“You could not enact a real-world study that would be more conclusive than this one.”
“Each 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.”
"This is as good (or bad) as it gets, the closest thing to causation and a smoking gun that we will see."
"By definition, all calories give off the same amount of energy when burned, but your body treats sugar calories differently, and that difference is damaging."
"The take-away: it isn’t simply overeating that can make you sick; it’s overeating sugar. We finally have the proof we need for a verdict: sugar is toxic."
Question is will FDA do anything about this - designating a standard for daily sugar consumption and being ruthless in pointing out 'food items available in the market' which are essentially toxic? The article again and again talks about 'linkage between tobacco and lung cancer'; same for 'sugar and diabetes'.
One wonders where is 'progressiveness of Obama Administration' in all these matter? It is understandable the instinct of Obama Administration to trade waters carefully considering power of sugar lobby sustained by wrong Agriculture subsidies, careful calculations in not creating too many enemies at the same time and basically not to inflame already poisoned relations with Congress.
May be the only way American System would change is the American way - liability lawsuits. So I would say if this study and other studies enable 'aggressive lawyers and lawsuit start-ups' - remember one of the earlier Billion Dollar lawyers were minted by Clinton's Tobacco settlement - to take the well traveled paths of American legalities; that would move the needle. Bloomberg's 'soda size bans' can only go so far.