Slashdot Mirror


Science Fair Project Exposes GlaxoSmithKline Lies

shadowspar writes "Despite claims made by GlaxoSmithKline that their Ribena soft drinks are high in Vitamin C, two New Zealand high school students found in their science fair research project that at least some formulations of the drink contained no detectable levels of the vitamin. As a result, GSK has been fined over $200,000 by the NZ Commerce Commission and ordered to run newspaper ads admitting that some of their drinks contain no Vitamin C."

253 comments

  1. companies must think we are truly dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To think companies will put out products that we consume into
    our bodies that do not contain the ingredients listed on the
    can. Not quite the pet food disaster that happened to animals,
    but it is getting closer.

    Like i tell others, until babies die from baby food, no one
    will string the company owners up to the nearest tree.

    1. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really, I remember quite good the glass in baby food (company was Gerber) in the late '80's and early '90's. I was still little back then and living in Europe, and even there we had reports of glass shards in baby food. Gerber seemed to try covering it up, but there were hundreds of reports in multiple COUNTRIES, and although the FDA said they didn't found any fractions harmful to babies, I believe that there was some heavy lobbying going on. But now we seemed to have forgotten all about it.

      The NYT has this article from back in the days: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=hea lth&res=9A0DE3D71731F931A35750C0A960948260 and here is an essay on it including sources http://www.pillowrock.com/ronnie/gerber.htm

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      until babies die from baby food, no one will string the company owners up to the nearest tree. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/11/10683295 64337.html?from=storyrhs

      Dead babies: check
      Strung-up execs: ....
    3. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by stalebread · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is what GlaxoSmithKline posted here: http://www.ribena.co.uk/newsflash/ribena.html. Anyone care to comment?

      You may have heard recently some Ribena drinks in Australia and New Zealand have been found to contain less Vitamin C than stated on pack. The case came about because the method we had used for testing Australian and New Zealand products was not sensitive enough to measure the natural break down in Vitamin C that occurs over time while this type of product is on shelf. First things first: we wanted to reassure you this isn't the case in the UK. Ribena contains the levels of Vitamin C as stated on our packaging and we're still committed to producing the same quality refreshment that's been enjoyed in the UK for the last 70 years. During that time we've worked with three generations of blackcurrant growers to create the unique Ribena taste we know our consumers love. We also wanted to let you know that people who consume Ribena are obviously our number one concern. It was never our intention to mislead consumers in Australia and New Zealand and we're really sorry this has happened. We've moved to a new method of testing Vitamin C levels in those countries and we're also developing a new recipe for our drinks in Australia and New Zealand to ensure Vitamin C levels are maintained over shelf life. If you have any questions then give us a bell on 0800 096 3666. The Ribena Consumer Careline Team

    4. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Putting the content of your
      entire post on multiple short
      lines makes it kind of read
      like a poem. Not capitalizing
      the word "I" makes me think
      of e.e. cummings.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    5. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, kids have died.

      In Israel, some babies died last year when b12 vitamin was missing from baby food formula. The labeling stated the vitamin was present.

    6. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler would be proud :)

    7. Re:companies must think we are truly dumb. by cjb110 · · Score: 1

      Isn't the reason the UK product is ok, is because of the food labelling laws? every product needs to state what it contains, and most state a nutritional breakdown as well. Dunno if this is an EC thing or not though, or how strict the testing is.

      I know it certainly isn't that lame-ass excuse of 'testing methods'

      --
      ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
  2. Advertisers lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm shocked!

    1. Re:Advertisers lie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, cast iron sinks.

      Therefore, advertisers lie in cast-iron sinks.

    2. Re:Advertisers lie? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Therefore, advertisers lie in cast-iron sinks.

      And since this was the Southern Hemisphere, they did it counter-clockwise.

      (I know it's the other way around, but it doesn't sound as good.)

    3. Re:Advertisers lie? by asninn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it's expected that advertisers lie, there is a difference between lying about hard facts and more, well, ephemeral claims. If an advertiser says "our laundry detergent is great", that's an ephemeral claim; you may dispute it, but there is no objective interpretation of what "great" means, so the advertiser is off the hook.

      FWIW, GSK probably could've gotten off the hook if there had been *some* vitamin C in the drink, too - "high in vitamin C" is also a rather ephemeral claim insofar as that it's not clear what "high" means. However, there also is a factual claim in there: namely, the claim that the drink contains at least *some* vitamin C, and that's what GSK apparently got in trouble for.

      In other words: if I sell you a computer "with a big hard disk", you can't complain if it's only a 40 GB drive, since I can reasonably argue that that's "big" (how can 40 *billion* bytes not be big?). But if the computer doesn't have any HD, you do have a case, since "a big hard disk" implies that there *is* a hard disk to begin with.

      --
      butter the donkey
  3. Old news by basic0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Slashdot. News for Nerds (two weeks after AP runs it and it appears on Yahoo's front page). Stuff that mattered."

    1. Re:Old news by laggist · · Score: 2, Informative

      the post above is not a troll.. this is really old! i've even read it on my local dailies, and my local food sciences body has just reassured everyone that GSK's ribena drink *is* indeed rich in vitamin C (at least in Singapore, because we get stuff made in either Malaysia or the Philipines)..

    2. Re:Old news by ran-o-matic · · Score: 1

      two weeks after AP runs it and it appears on Yahoo's front page That's nothing. The current news blitz is only about the result of the court case. Those kids were both 14 in 2004 when they first found the lack of "C".
  4. HAHAHAHAHA by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pwned :) GSK Executives outsmarted by 14 year olds :)

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only after thousands of consumers were cheated by GSK. $200k is pocket money.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    2. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. We would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

    3. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by llamaxing · · Score: 1

      Please, do not use the words owned/pwned and "outsmarted by 14 year olds" in the same sentence. My days playing Halo 2 have scarred me dearly. (yes yes, this is off topic. Sue me)

  5. The shocking truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This experiment tested for the existence of the vitamin vitamin C, but what these drinks actually contain is the musician/actress Vitamin C!

    1. Re:The shocking truth by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, what will they do when they run out of her? Go back to putting in vitamin C, I guess.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  6. Brilliant. by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's nice sometimes when the stream of stories about how multinationals are reaming us is interrupted with one flavoured by just desserts.

    Also, the comeuppance is doubly sweet when it's underdogs. And who's more of an underdog than an intelligent high school student with an avid interest in science?

    In the movie version, there would be a B-plot about the nerds winning the hearts of two pretty girls through the process. Maybe the girls are interns at GSK. I don't know. Hire Charlie Kauffman.

    1. Re:Brilliant. by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 5, Funny
      Plot summary of new movie: In "Erin Brockovich and the Operating System of Doom", Erin analyses Windows Vista and discovers it contains 98% hype and only 1% new usability. Soon, hired goons pursue her, trying to run her car off the road. A muscular Linus Torvalds, played by Vin Diesel, parachutes down unexpectedly and drops into her convertible, taking the wheel to perform spectacular stunt driving to evade the pursuers and their Stinger missiles. However, Linus and Erin are later captured and brought to the secret Washington state underground headquarters of an evil software magnate. He rocks back and forth in his chair as he strokes a white cat and boasts of his plans for world conquest through restrictive licensing and patent portfolios, and an alliance with the RIAA. In the end, Linus and Erin escape after Linus crashes the villains's servers by massively downloading emo music. In the closing scene, a massive volcanic explosion destroys Redmond because Linus has also rigged Windows Genuine Advantage to detonate every PC on campus at the same time.

      No animals were harmed in the making of this movie. Directed by Jack Thompson.

    2. Re:Brilliant. by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      Comeuppance? Just desserts? Yeah, a $200,000 fine. It'll take them minutes, maybe even hours to make such a huge sum of money back. I'm sure that the next time they even think about deliberately lying to the public for decades upon decades, that fine will make them think twice!

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    3. Re:Brilliant. by Seumas · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is a great example of why science should be taken out of highschools and substituted with bible study. We don't need our young people gettin' all booksmart and thinkin' they dun got themselves better than all'us in the bible belt of jebus.

    4. Re:Brilliant. by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      I love how the word 'multinational' has come to be derogatory. Almost like the word 'troll'.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    5. Re:Brilliant. by Wormholio · · Score: 1

      In the movie version, there would be a B-plot about the nerds winning the hearts of two pretty girls through the process. Maybe the girls are interns at GSK.
      Except that if you RTFA you'll find that the two science fair students were girls.
      --
      "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
    6. Re:Brilliant. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      No, but the negative publicity might make them think again.

    7. Re:Brilliant. by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Even better!!!

    8. Re:Brilliant. by brouski · · Score: 2, Funny

      This story made the front page on Slashdot, thus almost ensuring that the general public knows nothing of it.

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    9. Re:Brilliant. by infestedsenses · · Score: 1

      Flying chairs. Needs more flying chairs.

    10. Re:Brilliant. by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Directed by Jack Thompson.

      You mean Jerry Bruckheimer right? It sounds like his kind of film...lots of explosions and mind numbing dialog combined with nauseating, obvious, and clichéd plot developments.

    11. Re:Brilliant. by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I want a t-shirt that says: "Windows XP is a Sad Emo-Server"

    12. Re:Brilliant. by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. They've been forced to create newspaper ads in New Zealand.

    13. Re:Brilliant. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a $200,000 fine. It'll take them minutes, maybe even hours to make such a huge sum of money back.

      The article gives a figure in New Zealand Dollers and a rough comparison with Canadian Dollers. I US Dollers it's more like 163 thousand. (About 83 thousand GBP and 122 thousand Euros). The only way you can get it looking like a substantial sum of money is to convert it into Zimbabwe Dollers...

    14. Re:Brilliant. by mpe · · Score: 1

      This is a great example of why science should be taken out of highschools and substituted with bible study. We don't need our young people gettin' all booksmart and thinkin' they dun got themselves better than all'us in the bible belt of jebus.

      Religious nutcases are unlikely to want people actually studying The Bible (or The Qur'an, The Granth, Vedas, etc). though :)

    15. Re:Brilliant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is a doller???

    16. Re:Brilliant. by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      Just blame it on the Jews.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  7. I like their style by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "and ordered to run newspaper ads admitting that some of their drinks contain no Vitamin C" This is far more damaging to them than a 200k fine. Its like virtually stick them in the stocks and publically embarassing them. I wish more laws resulted in this for companies rather than simple fines.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    1. Re:I like their style by osu-neko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Pfft. If you get caught doing something wrong, I'm sure you'll be required to do a lot more than put out an ad about it. For example, if you're caught driving while intoxicated, the judge is not likely to say you need to place a classified admitting you were driving drunk. Rather, he's likely to revoke you driving privileges for six months or so. Rather than token punishments, we should actually punish corporations for wrongdoing similarly. GSK ought to have it's privileges to sell consumer products revoked for six months or so. A real punishment that befits the crime.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:I like their style by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      Yes and negative advertising will result in sales losses, they should also be forced to have huge labels on their products, like cigarettes do, encouraging not buying it :) or just revoke their license to make the said "food" product. Anything but stupid fines, something that has a longer lasting effect and deeper impact on the corporation.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    3. Re:I like their style by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      "and ordered to run newspaper ads admitting that some of their drinks contain no Vitamin C" This is far more damaging to them than a 200k fine.

