Association of a Workplace Sales Ban on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages With Employee Consumption of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Health by Elissa S. Epel, PhD; Alison Hartman, BA; Laurie M. Jacobs, PhD; Cindy Leung, ScD, MPH; Michael A. Cohn, PhD; Leeane Jensen, MPH; Laura Ishkanian, MPH; Janet Wojcicki, PhD, MPH; Ashley E. Mason, PhD; Robert H. Lustig, MD, MSL; Kimber L. Stanhope, PhD, MS, RD Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH

In this before-after study and trial that included 214 adults who regularly drank SSBs, participants reported consuming less SSBs after a workplace sales ban and a reduction in waist circumference and sagittal diameter but no change in body mass index or insulin sensitivity. Those randomized to receive a brief motivational intervention had greater improvements.

“As rates of cardiometabolic diseases continue to rise, private employers are likely to face greater productivity losses and private health expenditures. The results of this study suggest that workplace SSB sales bans, if widely adopted, could add another layer of efficacy to existing SSB reduction strategies. At the societal level, private sector–driven change through workplace sales bans seems to offer a strategy that complements existing governmental reform efforts. Although effective, governmental reform policies, such as SSB taxation and warning labels, face significant political obstacles that private-sector sales bans do not.”

Articles about the Study

UCSF Banned Sugary Drink Sales, Here Is What Happened Next, Forbes

Sugary Drink Ban Tied to Health Improvements at Medical Center, New York Times

Doctors call on workplaces to ban sale of sugary drinks, The Guardian

Workplace sugary-drink ban helps employees cut back, Reuters

Paper in Cell Metabolism:

Fatty Acid Metabolites Combine with Reduced β Oxidation to Activate Th17 Inflammation in Human Type 2 Diabetes

It’s long been known that both “lipotoxicity” and “glucotoxicity” are associated with inflammation leading to diabetes. But it wasn’t clear which, when, and how, resulting in different factions battling for supremacy. The science of this controversy is now beginning to come into focus.

A paper two weeks ago from Softic et al. in Cell Metabolism demonstrates that fructose inhibits mitochondrial beta-oxidation through alteration of specific mitrochondrial proteins, conversely glucose stimulates it. Thus dietary sugar is more metabolically problematic than dietary starch; a finding that our group corroborated in obese children.

This paper from Nicholas et al. also in Cell Metabolism, demonstrates that because of that mitochondrial dysfunction, fatty-acylcarnitine, which should be beta-oxidized, can power the production of TH17 cytokines that in part drive that inflammation. Furthermore, one must remember that some of that fatty acid production can be derived via de novo lipogenesis using fructose as a substrate.

This paper, combined with Softic, helps bridge the gap to show that, at the molecular level, it appears to be the combination of both fat and fructose at the mitochondria that drives the inflammatory process.

The Societal Math of Processed Food (U.S.)

The food industry grosses 1.46 Trillion / yr
-657 billion is gross profit

Health care costs in the U.S. total $3.5 trillion / yr
-75% of which is chronic metabolic disease
-75% of which is preventable

Thus, $1.9 trillion / yr is wasted.

We lose triple what the food industry makes.

This is unsustainable, and explains why Medicare will be broke by 2026, and neither “Obamacare” or “Trumpcare” or “Medicare for All” can fix it (and not the NHS either).

This paper is huge. One of the arguments the food industry advances is that sugar consumption has gone down while obesity has gone up, so it can’t be sugar. This paper uses a complex statistical analysis to show that US obesity is a function of both current sugar consumption and an derivative of the sugar consumed by the previous generation going forward. In other words, it’s the economic equivalent of “epigenetics”. This is yet another nail in the coffin (as if we needed any more nails)!

U.S. obesity as delayed effect of excess sugar

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X19301364