Here we go again. Another day, another "scientific" study and another group of doctors using junk science to scare the public.

A new study entitled, "Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Weight Gain, and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Young and Middle-Aged Women," appeared in the August 25 edition of the Journal of The American Medical Association (JAMA). Like many before them, the authors attempt to strike fear into the hearts of consumers. But this time, the study doesn’t just blame sugar, it faults sugar-sweetened soft drinks specifically for causing increased risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in women.

Conveniently, the authors of the JAMA article fail to trumpet, and the press has failed to report, that the study’s own data (although buried in the article’s data tables) shows no statistically significant relationship between soda consumption and Type 2 diabetes in "normal" and "overweight" women, according to the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). In fact, for "obese" women, the authors go so far as to admit that a reduction in soda consumption alone may not support their findings about Type 2 diabetes as they may "reflect dietary and lifestyle changes accompanying changes in soft drink consumption."

This ever-increasing onslaught of alarmist pseudo-science is not only creating confusion for the public and lessening the people’s ability to make informed choices about their diets, it is also denigrating the scientific community and blazing a path for further government intrusion into people’s personal lives. This appears to be the aim of the increasingly shrill activists and their "doom and gloom" studies.

Responsible members of the scientific community have become increasingly vocal with their concerns over such tactics. In a statement in response to this study, Dr. Jon Robison, a Michigan State University nutrition expert, says, "This article is a textbook case study in the misuse of epidemiological research for the development of health recommendations for the public." Dr. Robison also quotes another prominent member of the medical field, Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, head of Harvard’s School of Public Health, as saying, "We are fast becoming a nuisance to society ... People don’t take us seriously anymore, and when they do take us seriously, we may unintentionally do more harm than good."

Amen, Dr. Trichopoulos.

This dark cloud over the medical research community continues to grow and fester. Researchers, like those who authored the newest anti-soda study, truly prompt questions about the motivation behind such studies.

For instance, according to CCF, many of the study’s authors have a relationship with the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) — a trial lawyer-funded and self-described "food police" group.

Running down the list of authors, Dr. JoAnn Manson serves on the science advisory board of CSPI. Dr. Walter Willet has participated in CSPI-sponsored press conferences (and is also on record having endorsed a petition sponsored by a Ralph Nader group calling for global restrictions on food marketing). Dr. David Ludwig supports a soda tax and has published writings with other CSPI science advisory board members. Dr. Meir Stampfer’s signature appears on CSPI-initiated letters to regulators, and Dr. Graham Colditz has been party to other questionable obesity-related studies, including co-authoring one that, according to CCF, "admitted to using shaky data and double-counting costs" in calculating the financial burden of obesity on the U.S. economy.

With resumes like that, the goal of these activists is not to properly and accurately educate the public on balanced lifestyle choices and the importance of exercise. Their goal is to replace personal freedom of choice with the long arm of government regulators who will do all the choosing for consumers — not to mention paving the road for their plaintiffs’ lawyer friends who continually race to find their next big payday.

The doctors who use junk science and other members of the nanny-state movement will stop at nothing to make our eating decisions for us. If allowed to continue, we will all be forced to drink seaweed-flavored tofu shakes. For those who choose to imbibe in such products, enjoy. But for us, no thanks, we prefer to drink soda.