      Pfft. Dude, the 80's called and they want their punishment back.

      No, they should be forced to blog about their crime in a fashion that speaks to their target base:

      LyK oMg, I aM jUsT gOiNg ThRu TeH hArDeSt TiMe Of My LyF...gOt nO C n Mi dRnKS!!1!!1!

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    4. Re:I like their style by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      And again, we don't license food products in this country. There's nothing to revoke.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  8. Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their products by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1, Insightful

    thinking its a healthy alternative. Thats like thinking Coca Cola Zero is a healthy alternative to regular cola. No suger no, but still the same shit and even worse, Aspartime. Well, I think of it as Darwins Law in the consumer space.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  9. The same pair also discovered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...that Country Time Lemonade contains no trace of lemons.

    1. Re:The same pair also discovered... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And that Kool Aid has no trace of Kool (although it may contain other things.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  10. Erratum by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, I see now that they're girls. I missed that. My Fark-brain filtered it out as some advert for a calendar girls site.

    1. Re:Erratum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I see now that they're girls. I missed that. My Fark-brain filtered it out as some advert for a calendar girls site. That just makes your plot suggestion all the juicier:

      In the movie version, there would be a B-plot about the nerds winning the hearts of two pretty girls through the process. I'm thinking Bound here.
  11. And.... by Tilzs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.

    1. Re:And.... by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Kudos to the kids for discovering this... but why the frak did it take a school science project to figure out the ingredients weren't as advertised?

    2. Re:And.... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Damn, you beat me to it. I think we need a "meddlingkids" tag. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    3. Re:And.... by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Probably because chemical testing of soft drinks, while something that readily comes to mind, isn't actually likely to be done. The consumer product safety commission or whatever, relies on certified statements of contents and penalties if they are in fact incorrect. The public trusts the consumer watchdog.

      Real chemists have better things to do with their time in most cases, and the general public doesn't have the skill...so really, the high school kids are perfectly primed to discover this sort of thing. They've got just enough skill to do the basic testing, and nothing better to do with their time -- and they need to use easily accessible materials. Bingo. Sodas and vitamins.

    4. Re:And.... by heffrey · · Score: 0

      That would be "pesky kids" if you are quoting the baddie from Scooby Doo.

      Or do you Americans have a different version because pesky is a peculiarly British word?

    5. Re:And.... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      This is why we need a stronger DMCA to make illegal to "disassemble" proprietary formulas.

      --
      What?
    6. Re:And.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Probably because chemical testing of soft drinks, while something that readily comes to mind, isn't actually likely to be done. The consumer product safety commission or whatever, relies on certified statements of contents and penalties if they are in fact incorrect.

      Probably for a lot more things that just soft drinks.

      Real chemists have better things to do with their time in most cases, and the general public doesn't have the skill...so really, the high school kids are perfectly primed to discover this sort of thing. They've got just enough skill to do the basic testing, and nothing better to do with their time -- and they need to use easily accessible materials. Bingo. Sodas and vitamins.

      All we have to do is draw up a list of products school kids are unlikely to be interested in testing and ensure that someone actually is testing them.

    7. Re:And.... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Real chemists have better things to do with their time in most cases"

      I'd say keeping an eye on our food supply and what is put in it is a pretty good use of your time.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    8. Re:And.... by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      I think they are quoting Hacker from CyberChase.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    9. Re:And.... by heffrey · · Score: 0

      On the contrary it's Scooby Doo and there are different versions on different sides of the Atlantic. Google tells as, as usual!

  12. sugar by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    increases obesity (stroke, heart disease) and risk of diabetes. aspartame's real and clear dangers to your health are exactly what? the ideal is to stop drinking soft drinks altogether, we both agree to that. but if humpty dumpty is going to have a soft drink no matter what, and wants to choose between regular coke and coca cola zero, i'd rather he be drinking coca cola zero and avoid the sugar. in other words, yes, coca cola zero is a healthy alternative to regular coke. really. and i have no problem with coca cola marketing it this way. nor would anyone else without some bizarre chip on their shoulder. and no, i am not a shill for the coca cola bottling company. i'm a shill for common sense

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sugar by abscissa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sugar increases obesity (stroke, heart disease) and risk of diabetes.

      Sugar does not cause or increase the risk of diabetes. That is a common myth. Failure of the pancreas encourages diabetes.

    2. Re:sugar by Pyrrhic+Diarrhea · · Score: 1

      in other words, yes, coca cola zero is a healthy alternative to regular coke

      Is that your idea of healthy? If so, advertising has won. A better reality would involved an informed consumer having a more precise idea of what he was consuming, rather than just blithely accepting that Cola A is better than Cola B. I know that ingredients are listed on virtually everything that is sold to consumers in the US, and that we typically know what is "good" or "bad" for us, but many people don't take the time to investigate what they are eating. Is this a case for Big Brother to intervene? Intervention could be by defining what may be listed as "healthy", "organic" or "natural", or whatever is deemed most appropriate by a credible, authortative agency--not by the company seeking to increase their sales revenues.

      Most states compel drivers to wear a seatbelt. Leaving off whether or not that is preferable, if they can compel compliance with seatbelts, why not a little more supply-side compliance with legitimate health claims?

      I agree that people should take accountability for what they consume, but being that we are increasingly lazy (intellectually especially), most people just take what they are given without question. The thinking is that "the government watches stuff like this, right? So, it can't be too bad." Rinse and repeat. That's how we end up with poor public health.

      The ill effects of Aspartame can be found at (obligatory wiki)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_contro versy.

      More information on Aspartame: http://www.webmd.com/search/search_results/default .aspx?query=aspartame

    3. Re:sugar by MPAB · · Score: 3, Informative

      Still excess sugar leads to obesity which, in genetically susceptible people, can trigger glucose intolerance (glucose remains high on the blood for a long time after eating) or Type II Diabetes.

    4. Re:sugar by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative

      [sugar] increases obesity (stroke, heart disease) and risk of diabetes. Sugar is a natural part of our diet.

      aspartame's real and clear dangers to your health are exactly what? About 10% of ingested aspartame (by weight) is converted to methanol, which turns into formaldehyde. Our bodies can handle small quantities of formaldehyde, but it's definitely not good for us.
      About 40% of it is converted to aspartic acid. Aspartic acid is tolerated at low levels, but if it spikes to high levels (as it does when aspartame is consumed and absorbed quickly, as in a beverage) it is an excitotoxin, potentially causing nerve and brain cell damage.
      Relation to cancers of various sorts are implied by some, but are largely unproven. Studies on humans show no cancer increase, but because aspartame is hardly a quarter century old, there does not exist a human population over age 40 (the age range where they look for cancer correlations) that has had a life-long exposure to it. Studies with rats show increase in some cancers in correlation with aspartame ingestion starting at a young age. It'll be about 2020 before a meaningful study of lifelong aspartame consumption and cancer can be made.

      Basically, what it comes down to is that aspartame does turn into harmful substances in the body, but that the effect is probably entirely dependent on the individual's health and the quantity consumed.

      Sugar is just sugar. Like any other nutrient, overindulgence causes problems. Personally, I'll stick with sugar and monitor my consumption, rather than lavishly indulging my sweet tooth with a mildly toxic artificial sweetener that may or may not be too much for my liver and brain to handle.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:sugar by rhakka · · Score: 1

      sugar substitutes trick the body into thinking it is getting something sweet and therefor only continue the typical sweet-tooth addiction. Also, apparently there is quite a controversy over the health risks of aspartame, with things like lymphoma and brain tumours being brought up. That's fun!

      So you can either maintain your craving for sweets and guzzle large amounts of possible carcinogens to get your fix, slip back into excessive sugar usage, or perhaps GET OFF THE SWEETS.

      I agree that excessive sugar consumption is bad, and I don't have the necessary medical knowledge to evaluate the controversy over the substitutes myself. But I do know that if you stop eating really sweet stuff all the time, you lose your taste for it entirely, which is ultimately far better. So if people had to choose between dropping the sweets or getting fat, maybe that's not entirely a bad thing. Honestly I'm not sure. But I would object to aspartame being categorized as unequivocably "safe".

    6. Re:sugar by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Aspartame kills brain cells, especially developing ones (think kids). Aspartame is also classified by many chemists as a poison.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    7. Re:sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, Aspartame has (is?) even been listed/classified as a neuro-toxin (or a similar label) by the US Government.. If I'm not mistaken this is how it was labeled by the DoD.

    8. Re:sugar by FunWithKnives · · Score: 1

      Regular sucrose may be a natural part of our diet, but the HFCS that has replaced it in most countries (you guessed it: because it's cheaper!) is not.

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    9. Re:sugar by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Aspartame increases muscle tension since it contains phenyl-alanine and some people are extremely sensitive to it. It is probably a leading cause of 'arthritis' like 'old age' feeling in people. The muscle tension effect causes stiffness and soreness in the back, neck, knees - any joint with strong muscles attached to it. Simptoms start within a day and takes about 2 weeks to wear off. There is a lot of bunk bandied around about aspartame, with some people claiming that it causes anything from brain cancer to ingrown toenails, but it is certainly not a completely harmless substance.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:sugar by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regular sucrose may be a natural part of our diet, but the HFCS that has replaced it in most countries (you guessed it: because it's cheaper!) is not. Oh, I totally agree. Corn has no place in soft drinks! Still, I'd take the unnaturally produced, government subsidy cheapened HFCS over aspartame.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read that wikipedia page - there really is no strong evidence that aspartame is harmful in the diet. I just read over it, and that's my conclusion - and I have a PhD in biochemistry.

      The supposed effects are refuted by numerous studies showing no cancer risk, no short-term effects, no long-term effects. It really is quite safe as a dietary additive.
      (Not to mention that there are numerous other artificial sweeteners on the market).

      Drinking something with artificial sweetener in it is perfectly healthy, and is a much, much better alternative than drinking sodas with sugar in.

    12. Re:sugar by NoMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... but the HFCS that has replaced it in most countries ...
      Most countries? Nope. HFCS is virtually unheard of in most of the rest of the developed world.

      In fact, from your own link : "... he was surprised to hear that fructose and HFCS had become common sweeteners in the United States. He said they were virtually unheard of in England ..."

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    13. Re:sugar by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      High-fructose corn syrup is used in the US solely due to price protections on sugar, and is largely unknown in the rest of the world.

    14. Re:sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it'd rather be obese rather than consume a proven-safe sweetener that a chain-letter claimed was dangerous and gullible people with no knowledge of chemistry believed. /sarcasm.

  13. They sort of told the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I heard an interview with one of the girls. When they first tried to contact the company, they were stonewalled so they started contacting other people and the next thing they knew was they were on the international news.

    For a company to ignore even fourteen year olds and hope they will just go away is really dumb. Better to deal with the problem before it gets big.

    Anyway, what I understood the company to have said was something like: "The berries that this product is made from have more vitamin C than orange juice." The problem being, of course, that none of the vitamin C made it into the product.

    1. Re:They sort of told the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strict interpretation of the language of the advertisement does seem to indicate that they didn't actually lie.

      However, it was clearly extremely and deliberately misleading, which is, in most places, enough to require withdrawal of the ad, and possibly sanctions. The sad thing is, it's rarely enforced, and penalties and bad PR are pretty minimal - an unintentionally offensive ad will bring less bad PR than a deliberately misleading one.

