Is Fruit Juice as Unhealthy as Sugary Soda?
Many health organizations have issued official statements encouraging people to reduce their intake of sugary drinks, and several countries have gone as far as implementing a tax on sugary soda.
Yet, some people suggest that juice isn't as healthy as it's made out to be and just as detrimental to your health as sugary soda.
This article examines the latest scientific evidence to compare fruit juice and soda.
Both Are High in Sugar
One of the main reasons some people consider fruit juice as unhealthy as sugary soda is the sugar content of these beverages.
Research consistently shows a link between sugary drinks and a higher risk of illness, such as type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure, and heart disease, as well as a higher risk of premature death.
Due to their similar sugar contents, some people have started grouping juices and soda together, suggesting that they should be avoided to an equal extent. However, soda and juice are unlikely to affect your health in the same ways.
For instance, soda tends to increase your risk of disease in a dose-dependent manner. This means that the more soda you drink, the higher your risk of disease — even if you only drink small amounts.
On the other hand, drinking small amounts of juice — specifically less than 5 ounces (150 ml) per day — may lower your risk of conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Only higher intakes appear to be detrimental to your health.
That said, the health benefits of juice only apply to 100% fruit juice — not to sugar-sweetened fruit beverages.
Fruit juice and soda contain similar amounts of sugar. Still, soda is likely harmful to your health, regardless of the amount you consume, whereas fruit juice may only increase your risk of disease when drunk in large amounts.
Both May Lead to Weight Gain
Both fruit juice and sugary soda may increase your risk of weight gain.
That's because both are rich in calories yet low in fiber, a nutrient that helps reduce hunger and promote feelings of fullness.
Hence, the calories consumed from either soda or fruit juice are unlikely to fill you up as much as an equal number of calories consumed from a fiber-rich food with the same amount of sugar, such as a piece of fruit.
Also, drinking your calories — rather than eating them — may increase your risk of weight gain. Experts believe this is likely because most people do not compensate for these liquid calories by eating fewer calories from other foods — unless they make a conscious effort.
That said, only excess calories lead to weight gain. Therefore, it's important to mention that consuming small amounts of calorie-containing beverages won't automatically lead to weight gain in most people.
Fruit juice and soda are rich in calories yet low in fiber, making them an inefficient way to reduce hunger and keep you full. They may also lead to excess calorie intake, further promoting weight gain.
Fruit Juice is Richer in Nutrients
Fruit juice contains vitamins, minerals, and beneficial compounds that sugary soda typically lacks.
Against popular belief, 1/2 cup (120 ml) of fruit juice is just as rich in most vitamins and minerals, including iron, potassium, magnesium, and B vitamins, as the same quantity of fresh fruit.
Keep in mind that many nutrients degrade with time. Therefore, freshly squeezed juice likely contains higher vitamin and mineral levels than other juice varieties. Still, all 100% juices have higher nutrient levels than sugary soda.
Fruit juice likewise contains beneficial plant compounds, such as carotenoids, polyphenols, and flavonoids, which can help neutralize free radicals and reduce your risk of disease.
This may explain why various types of fruit juices are linked to health benefits, ranging from improved immunity and brain function to lower inflammation, blood pressure, and LDL (bad) cholesterol levels.
Yet, these benefits are likely best achieved when fruit juice is consumed in amounts up to 5 ounces (150 ml) per day.
Fruit juice is rich in vitamins, minerals, and beneficial plant compounds that soda lacks. Regular intake of small amounts of juice has been linked to a variety of health benefits.
The Bottom Line
Fruit juice and sugary soda are similar in some aspects yet widely different in others.
Both are low in fiber and sources of sugar and liquid calories. When consumed in large amounts, both have been linked to an increased risk of obesity and illness, such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
However, unlike sugary soda, fruit juice contains a variety of vitamins, minerals, and beneficial plant compounds that protect you from disease.
Therefore, when consumed in small amounts, fruit juice remains the clear winner.
