Soft Drinks Could Boost Pancreatic Cancer Risk

Reader Comments
Back to article

And let's not forget the SODIUM BENZOATE (preservatives) that they put in these sodas.
The main problem is that foods like sodas and salt-laden chips and sugary candy are meant to be SNACKS. Snacks are treats that you eat occasionally. Not every day, 2 and three times a day.
When I was a kid, sodas were for picnics and BBQs. NOT every day drinks. (And hamburgers & fries were also every once-in-a-while, and NOT from a fast food chain.)
I'm wondering if the sodas in the testing group were the same sodas that we get here. The ones not made with REAL sugar, but with that HFCS stuff.

JJG of NH 2:30PM February 09, 2010

The Singapore study was done with normal sodas, I think---sugar, not the twice-modified High-Fructose Corn Syrup they feed We The Sheeple here in the USA. (And keep in mind that corn was ALREADY genetically modified, thus, 3rd time's the charm.) HFCS industry ran commercials last year lying it was okay because it came from corn.
But now some sugar sodas are coming back, due to demand for Mexican Cokes and so on. China has few sodas, only sugar and less sugar (the diet version). It's the USA that was always the test case, damn our health.
But I suspect sugar is the least of our worries, compared to GMO and the artificial sweeteners and MSG renamed and so on. We're eating nutrition-free crap, nearly 50 years, and we are going down.
The crap-in-cardboard "part of this balanced breakfast" lie has killed untold folks, as the industry, their paid-off politicians AND the FDA will never study THAT. Cigarettes made it worse? Sure. So did auto accidents, so what? The reason we have the most cancer and so on is, A. they want to sell us medical treatments, etc., B. we've had little nutrition our whole lives (unless you lived on a farm or had a garden or paid attention something). Note natural substances like vitamins could never be patented, so they used the FDA to block those, and sold us replacement substitutes. "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT..." HEALTHY.
I was going to tell you this last year or so, but I died of Mexican Swine Flu or Bird Flu or Global Warming, yadda.
WELCOME TO AMERICA, LEADER IN GLOBAL LYING.
Sorry, folks, but you should've policed your corrupted politician. Vigilance! Now, Unelect All Incumbents, if you can get past the electronic voting machines and the supremes throwing out campaign finance reform. You will see the most TV commercials for elections this year, ever.

Joh by Houston of TX 12:35AM February 09, 2010

The phosphoric acid in soft drinks, found on the label will destroy your kidneys, eat the calcium out of the bones, and now the sweetness will raise your blood sugar and increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, not to mention making you gain weight. Is it still safe to clean your battery cables with cola?

DavidO of VA 11:29PM February 08, 2010

I thought that the soft drink industrry switched to high frutose corn syrup in 1970 to save a 2 cents per bottle, because sugar was slightly higher.

DavidO of VA 11:18PM February 08, 2010

My 30 year old son died of pancreatic cancer on Tuesday, January 5th, 2010. He had just been diagnosed with it on November 4th, 2009. It was found during surgery for what the MD's thought was "just pancreatitis." After surgery, it quickly spread to other organs, including the lungs. That is when he died. He had always been a junk food junkie, and especially liked candy. He had otherwise, a poor appetite for good foods. I have wondered, since his diagnosis, if his sugar consumption played a role in the deadly cancer that he developed. We had NO family history. He was a smoker, though, and that may have played a part. The moral of his story is...watch the sugar. It really CAN kill you.

Janet of TN 5:53PM February 08, 2010

PHOENIX OF NE STATES:
"Doesn't Apply to Diet Soda
"The article states specifically that they are looking at sugar-sweetened soda, and that the probable mechanism is the rise in blood sugar from the sweetener in the soda. It does seem to me that they'd get better results if they included an additional group of diet soda drinkers to compare with the control group who drank water.
"This research should not be taken as an indicator that diet soda is equally likely to cause pancreatic cancer. If their theories as to the way the cancer is produced are correct, diet soda would not raise the risk. At least, not for those reasons."
***
THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE STATES:
"Although the study didn't differentiate between regular and diet soda, it was conducted in Singapore, where most soda consumed is regular, Mueller said."
***
JAKE STATES:
This was not an experiment wherein one group was given something (sugared soft drinks) while a control group was not (e.g., given only water in lieu of sugared soft drinks). It was a long-term observational study using self-reported intakes of soft drinks, with the researchers then apparently dividing the subjects into two groups based on their self-reported intakes: those who averaged 24 fluid ounces per week or more of soft drinks-- whether sugared or artificially sweetened-- and those who drank under 24 fluid ounces of soft drinks per week on average. That, at any rate, is what I assume after reading both this and a separate news account on this study....

Jake Prufrock of NY 12:45PM February 08, 2010

The article states specifically that they are looking at sugar-sweetened soda, and that the probable mechanism is the rise in blood sugar from the sweetener in the soda. It does seem to me that they'd get better results if they included an additional group of diet soda drinkers to compare with the control group who drank water.
This research should not be taken as an indicator that diet soda is equally likely to cause pancreatic cancer. If their theories as to the way the cancer is produced are correct, diet soda would not raise the risk. At least, not for those reasons.

Phoenix of NE 12:21PM February 08, 2010

I don't listen to these studies because all they do is try to scare us about every little thing. Don't eat salt because you'll get high blood pressure. Don't drink pop because you'll get diabetes or pancreatic cancer. Don't have a dog because it'll attack your children, etc.
All of these things CAN happen. There is risk involved in everything, but life without risk isn't life; it is mere existence.

Silver Fang of MI 12:21PM February 08, 2010

Read these comments and one can see how spectacular our education system has FAILED.
These numbers do NOT mean that everyone who drinks more than 2 sodas a week will get pancreatic cancer. Geesh. There's a very good break down of the numbers in the thread above.
What it does support is something we already know - soda is not a healthy drink. Water is the best thing you can drink. Period. That's it. You want to keep drinking soda? Fine. Go for it. Chances are the diabetes will get you long before the pancreatic cancer might. It's a rare and very deadly cancer. Artificial sweeteners like Aspartame are not healthy. Some people are fine with them, others have all kinds of crazy reactions.
It may also suggests that someone drinking more than 2 sodas per week may also have some other lifestyle choices that are not so healthy. The more processed and packaged food you eat, the higher your risks for cancer. Are there exceptions to this? Of course!
I'd rec soda drinkers at least consider switching to an all-natural brand that doesn't have all the chemicals in it and is Stevia sweetened. Most folks will willfully ignore this and claim there's nothing wrong with eating and drinking chemicals. You go right ahead then and enjoy!

R of CA 12:15PM February 08, 2010

people it is an epidemiological study. So what most epidemiological studies do is find an association. It clearly states that the mechanism is not know yet. So higher risk does not necessarily mean that you will develop pancreatic cancer.

natasha browne of CA 12:08PM February 08, 2010