  14. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's this new drink called Orange Juice that claims to have even more Vitamin C. Scientists call it a break through in food science. There was a point were food scientist stopped producing useful foods like orange juice, peanut butter, and cornflakes, and started making consumers feel better about eating crap. I think it occurred about when the US became the fattest nation on Earth. PS. I like to think of Coke Zero as a tastier Diet Coke rather than a healthier Coke Classic. None of them are good for you, but two have fewer calories.

  15. Only $200k? by 15Bit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They've been selling Ribena for decades under the advertising that it was high in vitamin C. Hell, my grandma used to tell us to drink it. So unless this is a new zealand local recipe thats at fault, i'm sorry, but an inconsequential fine and an apology in a newspaper in a country of 4.1m people really isn't enough - they've been deceiving the purchasing public in several countries for a long time.

    1. Re:Only $200k? by FlunkedFlank · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia:

      "GlaxoSmithKline maintains that the issue only affects Australia and New Zealand and that Ribena sold in other markets such as the United Kingdom contain the levels of vitamin C stated on the product label."

    2. Re:Only $200k? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They've been selling Ribena for decades under the advertising that it was high in vitamin C. Hell, my grandma used to tell us to drink it.

            Now the other side of the coin is that Vitamin C is one of the most overhyped vitamins ever. Small amounts are neccessary for the production of healthy tissue, and that's about it. There is no medical evidence that it helps prevent or cure colds, etc. And a balanced diet provides more than enough Vitamin C.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Only $200k? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now the other side of the coin is that Vitamin C is one of the most overhyped vitamins ever. Small amounts are neccessary for the production of healthy tissue, and that's about it. There is no medical evidence that it helps prevent or cure colds, etc. And a balanced diet provides more than enough Vitamin C. That depends entirely on your definition of "enough". The USRDA of 60mg a day is just enough to prevent scurvy. The problem with vitamin C is that because it isn't a patentable drug, very little research is done beyond the occasional study of the classic wive's tales about it curing colds and such. When you look at the animal kingdom and vitamin C, you can't help but question the 60mg USRDA. Most animals produce their own vitamin C, and only a very few do not. The biological process for making vitamin C from glucose requires four enzymes. Primates (which includes us) share a damaged gene for producing the fourth enzyme. We have the other three, but because we lack the fourth, the incomplete product of the third enzyme is simply broken down and recycled. Only primates, guinea pigs, red vented bulbul birds, channel catfish, and Indian fruit-eating bats require dietary vitamin C--- and in all cases this is traceable to a genetic mutation breaking the enzyme chain that originally allowed them to produce it from glucose. So the question then becomes, "how much vitamin C would we be producing internally if the enzyme chain were intact?" Well, an examination of vitamin C producing mammals indicates that a healthy animal produces and average of anywhere from 50 to 300mg per kg per day, and an animal with a serious illness will generate anywhere from 10 to 50 times that amount. Even taking the low average, it sure seems like a 150kg man should be getting 7500mg per day rather than 90mg, and that doesn't even take into account how you'd need to take 15000mg orally to equal 7500mg self-produced because the digestive system destroys half of it in the absorption process.

      See, before we even get to the possible benefits of vitamin C, we already have good reason to believe 90mg/day is an unnaturally low number. We, as a species, suffer from hypoascorbia due to a genetic defect. The fact that it hasn't killed us doesn't mean it's healthy. Not all mutations are good. If vitamin C is so inconsequential, why did all animal life evolve to produce so much of it?
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Only $200k? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and you can trust a company that says that when they've just been fined for deliberately misleading consumers why exactly?

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    5. Re:Only $200k? by instagib · · Score: 1

      Very interesting! But I wonder, humans have a longer lifespan than most animals, how is this possible if they are low on a essential vitamin? Could the genetic "defect" actually be a "feature" to enable a longer life? Or a more developed brain? (I'm ignoring the list of other animals you gave here.)

      Recent studies actually indicate that vitamin supplements are quite useless, and sometimes even unhealthy. And as a personal anectdotal comment: I've been taking vitamins like crazy for many years. I always got my cold in winter anyway. (Now I hardly get any colds anymore, my personal protection against it is drinking a lot of tea and water.)

    6. Re:Only $200k? by will · · Score: 0

      Logic faulty. Species that are able to produce vitamin C at low cost are likely to make more liberal metabolic use of it than species that have to find and eat it. They'll use it as a general purpose reducing agent where we presumably use something else, and no doubt lots of other things that I have no idea about.

      There is no reason at all why I should eat as much vitamin C as a goat would make, though I am very pleased to discover (on wikipedia) this new unit of measurement.

      I'm sure your main point is correct, and that the RDA of vitamin C is lower than the optimum intake for perfect health. I imagine that's usually the case, as the RDAs were introduced in an age where the concern was to protect the health of the poor, not to optimise the fitness of the rich.

      The rest of your argument is nonsense, and no amount of emboldening will make it persuasive. No human being in history has managed to eat 15g of vitamin C every day - that would be 300 oranges - but we seem to get by.

    7. Re:Only $200k? by edschurr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Dun Malg:

      Even taking the low average, it sure seems like a 150kg man should be getting 7500mg per day rather than 90mg
      Vitamin C, MedlinePlus, NIH:

      Vitamin C toxicity is very rare, because the body cannot store the vitamin. However, amounts greater than 2,000 mg/day are not recommended because such high doses can lead to stomach upset and diarrhea.
    8. Re:Only $200k? by Faithman2k · · Score: 1

      That's interesting and I would like to research what you said... would you be able to direct me to any information sources?

    9. Re:Only $200k? by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      The biological process for making vitamin C from glucose requires four enzymes. Primates (which includes us) share a damaged gene for producing the fourth enzyme. We have the other three, but because we lack the fourth, the incomplete product of the third enzyme is simply broken down and recycled.

      Fascinating! I'm always happy to read intelligent responses on /. from people who actually know what the hell they're talking about. You've already been modded to the stratosphere, so I just wanted to say "thanks".

    10. Re:Only $200k? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that mutation has been for the best? That would be the generic argument I'd expect from an evolutionary biologist at least. We're arguably higher on the food chain than those species that produce their own Vitamin C; perhaps high intakes (as some studies have in fact suggested) are actually detrimental to us as a species?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    11. Re:Only $200k? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      Humans have evolved to depend upon other antioxidants and dietary vitamin C, and the combination is adequate in many situations. However, many serious infectious diseases can be cured by huge doses of vitamin C. (I'm talking about 500 grams taken intravenously.) This is the sort of thing that shows the advantage of making your own.

      I haven't yet read a review of the much-hyped recent studies, but results of that sort in the past have been the result of badly flawed science.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    12. Re:Only $200k? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      No human being in history has managed to eat 15g of vitamin C every day
      Some people do it routinely. http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/
      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Only $200k? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The diarrhea claim is a common one, and for those who know the truth and still make the claim, it is egregiously dishonest. Large doses of vitamin C in the form of ascorbic acid will cause diarrhea; that's why people who take large doses use sodium ascorbate, calcium ascorbate, ascorbyl palmitate, etc..

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:Only $200k? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Making vitamin C takes some energy, so not making it was an advantage if adequate dietary sources existed for long enough for the mutation to become dominant. Large dietary doses are not only good for us, they were essential for us to come into existence as a species that doesn't make its own vitamin C.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:Only $200k? by edschurr · · Score: 1

      I hadn't considered a difference between Vitamic C via oral route and Vitamin C from within the body.

    16. Re:Only $200k? by Faithman2k · · Score: 1

      As a pharmacist I have recommended 9000mg-10000mg per day in divided doses WITH food. Stomach/GI upset is only seen in those people that used ascorbic acid formulas rather than a buffered formula. This my own anecdotal evidence as I have not seen published data on high dose ascorbic acid supplementation. I also found the incidence very low.

    17. Re:Only $200k? by BurntNickel · · Score: 1

      They'll use it as a general purpose reducing agent where we presumably use something else ....

      It has been speculated that some of the functionality has been replaced with Uric Acid. Take a look at the references (#2 or #3 I think).

      --
      And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them...
    18. Re:Only $200k? by mpe · · Score: 1

      That depends entirely on your definition of "enough". The USRDA of 60mg a day is just enough to prevent scurvy. The problem with vitamin C is that because it isn't a patentable drug, very little research is done beyond the occasional study of the classic wive's tales about it curing colds and such.

      60mg isn't very much especially when you consider that pharmaceutical drugs intended only to act on certain types of cells can be given in far greater doses.

      The problem with vitamin C is that because it isn't a patentable drug, very little research is done beyond the occasional study of the classic wive's tales about it curing colds and such. When you look at the animal kingdom and vitamin C, you can't help but question the 60mg USRDA. Most animals produce their own vitamin C, and only a very few do not. The biological process for making vitamin C from glucose requires four enzymes. Primates (which includes us) share a damaged gene for producing the fourth enzyme. We have the other three, but because we lack the fourth, the incomplete product of the third enzyme is simply broken down and recycled.

      Is there any way of tracking the activities of this enzyme chain in humans. Alternativly how much vitamin C does a healthy chimpanzee or gorilla consume.

      So the question then becomes, "how much vitamin C would we be producing internally if the enzyme chain were intact?" Well, an examination of vitamin C producing mammals indicates that a healthy animal produces and average of anywhere from 50 to 300mg per kg per day, and an animal with a serious illness will generate anywhere from 10 to 50 times that amount.

      Which is several orders of magnitude from the few tens of milligrammes per day.

      Even taking the low average, it sure seems like a 150kg man should be getting 7500mg per day rather than 90mg, and that doesn't even take into account how you'd need to take 15000mg orally to equal 7500mg self-produced because the digestive system destroys half of it in the absorption process.

      It's also a lot less efficent to have to eat something, digest it, then transport the ascorbic acid in the blood stream than have the cells which need it produce it as and when needed. Mammalian cells can store glucose (as glycogen), so even at the highest possible rate of production feeding would not be an immediate need. There are also a lot more foods which glucose can be extracted from.
      Even the conservative 15 gammmes is about a US tablespoon full. Quite a bit of effort to make this into pills or something most people would be prepared to eat.

    19. Re:Only $200k? by mpe · · Score: 1

      No human being in history has managed to eat 15g of vitamin C every day - that would be 300 oranges - but we seem to get by.

      If someone was trying to do this by eating oranges they'd probably be doing little else with their day. If they had access to pure vitamin C then eating 15g isn't too hard. Just it wouldn't taste that nice.

    20. Re:Only $200k? by mpe · · Score: 1

      The diarrhea claim is a common one, and for those who know the truth and still make the claim, it is egregiously dishonest. Large doses of vitamin C in the form of ascorbic acid will cause diarrhea; that's why people who take large doses use sodium ascorbate, calcium ascorbate, ascorbyl palmitate, etc..

      Not too sure about sodium ascorbate, there appears to be a lot of fuss made about too much sodium in the diet anyway. Maybe potassium ascorbate would be a better choice or an ester with an "Omega 3" fatty acid.
      Wonder if the diarrhea is more a reaction to the pH of the gut being changed.