- Everything You Need to Know About Medjool Dates - EcoWatch ›
- Can Echinacea Help You Fight the Common Cold? - EcoWatch ›
The National Hurricane Center has run out of names for tropical storms this year and has now moved on to the Greek alphabet during an extremely active hurricane season. Late Monday night, Tropical Storm Beta became the ninth named storm to make landfall. That's the first time so many named storms have made landfall since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson was president, according to NBC News.
- Extreme Weather Suggests Future Climate Crisis Is Already Here ... ›
- Atlantic Faces Fifth 'Above-Normal' Hurricane Season in a Row ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Karen L. Smith-Janssen
Colette Pichon Battle gave a December 2019 TEDWomen Talk on the stark realities of climate change displacement, and people took notice. The video racked up a million views in about two weeks. The attorney, founder, and executive director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy (GCCLP) advocates for climate justice in communities of color. Confronted with evidence showing how her own South Louisiana coastal home of Bayou Liberty will be lost to flooding in coming years, the 2019 Obama Fellow dedicates herself to helping others still reeling from the impacts of Katrina face the heavy toll that climate change has taken—and will take—on their lives and homelands. Her work focuses on strengthening multiracial coalitions, advocating for federal, state, and local disaster mitigation measures, and redirecting resources toward Black communities across the Gulf South.
Between 2000 and 2013, Earth lost an area of undisturbed ecosystems roughly the size of Mexico.
- Planting Projects, Backyard Habitats Can Re-Create Livable Natural ... ›
- Humans Are Destroying Wildlife at an Unprecedented Rate, New ... ›
- UN Biodiversity Chief: Humans Risk Living in an 'Empty World' With ... ›
- Scientists Warn Worse Pandemics Are on the Way if We Don't ... ›
- Coronavirus Pandemic Linked to Destruction of Wildlife and World's ... ›
By Stuart Braun
"These are not just wildfires, they are climate fires," Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State, said as he stood amid the charred remains of the town of Malden west of Seattle earlier this month. "This is not an act of God," he added. "This has happened because we have changed the climate of the state of Washington in dramatic ways."
'These Aren't Wildfires'<p>Sam Ricketts, who led climate policy and strategy for Governor Jay Inslee's 2020 presidential campaign, tweeted on September 11 that "These aren't wildfires. These are #climatefires, driven by fossil fuel pollution."</p><p>"The rate and the strength and the devastation wrought by these disasters are fueled by climate change," Ricketts told DW of fires that have burnt well over 5 million acres across California, Oregon, Washington State, and into neighboring Idaho. </p><p>In a two-day period in early September, Ricketts notes that more of Washington State burned than in almost any entire fire season until now, apart from 2015. </p><p>California, meanwhile, was a tinderbox after its hottest summer on record, with temperatures in Death Valley reaching nearly 130 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. National Weather Service. It has been reported as the hottest temperature ever measured on Earth.</p>
<div id="29ad9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8346fe7350e1371d400097cd48bf45a2"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1306969603180879872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Drought-parched wetlands in South America have been burning for weeks. https://t.co/pjAKdFcKPg #Pantanal https://t.co/ImN2C5vwcp</div> — NASA Earth (@NASA Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/NASAEarth/statuses/1306969603180879872">1600440810.0</a></blockquote></div><p>As evidenced by Australia's apocalyptic Black Summer of 2019-2020, fires are burning bigger and for longer, with new records set year-on-year. Right now, Brazil's vast and highly biodiverse Pantanal wetlands are suffering from catastrophic fires.</p>
