Rush Limbaugh Defends Soda!

A couple of weeks ago, I told you that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) had filed a petition with the FDA, calling for a series of rotating health notices on all non-diet soft drinks containing more than 13 grams of refined sugars per 12 ounces.

What I didn't report at the time (because I was blissfully unaware) is that feisty talk show host Rush Limbaugh melodramatically responded to the CSPI recommendation by jumping to the defense of drinking sugary drinks.

Limbaugh insisted that people should be free to have a "good time drinking soda pop," according to successful dieter and sugar shunner Jimmy Moore, who posted the talk show's comments on his popular Livin la vida lo carb blog.

"This is sugar! We're talking about sugar," Limbaugh exclaimed on his program.

"We're not talking about a killer substance here."

Hah! This is where you're oh so wrong, Limbaugh!

I've recently recovered from spending three to four years wading through hundreds of medical studies and interviewing 250-plus medical experts about how over-consuming sweets could, in fact, be deadly.

Study after study shows the many dangers of soft drinks and other sweetened foods. Obesity is just one of many side-effects from pigging out on quickie carbs.

In fact, if you keep up for a decade or longer this three-cans-of-Coke-a-day habit that Rush says kids "can certainly drink," you could ultimately end up getting diabetes, heart disease, cancer, memory woes, mood swings, and many other diseases, some of which can be fatal.

Sure, I'm in favor of parents taking a more active role in educating their kids how to eat right. Yes, I'm behind getting soda and junk food out of the schools. Granted I do think we just won't see warning labels on soft drinks any time soon, because of the powerful soda and sugar lobby.

And absolutely, Rush's fear that lawsuits will proliferate does have some credence -- but he totally misconstrues the facts when he rants:

"This is just a precursor for the trial lawyers to move in and start filing suit, inventing all kinds of medical problems brought on by years and years of consumption of this stuff without proper warning. I can just see the endless parade of fat kids being dragged into court, waddling in there, barely able to breathe(wheezing) 'I drank... (wheezing) I drank...' and dies on the witness stand, and there goes Coke and Pepsi."

Here's the problem with Limbaud's argument. The lawsuits will have validity -- medical problems won't be invented, as he suggests. (Trust me, I just can't keep up with the onslaught of medical studies on this subject.)

Which brings me back to why I started this SUGAR SHOCK! Blog and wrote SUGAR SHOCK!  in the first place.

We sugar-is-bad-for-you believers -- journalists, scientists, doctors and public health advocates such as CSPI -- need to get out word about the perils of sweeteners in a plethora of disease.

Want help quitting sweets and simple carbs? Join my free online KickSugar support group. Remember, we're here for you.

Comments

[Ruth Mielcarek]

What the people who protest sugar's innocence don't realise is how sugar does things like de-stabilising your body's ability to keep its blood-sugar levels stable, resulting eventually in a constant battle just to stay conscious. And that is something to sweep under the carpet in the pursuit of profit? Oh dear, we have got our values a little skewed haven't we?

[adam wilk]

I know where Rush is coming from--he sees soda and sugar and apple pie as Americana--something to be cherished--it's too bad all these things will eventually hurt you once they've addicted you. The truth hurts.