Food Police's Latest Dumb Claim-Fruit Juice Causes Obesity
America’s self-anointed food police have a new punching bag in their obesity crusade: fruit juice. We’re not making this up. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that a growing number of dietary do-gooders are now pointing their fingers at juice as a culprit for fattening waistlines:
The inconvenient truth, many experts say, is that 100% fruit juice poses the same obesity-related health risks as Coke, Pepsi and other widely vilified beverages. … [I]t's time juice lost its wholesome image, these experts say.
"It's pretty much the same as sugar water," said Dr. Charles Billington, an appetite researcher at the University of Minnesota. In the modern diet, "there's no need for any juice at all."
Is this new target in the obesity blame game any more legitimate than activists’ perennial demonization of soda? Nope. As the Times notes, a 2008 review of 21 studies found that 15—over two-thirds—did not support the theoretical link between juice and weight gain. But dietary activists still single out soda despite a wealth of academic research finding that soda isn’t a unique cause of obesity, so don’t expect the grape juice naysayers to be quieted in the face of actual evidence.
It’s worth noting that “Twinkie tax” creator Kelly Brownell isn’t jumping on the opportunity to call for a government War on Fruit Juice. According to the Times, Brownell is “loath to provoke the tens of millions of Americans who consider their morning juice sacrosanct.” Read: Brownell won’t target fruit juice yet, but after fruit juice’s public image is dragged through the mud and turned into “the new tobacco,” all bets are off. For now, Brownell is sticking to his soda tax song-and-dance out of purely political considerations, not ideological ones.
We have to ask: What’s next? Raisin rations? Warning labels on avocados? Red-light / green-light stickers in the produce aisle? Paging Alex Padilla…

To whatever degree 100% juice is similar to soda pop as a threat to health , it is still superior:
1: It contains other vitamins, nutrients, and antioxidants.
2: The sugar in fruit juice is less processed that the sweetener in soda.
3: It contains less other crap that's not so healthy; sodium, caffeine and whatnot.
Otherwise, it is true that there is a lot of sugar in fruit juice, and this aggravates the other dietary problems.
I don't care if fruit juice causes obesity . You know what, fruit juice has a lot of sugar in it, that probably isn't good for people who are trying to lose weight . I don't care. If I want to be fat, I have a right to. This only becomes an issue if government is paying for your healthcare . Ignore for a minute the fact that government only has as much money as it can print (devaluing everyone else's money in the process) or steal, when the government is paying the bill for healthcare, it can demand that you are healthy. Great reason to not have socialized medicine . If I want to be fat, I have a right to. Leave me alone, and stop watching me, big brother.
If people are not mature, educated, and self disciplined enough to take care of themselves, they must be called to heel. This is even more true in the case of parents failing to provide for the health of their children .
If all it takes is a tax to do so, then I am convinced they-the-fat are not that serious about their wish to drink soda. And so be it; we're all better off for it.
You would give up your freedom so that someone else's pet isn't fat? Really? If people are not self disciplined enough to stay healthy, then they should be the ones who pay the consequences. Forcing everyone to pay taxes , or even worse, banning products entirely, because some people are irresponsible is moronic, and is adverse to the ideals of freedom and personal responsibility this country was built on. If people allow their children to be fat, then they are bad parents. Boo-hoo. It happens every day. Would you support legislation that requires parents to spend a certain number of hours a week with their kids , and give a certain number of hugs every day, to be reported to big brother? How about a license to breed? Does that sound like a good idea to you, too? Other people's children are none of your business.
Who said I was giving up any freedom? Obviously I was baiting a bit, but you have not suggested any reason why one set of ideals is better than any other.
What do you mean "ideals of freedom and personal responsibility this country was built on"? Because whatever Locke, Hobbes, and Smith had to say that inspired the framers, there is a lot more than airy idealism that went into building this country, including slavery, genocide, piracy, imperialism, war , civil war, industrialization, socialization, and a few other important building blocks that don't sit to square with the Declaration of Independence.
Modern liberalism is the source of both those ideals that sparked the framers spirit and the idea that democratic utilitarianism might see us through our technological adolescence. And a lot of other oft maligned progressive platforms.
Other's people's children are frequently the business of others, for many obvious and subtle reasons.