#climatefires Started in Australia<p>Governor Inslee this month invoked the phrase climate fires for arguably the first time in the U.S., according to Ricketts.</p><p>But the term was also used as fires burnt out of control in Australia in late 2019. In the face of a 2000km (more than 1,200 miles) fire front, and government officials and media who <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/trump-climate-change-denial-emissions-environment-germany-fake-heartland-seibt/a-52688933" target="_blank">played down the link to climate change</a>, Greens Party Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and a friend decided that reference to bushfires was inadequate. </p><p>"We both just said, we've got to start calling them climate fires, that's what they are," the Australian Senator told DW.</p><p>Hanson-Young says scientists have been warning for decades that these would be the effects of global heating. "We've been told these kinds of extreme weather events and destruction is what climate change would look like, and it's right here on our doorstep," she said from her home state of South Australia — where by early September fire warnings had already been issued.</p><p>"Calling them climate fires was making it absolutely crystal clear. It is essential that there's no ambiguity," she said </p><p>Having deliberately invoked the term, Hanson-Young soon started to push it on social media via a #climatefires hashtag. </p>
How to Talk About the Urgency of Global Heating<p>The need to use more explicit language when talking about extreme weather events linked to climate change is part of a broader push to express the urgency of global heating. In 2019, activist Greta Thunberg tweeted that the term "climate change" did not reflect the seriousness of the situation. </p><p>"Can we all now please stop saying 'climate change' and instead call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?" she wrote. </p><p>"Climate change has for a long time been talked about as something that is a danger in the future," said Hansen-Young. "But the consequences are already here. When people hear the word crisis, they understand that something has to happen, that action has to be taken."</p><p><span></span>Some terms are now used in public policy, with state and national governments, and indeed the EU Parliament, declaring an official climate emergency in the last year. </p>
Words That Reflect the Science<p>But while the West Coast governors all fervently link the fires to an unfolding climate crisis, U.S. President Donald Trump continues to avoid any reference to climate. In a briefing about the fires, he responded to overtures by Wade Crowfoot, California's Natural Resources Secretary, to work with the states on the climate crisis by stating: "It'll start getting cooler. You just watch." Crowfoot replied by saying that scientists disagreed. Trump rejoined with "I don't think science knows, actually." </p><p>It was reminiscent of the anti-science approach to the coronavirus pandemic within the Trump administration, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-admits-playing-down-coronavirus-risks/a-54874350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least publicly</a>. Fossil fuel companies are also benefiting from his disavowal of climate science, with the Trump administration having <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-trumps-paris-climate-accord-exit-isnt-really-a-problem/a-51124958" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pulled out of the Paris Agreement</a> and reopened fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. </p><p>But the science community has responded, with Scientific American magazine endorsing Trump's Democratic presidential challenger Joe Biden, the first presidential endorsement in its 175-year history. </p><p>Hanson-Young says the use of explicit language like climate fires has also been important in Australia due to the climate denialism of politicians and the press, especially in publications owned by Rupert Murdoch. As fires burnt out much of Australia's southeast coast, they were commonly blamed on arson — a tactic also recently used in the U.S.</p>
Climate Rhetoric Could Help Decide Election<p>The language of climate has begun to influence the U.S. presidential election campaign, with Democratic nominee Joe Biden labelling President Trump a "climate arsonist."</p><p>Biden is touting a robust climate plan that includes a 2050 zero emissions target and a return to the Paris Agreement. Though lacking the ambition of The New Green Deal, it has been front and center of his policy platform in recent days, at a time when five hurricanes are battering the U.S. Gulf Coast while smoke blanketing the West Coast spreads all the way to the East. </p><p>People are experiencing the climate crisis in a visceral way and almost universally relate to the language of an emergency, says Ricketts. "They know something is wrong."</p>
- The Vicious Climate-Wildfire Cycle - EcoWatch ›
- How Climate Change Ignites Wildfires From California to South Africa ›
- 31 Dead, 250,000 Evacuated in California Fires as Governor ... ›
World's Richest One Percent Are Producing More Than Double the Carbon Emissions as the Bottom 50 Percent
A new report from Oxfam found that the wealthiest one percent of the world produced a carbon footprint that was more than double that of the bottom 50 percent of the world, The Guardian reported. The study examined 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions and wealth inequality from 1990 to 2015.