    21. Re:Only $200k? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting that you should say that. I used to get a sick maybe once or twice a year. Since starting work I've been bringing a 1.5 L (uhhh, a bit under three pints) bottle of water everyday and drinking most of it. I haven't been sick since starting work (Jan 2006) and I've been in close contact with some fairly sick people.
      Considering that my diet isn't great, I was thinking it may be the water too. A book I have says that Samurai drank lots of water when sick, so maybe water is quite helpful?

  16. Next... by Linker3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rumours also abound over the amount of cocaine in 'coke'. There may be no mountains or dew in Mountain Dew and no pepper in Dr Pepper. The manufacturers of the French beverage Pschitt were unavailable for comment.

    PS: Visit the Pschitt site - the intro's a riot!

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:Next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, but most people don't even bother reading the labels to see what they're eating. There might be no sun in SunnyD, but there sure is a whole lot of sugar and even oil (not only the contents by the taste is also disgusting)! Just because they add a bit of vitamin C to a drink that's absolute crap doesn't actually make it good for you...

      you. Just like those cereal ads "made from whole grains" and such -- never mind there's basically NO FIBER AT ALL in it (just read the f'n label). Lots if not most of the advertizing and names is misleading.

    2. Re:Next... by dufachi · · Score: 1

      Wow, you can even click on "Pschitt Yourself!" once into the site. How romantic is that?

      --
      -Kinsey
    3. Re:Next... by VValdo · · Score: 1

      Rumours also abound over the amount of cocaine in 'coke'. There may be no mountains or dew in Mountain Dew and no pepper in Dr Pepper.

      So long as I'm getting my daily minimum of grapes and nuts from Grape Nuts, I don't see the problem...

      W

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Next... by trentblase · · Score: 1

      There may be no mountains or dew in Mountain Dew

      There is, however, orange juice. I remember the moment I saw this on the can as a kid. It totally ruined the drink for me.

    5. Re:Next... by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      How Naive would you have to be to drink Pschitt?

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    6. Re:Next... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Not naive, just not a native English speaker.
      The name is onomatopoeia for the sound of opening a carbonated drink.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    7. Re:Next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in french the starting P letter of "pschitt" is definitely heard, and to be honnest the similarity with the english word for "merde" goes largely unnoticed. For 3 reasons :
      - "pschitt" is an onomatopoeia in French, for precisely the noise made by the opening of a bottle of sparkling liquid
      - besides the difference in pronounciation not everybody speak English here. I admit the "pschitt yourself" and similar parts of the website are suspicious, maybe there's some kind of private joke going on from the marketing dept.
      - if ever you are to suspect a double meaning to "pschitt", a French person will first think of the fact president Chirac used that very word to counter accusation of money laundering by his potilical party IIRC.

      http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pschitt

    8. Re:Next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr.Pepper was named after, according to many, a Dr. Charles T Pepper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_T._Pepper

    9. Re:Next... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "Click here to get the plugin"

      ?? I don't get it.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Next... by zobier · · Score: 1

      PS: Visit the Pschitt site - the intro's a riot! And the SEO stuff's pretty funny too, pschittmania:

      pschitt.fr pschitt pschitting limonade
      pschitt.fr limonade pschitt pour pschitter en pschitting
      pschitt.fr pschitt pschitt light light pschit pshit pshitt pchit pchitt pschitting pschitter
      limonade limonades soda sodas bulle bulles yourself addict attitude pschittmania pschittophone
      goodies games jeux pschittwear t shirt tshirt cocktail cocktails presse neptune
      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  17. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by Pyrrhic+Diarrhea · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most of the stuff we eat these days is less actual "food" and more highly processed combinations of carbohydrates, vitamins and nutrients. High fructose corn syrup is horribly bad for you, yet it is usually the first ingredient in many beverages, syrups, etc. I've even seen it in KFC "honey" packets. In case you're wondering, honey is the third ingredient in their honey, behind the HFCSyrup and Sugar. Truth in advertising is nearly as false as truth in labelling, there being little in the former and none in the latter. And, from TFA, the GSK spinmaster stated "The fact some of our products had incorrect labelling is to us, unacceptable, and we sincerely regret any confusion caused to customers who feel they may have been misled." What utter horseshit. The fact that this ex post facto misrepresentation of what is obviously a premeditated marketing decision is allowed to be fobbed off as a mistake is, IMO, why diabetes (et al) is so rampant now. No (or little) accountability for misleading the public and making false health claims should not be tolerated, ever. If the purpose of government is to serve the welfare of the people, this should be high on the list of priorities. Instead, a $200K fine is the response. If anyone has figures on what the profit would have been from this false claim, I'd be interested in seeing it. The fine should be more than their profits, that way it would actually serve as a deterrant, not just to GSK but to every other company. Sorry for the rant.

  18. Seinfeld saw this coming by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does anyone remember the episode of Seinfeld were the low fat yogurt wasn't low fat at all and the characters kept gaining weight. I say we put the Soup Nazi in charge of the FDA. He'd clean things up.

    1. Re:Seinfeld saw this coming by gooman · · Score: 4, Funny

      "No FDA approval for you! Come back, one year!"

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    2. Re:Seinfeld saw this coming by reub2000 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Does anyone remember Pirate's Booty?

    3. Re:Seinfeld saw this coming by treeves · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Yes, why?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:Seinfeld saw this coming by reub2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because Pirate's Booty was found to have a lot more fat than advertised.

    5. Re:Seinfeld saw this coming by mpe · · Score: 1

      "No FDA approval for you! Come back, one year!"

      Presumably after the FDA have outsourced their lab testing to schools in New Zealand :)

  19. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    1) eat organic, im lucky to live in a place where the BIG chain stores have a policy of over half of their stock is organic and fair trade. 2) grow and or make you own Ever notice how peoples teeth in so called 3rd world / developing countries are better than the west. Until that is when America invades then Coca Cola and the cigerette companies get in there as part of "restructuring" and "development" then their health goes to pot.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  20. This is just stupid by Yurka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ascorbic acid costs literally pennies; you can pick up a pound of the stuff retail at less than 15 dollars, and we're talking 7 milligrams in each bottle. What the heck were they thinking?

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    1. Re:This is just stupid by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Basically in the early 1990's Ribena corporation realized that their profits were declining to the soda giant Schweppes, and because of all the money they wasted on ads with a black man dressed in purple who squeezed Ribena drinks, who's catchphase was "Ribena. Squeeze it."
      They discovered that Ribena was only ever consumed when force-fed to children by parents, or to OAPs by their caretakers; no-one was drinking it out of their own free will anymore.

      When Schweppes began hinting that they were developing their own water flavoring syrup which wouldn't taste like dentist mouth-wash Ribena corp adopted a policy of aggressively closing the target market.

      This is why Ribena is marketed as a teeth friendly drink, containing your daily vitamin-C requirement; Ribena want to give as many children ruined smiles and scurvy as possible. They hope that no-one will notice only Ribena drinkers are getting scurvy, and thus that more people will start drinking vitamin-C rich Ribena in an effort to combat the ensuing scurvy plague.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:This is just stupid by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That they'd get away with it?

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "water flavoring syrup which wouldn't taste like dentist mouth-wash"

      Funny you should say that. I've always wondered since coming to the US why Dr Pepper tastes exactly like the cough syrup I got as a kid in Singapore.

    4. Re:This is just stupid by sholden · · Score: 1

      Yes, but why did they decide to not put the $0.0025 worth of vitamin C in the damn drink? They managed to do that in other countries it would seem...

    5. Re:This is just stupid by sholden · · Score: 1

      In samples sent to school science fairs anyway...

    6. Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, but why did they decide to not put the $0.0025 worth of vitamin C in the damn drink?

      Because then the kids wouldn't get scurvy. Duh.

  21. it's also pretty funny that by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    "coca cola" contains no cocaine

    but, even "cocaine" contains no cocaine

    next up, bolivian aymara indian coca leaf tea is actually ma huang

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it's also pretty funny that by schwaang · · Score: 1
      Coca Cola may not list cocaine on the label, but they do still use the coca leaf as part of their "secret forumula".

      Quoth the maven:

      Today, the flavoring is still done with kola nuts and the "spent" coca leaf. In the United States, there is only one plant (in New Jersey) authorized by the Federal Government to grow the coca plant for Coca-Cola syrup manufacture.

    2. Re:it's also pretty funny that by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Note to self:
      Do NOT drink bolivian aymara indian coca leaf tea.

      It is actually his wang.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  22. A dangerous game by Dachannien · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Note that if the high schoolers had been wrong, then after taking their claims to the press, they could have been found liable for defamation. While GSK might not sue high school students, they *might* sue an adult who made similar claims.

    A better way to go about this is, if you're not an expert in a field but you discover something along these lines while dabbling, find someone who *is* an expert to retest your discovery before you go to the press.

    1. Re:A dangerous game by simulacrum25 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who read the article,

      The students *didn't* take their findings to the press. They turned their findings into the Commerce Commission who launched an investigation.

    2. Re:A dangerous game by fermion · · Score: 1
      After all, we all see how successful the RIAA has been in it's efforts to sue students. Unlike the RIAA, which is an umbrella group, so it you want pop music you have to deal with the devil, GlaxoSmithKline is a highly competitive bussiness, probably spending more on marketing than R&D.

      Just look at the GSK work in Africa. They are basically giving away Globorix in a PR campaign to win entry to that market. I seriously doubt such a company would not waste time suing children.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:A dangerous game by Hebbinator · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFAs

      (article 1)
      "They found Ribena did not contain the advertised level of vitamin C. GlaxoSmithKline didn't reply when the students approached the firm with their findings, so they took their results to a TV show.

      Then the commerce commission got involved, leading GlaxoSmithKline to plead guilty to 15 advertising-related charges on Tuesday."

      (article 2)

      "After attempts to contact Ribena resulted in a brush-off, the duo went to Fair Go. As well as filming the story, the organisation told the girls to contact the Commerce Commission, which they did."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Go/
      They took it to a 'investigative journalism' TV show first (aka 'The Press' - their motto is "If you've been ripped off, short-changed or given the runaround and nobody wants to know...we do!"), and then the TV people suggested that they take it to the CC.

      Dont be a hater =)

    4. Re:A dangerous game by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Really? Because I did read the article, and they did take it to the press:

      They found Ribena did not contain the advertised level of vitamin C. GlaxoSmithKline didn't reply when the students approached the firm with their findings, so they took their results to a TV show.

      Then the commerce commission got involved, leading GlaxoSmithKline to plead guilty to 15 advertising-related charges on Tuesday.


      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  23. Obligatory by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

    Better not let those kids near our Slurm factory! "It's highly addictive!"

  24. didja notice the context sensitive ads.. by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Funny

    free glaxo kline samples!

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  25. I love reading multiple articles by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    Article 1: the pair says the corrective advertising is a positive result.

    "I think it's good that they at least admitted it and didn't try and say we were still wrong," Jenny [Suo] says.


    Article 2: The two girls said they were pleased with the sentence, but thought the company should have been ordered to run TV ads as well, they told the New Zealand Herald.

    Kids and parents are more likely to see television ads, [Jenny] Suo said.


