So here is a news story from what I would guess would be considered a “reliable” source (Reuters):
Study links sugary soft drinks to pancreas cancer
The conclusions from the article are right upfront:
* Regular soda drinkers had 87 percent higher risk
* Theory is that sugar fuels tumors
The substance behind the conclusions starts with:
WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - People who drink two or more sweetened soft drinks a week have a much higher risk of pancreatic cancer, an unusual but deadly cancer, researchers reported on Monday.
"The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth," Pereira said in a statement.
And finally, in conclusion:
One 12-ounce (355 ml) can of non-diet soda contains about 130 calories, almost all of them from sugar.
The rest of the article was filler material (both literally and figuratively), but please feel free to read it if you like; it’s not very long.
I counted the word “sugar” used a total of 6 times in the article (if you include the title), and although the article does not claim that the conclusions of the study are definitive, it certainly implies that “sugar” should be considered a dangerous substance.
But here's the funny thing:
Soft drinks do not contain sugar.
Don’t believe me? Take a look for yourself. Read the label.
With very few exceptions - and I mean very few - regular soft drinks are sweetened with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) - not sugar - and diet soft drinks, of course, use aspartame almost exclusively.
Interesting that they didn't mention that. Just an oversight perhaps?
I’m no detective, but I’m a little hard-pressed to understand how sugar can be blamed as the villain when it wasn’t even at the scene of the crime.