Some Soft Drinks May Damage Your DNA

Parallax Blue writes "The Independent is reporting new findings that indicate a common additive called sodium benzoate, found in soft drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max among others, has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA in a cell's mitochondria. From the article: 'The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it — as happens in a number of diseased states — then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA — Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of aging.' European Union MPs are now calling for an urgent investigation in the wake of these alarming new findings."

Comments

And what about the U.S.?

[pcmanjon]

"uropean Union MPs are now calling for an urgent investigation in the wake of these alarming new findings"

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[nacturation]

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek? They're probably too busy drinking Mountain Dew and Bawls and their midichlorian count has been reduced by all the sodium benzoate in those drinks.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[clashdot]

In the light of recent stories, it seems that the EU is looking after its citizens, rather that its corporations. Enjoy it while it lasts!

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[pcmanjon]

It's very similar to aspartame and the FDA's total refusal to do anything about it.

Brain tumors and seizures in aspartame-fed animals indicate a possible risk to humans. The dictionary definition of safe means "not presenting or involving any danger or risk" (Webster's 877). Does this mean aspartame is not safe?

Although aspartame was not tested on humans before its approval, it now has been tested on the public by default. All kinds of Americans eat aspartame products every day. We have been the guinea pigs in the testing of aspartame without even knowing it. A look at aspartame's ingredients and its devastating effects on human beings provide the evidence for avoiding all aspartame products.

Too bad the FDA doesn't ban it, isn't it? I avoid any product with this ingredient like a plague.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

When I was in the army, I was in a unit where we didn't run as much as I was used to and I was gaining weight. So I started drinking diet sodas instead of regular sodas. About that time, I started getting horrendous headaches.

One day in the chow hall, the TV showed an article from Duke University (nearby, I was in North Carolina) that covered Aspertame triggering migraines. So, I conducted my own little experiment. Some days I would drink normal fattening soda. No headaches. Then I would drink diet soda - and terrible headaches.

I started noticing other things - if I got bad headeaches, I would track back to see what I ate/drank. Sometimes, it was something like a gum (so many have aspartame to be safe for the teeth).

So for many years, I did what I could to avoid Aspartame. In the last 6 months, I took it a step further and have eliminated MSG and High Fructose Corn Syrup. I occasionally crave a soda but that's rare now. The cool part is that I FEEL so much better. Not just headaches, but now that fuzziness and "hot flash" feeling I'd get in the afternoons is gone.

And I've eliminated all fast food except the local Burgerville. I can't stand to touch McDonalds, Taco Bell, or Wendy's now. When I've succumbed to a craving, I felt like crap.

I either eat organic/natural, at local places that prepare such food, and my addiction of choice now is tea with a bit of organic sugar for sweetener.

I might not live any longer for it, but I FEEL much better for the time I am alive.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[iminplaya]

Absolutely not. They will sic the WTO on those commie so-an-so's, and have this document declared as propaganda used to restrict trade. It will go down similar to what happened over GM foods.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[MrNaz]

This is what happens when a sound concept like the inability to totally avoid risk and the need to strike a balance in addressing it gets used by someone with two or maybe three brain cells, all of which are giving each other the silent treatment.

If I had your level of understanding in the world, I'd shut myself in my own basement to avoid perpetually embarrassing myself.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[LiquidCoooled]

Hell, you could break a leg turning over in bed.

When I was a PFY I dislocated my hip in this very way.
I rolled over in my sleep when my leg was wrapped in duvet.

Its a very strange feeling to see the back of your own leg.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[forgotten_my_nick]

A quick google it would appear that the FDA, ABA and Drinks companies have known about this issue at least since very early last year.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, stop quoting that SINGLE study that links cancer (tumors) to aspartame... It was a single study that discovered the link, and there were a few major flaws. First of all they were giving the rats OVER 100 times the current daily recommended dosage. Thats about 2500 cans of pop containing aspartame. Secondly, the substance they were using to create aspartame is highly controversal to begin with (My sister is a Dietitian, she was explaining this to me the other day, but I can't remember the substance's name, I'll post a reply when I get a hold of her). The substance itself is linked to causing cancer and not used in the method that creates aspartame for diet soda.

Explain how mixing the two makes for a meaningful finding? Now a days you can't trust a single study. If 5 different studies, using different methods, by different interest groups all found links, then you have a serious problem you need to address. Am I saying aspartame is hamrless? HARDLY, infact I still limit my intake of it. But a single study that has yet to be verified by other methods is hardly something to kick up a fuss about. The fact that it has yet to be backed by any reputable labs should be enough to indicate that. The mass anxiety over this study is similar to the "the dye in mountain dew causes impotence." Its not verified, and only sheep pass it on without looking into it.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[TheLink]

I suspect your body breaks down aspartame to stuff that gives you hangovers (and possibly other problems).

Might be OK for some people, but I don't feel an urge to drink that sort of stuff myself - if I'm going to drink something sweet (which is not often), I prefer it sweetened with real sugar. Not too fussed about white vs brown sugar, the spike in the blood sugar is probably less healthy than the trace chemicals from processing esp since I don't consume it that often.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

OHHHH, is that why you're still in your parents' basement?

(just kidding)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Bryan Ischo]

I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems. I honestly don't know what is up with all of the people who claim sensitivity to this or that or the other thing. I guess it's really true and I feel bad for you. But the insinuation that these chemicals are damaging and cause problems for everyone, is false. In fact I would venture a guess that the people who have bad experiences with these substances are very much in the minority, otherwise these problems would be much more recognized and accepted.

I drank only water (no soft drinks, juices, milk, or any other substance) for about 3 years. It was a new year's resolution one year to stop drinking sugary drinks, and I like it so much that I kept it up for 3 years. While I felt good about it and enjoyed the act of keeping such a strict rule for myself, and got some satisfaction out of the process, it didn't make one difference in how I felt, or in my general health. The only big change was when I lived in China for 9 months and lost 15 pounds without even trying, just because the food was so much healthier (no ice creams or cookies or cakes or pies or any kind of junk food really). I promptly gained it all back when I returned to the USA.

However, even though I lost that weight in China, I felt no better or worse than I did back in the USA once I gained it back.

I have no food allergies of any kind, or lactose intolerance. I can drink soft drinks with aspartame/saccharine/sorbitol/whatever, eat MSG (I love the stuff, it makes food taste so goood!), white flour, processed sugar, anything and everything. And I feel fine and am generally healthy (although 10 lbs over my ideal weight and suffering from lack of exercise).

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[bl8n8r]

> While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

Since the FDA is a government body, they are bound by contract to
do nothing until:

a) A patent has been infringed
b) Someone has violated the DMCA
c) The RIAA finds out someone copied Sodium Benzoate to CD

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[jez9999]

my addiction of choice now is tea with a bit of organic sugar for sweetener.

Sigh. Why ruin a perfectly good drink with sickly sweetness? Tea is best enjoyed with a small amount of milk, nothing more. :-)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[nietsch]

You are deluding yourself. What you present as evidence is nothing more than anecdote. Great if you feel better about yourself, but there is no evidence to convince others of your freaky methods. I hope you know that the whole 'organic' movement is pure marketing with no proven health benefits whatsoever? People love to be fooled if it makes them feel superior. You are still fool[ed], but we could deduce that from the fact that you were in the army. (What are the added health risks of being in the army?)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get a headache every time I drink diet soda, though it could be just causing my blood sugar to drop since I usually consume about two litres of regular Cola every day.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[gravij]

A look at aspartame's ingredients and its devastating effects on human beings provide the evidence for avoiding all aspartame products.

I'm looking at the ingredients of aspartame, I'm not sure which bit is supposed to be so evil. Is it the benzene ring, the methyl ester, or the amines? Or is it that you don't like that it is made of amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[arthurpaliden]

Well if you want to FEEL like you live longer, just give up wine, women and song......

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ndogg]

I think what people need to realize is that biology is a highly variable science. What's true for one person isn't necessarily true for another.

A lot of people aren't bothered by aspartame, but that shouldn't be construed to mean that everyone can handle it. For example, my body has problems with aspartame, and I know the exact reasons for those problems after consulting with my physician, but I make sure that other people understand that that's only true for me and a small minority of the rest of the human population, but is by no means true for everyone--not even close.

People need to consult with their own physician, and monitor their own health to get a good understanding of their bodies and how it works.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[TheLink]

What's up with them? erm, they're different that's all. Like you and me :).

Some people can be smokers for 70 years and _thrive_. And some just drop dead way earlier.

There are some crazy doctors who tell 70-80+ year olds to stop smoking. If they've had little problems with it, I figure the withdrawal might actually be more dangerous.

I'm not a doctor but/so I'd suggest they try out some of the better stuff if they haven't already :p.

But if some people start having heart or whatever problems in their 30s or 40s, then it's obvious that they're doing something that their body can't take for long.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Znork]

I'd tend to consider this new scare 'alarmist' rather than 'alarming'.

Sodium benozate is one of the oldest additives known to man; it's naturally occuring in a whole host of fruit and berries (naturally occuring in combination with fruit acids it's a very good anti-bacterial and fungicidal agent, ie, anything that doesnt rot off the branch in a few days might very well contain it).

Preserving with it, as in adding either sodium benzoate, or adding fruit, berries or something else containing it to your canned homemade goods has been done since time immemorial.

Perhaps sodium benzoate carries some hard to determine long term risks, but avoiding it, and thus not eating a whole host of fruit and berries and exposing yourself to a whole host of fungus and bacteria will quite likely carry a whole lot more and much shorter term health risks.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[transami]

I am afraid you are the one that is fooled. While organic and natural food are not perfect (is anything?) they are a far cry better for you than almost all highly processed foods. This isn't opinion. Study after study confirms it.

This reminds of a funny story. I was eating breakfast with my cousin one morning and I had organic orange juice. He looked at it and said to me "err.. what does it taste like?" :)

And by the way, Aspertame can cause headaches. It does for me as well. And have you ever tasted a diet soda? OMG. Why would anyone WANT to drink that crap? Could it be that it's addictive?

You should do more research yourself. Besides, the best kind of evidence is first hand.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Hal_Porter]

The EU is like the Thals, a peaceful people who are sadly hostile to modern science. Whereas the US is like the Kaleds, a proud warlike people unafraid of facing their natural evolution into hideous mutants.

MOUNTAIN DEW AND BAWLS ALL ROUND! MOUNTAIN DEW AND BAWLS ALL ROUND!

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Snaller]

" I hope you know that the whole 'organic' movement is pure marketing with no proven health benefits whatsoever? "

This of course just proves you give into your animalistic feelings and make something up. There are facts to prove benifits of course.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the insinuation that these chemicals are damaging and cause problems for everyone, is false. In fact I would venture a guess that the people who have bad experiences with these substances are very much in the minority, otherwise these problems would be much more recognized and accepted.

Err, the problems with aspartame were widely recognized and accepted, it was railroaded through the FDA anyway. The FDA took 8 years to approve it because it was causing seizures and tumors in lab animals, when it was finally approved despite the panel's recommendation by the outgoing head of the FDA just as he was taking a job with Searle, who had invented it.

I'm sure you'll ask me to check the tinfoil hat at the door, but seriously, if the FDA refuses to approve an item for 8 years and then just happens to reverse its decision just as the guy with the rubber stamp takes a nice cozy job with the company, alarm bells should be ringing.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU succumbs to the superstition and hysteria of its soft-headed middle classes, who are so accustomed to coddling and over-protection by their "welfare" societies that they are afraid of their own shadows now. That these government restrictions end up hindering American companies doing business in Europe, like Coke and Monsanto, is juuuuust a coincidence....