    I imagine if you read another 3 or 4 articles, various other details will come together.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  26. only in slashdot comments by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    do you find out that bedrock medical facts are actually common myths

    well, that and crackpot websites

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:only in slashdot comments by abscissa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sugar does not cause diabetes:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=does+sugar+cause+di abetes

      You could say that sugar causes diabetes in the same way that cigarette lighters cause lung cancer.

    2. Re:only in slashdot comments by 15Bit · · Score: 1

      Sugar also doesn't cause obesity - eating more calories than you use causes obesity. You are scaremongering with your comments. Sugar is not the root of all evil. It may well be a statistical contributor to the illnesses you cite, but it definitely doesn't contribute anywhere near as much as "lifestyle" choice. Want to cut your risk of heart disease, strokes and diabetes? Get off your fat arse and do some exercise.

    3. Re:only in slashdot comments by dctoastman · · Score: 0

      Exercise has no discernible effect on weight loss. Your body burns anywhere from 1500 - 2500 (depending on size, metabolism, etc.) doing nothing all day. Every pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories.
      Running for an hour is worth something like 800 calories.

      So to lose one pound, you would have to run just under 4 1/2 hours.

      Alternatively, you could choose carefully what you eat and avoid the calories in the first place. And you don't have to exercise (even though exercise has other benefits). But the core is, don't exercise to lose weight, you will be disappointed.

    4. Re:only in slashdot comments by 15Bit · · Score: 1
      > But the core is, don't exercise to lose weight, you will be disappointed.

      If try to lose weight by any other means you'll be a hell of a lot more disappointed. Doesn't matter which way you look at it, if you want to lose weight you're going to have to burn it off. Or have it surgically removed. And assuming your maths is right, 45 mins running per day should see you lose 1 pound of fat per week, or 52 pounds of fat per year. I'd say that was a *very* discernible effect on weight loss. Especially if you couple it to a slight change in diet. And it would be a lot more effective than just starving yourself.

      I agree completely with avoiding the calories in the first place, though.

    5. Re:only in slashdot comments by cjmt · · Score: 1

      Exercise has no discernible effect on weight loss. This is a myth perpetuated by the idle.

      Your body burns anywhere from 1500 - 2500 (depending on size, metabolism, etc.) doing nothing all day. Every pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories.
      Running for an hour is worth something like 800 calories.

      So to lose one pound, you would have to run just under 4 1/2 hours.

      So, 1 hours running etc per day = 800 calories * 5 days a week (say) = 4000 calories/week = 208,000 calories/year = 59.42lb/year. Negligible? Not to mention the weight loss due to elevated metabolic rate caused by higher levels of fitness and activity, the increased energy levels etc, etc..
    6. Re:only in slashdot comments by trentblase · · Score: 1

      This whole thread is a little absurd, so I had to chime in somewhere. Excercise will definitely have an effect on weight loss. For example, using your numbers, say you run an hour every day. At this rate, keeping your caloric intake constant, you will lose 1.5 pounds a week. This is a pretty healthy loss rate - most doctors will tell you not to lose more than 2 pounds per week. (Aside: I don't think you are likely to actually burn 800 calories for an hours run... probably less.) Note also that exercising will increase your metabolic rate for hours afterwards. Also, there are people who have a low caloric intake but still can't seem to lose weight. For these people it would probably be dangerous to eat less -- the best option here is exercise. So it's true you don't HAVE to exercise to lose weight, but you're going to be better off if you do.

      As to other comments in this thread, doctors might not really know what causes insulin resistance, but I wouldn't tempt fate by eating a bag of sugar a day. Still, I'd choose high fructose corn syrup over trans-fats.

    7. Re:only in slashdot comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really think your analogy is appropriate, but I would agree with you.

      However, the increased consumption of HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) is believed to be related to the dramatic increase of type II diabetes cases. I haven't read any peer reviewed journal articles on the subject (though there are some), but I do know that the link or the supposed link was enough to cause Britian, as well as a few other countries to ban HFCS in soft drinks.

    8. Re:only in slashdot comments by budgenator · · Score: 1

      People who sanely diet and sanely exercise tend to have much more long term success than people who do either alone sanely or insanely.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:only in slashdot comments by dctoastman · · Score: 1

      You realize that this is running, not jogging, not power-walking, but full-tilt running. You have to be in pretty damn good shape to keep up a full-tilt run for 45min - 1hr.

      So, exercise to improve other qualities of your life.
      Manage diet to lose the weight.

      And note, that I'm not advocating not exercising, I'm just opposing the common wisdom of "get off your lazy arse and move".

  27. Not to rain on your parade by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    But testing for vitamin C is not exactly cutting edge science.

    What is in fact amazing about this story is that nobody has ever checked it before, you would expect food safety regulators to actually enforce the mandatorry labels by checking that what is inside them, is inside them.

    Not that I ever heard of the drink, is this because the drink is not actually allowed in places were the goverment DOES check the contents of food products?

    Why hasn't the NZ goverment found this out before, we know why the US goverment hasn't, but I didn't think NZ was as corrupt, sorry, properly concerned with the interest of big business to let this slide for so long.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  28. Sarbanes-Oxley for food content? by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    CEOs should have to sign off on the known effects, content and safety of their products. Including alcohol, medication, supplements and cigarettes.

    Jail time should be automatic for lying.

  29. new ads by dominious · · Score: 1

    The new Ribena-C (minus C)

  30. We need more by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of these kids and we need to really need to get our sorry asses in gear and stress more sciences in school. We really will be saved by our youth.

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    1. Re:We need more by karearea · · Score: 1

      .. more sciences in school This from the country that cuts evolution from schools?
    2. Re:We need more by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      Ummm ya maybe thats the problem, and it's not the country but individual states. Try google.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  31. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by WaterDamage · · Score: 2

    Ever notice how peoples teeth in so called 3rd world / developing countries are better than the west.

    HA! I don't think you've ever been in a 3rd world country! Some people in less prosperous counties have very good genetics but their tooth quality fades VERY quickly due to lack of fluoride supplementation and lack of funds for quality dental care as well as lack of good dentists. Organic food is GOOD for you and it probably will keep you healthier in the long run but don't confuse this with good dental hygiene and tooth quality.

  32. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    Yes and most of your toothpaste contains flouride (amongst other nasties), nasty stuff that. I use what alot of people there use, natural solutions, they do clean their teeth you know, except with NATURAL ingredients found in the environment there. You think your smarter than nature? Im not.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  33. They should have fined them more. by WaterDamage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. Make a product. 2. Lie to consumers by making false claims. 3. Make millions/billions in revenue and profits. 4. Executives laugh at the fine imposed and gladly pay $200,000 fine. 5. Pull product off shelves. 6. Profit! 7. Goto line 1 next quarter!

    1. Re:They should have fined them more. by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how much did they actually make by not including the vitamin C? 7mg of ascorbic acid costs a tiny fraction of a cent. Even in high quantities of sale, I doubt they saved anywhere near what this is costing them.

    2. Re:They should have fined them more. by 808140 · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that the only reason they opted not to include the vitamin C was to save money on ascorbic acid costs. My bet is that the real scenario was more like this: they did a market analysis and discovered that vitamin drinks were increasingly popular with consumers because of their perceived health benefits, but then discovered in taste tests that actually including vitamin C in their recipe made the resulting drink far less popular. So, reasoning that no one would know the difference anyway, they ditched the vitamin C, resulting in a tastier (but less healthy) beverage, but opted to continue claiming that the drink had healthy vitamin C as a major ingredient to cash in on the health-drink market, which especially in Europe is a billion dollar industry.

      I see this as a much more likely scenario, because, as you noted, the cost of ascorbic acid probably could have been offset by using cheaper ink printing the label, or whatever -- in other words, adding or not adding it would have had at best only a negligible effect on the bottom line. Why risk possible false advertising suits for so little gain? No, I'm sure they decided that it was worth it, because of the extra sales expected from marketing the beverage as a vitamin drink. I'm agree with the grandparent poster: they got off easy, and should have been fined more.

  34. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by LihTox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't count TOO much on nature; human's natural lifespan seems to be "long enough to reproduce and raise children", with a high infant mortality rate (and a correspondingly high pregnancy rate too). Civilization is good for some things....

  35. How? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    Neither article says how they did it. I'm assuming they did a simple titration, like undergraduate General Chemistry teaches?

    1. Re:How? by Domstersch · · Score: 1

      Well, that's what they were doing for the cameras on New Zealand television.

      You know, it's a science piece, so we have to show them in lab coats, safety goggles on, with some unidentified coloured liquids.

      --
      =w=
    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this on australian television.
      I believe it was some sort of ?iodine? titration.

  36. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by kale77in · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not trolling to point out that this was news at least 10 days ago. The Age in Melbourne last updated their story on May 21, though Google indexed it there on the 20th.

    Mod parent +2 Apology.

  37. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

    You keep nagging on using Organic/Natural supplementation, but you're completely missing the point. I never said you SHOULD NOT use supplementation. The point I'm making is that people in 3rd world countries hardly get ANY supplementation regardless whether Organic or synthetic and they don't get quality dental care. I worked in the medical field so I'm familiar in this field. You haven't come forward with your source of information and supporting data to prove otherwise.

  38. This is one of my favorites... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    This is one of my favorites:

    http://www.brachs.com/products/product.asp?base_co de=171

    Brach's sells candy as a health food because they used some Vitamin C to add tartness. I actually saw a package in the store a few months ago with big writing saying "Vitamin C!", "NO FAT!".

  39. sugar causes obesity by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    in combination with a sedentary lifestyle

    the average lifestyle of most people

    are you happy now? any other obvious assumptions implicit to the discussion you want to make with the full force of an insightful comment from out of the blue?

    silly me, i did not know this thread was about marathon runners!

    (snicker)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:sugar causes obesity by 15Bit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, yes - I think i'd also like to address the implicit assumption that everyone in the world lives in the US. It may come as a surprise to you, but a sedentary lifestyle is actually NOT "the average lifestyle of most people" in the majority of the world.

      I'm afraid i don't find your earlier comment very "insightful", particularly in view of this latest addition. It seems that what you're actually saying is that you can feel better about your sedentary lifestyle if you drink aspartame based drinks rather than sugar based ones. And possibly improve your risk factors slightly too. But thats about as insightful as suggesting that walking down the middle of a freeway "with the flow of traffic" is safer than going "against the flow of traffic". Its true, but it wilfully ignores the real risk.

      Oh, and this thread is not about marathon runners. Nor even about health freaks. Its about the benefits of a sensible lifestyle. And how in the context of such a lifestyle the choice "sugar or aspartame?" is about as important as "red tie or green tie?".

  40. Not just the intro by digitalcowboy · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the site recommendation. It is indeed quite amusing and not just the intro. Go on in and look around. The site is mostly in French but there are menu options on the main page for "Pschitt Yourself", "Pschitt Attitude" and "My Pschitt."

    Surely those are intentionally done in English because of the obvious effect.

    1. Re:Not just the intro by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      FTS:

      NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="pschitt.fr, pschitt, pschitt light, light, pschit, pshit, pshitt, pchit, pchitt, pschitting, pschitter...

      Titlebar isn't too obvious:

      pschitt.fr pschitt pschitting limonade

      --
      What?
  41. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by Omestes · · Score: 1

    Wait... Fluoride isn't natural? Fluoride is a pretty common rock, it shows up about everywhere... Some water is even naturally fluoridated... Imagine that.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  42. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

    OP shouldn't complain unless he submitted the story 10 days ago and had it rejected.

