Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the United States, Pepsi is made with carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, sugar, Phosphoric acid, caffeine, citric acid and natural flavors. A can of Pepsi (12 fl ounces) has 41 grams of carbohydrates (all from artificial sugar substitute), 30 mg of sodium, 0 grams of fat, 0 grams of protein, 38 mg of caffeine and 150 calories.[33][34]
Why would you want to put all this artificial chemical crap in your body?
There are all kinds of natural soft drinks on the market that are better for you. And doesn't taste like battery acid!
Lost in this entire thread is the fact that California got two major corporations to alter their product due to health concerns.
California seems to wield a lot of clout considering that California is this socialist hell-hole where people do drugs and eat exotic organic food all day (well at least in the minds of some conservatives).
Lost in this entire thread is the fact that California got two major corporations to alter their product due to health concerns.
California seems to wield a lot of clout considering that California is this socialist hell-hole where people do drugs and eat exotic organic food all day (well at least in the minds of some conservatives).
California is also the eighth-largest economy in the world.
And where is your link?
And if that were the case why lower the amount? They did not want to have to put a warning label on the product
Not all regulation is good or rational. I don't blame them for lowering the amount to avoid being forced to place a cancer warning label on their product. It's bad advertisement and I would venture to say most consumers aren't going to do their research and find out it's only "technically" true if you consume some unrealistic amount.
Well, the risk by itself is low, but like most chemicals it could well interact with all sorts of other chemicals in the environment in a bad way. What is you happen to smoke, have an immune problem,etc.? Why put this crap in your body? I am glad that it is out. I don't want to drink that caramel crap.
This goes to show that a company will change, WHEN PEOPLE DEMAND IT, otherwise they usually just don't give a damn. Will they voluntarily change in other states unless they see a huge drop in sales? I doubt it. The notion that companies will do the right thing for their customers or employees out of graciousness is not consistent with this story or history. When they do, it is a big story, because it is rare.
High fructose corn syrup makes you fat, if becoming less disirable to your mate or potential mate is not motivation enough to stop drinking, nothing will stop you
This "Center for Science and Public Interest" bunch is the same group that announced that Saccharin causes cancer, too. And it turned out that Saccharin was even more "deadly" than this caramel coloring. You only had to drink 765 cans of soda a day, to reach the threshold where it might hurt you.
These junk-science scare groups are some of the sillier institutions in the country. They completely ignore dosages, and also fail to notice that people who have drunk Coke or Pepsi all their lives have NO more cancer history that those who never touch the stuff.
But common sense does not further their agenda of getting government to clamp down on everything and everyone over anything... so they possess none.
Beverage powerhouses PepsiCo and Coca-Cola will modify the caramel coloring in their sodas to avoid a cancer warning label that a new California law requires when drinks contain a certain amount of carcinogens.
The state of California added ammonia sulfite, or 4-MI, to its list of known carcinogens last year. Along with the state list, a consumer group known as the Center for Science in the Public Interest claimed a chemical in the sodas’ coloring is linked to cancer in animals and exceeds allowable levels in U.S. food supply.
The FDA told Reuters a person would have to drink 1,000 cans of soda every single day to hit the threshold risk of animals.
"The ABA added that a person would need to drink massive amounts of cola to reach a risk level similar to the dosing in mice — 2,900 cans of cola every day for 70 years — upon which California based its decision".
LOL , that's one can every 30 seconds. You'd OD on caffeine at that rate.
Toxic dose The LD_50 of caffeine (that is the lethal dosage reported to kill 50% of the population) is estimated at 10 grams for oral administration. As it is usually the case, lethal dosage varies from individual to individual according to weight. Ingestion of 150mg/kg of caffeine seems to be the LD_50 for all people. That is, people weighting 50 kilos have an LD_50 of approx. 7.5 grams, people weighting 80 kilos have an LD_50 of about 12 grams.
In cups of coffee the LD_50 varies from 50 to 200 cups of coffee or about 50 vivarins (200mg each).
I say it is time to BOYCOTT these companies until they quit poisoning us without our knowledge!
Coca-Cola said Friday it will lower levels of a chemical in caramel coloring to comply with a California law, but insisted the beverage’s recipe will not change and poses no health risks.
4-MEI is the same brown coloring that occurs when you cook potatoes in a frier. There was a story about how McDonalds would have to label its fries as a possible carcinogen.
The level of 4-MEI required to reach the toxicity found in the test animals is tremendous. 300mg\kg. The average coke had 100ug. The only science which supports this kind of scare is homeopathic science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
And where is your link?
And if that were the case why lower the amount? They did not want to have to put a warning label on the product
California figuratively wants to put cancer labels on everything. Their law states that any of the over 850 different chemicals on their Prop65 law has to have a label. It's why you see those little warning labels on everything that says "according to the state of California..."
Their list isn't particularly exclusive. It includes pretty much every 2B carcinogen, which are basically cancer-causing agents which have some--but not really solid support--for cancer in either humans or animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
If anyone of you that have posted flippant posts you would not think it so funny if you have lost friends and family to cancer.
I've had two aunts and a grandmother with cancer. They all (thankfully) survived. One aunt is in remission, but she's been fantastic since she was treated.
Instead of going full-paranoid on carcinogens, do the research instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
If it's a matter of a simple change that MIGHT be in our best interest, and doesn't effect the taste of the product, I don't know why anyone would care or think it's a problem with California. Aren't you folks always squawking about "state rights"?
I don't have any real problem with Coke or Pepsi doing it. The problem here is the paranoid delusion that Coke and Pepsi are causing cancer.
Yeah, not that significant. I'm sure it'll be cheaper to manufacture too, since they'll be able to put less caramel coloring into more cans and bottles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