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[bheer]

> This reminds of a funny story. I was eating breakfast with my cousin one morning and I had organic orange juice. He looked at it and said to me "err.. what does it taste like?" :)

Astonishingly enough, organic orange juice doesn't taste any different from oranges from a tree to which *reasonable* quantities of chemical fertilizer has been applied. Try some blind tests if you wish.

Of course, I'm pretty sceptical about most of the organic produce on the market being 100% chem-fertilizer free. In fact, the anti-fertilizer bias *ads for organic products* seek to produce is as harmful as its opposite, i.e., hyper-industrialized farming.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break the news to you but the MSG thing was debunked long ago. That myth is based on the claims of a single professor, I believe from UCSD, who decided that his headaches corresponded to MSG. Real science shows no correlation.

As to trying diet vs. regular pop for a few days at a time... that's pointless. The time period is far too short. It can take days for some things to be flushed out of your body. If you want a semi-valid personal experiment go for at least two to three weeks on each type of soda and use the identical diet each time (i.e. eat the same foods from the same sources during each test).

I don't think diet pop is good for us and it may be downright horrible for us - but screaming "boogie man!" in the dark is exactly the kind of thinking that the marketing departments of the world want you to do. That way they can sell you "Aspartame free vitamin wonder water" at $4.00 a bottle because after drinking for two days you feel great.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek? Same thing they have done with Aspartame (aka NutriSweet) which is considered a poison and banned in many countries outside the US.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[maxume]

The methanol -> formaldehyde breakdown chain is at least disconcerting(and I get that it is a very small amount).

I mean, I am pretty sure that the water that comes out of my well doesn't have stuff like that in it.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hey!]

An acquaintence of mine is a neuroscient. She won't touch Aspartame, because she says there are so many side effects, many of them neurological.

In 1980, Aspartame failed to achieve FDA approval. However, this decision was reversed under a new, Reagan appointed commissioner it was approved. Subsequently it was the leading cause of FDA complaints for adverse reactions (in part this was due to its common use), until the FDA decided to stop counting them.

It is probably true that most people are OK with it in modest quantities. But people should use it with caution and be on the lookout for complications.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hey!]

Certainly. And cyanide occurs in many stone fruits (peaches, plums etc). But it occurs only in trace amounts and people don't eat that much stone fruits -- even vegetarians.

The problem is that so many people have substituted soda for water.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[KDR_11k]

"Tea" just means the water is served too hot for drinking.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mr_matticus]

The reason why you feel like crap when eating something unusual is because you've allowed that consumption to lax and your body has adjusted to that diet. It does not follow that eating at Wendy's occasionally makes people ill. It makes YOU ill because your body is no longer accustomed to it.

Along the same vein, vegetarians are encouraged to eat meat occasionally so that the enzymes that are intended to ingest it can remain in proper balance. If you're a vegetarian and never eat meat for years on end, but then one day you can't pass on that ham sandwich, it's going to hurt. That doesn't mean that people who eat meat are living a worse life.

Likewise, if you grew up on a simple and narrow diet, say, for the sake of argument, something typical of a highland/steppe agrarian diet--grains and meat, and you suddenly ate spicy Indian food for a week, you'd probably have some digestive regrets.

I'm not saying the opposite, either--eating fast food and sugar all the time is certainly not good for you. But if you make it a habit to eat a highly restricted diet, then breaking that diet will cause you pain. Eating an appropriate diet with moderation of all kinds of foods is no less healthy and far more fun. It's okay to eat at McDonald's sometimes if you like it. It's okay to order that six-chocolate pie on your birthday. It's okay to tear into that Haagen-Daaz when your week has gone to shit. It's habitual abuse of these foods that cause problems.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[KDR_11k]

I don't think it's the produce that really makes the difference, "organic" (I take it that's not the chemical definition) food usually lacks the additives used in large-scale commercial products. This often results in a much weaker taste. Let's just say I'll never again try eating organic peanut butter...

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[rapidweather]

I can't stand to touch McDonalds, Taco Bell, or Wendy's now.

I went to the local Sonic drive-in, and ordered the No. 2 burger meal.
The lady said, "What do you want on that hamburger?"
I said, "Oh, just whatever comes on it."
When I got the hamburger, I swear it tasted like they put Stinkbugs on it, well sort of anyway.
Next time I got hungry, I decided to save myself some money, and just make a sandwich at home.

   

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[nietsch]

Please, you must have forgotten to place that link to a peer-reviewed journal, or were you giving in to some feelings of superiority?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Maestro4k]

But the insinuation that these chemicals are damaging and cause problems for everyone, is false. In fact I would venture a guess that the people who have bad experiences with these substances are very much in the minority, otherwise these problems would be much more recognized and accepted.

I'll agree that these things likely don't cause problems for everyone, however there's a problem with many doctors not realizing that they can cause problems for some people. We know that various foods can be triggers for migraines, and migraine sufferers will be advised by their doctor(s) to avoid those foods, or at the least to track when they eat them so they can determine if they're a trigger or not. We really need the medical establishment to accept that things like aspartame can cause migraines and other serious problems in some people, so that they can advise people to do the same thing with that as they do trigger foods. There's no reason even a handful of people should continue to suffer horrid migraines unknowingly when they might get rid of them just by cutting out the diet soda.

For what it's worth I'm not surprised to hear about the link between aspartame and migraines. Once it hit the market I learned very quickly that drinking even a little of a diet drink using it gives me one nasty headache. I actively avoid it, and I guess I'm lucky that the headache onset occurs quickly enough for me to identify aspartame as the culprit.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[DougWebb]

Wendy's deli sandwiches are pretty good, and they offer naked potatoes too. That's really not bad, especially for a fast food joint.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[nietsch]

How funny that you first declare 'study after study confirms it', but instead of supplying a link to one of those studies, you supply some personal anecdotes. At least you are not helping with that research, are you?
The best evidence is obtained with scientific methods like proper double blind test setups, not a bunch of personal anecdotes.
You know what causes headaches too? DiHydrogenMonoOxide (DHMO). It is added to countless foodstuffs but it leaves the body unchanged. What kind of freaky chemical is that? People have died from an overdose of DHMO, you know?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Gryle]

I've found a small amount of honey is also an acceptable additive

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[oneiron]

Some people's minds are just more in tune with the damage their bodies are incurring by taking in these substances. It's like caffeine sensitivity. Back when I was a hardcore caffeinaholic, I couldn't even tell the difference when I drank a coke or a cup of coffee. I could kick back a cup of joe and hit the sack with a nice full night's sleep immediately thereafter. Now, it completely ruins me. One cup of coffee wires me to the point I can't even function. I crash hard, and have serious rebound headaches if I haven't eaten heartily. Does that mean my body wasn't affected by it, before? No. Stands to reason the same rules would apply for unhealthy food additives. Our science and culture draws a clear line between foods and drugs, but really any substance your body makes use of is a 'drug' with potentially harmful addictive or damaging qualities. It makes perfect sense to cut out crap like high-fructose corn syrup which overloads the body with an unhealthy balance of a type of sugar with limited usefulness that has been demonstrated as dangerous when given to lab rats in an unbalanced manner.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Znork]

"But it occurs only in trace amounts and people don't eat that much stone fruits"

Potassium bensoate, on the other hand, occurs naturally in _higher_ than approved FDA levels in some fruits.

The whole point of it is to use it as a preservative (even when naturally occuring, so the berries get eaten and the seed propagated rather than rotted and wasted), and the levels for effective anti-bacterial and fungicidal function doesnt change wether it's in a cranberry or a canned good.

Again, if it doesnt rot off the branch in a few days, it may very well contain at least as much potassium bensoate as any preserved goods.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Tea is best enjoyed without preachy people like you telling other people how to enjoy their tea.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sjames]

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

If by that you mean mooning the taxpayers while accepting a big fat check, then yes!

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[darthdavid]

Learn chemistry smacktard. I get the joke you're going for but H20 would just be DiHydrogenOxide. No need for the mono in this case. And even if mono were necessary here, it's never MonoOxide, it would be Monoxide.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that so many people have substituted soda for water.

Shouldn't that be "... substituted water for soda"?

Not a nazi, read my sig :)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[junglee_iitk]

That was me, by the way.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[linzeal]

I agree I get their one dollar salads and just use some oil and vinegear on them at home. And they are a good 150 calorie snack.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

I didn't present anything as "evidence"... it was merely anecdote. But I know I get a certain kind of headache with aspartame. When I end up with that kind of headache, I can usually trace it back and figure out I accidentally got some from something.

What matters to me is I FEEL better. If that's at the added cost of buying organic foods, or foods with fewer chemicals, then I'm fine with that. It's generally safer than religion.

And honestly, I'd much rather have a can of soup with 5 easy to identify ingredients rather than say 25 mostly unpronounceable ones. Maybe I'm a rube, but I'm a better-feeling one... fewer headaches, less indigestion, better sleep... I'll take it, whether you think it's freaky or not.

You are still fool[ed], but we could deduce that from the fact that you were in the army. (What are the added health risks of being in the army?)

Tell me about it. We all make mistakes in our youth - and this one was irreversible for 4 years. I still wonder about that day of in-processing with all the pills and shots. What were we REALLY getting? And what was all the crap in my water at Ft Bragg? It would plug up the filter I put on my faucet in under a month.

I was fortunate to avoid anyone trying to quickly increase the amount of lead in my body and high-speed impacts with the ground (I was a paratrooper).

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

Well if you want to FEEL like you live longer, just give up wine, women and song.

Yeah, but then what's the point?! That's like getting to stay late at Disneyland - but they've closed all the rides.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[amerinese]

Just wanted to say I totally had a similar experience but with MSG. I'm not really sure about aspartame since I don't chew gum, eat snacks, or drink anything besides water or juice, but basically, I moved to East Asia for a while and was getting headaches every single day after meals. Besides the headaches, I would experience deep, deep sugar cravings, occasional blurry vision, and fatigue generally leading to a afternoon nap. I went to see a bunch of doctors--I thought these symptoms sounded like onset of diabetes; they told me I was stressed. I started doing my own experimenting as well, taking almost all flavorings out of my diet (including stuff like salt that I was pretty sure I could handle) and slowly adding stuff back in one at a time. The culprit? MSG. Sure, as another poster replied, it doesn't really mean that everyone else has this problem (I don't know anyone who gets the headaches though some people feel the thirst). The way that everyone falls asleep right after lunch out here while I no longer have any urge whatsoever to nap does make me think it is doing something to other people. But after my personal experience with MSG, I too wonder what the hell else is out there that could be doing stuff to me that I can't feel and everyone else dismisses as nothing, even though it is affecting a small but significant portion of the population.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[RighteousRaven]

"A highly restricted diet"? He avoids fast food, preserved food, and aspartame. How is that highly restrictive? Furthermore, I doubt his occasional indulgences in fast food are the once every few years that would be required to fit your theory... more likely he is indulging once every few months.

I have been a vegetarian for about 3 and a half years. About two years into it, I accidentally had meat chili (soy chunks are surprisingly convincing). Having not had meat in two years, I probably had about a half pound of ground beef - with no ill effect. This is only one testamonial, but it would appear that it takes quite a while for a "highly restricted diet" to mess up your body's ability to digest other foods.