    --
    ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
  43. sugar causes diabetes by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    as in, the most common source of excess calories in the average person's diet is the trigger for insulin resistance when it happens, which is: the vast majority of the cases

    therefore, you can say: sugar causes diabetes. fact

    you want to be overly legal about it, and think you have a point to make

    a proper analogy to this retarded conversation would be you saying that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer

    huh?

    your point would be: tobacco, ignited and inhaled through the lungs over a period of time, increases your risk of lung cancer

    oh, ok!

    that would be the full force of your amazing insight that sugar doesn't causes diabetes

    zzz

    any other brilliant observations you want to make for us today?

    truly, we couldn't live without your dramatic over literal analyzing

    (snicker)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  44. Testing for vitamin C by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's Ascorbic Acid. Litmus paper would readily indicate it's presence. If they found the drink to be neutral pH, then someone with better equipment can actually verify the amount in the drink. Pretty simple.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Testing for vitamin C by ambrosen · · Score: 1

      Except of course that nearly all fruit juices are acid due to acids other than ascorbic acid. Malic acid and citric acid spring to mind.

    2. Re:Testing for vitamin C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course there's some sort of buffering agent also in the ingredient list.

    3. Re:Testing for vitamin C by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You do raise a valid point. However, Ascorbic acid is usually found right alongside those acids you mention, and if the processing of the fruit causes a low level of acidic compounds in the drink (I just tested it since it took a while to get a sample of the beverage - it registers as a base) you'll notice, taste-wise or that lack of funny-feeling texture you normally get on the roof of your mouth when ingesting an acidic substance. I'll bet that the nutritional content is way over-inflated, because marketing won against actual product development, going "It's made from fruit! How can it not have Vitamin C?" while the engineer/lab scientist goes "Add a base for a stabilizer, form salts, remove those salts, have pH neutral drink." Guess who wins in the view of profit? Marketing.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  45. This is great news for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I live a couple of miles away from the factory where, to the best of my knowledge, the entire world supply of Ribena comes from. If everyone stops buying it, the whole area will be plunged into poverty and despair, and I might be able to afford to buy a small hovel in the corner of a field somewhere.

  46. Finally we get #2 by HomerJ · · Score: 1

    1) Drink Ribena as your only source of Vitamin C

    2) get scurvy

    3) PROFIT!!!!

  47. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by rhakka · · Score: 1

    Some water is naturally filled with rotting vegetable matter and fecal contaminants too, does that mean you want to drink it?

  48. the ill effects of aspartame by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    are miniscule compared to the ill effects of excess sugar

    therefore, yes, coca cola zero is a healthy ALTERNATIVE to regular coca cola

    i said, ALTERNATIVE

    is coca cola zero healthy? of course not. this is what i said, if you had taken thte time to read my whole 10 second comment:

    "the ideal is to stop drinking soft drinks altogether, we both agree to that. but if humpty dumpty is going to have a soft drink no matter what, and wants to choose between regular coke and coca cola zero, i'd rather he be drinking coca cola zero and avoid the sugar"

    if humpty dumpty has a sweet tooth, i am well and happy for him to reach for coca cola zero than regular coca cola, that's my point. that's the beginning of point, that's the end of my point. and even so, i say it would be superior frr him to avoid soft drinks altogether

    therefore, the entirety of your diatribe is completely off base, as it doesn't react to what i actually said. you didn't mentally parse the difference between "healthy, period" and "healthy alternative" before going off on your tangent. please read my actual comment next time, then respond, rather than respond with a half-perception of what someone said and paint them as saying something that they never actually said. i, in fact, said that which already agrees with your entire diatribe:

    "the ideal is to stop drinking soft drinks altogether"

    that's what i wrote. so i actually agree with you

    therefore: kindly actually READ what someone wrote next time, then hit submit

    otherwise, you look like a hysterical nitwit

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the ill effects of aspartame by Pyrrhic+Diarrhea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Calm down there buddy. The point of my post was not to paint you as one of the mindless consumers that grabs the box with the shiniest colors. The fact that you actively post on a website like this seperates you from the pack. Sheep typically don't make the effort.

      I should have been more precise. My problem is with the mindless masses accepting without examination that Coke Zero is superior in terms of health benefit to regular Coke. Without delving into the Aspertame v. Sugar debate again, the overarching issue was of more importance to me.

      And, while I did read your post (twice), I am not a hysterical nitwit, though your approbation does not concern me. I am, however, genuinely disgusted my the degree to which people are now affected by groupthink, and the related suceptibility to advertising. If we see it, we believe it. Perhaps not you, perhaps not me, but collectively, we as a nation.

      I think describing my post as a diatribe is a little harsh. Keep in mind that posts aren't usually aimed at the parent, but at the issue.

  49. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The acception criteria sometimes is baffling. Just the other day I submitted one on the victory of Kaleidescape against DVD Consortium over their ripping software, which is a significant issue judging from daily DRM complaints on /., and it seems it had been rejected. I don't think it was because of Anonymous Coward either (you see anonymous submissions all the time). The victory could potentially open up DVD ripping softwares because the copyright issue wasn't even considered -- the requirement to disable unauthorized copying comes after the license is signed -- and the fair use clause allows copying for personal backups.

  50. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quality of moderation has been on the decline as of late. Like the guy above who pointed this out, he was modded "Offtopic." When an article is posted,
    commenting about the article is on-topic EVEN when it's not commentary that you personally like. Anyone should be able to figure this out. It is so obvious I can't believe it has to be explained to anyone with mod points.

    Mods also need to figure out that anyone who vehemently disagrees is not "Flamebait" unless their primary purpose is to insult. But if they are using something resembling facts and logic, even if they're not G-rated nice, it's not flamebait.

    For this reason I am almost harsh when meta-moderating, which I do anytime the opportunity comes up. I am tired of this shit; shitty moderation is how you ruin a site like this and because it doesn't happen all at once and in-your-face but happens gradually over time, people don't see it this way.


    I fully expect to be modded Offtopic or Troll or Flamebait for "daring" to (again) call bullshit when I see it. My Karma is sitting at "Excellent" so do your worst and prove me right.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  51. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, I am totally smarter than nature. Nature wants me to sleep in the rain and be eaten by wild coyotes. By living in a house where the coyotes can't get me, I have effectively outsmarted nature. SMRT.

  52. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by KingArthur10 · · Score: 1

    Friends from my military base have been deployed to MANY third world countries. Our medical squadron in particular is active in humanitarian relief, and you know what is the most requested operation in most of these villages? That's right, tooth extraction. They know that their teeth will fall out due to rotting at some point in time, so they actually request to have all of their teeth removed. This is true in both Central/South America and Africa. We don't dabble much in the eastern countries, but the true third world is in Africa and Latin America, and tooth quality is atrocious. Please don't spout your organic drabble all over the place. "Organic" foods (aren't almost all foods technically organic?) are nice and all, but when you have to feed a hunger-ridden nation, GE foods are the only ones that can feed the millions without. Without some of our synthetic compounds, the poor would be in much worse condition than they already are.

    --
    I came, I saw, She conquered.
  53. But... it has electrolytes! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    It has what plants need!

    1. Re:But... it has electrolytes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one annoying movie.

  54. Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ascorbic acid is not stable in solution. (particularly with other solutes present as in soft drinks or juices, carbonation in particular will be a problem). The majority of orange and apple juice distributors spike extra ascorbic acid into their juices to account for this in order to provide a significant percentage of the recommended daily intake (RDI) in a single serving.

    So the question is, how long were these kids Ribena samples on the shelf before they purchased them? They might very well have had the advertised level of vitamin C when the left the plant. Note that the advertised ascorbic acid content is relatively low; 70 ppm. I can almost guarantee that levels this low will not survive more than a few months on the shelf, particularly in a carbonated solution. This could be the fault of the retailer or distributor, not the manufacturer.

    The other salient questions are: What was their sample size? Did they test only one bottle of each flavour? What analytical method did they use? Were the samples protected from elevated temperatures? The standard iodometric titration for ascorbic acid is not so easy, usually classes of second year university analytical chemistry students only have about a 60% success rate in the determination of ascorbic acid in solution, at levels considerably higher than 70 ppm.

    I doubt this story a great deal, it may be true, but too many questions are unanswered. I certainly hope that the regulatory agencies concerned performed their own study with a proper sample size and experienced analysts. Even professional and certified laboratories can be unreliable in their results, let alone a pair of high school students. I have participated in enough round-robin certifications, and developed enough FDA approved methods to know.

    IF, they are indeed correct, these girls have a future in analytical chemistry, not law.

    1. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's an additional factor in this. It's been discovered that Vitamin C combines with the preservative benzoic acid in beverages while on the shelf to form benzene! And so many of the drinks touted as being good for children are actually slowly putting toxins into their systems. Benzene is known as a cancer-causing agent. This too will be a coming legal issue.

    2. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another important question: How much time elapsed between unsealing the samples and analysis? Was it consistent for all samples? There are many more questions like this, I doubt very much that two fourteen year olds have the analytical knowledge required to perform a reliable analysis of a sensitive analyte at trace levels, such skill usually takes many years to acquire.

    3. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Strilanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't the company have mentioned that?

      Innocent Company: *grabs a few bottles from random stores* "Here, test these and fuck off."

    4. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the matrix effects of the solution.

      To get around that, they should have spiked the same drink with known quantities of vit. C, measured the increase in signal, and obtained a calibration curve.

      Also, as I recall the easiest way to test for vit. c is back-titration, which assumes there are no other reactive components in the solution (other than the compound tested). This is a very bad assumption for a carbonated soft drink with all their FD47 colorings and monosodium poisonates and whatnot.

    5. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Malacca · · Score: 1

      If you are going to claim that Product X contains a certain amount of substance Y, then isn't it up to you to ensure that it is so? The latest spin from GSK claims that the lack of vitamin C is limited to Australasia. That it was because their testing methods were not sensitive enough to track the rate of decay of vitamin C. I call bullshit. GSK are a PHARMACEUTICAL company. Shouldn't they be tracking the *actual* amount of Vitamin C.

      And further, as pointed out by a scientist, "If they're properly sealed ... the vitamin C should be fairly stable. I'm not convinced by that argument at all. Anyhow, there's use-by dates on those things. If that is really the reason, and I seriously doubt that it is, then there's something wrong with the use-by date." This is a company that manufactures drugs for fsck's sake! Surely ensuring that at least the minimal stated amount of vitamin C is present, up to the 'use by' date is a no-brainer?

      It's also quite interesting that as soon as the New Zealand situation came to light, GSK voluntarily admitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that's its claims about vitamin C content in Ribena may have been misleading. Was it altruism or spin-control? You be the judge.

      Ribena adverts in New Zealand & Australia claim:

      A. Blackcurrants contain four times more vitamin C than oranges.

      B. Ribena is made from blackcurrants.

      Technically, both statements are true. This from Ribena New Zealand's website

    6. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Malacca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While it's true that the initial tip-off came from two high-schoolers, their results were confirmed by Commerce Commision testing. One can safely assume that the confirmatory tests were conducted under controlled conditions in an accredited laboratory. Which is why GSK copped the fine & has been trying to limit damage ever since.

