Coke, Pepsi make changes to avoid cancer warning, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 26 times
Topic started on 8-3-2012 @ 05:07 PM by Corruption Exposed

Coke, Pepsi make changes to avoid cancer warning


yourlife.usatoday.com
Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label.

The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They've already been made for drinks sold in California.

The American Beverage Association, which represents the broader beverage industry, said its member companies will still use caramel coloring in certain products but that adjustments were made to meet Calif
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
abcnews.go.com
yourlife.usatoday.com


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 05:54 PM by DavidWillts
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

The article indicates that the chemical in question (4-methylimidazole) isn't proven to cause cancer even though a study involving lab mice could indicate otherwise.

Because the study was BS

ntp.niehs.nih.gov...
Groups of 50 male and 50 female rats were fed diets containing 0, 625, 1,250, or 2,500 ppm 4-methylimidazole (males) or 0, 1,250, 2,500, or 5,000 ppm 4-methylimidazole (females) (equivalent to average daily doses of approximately 30, 55, or 115 mg 4-methylimidazole/kg body weight to males and 60, 120, or 260 mg/kg to females) for 106 weeks.



Commercial caramel
colours of undefined origin contain 50-500 ppm 4-methylimidazole
(Heyns, 1971) while other examinations have shown ranges of
100-700 ppm
www.inchem.org...


So rats were being fed way more than the average HUMAN would drink. And that was just a measurement of the carmel IN the the drinks not a measurement of what is in the drink itself


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:08 PM by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by DavidWillts



I believe the study deserves some consideration. Even the conclusion of the study states that the female specimens were clearly affected, and not in a good way.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of these 2-year studies, there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity of 4-methylimidazole in male F344/N rats exposed to 625, 1,250, or 2,500 ppm. There was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity of 4-methylimidazole in female F344/N rats based on increased incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia. There was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity of 4-methylimidazole in male and female B6C3F1 mice based on increased incidences of alveolar/bronchiolar neoplasms.


The study is from from perfect, but it should cause some concern. Humans would probably never consume the amount that the test subjects, but the chemical does cause damage. Surely the constant consumption of this chemical cannot be a good thing on a long term level.
edit on 8-3-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:14 PM by _damon
reply to post by Corruption Exposed



I dont even have to read this to know stuff like coca cola are disgusting unhealthy rat poo. But people think because it tastes good it is good, what #ing ignorance it is disgusting to see. The stuff can even remove rust FFS! And after that you are shocked when you hear you got cancer? You are what you eat, no mercy for your f****** ignorance.


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:17 PM by WhatAreThey
Originally posted by DavidWillts
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

The article indicates that the chemical in question (4-methylimidazole) isn't proven to cause cancer even though a study involving lab mice could indicate otherwise.

Because the study was BS

ntp.niehs.nih.gov...
Groups of 50 male and 50 female rats were fed diets containing 0, 625, 1,250, or 2,500 ppm 4-methylimidazole (males) or 0, 1,250, 2,500, or 5,000 ppm 4-methylimidazole (females) (equivalent to average daily doses of approximately 30, 55, or 115 mg 4-methylimidazole/kg body weight to males and 60, 120, or 260 mg/kg to females) for 106 weeks.



Commercial caramel
colours of undefined origin contain 50-500 ppm 4-methylimidazole
(Heyns, 1971) while other examinations have shown ranges of
100-700 ppm
www.inchem.org...


So rats were being fed way more than the average HUMAN would drink. And that was just a measurement of the carmel IN the the drinks not a measurement of what is in the drink itself


Yes, If we did a study on WATER and made HUMANS drink the equivalent (or thereabouts) amount, then we'd see that water is a toxic substance that causes hyponitreimia , the brain to swell, and eventually death.


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:25 PM by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by WhatAreThey




Yes, If we did a study on WATER and made HUMANS drink the equivalent (or thereabouts) amount, then we'd see that water is a toxic substance that causes hyponitreimia , the brain to swell, and eventually death.


They didn't give the rats or mice enough fluids to cause the symptoms you mentioned. The toxins were measured in PPM from a concentrate mixed with water. Inject me with an equal amount of pure water as the rats (to scale) and I will not suffer anything other than a risk of infection from the needle itself.

If humans react anything like rodents do to this stuff, we would probably have the same lesions on our livers as found in the study...or maybe we already do.


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:25 PM by DavidWillts
reply to post by Corruption Exposed





You missed a part

ntp.niehs.nih.gov...
The incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia in 5,000 ppm females was significantly greater than that in the controls, and the incidence exceeded the historical range in feed study controls.




reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:28 PM by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by DavidWillts



I didn't miss that part.

The part that you're pointing out actually seems very unimportant.

Please enlighten me on it's significance?
edit on 8-3-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:34 PM by DavidWillts
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to
post by DavidWillts



I didn't miss that part.

The part that you're pointing out actually seems very unimportant.

Please enlighten me on it's significance?
edit on 8-3-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)


The female rats that got sick were being fed 5,000ppm that would be 260 mg per kg of body weight . A Soda has up to 29mg of this stuff.


reply posted on 8-3-2012 @ 06:45 PM by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by DavidWillts



My concern is the overall accumulation of the toxin over time. I know people who averaged around a 6 pack of Coke/Pepsi per day for as long as I remember and they all ended up with diabetes, cancer, heart disease or other illnesses (yes I'm aware that other variables could have caused these illnesses).

My intention isn't to sound hostile, but your argument reminds me of the people who say fluoride is safe too since we consume it in such small amounts. I'm sure you're aware that cyanide is a poison that can be found in some plants, including the seeds of some fruits you might enjoy en.wikipedia.org...

Would you drink your favorite beverage if they decided to allow small amounts of cyanide for flavor since it's harmless in small doses?
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal
  Posted 13 days ago with 79 member flags
Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report
  Posted 17 days ago with 63 member flags
Judge orders release of detained Marine veteran
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags
Birds hold \'funerals\' for dead
  Posted 10 days ago with 55 member flags
TSA agents swarm Ron Paul\'s plane, demand explosives check
  Posted 11 days ago with 47 member flags
Mysterious Changes in Ocean Salt Spur NASA Expedition
  Posted 1 days ago with 36 member flags
Ga. Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot by Soldiers
  Posted 15 days ago with 32 member flags