Lastly... do some research. Your nutrition doesnt just affect you in the long run, it affects you right away. You dont need to eat shit for a week to feel terrible - what you eat affects how you feel, how you think, and how you perform - the same day.

RR

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ChrisMaple]

Sensitivity to particular foods tends to increase with age (as youthful vitality declines) and damage may be cumulative. So stay alert; what you can get away with now may become a problem later.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mr_matticus]

There are people who can go a decade without eating meat and suffer no ill effects. Your case is merely anecdotal.

As for the diet, he claimed to eat only organic foods and strongly implied no refined sugars as well (also, they are a key evil to fast and preserved food). That is an extremely restrictive diet. Almost nothing you order in a restaurant would fit that bill, let alone the limited selection at the supermarket.

Finally, kindly blow it out your ass. Eating a hamburger one day isn't going to ruin your day or your ability to think or perform unless you have completely strayed from what's typical of a modern diet. Everything in moderation. It will also not negatively affect your overall nutrition on any scale assuming you're healthy to begin with. Show some research.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that so many people have substituted soda for water.

It's got what plants crave!

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[shalmaneser1]

The reason why you feel like crap when eating something unusual is because you've allowed that consumption to lax and your body has adjusted to that diet. It does not follow that eating at Wendy's occasionally makes people ill. It makes YOU ill because your body is no longer accustomed to it. one thing to note, however, is that just because a person can become accustomed to something doesn't mean that its good for them. consuming lots of sugar for instance puts your body on a sugar cycle. you will experience more highs and lows throughout the day, and you will need to regularly consume sugar throughout the day to keep the lows from getting too low.
I listened to an interesting study on PRI(?) a few months back comparing the productivity and attentiveness school children with different diets and overwhelmingly, children with high sugar diets were harder to manage, slower to learn, etc.

the part i love is that the symptoms of over sugary diets looks like ADD, so what do parent's and doctors frequently do?
put normal kids with bad diets on drugs like ritalin.

don't get me wrong -- i love coffee and i *know* it alters my body's awareness/attention levels.

but then i wont let my kids drink coffee, and i've always tried to keep them away from soda as much as i can.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Maxo-Texas]

I have no problem with aspartame as long as we are informed of the risks.

We are adults and given the facts, should have the right to make the decision ourselves.

Fact is that for 90% of the population these artificial sweeteners really seem to be benign. Peanuts and shellfish are natural foods that have similar issues (great for most of us- bad for a few of us).

I use xylitol and stevia mostly myself. However, I consume some barq's diet rootbeer and coke zero without any apparent problems (no headaches, good performance in sports, in bed, and at work in the latter half of my 40's, still have six-pack, sleep well, no headaches). For me- as a person with a strong tendency to diabetes, artificially sweetened drinks and hot chocolate allowed me to completely cut bread sugar and potatoes from my diet without reducing my quality of life as much.

For me pastas, potatoes, sugar, and bread are much worse than artificial sweeteners with known side effects of constant pain from nerve damage, impotence, blindness, and multiple amputations. However for most of the population, they are fine (except they make most people fat).

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[adrianbaugh]

You've got a pretty weird definition of "restrictive diet". You can get pretty much any kind of food organically these days. Furthermore he specifically mentioned having sugar in tea (and didn't mention avoiding it anywhere else) so I don't see on what you base your claim that he's avoiding refined sugars. He's avoiding synthetic sweeteners and stuff produced with chemicals, but even sticking rigorously to an organic diet is very far from a "restrictive diet". Nowhere does he say he avoids meat; nowhere does he say he's on a low carb diet, low fat diet; he isn't fruitarian or purely carnivorous. All of those would count as "restrictive diets", but choosing to avoid chemicals that nobody would ever have had in their diet more than 100 years ago is not. And if you have to build up your tolerance to these chemicals (which is what you're describing), well perhaps that should tell you something about the chemicals, not the guy's diet.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ne0n]

The problem is that so many people have substituted soda for water.
 
Of course. It's got what plants crave..

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I know what you mean. I gave up all those and I've been feeling much better. But this pack-a-day smoking I took up instead is killing me.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[badasscat]

Ah yes, aspartame, the health bugaboo du jour among internet users.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Read through that, including all of the links at the bottom. Why not talk about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it? It's responsible for everything from leukemia to water poisoning. It's so dangerous that it will literally eat away unprotected metal if exposed for a number of years. It's like an acid! Now that's powerful stuff - and powerful dangerous!

For what it's worth I'm not surprised to hear about the link between aspartame and migraines.

People looking for a connection between something they suspect to be dangerous and any potential health issues - no matter how anecdotal - are never surprised to find those connections. And those anecdotes will eventually form a "proven" theory in their minds.

This does not constitute scientific proof of anything, however. But it is the way these internet rumors get started.

Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.)

As for sodium benzoate, I would suspect that the FDA hasn't done anything about it because there's nothing that needs to be done about it. Not that I think the FDA never makes mistakes or isn't occasionally beholden to corporate interests, but sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's and, like many such internet health bugaboos, is a naturally occuring substance in "healthy" foods you probably eat every day - including (according to Wikipedia) cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now. Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?

With all the health scares out there, you'd think our very lives were being cut short by chemical additives. Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives. I'm not saying it isn't better to eat natural foods - I try to do so myself as much as possible. But it does nothing other than add to your stress level (which does reduce lifespan) to constantly be worrying about the possible negative effects of the stuff in your food, especially when it's been neither scientifically proven nor peer-reviewed.

And with regard to diet soda specifically, there is no even alleged effect of aspartame or sodium benzoate - no matter how crackpot - that is worse than the proven health effects of drinking all the empty calories in a non-diet soda. Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path. "All these chemicals are dangerous!" No, what's dangerous is being fat. So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water. Going back to drinking regular soda instead of diet because you're worried about your health just makes you a hypocrite - or an idiot.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wrf3]

Sucralose, the sweetener in Splenda, gives me migraines while Aspartame does not.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wealthychef]

I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems. .... I lived in China for 9 months and lost 15 pounds without even trying, just because the food was so much healthier (no ice creams or cookies or cakes or pies or any kind of junk food really)

Umm --- am I the only one who thinks there is a teeny contradiction here? Or I guess maybe you consider obesity to be not a type of physical problem. Can you say "Type II diabetes"? "Heart disease?"

even though I lost that weight in China, I felt no better or worse than I did back in the USA once I gained it back

And your conclusion, Dr. Nonsequitor?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wrf3]

badasscat wrote Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.)

Consume Splenda, the headaches start. Stop Splenda, the headaches cease. Knowing that correlation is not causation, I tried it again. Same results. It isn't caffeine because that's constant. It isn't something other than Splenda because I only changed one variable. As for the placebo effect, Splenda isn't chemically inert.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[symbolic]

In 1980, Aspartame failed to achieve FDA approval. However, this decision was reversed under a new, Reagan appointed commissioner it was approved.

Additionally, it was none other than our beloved Donald Rumsfeld who was hired by GD Searle to ensure its approval. Most people aren't even aware that Aspartame was originally being considered as an agent for biowarfare because of its neurological toxicity.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wealthychef]

So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water.

Actually, juice has lots of calories too, 112 calories per cup of orange juice. If you drank as much orange juice as people do soda, you'd get fat off it. Of course, if you eat natural foods, you tend to eat more moderately, I've found. But I'm just saying.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wealthychef]

While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

FTFA:

"Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.

"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[nmb3000]

The methanol -> formaldehyde breakdown chain is at least disconcerting(and I get that it is a very small amount).

And that's what everybody says when asked about it. You might find this interesting (from here):

Aspartame, a dipeptide composed of phenylalanine and aspartic acid linked by a methyl ester bond, is not absorbed, and is completely hydrolysed in the intestine to yield the two constituent amino acids and free methanol. Opponents of aspartame suggest that the phenylalanine and methanol so released are dangerous. In particular, they assert that methanol can be converted to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, and thus cause metabolic acidosis and neurotoxicity.

Although a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg. The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a large hamburger (1). Thus, the amount of phenylalanine or methanol ingested from consumption of aspartame is trivial, compared with other dietary sources. Clinical studies have shown no evidence of toxic effects and no increase in plasma concentrations of methanol, formic acid, or phenylalanine with daily consumption of 50 mg/kg aspartame (equivalent to 17 cans of diet soft drink daily for a 70 kg adult) (1, 2).

And no, you only need to worry about heavy metal poisoning from your well :) (though I admit I much prefer the well at my parent's house than city water).

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[GanryuMVP]

I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems.

I once worked with a guy who would say the exact same thing about his cigarrettes. Noone wanted to partner with him because he just couldn't keep up physically but if you ever questioned him about his health he'd give you a lecture on the BS scientists come up with just to make themselves money.

Smart people can believe stupid things when the alternative means giving up what they enjoy.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Scrameustache]

I drink or eat anything I want to, and none if it ever gives me headaches or causes any other physical problems. I honestly don't know what is up with all of the people who claim sensitivity to this or that or the other thing. I guess it's really true and I feel bad for you. But the insinuation that these chemicals are damaging and cause problems for everyone, is false. In fact I would venture a guess that the people who have bad experiences with these substances are very much in the minority It is not false. Your threshold for noticing the effect is simply higher.

The canary in the mine dies... do you stay down because you feel fine, or do you take notice?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Scrameustache]

Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. Shortly after the FDA soft-drink approval, Searle began test marketing, and complaints began to arrive at the FDA -- of such reactions as dizziness, blurred vision, headaches, and seizures. The complaints were more serious than the agency had ever received on any food additive, At the same time, scientists began looking more closely at this manufactured chemical sweeetner.

In 1985, the FDA asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to review the first 650 complaints (there are now over 10,000). CDC found that the symptoms in approximately 25% of the complainants had stopped and then restarted, corresponding with their having stopped and then restarted, either purposely or by accident, aspartame consumption.

The CDC also identified several specific subjects whose symptoms stopped and started as they stopped and started consuming aspartame. The FDA discounted the report. The day the FDA released the CDC report, Pepsi Cola -- having obained an advance copy -- announced its switch to aspartame with a worldwide media blitz.

Former White House Chief of Staff Rumsfeld owed a debt of gratitude to former White House confidante and Rumsfeld friend Donald Kendal, Pepsi's chairman. The Pepsi announcement and aggressive marketing (millions of gumballs, a red and white swirl, tough contracts) made NutraSweet known in every home.

At the same time, according to data released in 1995, human brain tumors like those in the animal studies rose 10% and previously benign tumors turned virulent. Searle and FDA's deputy commissioner said the data posed no problem. Two years later this same FDA official became vice president of
clinical research for Searle.

From 1985 to 1995, researchers did about 400 aspartame studies. They were divided almost evenly between those that gave assurances and those that raised questions about the sweetener. Most instructively, Searle paid for 100% of those finding no problem. All studies paid for by non-industry sources raised questions.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Scrameustache]

You know what causes headaches too? DiHydrogenMonoOxide (DHMO). No, it doesn't.
In fact it is prescribed to everyone suffering from a headache.

You got any other stupid lies you wanna spout to ridicule the health problems of other people?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

Eating a hamburger one day isn't going to ruin your day or your ability to think or perform unless you have completely strayed from what's typical of a modern diet.