      RTFA.

      No wait. This is slashdot...

    7. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by geobeck · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. However, TFA (the second one) states that the commerce commission did their own testing after the kids reported their findings, and found no detectable levels. So even if the kids' analysis was imperfect (which it probably was), their results were verified by a more reliable lab (who probably took things like shelf life and sample size into account).

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    8. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh Bullshit, GSK said that the Black Currant Berry Juice has 4 times the vitamin C as Orange juice does and that is perfectly true, then they let the clueless assume that that had anything to do with the vitamin C level in the delivered drink, which it didn't. They didn't lie technicaly, not in a lawyerly , a blowjob isn't sex sense, but they were preying on the stupid and the marketing dept deserves to be circumsised with a rusty nail.
      These clowns just don't get it, there are to many eyes and too many people that are connected, it the good old P. T. Barnum principal "You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time" and with the internet if you can't fool all the people all the time there is no sense in tring to fool anybody.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by westcoaster004 · · Score: 1

      The other salient questions are: What was their sample size? Did they test only one bottle of each flavour? What analytical method did they use? Were the samples protected from elevated temperatures? The standard iodometric titration for ascorbic acid is not so easy, usually classes of second year university analytical chemistry students only have about a 60% success rate in the determination of ascorbic acid in solution, at levels considerably higher than 70 ppm.
      First year chemistry students at UBC do an iodometric titration for vitamin C (Experiment 14), and it usually works fairly well (I've been a TA for the course). The titration itself is actually quite easy, however the endpoint can be somewhat difficult to determine. Generally juices do have vitamin C in excess of the amount stated on the label - as my students have found - because it tends to slowly degrade with time due to its redox activity. This is not always the result of spiking, as sometimes they simply understate the value present to give the minimum value that would be present at the expiry date.
      Also, I would doubt that the authorities in NZ relied solely on the students' data. They would have simply used the student's data as the starting point that would inform them that there is a problem. Several other methods are available to determine the content of Vitamin C in juices, in particular HPLC based methods or others which tend to be much more accurate.
    10. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      These clowns just don't get it, there are to many eyes and too many people that are connected, it the good old P. T. Barnum principal "You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time" and with the internet if you can't fool all the people all the time there is no sense in tring to fool anybody. Then why did I have just have to delete another email with the subject "Best rates on medication, shipping worldwide!"? You don't need to fool everybody all the time! All you need to do is fool enough people long enough to turn a profit and then weasel your way out of any consequences coming your way. A $200,000 fine for GSK means a 1/43,694 reduction in their net income for 2006. I'm sure they will miss it.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    11. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by DoomfrogBW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe that a science project immediately led to the judgement against the company. These kids were smart, but I'm sure NZ scientists did their own tests.

    12. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Perhaps it is high time for random testing of all products available for human consumption. Where faults are found, suitable prison terms can be handed out to the executives responsible. That a couple of high school students found the fault is a even greater black mark against the government of those countries.

      How the hell is a consumer meant to survive in this era of corporate lies, when the governments of the day do absolutely nothing to ensure the products on the shelves actually adhere to the claims of the manufacturers.

      It is becoming abundantly clear that governments must institute an accurate system of verification and validation to ensure that product labelling is accurate and factual or are they going to so blatantly and corruptly ignore a growing problem, just so their corporate benefactors can rake in a few more percentage points of profit that the electorate has to die for.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah I agree $200K isn't squat for them, but if the NZ gov. begins to ask GSK to do an extra study or two because their veracity isn't automatically assumed that would smart; if every jury on a product liability suit assumes the GSK is less reliable because of this it would be something as well.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is high time for random testing of all products available for human consumption. Where faults are found, suitable prison terms can be handed out to the executives responsible. That a couple of high school students found the fault is a even greater black mark against the government of those countries.

      How the hell is a consumer meant to survive in this era of corporate lies, when the governments of the day do absolutely nothing to ensure the products on the shelves actually adhere to the claims of the manufacturers.

      It is becoming abundantly clear that governments must institute an accurate system of verification and validation to ensure that product labelling is accurate and factual or are they going to so blatantly and corruptly ignore a growing problem, just so their corporate benefactors can rake in a few more percentage points of profit that the electorate has to die for.

      I do agree that there should be more severe criminal penalties for those responsible for dangerous corporate practices, but I have to disagree with the government testing and verifying all products. Certainly the FDA needs to exist and continue to test medicines and foods, but I hate to see government expand even further. Perhaps a change can be made in the way class action lawsuits are handled. How about a system designed to encourage people to do testing like this, perhaps even establish businesses that can profit from it? Perhaps the person who discovers the evidence of false advertising or fraudulent ingredient labels should receive 10% of any class action settlements that may result?

      There is no need to hastily run to the government from protection. Most of the corporate dangers that face consumers were created by the limited liability given to corporations by our government. Removing some of that protection might be a more balanced approach than creating another bloated government agency.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    15. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by alshithead · · Score: 1

      "While it's true that the initial tip-off came from two high-schoolers, their results were confirmed by Commerce Commision testing. One can safely assume that the confirmatory tests were conducted under controlled conditions in an accredited laboratory."

      That's quite an assumption. Do you know anyone who works for the "Commerce Commision" (sic) and can you vouch for their technical abilities and "controlled conditions"? I tend to doubt in general, and especially where the government is involved. My government (US) acts as if its sheeple can't think for themselves and they must protect us from everything, unless that prohibits big business from making money. Granted, I'm wearing a tinfoil hat...but I sure as hell don't assume any government agency is making decisions based on my best interests. Is it possible that the "Commerce Commision" (sic) testing results benefited another company that has made judicious political contributions to a party that is currently in power?

      You can't safely assume anything. There are plenty of posts in this discussion that posit possible reasons for the results differing from the stated contents. A couple of high school kids aren't going to cause me any concern without a panel of non-government experts duplicating their results.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    16. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      A couple of high school kids aren't going to cause me any concern without a panel of non-government experts duplicating their results.



      Non-government experts that might be on the payroll (openly or not so openly) of the company under scrutiny ?


      How's an expert that works for the government worse than one who doesn't ? Either he's an expert, or he's a fraudster. Doesn't matter whose payroll he's on.

    17. Re:Stabilty of ascorbic acid in solution. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're right; having the government test and verify all products would add enormous overhead, and make everything stagnate because of the extra cost and time needed to get anything approved. This would never work.

      What we need instead is not just "more severe criminal penalties", but actually draconian criminal penalties for the companies, and especially the corporate officers and managers responsible. When a big lie like this is discovered, that should be the end of that company, period. The government comes in, seizes all assets, and arrests everyone. People not connected are released pretty quickly, but all the evidence is compiled and people responsible, down to lower-level managers who knew what was going on, are stuck in jail and tried. Those convicted lose all their worldly possessions. The message should be clear: if you, as an agent of your company, participate in some type of gross negligence where the public is deceived, you lose everything.

      Does the NZ government honestly believe a measly $200k fine is going to curtail this behavior? To a corporation, that's pennies. Worse, it doesn't do anything to the people responsible.

  55. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    That would be only becuase you washed in your own shit and prepared your food in the water you took a shit in. If you continue to go against nature it will fight back, just like all those smarter people living next to volcanoes in the danger areas and refuse to move. Just like all those living in deforested land and then mudslides. Yup, humans are way smarter than nature.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  56. snore... by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    i'm sorry, you opened the wrong door

    the spanish inquisition is down the stairs and too your left

    (snicker)

    "Oh, and this thread is not about marathon runners. Nor even about health freaks. Its about the benefits of a sensible lifestyle."

    well, i suppose if you can change the subject matter to whatever you like it to be, a holier than thou tone of voice can be maintained deep into a pointless discussion

    all i know is, i'm bored

    but don't let that stop you from keeping up the inquisition without me

    teehee ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    yes it is.

    Where on slashdot's banner does it say, "Accurate, Timely and Not A Dupe?"

    Sheesh.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  58. if we lived in an ideal world by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    where fats and sugars weren't addictive, we could just snap our fingers and all turn into hardbodies

    but we don't live in that world

    therefore, aspartame, with all of its evils, is an acceptable substitute

    think of aspartame as methadone for the heroin that is called sugar

    in a perfect world, no one would take methadone either, and just snap their fingers, and stop being heroin addicts

    but we don't live in a perfect world, so you need to begin to accept the need for aspartame for the humpty dumpties in this world

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:if we lived in an ideal world by rhakka · · Score: 1

      No problem; just don't call it "safe". There is no need to whitewash it. It may or may not be preferable, and it may or may not be safe. You pretty glibly dismissed any possible health concerns related to its usage there, which is what I objected to.

  59. if you drink enough water by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that will kill you too

    the aymara indians drink coca leaves as a mild nonaddictive stimulant tea

    nicotine is an insecticide

    aspirin in high enough doses will cause hemorrhage in many organ systems

    in low doses, alcohol is good for the heart

    etc., etc., etc.

    EVERY chemical is a poison

    like any chemist will tell you: it's all about the dose, not the chemical

    so none of us should take aspirin ever again because if you took a high dose it might cause your liver to hemorrhage?

    that's your logic on aspartame

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:if you drink enough water by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Aspartame is one of the sweetest substances known, and so there is only a tiny amount in foods. It's true that everything can be a poison in a high enough dose, but aspartame's "high enough" is very low.

      --
      The government can't save you.
  60. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

    There was a point were food scientist stopped producing useful foods like orange juice
    I'd say that time was somewhere BEFORE the production of orange juice. Orange juice is a sugary drink. Yes, it's fruit sugar, but it's still sugar. It's far and away a less beneficial drink than water. And drinking a glass of OJ is not the same as eating an orange, no matter what the OJ producers have tried to make people think. A very small glass of OJ a day is ok, but you'll never hear the OJ industry suggesting you stop there.
  61. Re:Now If Only Scientific Method Taught USA School by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    I learned the scientific method in an American highschool.

    I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  62. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by timeOday · · Score: 1

    There's this new drink called Orange Juice that claims to have even more Vitamin C. Scientists call it a break through in food science.
    Are you saying orange juice is more healthy that diet soda? I disagree. Juice is extremely sugary. It does have vitamins, which is nice if you happen to be deficient which most people aren't. Fat and sugar are our biggest problems now.
  63. in a perfect world by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    heroin addicts would snap their fingers and sotp being addicted to heroin

    and everyone would use condoms and AIDS would disappear

    but we don't live in that world

    one thing that exists in reality is called a sweet tooth: we crave sugar, we crave sweets. you may be able to just stop eating sweets, a lot of other people can't

    and for them, we can have either a. your holier than thou scorn at their lack of willpower. or b. aspartame

    think of aspartame as methadone for the heroin that is sugar, and accept that some humpty dumpties need it, and all of the evils of aspartame you describe is still less evil than continuing to consume sugar

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in a perfect world by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and for them, we can have either a. your holier than thou scorn at their lack of willpower. or b. aspartame

      think of aspartame as methadone for the heroin that is sugar, and accept that some humpty dumpties need it, and all of the evils of aspartame you describe is still less evil than continuing to consume sugar
      Oh, so now you're changing the debate from "aspartame is harmless" to "aspartame is better than nothing for those that can't control their cravings". Well, that's not true either. It's not a binary choice. Take, for example, stevia. Totally natural, non-carbohydrate sweetener. Currently it's not permitted to be used or sold in the US as anything but a "dietary supplement". Why? It's not patentable. The artificial sweetener industry leaned on the FDA to keep it from killing their cash cow, patented, chem lab monstrosities.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  64. How did they do it by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

    What amazes me is how they found out the amount vitamin C in a product. I was pretty good in science when I was in Gr. 10, but I still have no idea how to find out the amount of vitamin C in a product.
    Any ideas?

