Tufts University’s research reveals that sugary drinks cause millions of new diabetes and cardiovascular cases each year worldwide.
With devastating effects most pronounced in developing regions, the study emphasizes the need for global interventions to reduce sugary drink consumption and improve public health outcomes.
Global Health Crisis Linked to Sugary Drinks
A new study from researchers at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, which was published in Nature Medicine on January 6, estimates that 2.2 million new cases of type 2 diabetes and 1.2 million new cases of cardiovascular disease occur each year globally due to consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.
In developing countries, the case count is particularly sobering. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the study found that sugar-sweetened beverages contributed to more than 21% of all new diabetes cases. In Latin America and the Caribbean, they contributed to nearly 24% of new diabetes cases and more than 11% of new cases of cardiovascular disease.
Alarming Statistics from Specific Regions
Colombia, Mexico, and South Africa are countries that have been particularly hard hit. More than 48% of all new diabetes cases in Colombia were attributable to consumption of sugary drinks. Nearly one third of all new diabetes cases in Mexico were linked to sugary drink consumption. In South Africa, 27.6% of new diabetes cases and 14.6% of cardiovascular disease cases were attributable to sugary drink consumption.
Sugary beverages are rapidly digested, causing a spike in blood sugar levels with little nutritional value. Regular consumption over time leads to weight gain, insulin resistance, and a host of metabolic issues tied to type 2 diabetes and heart disease, two of the world’s leading causes of death.
Calls for Action on Sugary Drink Consumption
“Sugar-sweetened beverages are heavily marketed and sold in low- and middle-income nations. Not only are these communities consuming harmful products, but they are also often less well equipped to deal with the long-term health consequences,” says Dariush Mozaffarian, senior author on the paper and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School.
As countries develop and incomes rise, sugary drinks become more accessible and desirable, the authors say. Men are more likely than women to suffer the consequences of sugary drink consumption, as are younger adults compared to their older counterparts, the researchers say.
Effective Measures and Urgent Recommendations
“We need urgent, evidence-based interventions to curb consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages globally, before even more lives are shortened by their effects on diabetes and heart disease,” says Laura Lara-Castor, NG24, first author on the paper who earned her Ph.D. at the Friedman School and is now at the University of Washington.
The study’s authors call for a multi-pronged approach, including public health campaigns, regulation of sugary drink advertising, and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Some countries have already taken steps in this direction. Mexico, which has one of the highest per capita rates of sugary drink consumption in the world, introduced a tax on the beverages in 2014. Early evidence suggests that the tax has been effective in reducing consumption, particularly among lower-income individuals.
“Much more needs to be done, especially in countries in Latin America and Africa where consumption is high and the health consequence severe,” says Mozaffarian, who is also Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition at the Friedman School. “As a species, we need to address sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.”
Reference: “Burdens of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages in 184 countries” by Laura Lara-Castor, Meghan O’Hearn, Frederick Cudhea, Victoria Miller, Peilin Shi, Jianyi Zhang, Julia R. Sharib, Sean B. Cash, Simon Barquera, Renata Micha, Dariush Mozaffarian and Global Dietary Database, 6 January 2025, Nature Medicine.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03345-4
Research reported in this article was supported by the Gates Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the National Council for Science and Technology in Mexico. Complete information on authors, methodology, limitations, and conflicts of interest is available in the published paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
6 Comments
As a now eighty-one year old lay American male who’s been battling externally imposed chronic illness for forty-three years and counting and continues to ingest sugary drinks and pastries, “contributed to” is key to understanding how ignorant and incompetent the study was. Did they factor-in nearly subclinical non-IgE-mediated food allergies (e.g., Dr. Arthur F. Coca, by 1935)? Did they factor-in officially (FDA in the US) approved food poisoning (added artificially cultured “free” MSG [1980 in the US]), preceding the US obesity and diabetes epidemics by a decade and fourteen years, respectively (CDC data). Did they factor-in the uric acid factor and how estrogen in menopausal women helps to protect them from high blood serum levels of uric acid, helping to account for fewer women being adversely affected? Did they factor-it-in if it was actually sugar or HFCS (the cheaper choice of manufacturers; fructose), which is known to raise blood serum uric acid levels ‘unregulated?’
Did they factor-it-in that so-called “evidence-based” medicine has been fatally-flawed outdated dogma since the early 1900s and/or that “evidence-based interventions to curb consumption” may not translate into improved health outcomes (due to the aforementioned ‘factors’)? As an adult lifetime non-smoker who inhaled a lot of secondhand smoke from birth until smoking was banned in work and public places, with some occasional exposures still with no noticeable adverse effects, what I see in progress here is just another undeserved revenue raising scam orchestrated by the rich to further enrich the rich, and imposed upon the unsuspecting majority in the US by the pawns and puppets of the rich in our current government ‘of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.’ It worked for the phony “Great Recession” and collapse of the economy in 2008, with high excise taxes on tobacco since 2009 and with the phony seven trillion dollar “Covid-19 pandemic,” minimally. So, why not do it with sugar? For more senior lay patriotic American details: https://odysee.com/@charlesgshaver:d?view=about
It’s not just drinks. A wide range of foods are adulterated with sugar.
Last night, I ate “Wild Alaska Pollock Burgers” from a company named Trident. They tasted funny, sort of sweet. I looked at the ingredient label and see that they added sugar to seasoning they applied to the fish!
Some months back, I purchased some bags of potato chips from the “Boulder Creek” company. Had the same experience. Thought the product tasted sweet for potato chips. Looked at the lable and what do I see? Sugar added!
The government needs to pass laws to make it criminal to adulterate unexpected foods like fish and potato chips with sugar.
Jojo, there are at least two such US laws that I am aware of: The Constitution of the United States of America and the Federal Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA/FD&C; 21USC, Chapter 9, Sub-chapter 3, Article 331a, “Prohibited Acts” (adulteration of foods intended for interstate commerce). Unfortunately for tens of millions of Americans (minimally, going/gone global with the so-called “western diet”), sugar (if it’s even real sugar [e.g., HFCS]; to my experience and in my lay opinion) is not nearly the illegal dietary problem that modified soy protein, cooking oil preservative TBHQ and/or added artificially cultured “free” MSG, minimally, are. Hopefully, the ‘too-sweet’ taste will deter many from ingesting what’s even worse.
Food Stamps should not be allowed to buy sugary drinks, or other sugary junk foods.
It’s up to the consumer to pay attention to the ingredients on the packaging. Before companies were required to list the ingredients on their products, it was not possible to know what amounts of sodium and sugars were added, or what types of preservatives and coloring were used. Now we know. Should companies be putting all this sugar (and sodium) in their products? Absolutely not. They do it for cost effectiveness. Don’t hold your breath for the U.S. government to literally put a stop to it. Lobbying and money do the talking.
By “sugary” do they mean sucrose or, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)? Pepsi and Coca Cola offer drinks with sucrose instead of HFCS, but they both have caffeine and are not always available. It seems that if one wants a caffeine-free soda, they have to drink HFCS.