That's the funny thing. I eat plenty of burgers and fries (I actually eat ALL kinds of things from many different ethnicities, cultures, and ingredients). But I eat them from places that use "natural" sources and organics, etc. I love them!

But, if I eat a burger and fries from McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendys, I just don't feel well. They used to taste good, but now they don't even do that. I think the craving that leads me there is from some kind of nostalgia from my youth. Those three places are masters of industrialized food-product and is as far removed from natural as they can possibly get because it saves costs. Who knows what exactly they do to it to make it palatable.

Almost nothing you order in a restaurant would fit that bill, let alone the limited selection at the supermarket.
I guess I'm lucky to live in a town that has a high consciousness about food and its sources and quality. I live near a grocery that sells mostly local and organic food. One thing that makes it different is that when you walk in, you can actually smell produce. Go to the nearest Kroger/Fred Meyer, and you can't tell if you're in canned goods, housewares, or produce based on only the smell. There are many restaurants here that are also dedicated to locally grown and organic foods, no-hormone-added/antibiotic free meats, etc.

There's truth to that old saying I learned in school, "you are what you eat". Why choose to eat (and be made of) highly-processed, artificial chemical (as in not naturally occurring in food) infused food products that have been shipped tens of thousands of miles when you can choose stuff that was grown in the next county without chemical fertilizers and pesticides?

I know in my own anecdotal case, I feel better eating fresh natural foods. I'll advocate it to anyone, especially if they're always feeling bad. But don't worry, I'm not going to try and take away your fast-food-product. What you eat is up to you.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

I went to the local Sonic drive-in, and ordered the No. 2 burger meal.

Oh man, I LOVED Sonic - especially those coneys with cheese. I lived in texas for 4 months while I was in the army and I ate so much of that.

I never connected that crappy diet with my steady diet of Rolaids. We have a Sonic in Oregon now and it was so tempting... but somehow, I don't think that a coney will settle any better now than it did then. I like how I don't need Rolaids any more.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect

Ah yes, the "I don't get a headache when I do this therefore nobody gets a headache when they do this" argument. Let me guess, eating peanuts doesn't kill you therefore nobody is actually allergic to peanuts? Aspartame is in a lot of foods these days, and my coworker gets migranes from anything from chewing gum to cheap bread. That some portion of the human population might possibly be allergic to some chemical or another seems to be beyond your ken.

at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?

Well, if you ignore the general rise in cancer incidence then of course there's no evidence that increased intake of a substance by the general public leads to a rise in cancer incidence. I guess this is the "If you can't prove its killing me faster than everything else that's killing me, it's not killing me" argument? If you like that one, I can mix you a nice tall glass of strychnine, cyanide, and pureed blowfish. If you drink it, is the strychninne killing you, or is it the cyanide? Maybe it's the blowfish, but then again, maybe the blowfish isn't even poisonous? Who knows! By your logic it wouldn't kill you.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[maxume]

The text you quoted actually appears here(which is linked by the snopes page):

http://www.aspartame.net/rumors/Aspartame_and_the_ Internet.asp

I don't have a problem anyway, I don't any drink pop because the money adds up and I don't need the caffeine.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Snaller]

I'm sorry, i temporarily forgot not to spend time one people who think the earth is flat.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are what you eat". Why choose to eat (and be made of) highly-processed, artificial chemical (as in not naturally occurring in food) infused food products that have been shipped tens of thousands of miles when you can choose stuff that was grown in the next county without chemical fertilizers and pesticides?

If you are what you eat, you still choose to eat the stuff made with crap rather than high tech stuff? :D

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Splenda isn't aspartame, you idiot. It's sucralose.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[cp.tar]

I drink my tea pure.

It simply needs nothing else.

Milk might ruin it - and it sure would ruin it for me.
Lactose intolerant or somesuch crap.

Then again, tea, along with chocolate, is one of my little vices; I don't overdo either, but I buy the good and (naturally) expensive stuff.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Tiro]

I get the exact same headaches he describes when I chew Orbitz gum. I have to assume it's the aspartame because there aren't many other weird chemicals in the product.

You are correct that it is better to drink water than soda. That's what I do. However I think it is still worth having a debate over aspartame. The problem is that there are alleged conflicts of interest in the approval process for chemicals--including artificial sweeteners and countless others.

The army guy who posted above was just trying to convey his experience, which I don't think were alarmist.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[perral1]

Whether something is "chemically inert" has no correlation to the placebo effect. It is merely a way to TEST for the placebo effect. The placebo effect is simply the idea that if you think something will happen if you do something, it probably will happen, simply because your mind makes it happen. This is especially apparent in such things as headaches, where the brain can very easily convince itself that it feels pain that isn't there. Thus, you think eating (drinking) Splenda will give you headaches, so it does. People that DON'T have this idea in their head generally do NOT notice any sort of correlation between Splenda and headaches.
None of this is scientific experiment, and I am not going to take a position on whether or not I personally think that these chemicals cause headaches; I'm merely explaining what the placebo effect is.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Bryan Ischo]

I think there is no contradiction between saying that eating anything I want to gives me no physical problems, and that I lost 15 pounds living in China for 9 months. I am approximately 10 pounds over ideal weight. This is not obese, or even close to it. I don't think that being 10 pounds over ideal weight is a "physical problem". A "physical problem" is allergic reactions, headaches, loss of energy, sleeplessness, whatever. I didn't mention any of those did I?

And my conclusion is that for me at least, and I expect for most people, the food I eat does not have a great effect on how I feel. Even eating healthier Chinese food for 9 months and subsequently losing weight, did not make me feel any better or worse than I had previously or have since.

Any other obvious aspects to my post that you'd like me to clarify for you?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[aliquis]

I think two later studies (2004 and later or so) have shows some problems with Aspartame, but my understanding before that have been there it was considered safe since no reliable study have said something else or so, thought of course many of the studies where probably made by Monsanto themself.

But if you are avoiding aspartame you sure should be avoiding saccharine and cyclamate aswell, I've understand that acesulfame-k could do damage to the chromosomes or whatever aswell so better avoid that to. Sucralose is still considered safe but I've got the impression not 100% leaves the body? So if not there is the question about where the rest go... And what that sacharose + 3(?) chloride atoms go...

My spellings might be wrong since my native language is swedish and not english.

I guess one should avoid them, and also regular raffined sugar, but since I was told that aspartame where so safe and so on by a guy who knows his shit I started to consume it, and once you've started it's harder to let go... Same guy thought have linked the other studies saying it's not safe, thought the food associations bla bla from the governments haven't changed their recommendations or anything based on those studies. I guess it's each to their own, but if rats/mice gets more tumors in their blood and mouths maybe it's not a good idea to consume it.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Ahkorishaan]

Caught you. Splenda uses sucralose, which is in no way related to aspartame, and not associating with headaches, brain tumors, lesions etc... It's main criticism was the possible breakdown of the thymus from excessive use of the sugar substitute, which would weaken the immune system.

You my friend are most likely under the placebo effect, chemically inert or not.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Mattintosh]

And with regard to diet soda specifically, there is no even alleged effect of aspartame or sodium benzoate - no matter how crackpot - that is worse than the proven health effects of drinking all the empty calories in a non-diet soda. Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path. "All these chemicals are dangerous!" No, what's dangerous is being fat. So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water. Going back to drinking regular soda instead of diet because you're worried about your health just makes you a hypocrite - or an idiot.

Actually, it's widely known that aspartame causes carbohydrate cravings. Repeat after me: "Diet soda also makes you fat."

So, really it boils down to: soda makes you fat. Diet or not, it all makes you fat. Diet has the added bonus of possibly causing allergic reactions to the myriad of extra chemicals involved in its composition and production (above and beyond what's already involved in regular soda!).

But many people enjoy drinking soda. So you have the choice of "get fat", or "get fat and have a reaction to some whacked-out chemical", and neither one of those is particularly appealing. So drink regular soda, but drink less of it. That's your middle ground. Moderation is key.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

As for the placebo effect, Splenda isn't chemically inert.

So according to you, double-blind trials aren't necessary for anything that isn't chemically inert?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sheldonc]

Oh, please. Organic farming and organic foods, while not perfect, are regulated by the US and are considered a healthier alternative to heavily processed, artificially fertilized, pesticide-coated foods large agribusiness industries push on everyone. Food production is COMMERCIAL in the US and they look for the cheapest method to get it to the store. This entails a good number of practices that are not very good for people in the long run. Take a look at these cites:

From the International Federation of Organic Agriculktural Movements: http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/benefits/index. html

From the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on pesticides and kids: http://www.ehponline.org/press/childexp.html

From the Center for Disease Control and prevention, some background on the food industry: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2007/apr/06_0097.htm

Here is the Wiki cite about Organic vs. Non-organic foods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

Eat whatever you want. Just be intelligent and informed about it.

BTW, organic food does not taste weaker than non-organic food. In some instances organic food tastes FAR better. Which would you eat, an organic tomato or an orange, hard, rubbery one that large farms claim is one? And if you can't make the correct choice, you need to get out more or stop being a troll.

And it dihygrogen MONoxide, moron (here's a Wiki cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_h oax). If you're going to quote parodies, at least quote them right.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what causes headaches too? DiHydrogenMonoOxide (DHMO). It is added to countless foodstuffs but it leaves the body unchanged. What kind of freaky chemical is that? People have died from an overdose of DHMO, you know?

At least nobody's doing a monkey dance to distract people from the problems with drinking too much water. What's with all the dancing going on around aspartame from people like you? You'd think that it was some kind of Microsoft convention with people screaming about developers.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Qzukk]

Generally when one says "substitute A for B", they mean to remove B and add A, so substituting soda for water means to drink soda instead of water.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[wrf3]

I didn't say that. Up to 27% of sucralose is absorbed by the body; there are now at least two published articles in the medical literature concerning sucralose as a possible migraine trigger, along with a great deal of anecdotal evidence. I'd like to see a double-blind study done on sucralose with those who claim it causes migraines.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[zCyl]

But, if I eat a burger and fries from McDonalds, Burger King, or Wendys, I just don't feel well. They used to taste good, but now they don't even do that. I think the craving that leads me there is from some kind of nostalgia from my youth.

Unless you are still quite young, it's probably a safe bet that the food in those particular fast food joints actually had significantly different ingredient lists when you were young. They have never been pillars of health, but they used to be much better than they are now.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[couchslug]

"So if you are (unjustifiably) worried about diet soda, your alternative is to drink 100% juice or water."

MY alternative is unsweetened iced tea.
We ditched the soda habit years ago for tea. Tea is less expensive, easily adjusted to taste (I favor lime juice), and quite refreshing. We drink plenty of juice, water, and milk, but there is always at least a gallon jug of tea in the fridge. There are teas for every taste, so try a few and find out what you like.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[HiThere]

When I want to drink something sweet my preference is Southern Comfort. (It's great when you have a sore throat.)

OTOH, my usual preference is black coffee. Barring that, green tea.

OTOH!! When it comes to things to eat, I'm less restrained. Pity, as I'd really like to lose weight.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[HiThere]

FWIW, I have heard that if you heat aspartamine in water part of it dissociates into a cyanide (molecule? ion?).

I don't assume that this means that it's unsafe, but I rather think it might be unsafe to heat in a microwave, or to cook with in some other way.