    1. Re:How did they do it by Rac3r5 · · Score: 1

      thank you for the link... that was informative.. thats at least Gr.11 Chem in Canada. Very impressive indeed....

  65. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Orange Juice is also interesting since it contains Benzene, a known carcinogen. The longer you keep orange juice, the more benzene is formed. So orange juice is not completely beneficial.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  66. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by ambrosen · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, so sweetened drinks are fine as long as the sweetener's not a sugar, then?

    How exactly is the body supposed to calculate its insulin response if its taste buds keep giving it false positives to the presence of sugar?

  67. the latest research that I heard differs by pbhj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dunbal>>> "There is no medical evidence that it helps prevent or cure colds, etc."

    The BBC reported a year or more ago that the latest research suggests that supplements can reduce the duration of a cold once you've got it but don't do anything for prevention - my current use of Vit.C follows this, I take on orange juice and citrus fruit when I have a cold and occassionally even have tablets.

    Member of the Finnish DOH and an epidemiology expert >>>"Duration of cold episodes that occurred during prophylaxis was significantly reduced in both children and adults. For children this represented an average reduction of 14% in symptom days, while in adults the reduction was 8%."

    See http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request =get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020168; also http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ DSH/colds.html is a slightly less positive review that still agrees that duration can be reduced by supplementing ascorbic acid intake.

    That all sounds like it "helps ... cure colds" to me.

  68. GSK should be put into review for this by pbhj · · Score: 1

    All GSK products should now be subject to license withdrawal until ingredients (and drug trial results) can be verified.

    A company that lies to billions of people about a simple supplement in a soft drink can't be trusted not to lie about healthcare products. This, assuming the same formulation in Britain, has directly affected me as I have taken Ribena believing it to be high in vitamin-C in order to reduce cold duration (in accordance with latest research).

    So when does the UK government kick their arses ...? When are the Directors going to be struck off for corporate sponsored fraud?

    1. Re:GSK should be put into review for this by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Erm, we don't license food products here. Nothing to withdraw.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:GSK should be put into review for this by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >>> Erm, we don't license food products here. Nothing to withdraw.

      GSK, don't just commit fraud they also have many other ways of making money (aka products): http://www.gsk.com/products/index.htm

      <sarcasm> but I'm sure even though they'd lie to millions of people about vit. C supplements they'd never commit fraud wrt medical trials, oh no </sarcasm>

  69. Vitamin C is destroyed by air... by ernest.cunningham · · Score: 4, Informative

    Vitamin C is destroyed when it is exposed to air. When fruit is turned into juice it is always exposed to air. Most fruit juices you buy from the supermarket that do have vitamin c, it is usually added to the juice just prior to bottling. So it is not entirely unexpected Ribena has little vitamin c content. However that does not make it right to mislead consumers. The Commerce Commission fined GlaxoSmithKline only $200k, basically to cover court costs etc, but let the consumers decide the real fine to GlaxoSmithKline by making them take out the advertisements. So it is up to you who are reading this to determine if you are going to fine GlaxoSmithKline by not purchasing their product. More alarming to me is that small bottles of sparkling Ribena contain very little if any vitamin C, but they do contain 11 teaspoons of sugar, which is 40% more than a bottle of Coke. This is what we all feed our children! Not any more.

  70. Why did they do it? by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could have augmented the juice with Vitamin C for basically nothing. I'm really surprised they've let the brand name be destroyed to save a few pennies.

    Sounds like a bureaucracy at it's finest.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  71. 150KG MAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    150kg man? Only in America!

    Or that guy in Borat I guess...

    1. Re:150KG MAN! by dafing · · Score: 1

      Im 150KG you insensitive clod!

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  72. Ribena C++! by dafing · · Score: 1

    Double the Vitamin C! (since the first one had nothing its pretty cheap to double the amount)

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  73. Do it like gatorade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or at least i think it was them.
    i saw an advertisment poster of a beverage, with 3 good things for your health listed on it:
    Na+
    Cl-
    and i don't remember the third, but it was also somthing trivial like Ca or so..

    i really had to laugh when i saw it, but then realised that the vast majority of people won't notice such nonsense...
    although it's a brilliant way to market the bit of dissolved salt in your beverage

  74. Credit where credit's due? by astonishedelf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A little surprised to see this appear under Cowboy Neal's byline on 31/3 as I submitted the story on the 27/3. But I gather we're both behind the times so I guess no harm done...

  75. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Deathbane27 · · Score: 1

    When an article is posted, commenting about the article is on-topic

    He didn't comment about the article. He commented about when it was posted, which has nothing to do with the article itself. Comments about the site have nothing to do with this article.

    --
    If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
  76. i stopped reading here by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    Oh, so now you're changing the debate from "aspartame is harmless" to "aspartame is better than nothing for those that can't control their cravings".

    when did i say aspartame was harmless?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  77. when did i call it safe? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    nothing is safe. aspartame is harmful. about as harmful as aspirin. which has plenty of valid uses. every single goddamn chemical you put in your body, from water to plutonium, has a dosage which isn't safe

    what is true is that a bunch of hysterical nitwits overinflate the danger of aspartame. no, the alternative: continued consumption of sugar, that is more dangerous than anything about aspartame

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:when did i call it safe? by rhakka · · Score: 1

      I see, you're a research chemist now?

  78. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know, seriously, because I am literate and can speak clearly, I have been dicked on just about every website I have commented upon or gotten really involved with, and you clarify it real well. You disagree with the power-vibe and then you are flame-tagged. It is utterly disgusting and ties in real well with the lazy fascism of the times. Above all, the most personal experience I had was with my local newly formed Linux User Group. The chick in charge was a cross-eyed Nazi. I would ask for basic structure of the organization, ask how many tables we should bring to the proposed installfest and the inbred pig pegged me as flamebait. Once I reacted to this, she then banned me from the organization!!!! that was two years ago. Since then, her and her smart-guy boyfriend have moved out of town and they still maintain the LUG website as if they run it, as if it is their privately owned business. I hope they get run down by a cement truck!!!!!

    Re: Slashdot, like restaurants, the goodness in websites comes and goes. Let's hope it holds together.

    THANK YOU for bringing a little intelligence and dignity to this bullshit.

    BEST REGARDS.

  79. intake of sugar by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    is more dangerous than intake of aspartame

    both are dangerous, but given a choice, aspartame is preferable to sugar, by orders of magnitude

    i know you dislike mindlessly accepting what advertisers say, but that really has nothing to do with science or facts

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  80. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by Detritus · · Score: 1

    The people who live next to volcanoes are smart. The soil is great for raising crops. The same applies to people who live in flood plains. The occasional natural disaster is a small price to pay for having plenty of food to eat.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  81. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

    PS. I like to think of Coke Zero as a tastier Diet Coke rather than a healthier Coke Classic.

    I like to think of Coke Zero as a drink that tastes exactly like regular Pepsi, but for some strange reason has a "Coke" label on it.

    (Not that I'm complaining -- I like Pepsi reasonably well, and it's nice to have a zero-calorie version that tastes almost the same, even if for some reason it comes from the Coca Cola company instead of Pepsico.)

  82. Re:Only a numpty (most consumers) buy their produc by timeOday · · Score: 1

    I doubt insulun response has any link to taste buds.

  83. MOD parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wishing that I had mod points.

  84. How to test for Vitamin C? by JavaManJim · · Score: 1

    I wonder, on your comment. If testing for vitamin c is not cutting edge science, then how would I test for vitamin C ascorbic acid? And how does one differentiate between other acids that might exist in the drink?

    Then on your "why has nobody tested". Ah a most interesting comment. We consumers stumble around fat, dumb, and happy. Other things that have not been tested. What about the melamine in dog/cat food wheat gluten? Does the USA have a low mad cow disease rate because no one looks? Why have honey bee colonies experienced mass die offs this Spring in the USA?

    Thanks,
    Jim

  85. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Although I mostly agree, I do think it's worth an "Offtopic" mod for a post that basically says, "This situation would be much better if not for that damned Bush spending money on Iraq!" I've seen one or two posts like that on other articles (not this one) and think the moderation appropriate if there's not some effort to address the actual article topic.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  86. when an identifiable group by alizard · · Score: 1

    shoots itself repeatedly in the same foot, whether they notice they've got a problem or not, everybody else will notice.

    Their PR damage is self-inflicted.

  87. I wouldn't argue. . . by alizard · · Score: 1

    It looks to me that other than misuses of the rating process over personal dislike of content, I think the system is being gamed by astroturfers. Most of us have lives and can't spend several hours a day every day on slashdot... but if one can spend hours a day every day here, one gets to moderate a lot more often.

    Who would have a financial interest in astroturfing the system? Hint: purchase decisions are actually made due to article posts and comments (the same reason why companies buy ads here).

  88. I called GSK and told them I was going to file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a lawsuit. The sent me coupons for free Ribena !! Did you know it has electrolights !! That rocks

  89. Re:Old news ... Mod parent back up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The quality of moderation has been on the decline as of late. Like the guy above who pointed this out, he was modded "Offtopic." When an article is posted,


    Who gets mod points and why is as mysterious as search engine rankings and how the pyramids were built- you can speculate and analyze to the end of time, but the actual methods are shrouded in mystery. That said, I suspect metamoderation has an impact. I have seen posters whine about never getting mod points despite excellent karma, frequent posting, logging in every day, etc. I seem to get mod points every month or two. I almost never mod down, since I think modding up good posts buries the garbage anyway. When I mod up, I look for truly mod-worthy posts and even mod up posts with which I disagree, so I assume when I get meta-moderated, it must be "fair" a majority of the time.

    So - meta moderate every day if you want to help bury bad moderators.

    Now, I'm going to check the "post anonymously" box so I don't become a target ...

  90. vitamincfoundation.org by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Exactly, if you cannot patent it, its useless...

    So your local scientist or doctor is a corporate whore , and doesnt care for your well being. Ask your doctor, "if you can cure every disease but you cannot patent it or be rich, will you?"

    Me not being a doctor, I will say yes, screw the 4 trillion dollar industry, they can find other ways to make money, its a free market economy, if you market gets whiped out then
    bad luck sonny, try another industry.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  91. Why Do You Hate Lesbians? by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 1

    Tolerate my tolerance or I won't tolerate you.

  92. Update... Ribena sales drop by JuliaNZ · · Score: 1

    This story in the NZ Herald today says that Ribena sales are falling sharply. This'll be a textbook case on how to kill a brand (and in NZ, Australia and I think the UK Ribena is a very strong brand going back decades).

    Personally, I was always put off by the "Ribena Berries" ad on TV where the berries are all drinking Ribena. Which if you think about it is berry cannibalism. Disturbing indeed.