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."

Comments

companies must think we are truly dumb.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I like their style

[JackMeyhoff]

"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.

Re:Only $200k?

[Dun Malg]

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?