OTOH, I've read other studies that said that artificial sweeteners damage the bodies ability to tell how many calories your are consuming. (They didn't say which sweeteners they tested.) I.e., unless you very carefully control your diet, drinking artificially sweetened soda may result in you gaining more weight that you would if you drank soda sweetened with sugar. I've never seen reports of a follow-up study, and I don't have a reference to the original, so make of this what you will. I generally avoid all artificial sweeteners.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[zCyl]

Ah yes, aspartame, the health bugaboo du jour among internet users.

Problems with aspartame, and serious concerns about it, have existed for longer than the modern internet era. Try reading some medical data about it OFF of the internet, and you will see the legitimacy of the concerns.

sodium benzoate is an additive that's been used since the early 1900's

But in significantly lower concentrations than in the modern food supply. The average daily intake of sodium benzoate as an additive has skyrocketed by many orders of magnitude, so it cannot be said that its use has been at all constant over this time period.

If it were dangerous, there are plenty of scientists out there who'd have figured it out long before now.

There have been. Calling their work "bugaboo" is neither productive nor reasonable.

Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes?

Yes. We have. Notice the diabetes and obesity rates lately? Animal studies predict that increased diabetes and obesity rates will occur from a significant increase in sodium benzoate consumption.

Yet people continue to live longer, healthier lives even as we use more products containing these additives.

Not exactly. People in poorer regions of the U.S., where food is more likely to be manufactured in a factory and contain ingredients such as sodium benzoate, live shorter and less healthy lives, with higher rates of diabetes and obesity.

Obesity directly kills hundreds of thousands of people every single year, yet we are constantly looking for ways to mentally justify continuing on that path.

That we are. And defending sodium benzoate and aspartame is part of that mental justification.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed, my 92 year old grandfather has a pack a day habit and he's still alive and healthy.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Astonishingly enough, organic orange juice doesn't taste any different from oranges from a tree to which *reasonable* quantities of chemical fertilizer has been applied. Try some blind tests if you wish.

Can't tell the difference with orange juice myself, and organic sugar's an environmental statement -- sugar is sugar. But the organic frozen spinach I get is a damn good deal tastier. Funny tho, I can't tell the difference when it's fresh, so maybe it's just processed differently. But then again, the organic apples always taste better too.

> I'm pretty sceptical about most of the organic produce on the market being 100% chem-fertilizer free.

Then take your skepticism to QAI, which certifies them. Or could your skepticism be grounded in some other origin than rationality? Yeah, some rational people eat organic produce, go fig.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mr_matticus]

I don't eat fast food myself. I also tend to buy organic produce and pay extra for free-range chicken. I'm just saying that fast food isn't the end of the world, and neither are most of the "chemicals" present in most foods.

"Not naturally occurring in food" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Vegetarianism isn't natural. The body requires (and is designed to consume) meat for the nine amino acids the body can't produce on its own. But unless you lump vegetarianism with eating food with preservatives, you're not making a terrible amount of sense.

Many of those "chemicals" are what make modern society possible. Yes, there are products that are basically of no nutritional value, but those are extremes. Organic farming alone, though, would not be able to feed the entire population, nor would it be a good idea given the microorganisms that would inevitably result. The price alone would drive society to its breaking point in many poor areas.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why you feel like crap when eating something unusual is because you've allowed that consumption to lax and your body has adjusted to that diet. It does not follow that eating at Wendy's occasionally makes people ill. It makes YOU ill because your body is no longer accustomed to it.

Like iocane powder?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mr_matticus]

And if you have to build up your tolerance to these chemicals (which is what you're describing), well perhaps that should tell you something about the chemicals, not the guy's diet. The human body also had to build up tolerance for lactose. Does that mean that drinking milk is unnatural? What about building up tolerance to products used in foreign cuisine? Soldiers stationed throughout the world one or two centuries ago got sick all the time from eating things they'd never encountered. You'll find that most foods today would not have been found in the diet of humans a few centuries, and certainly not a few thousand years ago, and eating them in fact would make them all ill. Now, I can eat food from anywhere in the world, because I'm fortunate to have grown up in a life of travel and good food (rarely eating most processed "snack foods" and even more rarely eating fast food), where I developed not only a tolerance, but a liking, for foods from around the world that humans historically have not had. You'd also find that most of the "chemicals" in your food are completely harmless, and many of them are practically essential the preparation of certain foods.

The number of people who die from eating contaminated or poorly prepared/preserved foods is far lower today than it ever has been. Avoiding "stuff produced with chemicals" is extremely restrictive=-more so than heart patient diets, in fact. Even most of the products at my local Whole Foods contain some form of "chemicals" that humans would not have ingested 100 years ago. Your purism doesn't make much sense, really.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ConceptJunkie]

I haven't heard of the carbohydrate cravings angle, but that fits me pretty well. I drink about 2 liters of Diet Mt Dew a day on average. Actually, I found a reasonable alternative to soda pop is flavored (but unsweetened) seltzer water. I haven't been buying any recently, but it would be good to get back to that. It's a little bitter and is definitely an acquired taste, but I like the fizz. Plus it's a lot cheaper. You can get a liter of flavored seltzer 2 or 3 for a dollar at the grocery store. Of course, there are the versions flavored with artificial sweeteners, but then you're basically back to soda pop again.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[G-funk]

If you're worried about being fat, the answer isn't juice, it's just water. Most juices have just as many calories as a Coke. Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean you won't continue to be a lardass :)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Jogar the Barbarian]

Please, have many children. The gene pool needs your contribution. :) /me is lactose intolerant

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Search for "money as debt" on YouTube or Google Video. Prepare for enlightenment.

Very interesting series. I just watched all 5 parts due to seeing your sig. Thanks for sharing.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[eugene ts wong]

If these old people don't care about living longer, then why bother seeing a doctor? Isn't the reason because they want to have help with their other problems? It isn't all about life span. I assume that smoking causes problems in the here and now as well.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

> While the FDA in the United States is doing what? Standing by turning their cheek?

I think you mean "turning a blind eye."

"Turning the other cheek" means offering to take a blow willingly, according to that hippie bleeding-heart Jesus whatsisname.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till the machine that is your body can't handle it any longer.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[flappinbooger]

"I might not live any longer for it, but I FEEL much better for the time I am alive."

You'll probably live longer too.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Prune]

You completely fail to address the specific issue of sodium benzoate damage to mitochondrial DNA, and choose instead to engage in meaningless generalities which say nothing about this given danger. Care to explain yourself?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Prune]

The concentration of sodium benzoate in soft drinks is far higher than that in berries, so that is a meaningless comparison. Beyond the mitochondrial DNA damage, let's not forget this chemical's reaction with vitamin C content to produce benzene, a known carcinogen.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Yeah, but whenever you eat something bad for you, even only in moderation, you're still giving in to the craving...feeding your desire for it. If junk food had some other advantages, then there may be a case for it, but generally, junk food is more unhealthy, expensive, worse for the environment. If you can not only give up the habit of eating it, but also give up the habit of desire, then you'll be even better off for it.

There is a reason you often hear people say things like "I don't even want [something] anymore..." especially in relation to habits and cravings: Because it's true, even if it does sound like denial, or circular thinking (which it's not). It's so true that similar concepts are core parts of many philosophical and logic-based religions.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Your argument sounds very similar to that "[famous person or relative] smoked|drank|both [large amount of units] a day, and lived to [some old age] with no health problems" mantra. These things are all about levels and thresholds, and that what once person does may effect another differently. For you, obviously, bad diets don't seem to have much of an effect. But what if you contracted a disease, or there was some other event or process that started to cause harm to your body. How do you know how far away from the poor-health threshold you are, or how it works? Also, how you feel isn't really a comprehensive way to gauge your heath. Perhaps if you were a High Lama it might be. Some people feel fine, then die of an early heart attack. Some people even tell others they feel fine, even if they don't.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Trogre]

I was with you all the way up to the links in your sig. All I can say is I hope you're not too heavily involved in those batshit loco consipracy wankfests.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Prune]

This is a total ad hominem, as what I have in my signature has no bearing on the argument.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[jd]

There is a lot of evidence suggesting Aspartame is unsafe, and there's considerable suspicion about corn syrup these days. Fructose in too high a concentration is probably unsafe, but fruit (such as apples) have a strong enough reputation for health and are consumed by too wide a range of mammals for me to believe the body is harmed by moderate levels. There, it almost has to be concentration rather than content.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Trogre]

No it's not ad hominem. I found your argument made sense and agree with it. The revelation that you could be a fish-eyed nutbar fruit-loop as suggested by your sig doesn't take any of that away.

That context does, however, make it a bit more difficult to take you seriously in future.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got called on, and have weasled out. What do they say? PWNED!?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most food we eat are not good/bad. We need certain amount of certain things, too much/not enough can screw us over. Even the rat poison, we can tolerate in small amount. And drinking too much water can kill you.

You morons think this is some moral issue. I'd rather put up with listening to religious fundies than you food and eco fundies.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[flyingfsck]

Not to mention that orange juice in particular creates benzene, a known carcinogen, when exposed to light...

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[flyingfsck]

I agree with you that lots of crap have been written about aspartame. However, a small number of people are indeed very sensitive to it. It causes increased muscle tension which in my case simply make me feel 100 years old. In some countries (Europe), products containing aspartame have warning labels.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[grrrl]

I get migraines from aspartame and Splenda too. In fact I have one right now because, despite intentionally never consuming products with them, I decided this morning I would risk a low-card protein drink with Splenda. Now I get to put up with a sore head for the rest of the day :/ Never again.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the article you were responding to? You say

Your headaches drinking diet soda were likely caused by either caffeine (which restricts blood flow) or the placebo effect. (Nobody ever thinks they're affected by the placebo effect - as if they're somehow smarter than everybody else. But the placebo effect exists, it's well documented and acknowledged by every reputable scientist.) Yet the original poster says

One day in the chow hall, the TV showed an article from Duke University (nearby, I was in North Carolina) that covered Aspertame triggering migraines. So, I conducted my own little experiment. Some days I would drink normal fattening soda. No headaches. Then I would drink diet soda - and terrible headaches. -- if he was comparing normal soda to diet soda directly, it'd be fair to surmise that the caffiene would be present in both (as he doesn't state, I'd give credit to the original poster to be able to realize it as a variable to be controlled). So then we're left with the placebo effect, in which case one has to wonder where the original poster got the initial suggestion that "this diet soda will give me a headache".

Then you say

Even if you don't believe that, you have to at least agree that over 100 years of use of this additive, we'd have seen at least some these alleged effects by now in the general populace, yes? yet according to wikipedia (which you reference yourself)

E211 is used as a preservative, effectively killing most yeasts, bacteria, and fungi. It is effective only in acidic conditions (pH < 3.6) making its use most prevalent in foods such as preserves, salad dressings (vinegar), carbonated drinks (carbonic acid), jams (citric acid), fruit juices (citric acid), and chinese food sauces (soy, mustard, and duck). -- does the general populace really consume that many acidic, preservative-filled foods? And who is to say that the effects haven't been seen in the general population? As it's been used since the early 1900's, do you have data from years prior to its use as a preservative to compare to?

You should leave out facetious comments like your one about water, read the comments that you're responding to more carefully, and stop sounding so haughty.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

aspartame failed FDA approval 3 times before it was passed. Convincingly when a sizable investor became a prominant member of your congress.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

> aspartame failed FDA approval 3 times before it was passed.

This is a misrepresentation. It was not approved for all used because the FDA had concerns about the quality of the research demonstrating its safety, not because of anything indicating it was unsafe.

