “health infrastructure” he means – as he makes clear -NICE, the GMC, the Royal Colleges, the medical schools, academic research, etc.

    While doubting that the NHS is the best means of delivering healthcare to Britons, he acknowledges that it has two advantages over “more fragmented” systems – central accreditation of doctors and the ability to analyse huge data sets – and these two advantages might have some commercial potential. Yet you represent his comment as evidence that he is against fragmentation of the NHS.

  21. As he wrote in the last three paragraphs, my interpretation is… because he has to pander to your crude ideologies…
    Right – so you read in your own ideological interpretation (based on one paragraph out of fifteen), and justify it by assuming that Ridley didn’t mean what he plainly said, but was pandering to someone else’s ideology. Consider me far from convinced…

  22. So Much for Subtlety

    dearieme – “how does a fructose or sucrose or glucose molecule know whether it’s artificial or not?”

    It is not radioactive. This is how people test whether alcohol is made from natural sugars or from some petro-chemical by product.

    So I guess it is proving once again that radiation hormesis is a thing. We should thank all that bomb testing and of course the designers of Chernobyl for their contribution to global good health. There is probably a Godzilla joke in here somewhere.

  23. @Mr Ecks

    You think the EU got no further with the headlights thing – think again.

    The LED lights you have observed are a requirement of an EU directive for all new cars built from mid 2012 on to have purpose built daytime running lights (separate from both headlights and sidelights).

    It is a particularly stupid bit of legislation even by government standards, as it only requires front lighting. Supplying people with cars with fairly bright front lights that are on all the time has a predictable outcome – a not insignificant number of people can now be found driving at dusk or in the dark with no rear lighting.
    I’d be amazed if this doesn’t result in more accidents than before…

  24. Special Needs

    Ridley wrote it, not me.

    “whereas a lot of our dominance of global health battles comes from our willingness to spend money generously — especially taxpayers’ money”


    The argument there is that we lead the field in those things mentioned, but would they be that good without the NHS system, seeing as those institutions, publications, and training facilities are pretty much bolt-ons to the existing system?

    You can say not, but the chap did use the phrase “NHS expertise”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *