Coke, Pepsi make changes to avoid cancer warning

page: 1
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

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




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
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.

Pepsi and Coca Cola wouldn't remove these chemicals from their recipes unless they had good reason to do so.

To be honest, I don't really care anymore since everything we consume is tainted with some type of poison that is claimed to be harmless.

The article mentions that they will still put this chemical in other products so it leaves me wondering what else they're using it in.

yourlife.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 8-3-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
It goes without saying that these types of products should never be consumed. It would be interesting to see the original recipe for either product, fairly certain these crazy chemicals probably didn't exist. The other problem is that with the proliferation of the western lifestyle the increase of fat people with health problems is rising. Or just take a look near school grounds with access to convenience stores. Kids drinking this crap by the gallon without a clue in the world.

brill

edit on 8-3-2012 by brill because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
It goes without saying that these types of products should never be consumed.


Right up there with water and oxygen - 2 of the most dangerous substances on the earth!



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I would also note that the type of sugar could be bad.

Also the type of sugar substitutes.

AND,

Back in the days of no "warnings":


Use of stimulants in formula

When launched, Coca-Cola's two key ingredients were coc aine and caffeine. The coc aine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the "K" in Kola was replaced with a "C" for marketing purposes).

Coca-Cola






edit on Mar-08-2012 by xuenchen because:




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
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)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by brill
It goes without saying that these types of products should never be consumed.


Right up there with water and oxygen - 2 of the most dangerous substances on the earth!

Aloysius,, you always defend the evil..
what is up with that..
Soda is poison to the body.. no matter what kind of spin YOU put on it



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


EEKS cancerous to lab mice
Never worked in a lab myself.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DavidWillts
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.



So... a lab rat gets 260 mg per kg of body weight, while
a 87kg person gets 0.33 mg per kg of body weight.

Lab rats gets 780 times the human dose and gets sick.
I think I'd get sick if I were fed 780 cans of soda a day as well.
edit on 8-3-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Just make your own. Water and sugar mixed together with other flavors, bottle it and wait for the sugar to carbonate.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I don't drink any soda myself, as I drink the well water outside of myself and that is it.

However, I believe it is increasingly hard to not be poisoned by anything in this day and age.

Processed foods contains tons of chemicals, even those similar to Anti-freeze, also contains inorganic materials that are hard to digest to make the food stretch out. Bottled water apparently contains toxins that seep from the plastic they are contained in over time. Milk is pumped full of anti-biotics and hormones. Our bread is even bleached and then "enriched". Monsanto is reaching their chemicals in many of the foods we buy, even good ol' Campbell's soup isn't safe any longer. Our fresh fruits and veggies from the normal super market are also tainted by Monsanto. Even the air we breathe is being poisoned by the chemicals they are spraying into the atmosphere. Etc etc etc, I could go on and on....

We're not safe in anything we do, haha.

So, this is of no surprise at all to me, and really the least of my personal worries.

Very fascinating information though, thank you for sharing
S&F
edit on 8-3-2012 by GreenEyedVixen because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
26
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join