In other words, it went like this:

  1. We don't know if it's safe; you haven't proved it.
  2. We don't think you've proved it's safe.
  3. We still don't think you've proved it's safe.
  4. Okay, you've proved it's safe.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

How do you even know I'm religious? And why on earth would you assume that I know nothing about balance? I bet you haven't even gone though my comment history to confirm that I'm an moron before making such an accusation. For all you know, I could have posted many times about the importance of balance when it comes to biology/food science etc.

You could have at least prodded me with a carefully disguised comment to confirm my ignorance before acting like a prick. Luckily for you, you decided to take the cowards way out.

But back to the point. Any moron knows that anything can be toxic or beneficial -- that it depends on the amount (see my earlier post). So, why don't you tell us why in this case (GM food) what is an appropriate level of GM food to eat? Let me guess...you don't know? Not many of us do, and that's part of the point.

If the result of not paying attention to GM food leads to the possibility of death, and and you believe that killing people is generally bad, and you think that ethics and morals align on many of the same issues (in this case, selling food that could lead to early death or suffering), then how is this not a moral issue?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the energy content of "100% Juice" then consider the advice given. Thought so.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's very good and lucky of you. It goes without saying that although we share the same biology, each one of us is different and reacts different. I always ate lots of bread and pasta (being italian) until I turned 33-34, then I started noticing that all things made with flour made me inflate while not gaining much weight. I still crave for pizza. But the more I eat the more my belly inflates, which is not what I want.

About sugar drinks, and about anything else used in large scale productions, we can't have a good history in usage, because even if the product is tested on a large number of subjects, even if this sample is statistically representative of the population on which you'll release the product, the real population will be different. And the time you spent in experiment will be flimsically low compared to the time people used your product when in mass production.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

People love to be fooled if it makes them feel superior. I think your statement pretty much applies to the majority of Apple users too...

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[metushelach]

And there comes the obvious question - Why not drink the healthiest and most dietetic drink of them all? H2O.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

"organic" (I take it that's not the chemical definition) food usually lacks the additives used in large-scale commercial products. This often results in a much weaker taste. Let's just say I'll never again try eating organic peanut butter...

That's strange to me as I have just the opposite experience. Take tomatoes for example. I find most tomatoes at a normal grocery store have practically no flavor at all... even the "HotHouse" brand ones. I find that locally grown organic tomatoes are full of intense flavor and I can't stop eating them. I once bought a partial share of a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) for a few weeks while a friend was on vacation. Every time I picked it up, I couldn't stop eating the tomatoes. Wow!

Now, it's true that most organic foods won't have the punch of say, Doritos or Sour Cream & Onion Chips, but those are loaded with salt and MSG to punch up that flavor. After avoiding those things for the last few months (as much as possible), I find that foods tend to have a richer blend of flavors - or I'm better able to detect them. It's nice because I generally love food.

And I personally really like the organic peanut butter I'm eating now - all it has are peanuts. The only downside is having to mix it up every time I use it.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anzya]

Actually, it's widely known that aspartame causes carbohydrate cravings. Repeat after me: "Diet soda also makes you fat." Actualy this is true for all artifical sweetners. The reason being is that your body of course expect to recieve sugar and therefore start producing insulin. That done the body finds that it now have large amounts of insulin in the body since there wasn't any sugar to brake down. Try to brake it with more diet soda and... ...ad infinitum Personaly I go low carb, high fat instead and no artificial addons at all. Been doing it for a year and I no longer goes to sleep at work after lunch and what fat I had around my stomach has gone away.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[geko29]

You do know that in order to get even close to the quantities of aspartame given to those rats, you would have to consume so much (for example) diet soda that you'd die of water poisoning LONG before any tumors could develop, right? Just going from memory, I believe the dosing was equivalent to 10+ gallons of diet soda a day, EVERY day.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sumdumass]

Too many doctors try to push stuff off on whatever it the popular motive of the day. I have seen them do this first hand.

My mother has never smoked a day in her life. She has been exposed to second hand smoke on casual occasion but there is no smoking in her house, she doesn't hang out in places were people smoke and she works in the medical profession so it isn't a matter of exposure there either. In all her exposure to smoke or very limited compared to most who goto bars and such and don't themselves smoke.

She was having some repertory problems and went to the doctor. this doctor insisted that her problems was from her smoking and refuse to believe she didn't smoke. He then suggested that it was because she was around someone who smokes and it was their fault. Turns out, she has sarcoidosis and the doctor blatantly missed it in favor of placing the blame on smoking. This diagnosis came after I convinced her that someoen was trying to hide something from her. She went to another doctor outside her insurance plan and explained the problem with it being smoking. A biopsy of a lump confirmed the new doctors initial diagnosis and she took this information back to the doctors inside her medical plan. They then started treating her for it. I don't think there is a cure available and it is an on going treatment.

I don't know if this happened this way to push the treatment out or if the doctor is just this incompetent. I don't think it has to do with her insurance plan but that is a possibility. I have spoke with a few other doctors about this and there were two basic sediments that came back. One was that patients lie and doctors have just started assuming they are when something like this happens. The other was that some doctors when there is something they cannot "fix" attempt to push the guilt of never being able to cure someone onto the patient. if it was their fault it happened, they don't have to feel guilty about not fixing it. Either way, complaints were made to the medical board and the doctor still practices medicine today. Whatever made him miss this diagnosis and insist it was something else even when the sympton didn't fit the steps required for it to happen, wasn't enough to question his integrity.

Second opinions is something I suggest every person gets. Specifically because of this, but there is another non related situation that I will spare the boring details of. I can't help but wonder how many people were incorrectly diagnosed or treated wrongly because of this type of behavior. My mother's quality of life has increased dramatically after treatment. She is doing things she hasn't been able to do for 20 years before this diagnosis. I'm sure she would be almost if not dead by now had the other doctors diagnosis stayed much longer then the 4 years it took to have another doctor figure it out on the first visit.

When we talk about the benefits and the damage certain habits cause, I can't help but question if they are really true to the extent they are telling us, or if it isn't some oversight or outright lie to shift the guilt of treating a dieing patient from the doctor who cannot fix them (make them better) to the patient who did it to themselves.

And more precisely to your question, I don't think it is as much a matter of living longer as it is living comfortably longer. When a 70 year old goes to the doctor for joint pain and muscle cramps, the fact that they smoke or not should be too much concern until after they figure out whats causing the joint pain and muscle cramps. And yes, I have heard of some doctors blaming that on smoking. But there are plenty of 70 year old nonsmokers who have the same symptoms, could it be possible smoking just gets the rap for it?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sumdumass]

Ahh the dreaded dihydrogen monoxide, Seriously though, used improperly this stuff can kill. Just last year there was an accidental death in California at a radio contest where this happened. I hearit is used in making all sorts of poisons and is a component of some chemical and biological weapons (think WMDs).

I remember the first time I heard about it, I was thinking WTF when everyone around me was saying that sounds dangerous. I even heard some city in California was attempting to ban it at one time. However, I don't think this is the same thing in comparison to the aspartame. People can have food allergies and such which could account for some of the demonization of aspartame, dihydrogen monoxide on the other hand is more or less pure ignorance.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sumdumass]

You used to be able to find kits were you could make your own seltzer water (carbonated water). I had one of these a while back were it used Co2 cartridges and you plugged it into a slot, added water 5 minutes or so later, you had a quart of carbonated water. My grand mother had one that you just pumped without adding anything special. I couldn't find the cartridges and attempted to adapt the Co2 cartridges from air pistols and broke it. But you could make about 10 gallons of carbonated water for around 3 bucks minus the cost of the water (presumably from the tap). I then used cool aid and other drink mixes with about half the sugar to flavor them. The trick was to mix the dry stuff really good with a couple teaspoons of warm water to dissolve it and then add the resulting syrup to the seltzer as needed for flavor. You only need a tablespoon or so to make a good flavored drink.

I also found that some of the concession stands at the fair which sold specialty drinks like birch beer (similar to root beer but way better flavor) would also sell bottles of their concentrate. Again, a couple teaspoons was all that is needed and you had the equivalent of a good soft drink.

I don't know if the kits are still available. But hopefully the ideas about the kool aid and such make it easier for you to find ways to stay on the track you want. And the best part is, you control the sugar and additives.

I guess some are still available but I never used this kind before.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ConceptJunkie]

Thanks, man! This looks really cool... I'm seriously considering getting one because it would save me a significant amount of money, and I figure would pay for itself in about 2 or 3 months if I switched to using it. Plus like you said, you can control the additives.

In addition to sodium benzoate, I've heard some bad stuff about the brominated vegetable oil that is used in small quantities in Mountain Dew (my favorite) and other drinks. The bromine is the culprit, which is nasty stuff and accumulates in your body. I don't recall the specifics of why it's used in the product or what effects it has, but it's yet another questionable ingredient that I consume an unreasonable quantity of.

Plus I get tired of the occasional smartass who eventually remarks, "Just how much of that stuff do you drink?". It's kind of like my Dad who used to always ask, so how much do you spend on CDs anyway? Like it was any of his business... "Dad I make almost as much money as you did when you retired, I think I can manage my money myself. How much did you spend on that Corvette you just bought?" In both cases I usually give a grossly exaggerated answer.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[bi_boy]

because she says there are so many side effects, many of them neurological.

Who is this acquaintance of yours? Can she or you point to any sources/citations for this claim? I am not insinuating what you have stated is false, I am merely curious.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[sumdumass]

I found that link just before submitting that post. I didn't realize how expensive it was. Almost $100 to get started. but like you said, it should save a small fortune over time. The one I had was about $50 or so but that was over 20 years ago. So this sounds about right.

I have a friend who is health conscious like you. I'm passing on the info about the sodium benzoate to him. I'm also passing on the suggestion about brominated vegetable oil. He seems to get headaches every once in a while for no apparent reasons and sometimes has a loss of energy and I bet it is something in a diet drink like your described. I usually joke with him and say it is because he became a vegitarian. He has reactions to meat product now (could of had them before but wasn't as noticeable) and some other weird things like real butter making him break out with as little as eating 2 slices of buttered toast. It is strange seeing a 40 some year old man with acne.

Good luck with the soda maker.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[drgonzo59]

People looking for a connection between something they suspect to be dangerous and any potential health issues

Wrong, there is no connection initially, just headaches once in a while. After years on end a pattern will emerge -- "Aha I get headaches after chewing sugar-free gum or drinking diet soda." That's the process. The way you describe it, is that someone already believes that aspartame or whatever chemical is bad for them then they start looking for a correlation between any body response (headaches/cramps/diarrhea) and that chemical.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[rhakka]

I agree to large part, but I think you're missing one point;

the "junk" foods such as soda and McDonalds, etc.. are addictive. Your body can adjust and can process it, great, but it can also CRAVE it to the exclusion of healthier options. The number of soda junkies I know... including myself at one time.. is pretty ridiculous. Yet even among the hardest core of vegans and vegetarians I know, very few "crave" carrot sticks. They enjoy them, but they are not addicted.

I firmly believe in eating a little of everything, including some junk, just to keep the body able to process a variety of things. But I have to note that as someone who gave up soda and sweets in general, I generally feel better now than I did when I was drinking soda to excess. Now, of course, the "excess" is the problem there.. but for me and I suspect for a lot of other people out there (perhaps those of us with addictive personalities) we have to pretty much abstain or we will crave the sugar rush and start eating the unhealthy foods to excess.

I do need to point out though that sugar is a drug of sorts, and getting "used" to it is another way of simply saying that you have built up a tolerance. I currently drink a pot of coffee a day.. if another person who didn't do that regularly tried, they'd get sick most likely (at least, if they were drinking my coffee they would..). Has my body "adapted" to it, or do I simply have a tolerance to a powerful stimulant?

I don't think it's that clear cut is all I'm trying to say, I suppose.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[raiu86]

first off whats with the name calling?! Second and more importantly dihydrogenmonoxide would be correct according to every chemistry textbook that I've ever read (except for the fact that due to its extream chemical wierdness it doesn't get a "sientific name" its always just "water" or H2O). Think about Carbonmonoxide or CO, the mono can (according to [american?]intro chem books) only be droped for the first element (in this case the carbon) and if it isn't 1 a prefix is used; the second element always gets a prefix even when its just 1. Then again there are always exceptions such as N2O which gets called any one of a number of things including Nitrous oxide, dinitrogen oxide and dinitrogen monoxide.
Which is exactly what makes your name calling so inaproprate, you are both equally wrong, H2O is only WATER it doesn't have a "chemical" or "scientific" name, just water. the whole DHMO thing is a joke to scare the people who failed/forgot their chemistry

in conclusion...mod the troll down, please.

PS. grammar/spelling nazis, yes my spelling is pretty bad but this is not my home computer with has firefox with spell check so ya'll are just gonna have to deal :)

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Slur]

It's okay to eat at McDonald's sometimes if you like it.

I know you mean just in the context of personal health. But really, it's just not okay to eat at McDonald's.

Of course "we like" McDonald's. The food is engineered to be "liked." But a fully conscious being makes choices based on deeper criteria than just the sensations it enjoys.

When you eat at McDonald's or any other restaurant that uses factory-farmed animals you support evil practices that bring a high degree of suffering to billions of animals. And if you eat meat more than is necessary for your sustenance, you may be living a rewarding life of "free choice" but you are enslaving others in order to live it. Meanwhile you are acting to perpetuate dehumanizing and highly destructive agricultural and labor practices throughout the world.

I urge everyone who cares about animals on any level to refrain from eating meat and dairy products as much as you can. I urge everyone who understands the nature of coercion and coercive institutions to stop blindly taking part and to take up the cause of animal welfare.

The oppression, abuse, and exploitation of animals is not something we want to be practicing as a species in perpetuity. The success of fast food is directly proportional to our level of denial. This is the advantage they take, both by projecting images to distract us from the truth and by chemically doping the food to make us not care. It demeans us to take part.

Whether you like meat or not, boycott McDonald's. Your 99c will be worth a lot more in the long run.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[chrae]

One day in the chow hall, the TV showed an article from Duke University (nearby, I was in North Carolina) that covered Aspertame triggering migraines. So, I conducted my own little experiment. Some days I would drink normal fattening soda. No headaches. Then I would drink diet soda - and terrible headaches.

A good experiment tests for multiple variables, not just the ones supporting conclusions you want to make - that aspartame is bad for you (it could be). I think your headaches may be caused by the absense of another chemical - caffeine. Some diet sodas come without caffeine included. Caffeine withdrawal can cause headaches, sometimes severe like you described. So as part of your experiment, try testing if the presence of caffeine makes a difference in the frequency of your headaches.

and my addiction of choice now is tea with a bit of organic sugar for sweetener

Most tea has a high dose of caffeine. If the type of tea you drink does have caffeine, replace it with a different drink that doesn't have any then check for any of these symptoms.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ShakaUVM]

>>When I've succumbed to a craving, I felt like crap.

As the other poster commented, your body has gotten used to a new diet. Any time a person switches diets, they tend to feel ill. Try moving to an area that doesn't have cuisine that you're used to, and you're likely to feel sick, get gastrointestinal distress, and have various other problems, regardless of how healthy the foods actually are. For example, when people eat Papaya for the first time, they tend to get the runs.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[eugene ts wong]

I agree that smoking could get a bad rap for joint pain. It wouldn't have been my first guess for the source of the problem.

I think that you and I are on the same page, but are coming from different perspectives. I don't want to sit there and monitor what everybody inhales, but I think that it's unfair to use a socialist health care system, and not take care of one's body. Yeah, it's just a few years off of a man's life, but it's also the suffering up till that day. It's also the tax dollars, which I have to earn. It's also the social ramifications. Treating our lives so casually as if it's all a numbers game is bad. From your post, I think that you agree.

Regarding what you say, I totally agree. I went in to a walk-in clinic once. If you don't have those in your neighbourhood, then I'd like to point out, that it's like a fast-food joint, in that you don't necessarily see the same doctor each time, and you don't have to make an appointment. They keep good records, though. I think that the idea is that the patient is getting access to a medical consultant.

I got a doctor to look at a skin problem on my inner thigh. There was a scabby type of growth, that just seemed to grow wider and wider. She just took a look at it and offered a prescrition medicine. That kind of scared me because she didn't even scrape it or touch it. How could she know just by looking? I guess that the point that I'm trying to get at is that the doctor didn't appear to have any problem solving skills.

I also believe that our bodies are black boxes. If we can take Asprin, and have it work in the entire body, then it's not much of a stretch to assume that toxic chemicals in cigs can hurt shoulders and lungs. It's a stretch, but not much.

That beind said, I think that overall, in western society, we worry too much about every little detail [e.g. "Don't eat too many apples per day, because you might get toe cancer!"], and not enough about the big picture [i.e. exercise, get out of the chair more often, moderation], and I think that doctors need to problem solve with their patients more.

Do you think that we are on the same page?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

As the other poster commented, your body has gotten used to a new diet.

But as I replied elsewhere, I regularly eat burgers, beer, fried chicken, BBQ, Thai, Vietnamese (oh, I miss Pho, but it tends to be loaded with MSG), Indian, Ethiopian, Italian, Fish & Chips, sushi, Reubens, hot wings, steaks, gumbo, etc. I try to find places that use natural ingredients, don't add MSG, etc.

I probably eat burgers and fries at least once a week if not more. My stomach and digestive flora are certainly used to beef, bread, pickles, cheese, lettuce, mustard, mayo, and deep-fried potatoes. So what is it in the McDonald's and Wendy's that is making me feel ill?

What are they doing to the ingredients or what are they adding that's making me feel ill when burgers and fries from other places don't? Is it something I really want my body to be used to?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ShakaUVM]

>>So what is it in the McDonald's and Wendy's that is making me feel ill?

Your diet has changed, and you are not used to them any more. While people can be sensitive to MSG and other chemicals, if the ingredients are the same at once place as another, you should not react any differently unless the effects are psychosomatic.

Try the following experiment: buy a McDonald's 100% beef burger, get rid of everything but the patty, and eat that. Their 100% beef patties have no additives, fillers, or extenders in them, just beef, salt and pepper. So if you feel ill after eating it, you know it's either the beef, the salt, the pepper, or the fact that your mind knows you're eating at McDonald's.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[windex82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

One of the side effects is headache. Care to play another round of the intrawebs?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Scrameustache]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
One of the side effects is headache. Care to play another round of the intrawebs? "Initial symptoms typically include light-headedness, sometimes accompanied by nausea, vomiting, headache and/or malaise. Plasma sodium levels below 100 mmol/L (2.3g/L) frequently result in cerebral edema, seizures, coma, and death "

It hurts your head if you take enough of it to kill you.
You think it's the dying that hurts? Or drinking water?
If you think it's drinking water, don't bother replying, just never ingest any water ever again.

If you choose to still drink water more frequently than once every four days, don't dismiss real medical issues with nonsense.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Heir Of The Mess]

You're probably going to get a lot of skeptics telling you that you are wrong. Some people are lucky in that their bodies are bullet proof to a lot of chemicals. I've had problems with Aspartame, but the main killer for me is Azo Dyes. Something that seems to affect a few people in my family although I suffer the worst. When I was younger I'd be quite happy and then I would eat something and be really sick for hours or days. My parents were going nuts for years trying to work out what I was allergic to. I've got a write up on my blog about Azo Dyes here http://johnstewien.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E6885D B5CEBABBC8!410.entry

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[triffidsting]

I've always thought I was a freak for having the symptoms you describe with rgard to consuming aspartame. I was excited when they finally started using splenda in sodas as a result - they simply don't give me the same headaches that aspartame does.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hazem]

I'm definitely accustomed to a lot of caffeine, unfortunately. I drink a lot of tea every day. And I definitely know what a caffeine withdrawal headache feels like.

However, on several occasions, I've been fully caffeinated as normal. I may end up with what feels like an "aspartame headache" (they *feel* different - different part of my head, different "note" of pain, different intensity). When that's happened, I can usually trace it back to having chewed some sugar free gum or having been given some sugar-free treat that had aspartame.

I know for a better experiment, I could have someone secretly adding aspartame or other stuff and recording my response. Likewise, it MAY be that I merely believe I'm susceptible to aspartame and it's all in my head. In any case, I get bad headaches from it so I avoid it. It's easy enough to avoid most of the time - problem solved. Others can have all they want of it... it's their issue.

As for caffeine... I'm not ready to tackle that one yet. I have difficulty waking and difficulty sleeping and I'm sure part of it is caffeine related. I'm working on regulating my sleep cycle better, temporarily using Rozerem, and using that regulation to help me get on a regular exercise schedule - and in that time I'm also trying to reduce the amount of caffeine I take in.

Unlike MSG and High Fructose Corn Syrup (which I tried to eliminate from my diet all at once), I can't drop the caffeine cold-turkey. As a system, I need it to function "normally". I'm working steadily at changing that system, but it takes time to get all the other parts working without it.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was accusing you of being eco/food fundi, not a relious one, because you refer to "junk food" as "bad," expensive, unhealthy, and eco-damaging. If you're refering to fastfood, it is cheap. And it's rich in calory, which is bad only if you are in a richer part of the world where people eat too much and don't do enough. It's a good thing if you're living in a poorer part of the world where food is scarce. As for being unhealthy, again, same thing as the calory. As for ecology, I don't think either you or I or any of the people screaming bloody murder know two bits about this super complex topic to say fastfood is better or worse. With that, how is fastfood a moral issue?

As for GM stuff, I didn't go there, and I am not going there now.

Lastly, AC is what AC does. :-) The "moron" bit was uncalled for, it's true.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see anywhere that he says he's not eating the types of food that you can get at Wendy's. If he doesn't eat fast food but has an otherwise normal diet, and then goes back to fast food and gets sick, my guess is that what's different that's making him sick is something that shouldn't be in food to begin with.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[hesiod]

> why don't you tell us why in this case (GM food) what is an appropriate level of GM food to eat?

Genetically Modified food does not necessarily have anything in common with any other GM food, so there is nothing to measure. The only nonsense answer to your question, therefore, must be "the same level as any other food."

In addition, you are assuming food that is based off of plants that have been genetically modified (which has probably been done, in some form or another, for thousands of years) is automatically bad. That is a rather ignorant view of botany.

BTW, why is it that ecoloons think Global Warming scientists are all geniuses, yet scientists who work on GM foods are a bunch of retarded baby-killing heathens?

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this acquaintance of yours? Can she or you point to any sources/citations for this claim? I am not insinuating what you have stated is false, I am merely curious.

Try searching for Aspartame on Google.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[jfreaksho]

Think what you want, but my fiance also gets headaches from aspartame. Even chewing the wrong kind of gum can trigger one. It isn't pleasant. I don't get them, but we don't keep aspartame in the house anymore. While I agree with you regarding the "empty calories", a soda occasionally will cause extra calories that need to be worked off. A diet soda can easily give her a headache that will force her to call in sick to work. The large cup or two of coffee she drinks every morning does not cause this problem.

She also has developed (about four years ago) skin allergies to many preservatives used in soap and shampoo. This seems to have been triggered by the anthrax shots she received from the Army in 2003. I have no proof to offer you, though Thimerosal (containing Mercury) has been and is being removed from vaccines due to people's reactions. This link was not accepted until fairly recently.

I haven't made up my mind about sodium benzoate, but I will at least add it to the list of things to be aware of when I consume them.

J.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[ConceptJunkie]

$100 isn't so bad. I figure I probably spend $35-50 a month on soft drinks. That's pretty sad, I know.

Your friend should see a doctor or perhaps an allergist. As to a 40-year-old having acne... I sympathize. I'm 42 and I never entirely got over acne. It's not bad now or anything, but it's more than 99.9% of the other people my age have.

There's a fine line between the paranoia too many people (especially living in this "Chicken Little" society) have about modern additives and food processing and the legitimate fact that some of this stuff really is bad for you. Our food industry is increasingly being taken over by mega-agriculture and other huge moneyed interests that are doing many things clearly not in the interests of healthy people. And the government is a huge enabler... the absurd cheapness of sugar and similar products has to be contributing to public health problems in a significant way. Poor people in the U.S. are vastly more likely to be overweight than underweight... yet likely suffering from some effects of malnutrition. Just as our society is suffering from an intellectual diet of "Twinkies", we are suffering from a literal diet of Twinkies, and both are very damaging.

BTW, I really like Twinkies, although I prefer Tastykakes. When I was a kid, Tastykakes were regional and you couldn't get them in the Southeast. Now I've got a box of Butterscotch Krimpets and Kandykakes (or whatever they're called now, they used to be "Tandytakes") in my fridge as a special treat. I'm no health food nut or anything, I just don't want to be poisoned.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[iam2bz]

Do you really want to interfere with a billion dollar industry? They have spent years developing their brand. All that will happen now is that another billion dollar industry will get revenue from developing drugs that prolong the life of people with (not cure) these diseases.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[mink]

From what I remember of the first Dalek episodes of Dr. Who. The Thals were quite capable warriors, it is just that once the planet was wasted by the war and the Kaleds were hiding in underground bunkers busy turning into Daleks, the Thals were busy surviving in the open environment. Since they no longer had an enemy (that they were aware of) and just needed to look to survival they had time to do other things then be warriors. I also didn't get that they were hostile to modern science. They got nuked back into the stone age and had not progressed as far as they had been before the war.

YMMV

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Uzuri]

Actually, the better taste is probably because the local ones you got were picked at the right time rather than shipped green. That said, we can definitely tell the difference between the food that comes straight out of out garden (not 100% organic, because we spray for Japanese beetles) and what comes from the store.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[adrianbaugh]

I'm not a purist - personally, I eat all kinds of unhealthy crap. I'm just pointing out that, diet-wise, it isn't necessarily restrictive to avoid stuff prepared in a certain way - whether that's avoiding food prepared using chemicals, avoiding food prepared organically - even avoiding food prepared by dancing Mexicans wearing pink sombreros if, for some reason, that's important to you.

You restrict your diet by avoiding certain food groups, not certain methods of food production.

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, why is it that ecoloons think Global Warming scientists are all geniuses, yet scientists who work on GM foods are a bunch of retarded baby-killing heathens?

Because the GMF scientists are "meddling in nature," whereas the climatologists are trying to counter the effects of such meddling. At least, that's how it seems to be perceived.

I don't have anything against genetically modifying food in and of itself, but I do think the FDA has sold out to the corporate interests who are determined to put GM foods on the market as quickly as possible, with little or no regard for the human guinea pigs who eat it. They really don't care whether it's safe or not. They don't even KNOW for sure if it's safe, because they either fast-track the testing or they don't bother to test at all!

Re:And what about the U.S.?

[darthdavid]

Sorry for bitching you out. I got yelled at for calling it that so I kinda started doing it to others. Learn something new every day...

Details ?

[messner_007]

TFA is very simplicistic ... can someone post a link to more scientific paper ?

Re:Details ?

[MrMr]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?lr=&sa=G&oi=qs&q =piper+sodium+benzoate+author:p-piper

I'm willing to guess from the titles that sodium benzoate is lethal. If you are a fungus, mold, or bacterium.
(given their evolutionary ancestry some risk to mitochondriae sounds plausible to me as well)

Re:Details ?

[Mantis8]

From the article:

"Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale."

Benzene is listed as the sixth most toxic substance, according to:
The Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cxcx3.html

Top 20 Hazardous Substances from the 2005 CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances
1 ARSENIC
2 LEAD
3 MERCURY
4 VINYL CHLORIDE
5 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
6 BENZENE

From: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts3.html

"What is benzene?
Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke."

This doesn't sound like something I would want to ingest.

"How can benzene affect my health?
Eating or drinking foods containing high levels of benzene can cause vomiting, irritation of the stomach, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, and death. The major effect of benzene from long-term exposure is on the blood. Benzene causes harmful effects on the bone marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection."

Re:Details ?

[hugorxufl]

PubMed, baby. It's a powerful tool. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=p ubmed

Re:Details ?

[russotto]

"What is benzene? Some industries use benzene to make other chemicals which are used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers. Benzene is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is also a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke."

This doesn't sound like something I would want to ingest.

That should have no bearing on whether or not you want to ingest it. It might as well have been taken from the anti-DHMO page; you could substitute "water" for "benzene" and it would be just as true.

Re:Details ?

[Mantis8]

Benzene is still the 6th most toxic chemical known to man. Therefore, consuming any substance that contains it or causes it to occur in the human body is a bad idea. That is just common sense. So consume all you want my friend. While you're at it, why not spice it up a bit with a little mercury or DDT (also on the same list of 20 most toxic substances known to man)? Even water, if consumed in massive quantities, can be, (and has already been proven to be) lethal. Yet water is a necessary ingredient for all life on earth. Benzene is NOT, to say the least.

The soft drink companies are NOT interested in our health. If they were, they would be OUT OF BUSINESS! They are mega-businesses and are only concerned with making mega-profits. Whether or not it is at the expense of our health is irrelevant to them.

Re:Details ?

[jwilcox154]

Actually benzene is a known carcinogen; exposure to it has been shown to cause leukemia. It is also believed to cause tumors in animals and possibly in humans. Major human exposures occur in gassing vehicles and as a result of vaporization of gas from car fuel tanks in garages, where the benzene seeps into attached homes. Other health effects of long-term exposure include damage to the blood-forming organs, enough to cause death (aplastic anemia), and drying and scaling of the skin. Benzene exposure is also associated with chromosomal damage.

AFAIK, water doesn't cause cancer. If it did it would be the chemicals in the water and not the water itself.

Re:Details ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing that a fat fucktard is telling the rest of us on how to live healthy. Why don't you fat fucktards do us all a favor and collectively earn yourselves a darwin award bu running a hot bath, finding a razor and slitting your fucking wrists.

Re:Details ?

[russotto]

My point wasn't that benzene is benign (it isn't), merely that none of the "scary" list of uses and places found for benzene were good reasons to believe it wasn't benign.

Preserves Freshness

[HanoverFist]

SODIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVES FRESHNESS)

How ironic that it basically destroys the bodies ability to refresh itself.

Re:Preserves Freshness

[Walt Dismal]

That's not all. It has been demonstrated that in drinks which also contain Vitamin C, the sodium benzoate combines with the vitamin and releases BENZENE. You really don't want to drink a lot of the carcinogen benzene. Google "sodium benzoate and Vitamin C" and see. Unfortunately, certain drink companies tout the Vitamin C in their beverages as being good for kids. Instead, it's poisoning them. Or you. Other drinks contain potassium benzoate and Vitamin C, but I'm not sure if this also produces benzene.

Re:Preserves Freshness

[Phase Shifter]

Other drinks contain potassium benzoate and Vitamin C, but I'm not sure if this also produces benzene.

I don't want to say it's a given, but I would expect it.

Any alkali metal benzoate will dissolve in water, and dissociate into metal ions and benzoate ions, so it probably doesn't matter what the metal is, as long as the salt is water-soluble.

Re:Preserves Freshness

[arivanov]

Either provided that pH is under 5 (quite common) and contain traces of transition metals (Copper and the like). Fanta and other "upmarket" drinks are not likely to be a canditate for this one as it is made with deionised water and the metal content in them is nearly nil. Now "Tesco Value Soda" may be an entirely different matter

Re:Preserves Freshness

[jovius]

I just checked and there was sodium benzoate in my toothpaste... It would be interesting to know how much of the stuff you actually get from various sources.. It's of course beneficial to have it limited, but you would still go over the limit via the other ways.. Maybe we should just stop brushing our teeth and eating apples.

Re:Preserves Freshness

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a chemist, there are many, many cancer-suspect agents. Almost a rediculous number. But, there are only a hand-full (not including halogenated compounds) that we KNOW are carcinogenic, and benzene is one of them.

Re:Preserves Freshness

[switchfeet]

you don't swallow the tooth paste. yumm toooooooooth paste.

Shit....

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess that means that I will age faster...*checks his energy drink for sodium bezonate* shit...back to water again til I can find a safer source of caffeine.

Re:Shit....

[redcane]

whats wrong with coffee or tea? (AFAIK these are both sources of caffiene)

Re:Shit....

[The Wooden Badger]

Caffeine may be a problem for the DNA as well. Its chemical structure is very similar to the nucleotide bases in DNA. I would bet that caffeine stands a decent chance of being substituted for one of the original bases in a newly replicated strand of DNA. It would probably just not be able to replicate, but it could also give rise to cancer. I recall a study where caffeine consumption was linked to cancer, but the study was done at BYU, so there would at least be a public perception of bias. Whether the study was solid or not, I don't know if any further research was done.

Re:Shit....

[sholden]

And Jitter Man was born, protecting truth, justice, and the American way!

Well

[Jayemji]

Just another potential reason for me to not drink pop. Not least of which is that I find the taste and carbonic acid unpalatable. From what I read, this isn't 100% sure though. But then, not much in this world is.

soda damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want any soda damaging my midichlorines.

Another Problem With Sodium Benzoate

[timbudtwo]

Remember the whole scare when Sodium Benzoate reacted with Ascorbic Acid in sodas to cause trace amounts of benzene? Could Be FUD, too early to know for sure. Be sure to expect lawsuits really soon.

nothing new

[wizardforce]

this is nothing new, sodium benzoate is used as a preservative in acidic foods and drinks and in the presence of citric acid it can evolve very small amounts of benzene. benzene is dangerous because it is what we call an intercalary mutagen- what that means is it can insert its self between the DNA helix grooves and that is what can mess up DNA copying and transcription [translation from DNA to RNA to proteins etc.] in the USA benzene is allowed at 10ppb but in soem states it can be lower [california is 5ppb] to give an idea of how much that is an olympic swimming pool is 25,000 gallons, 95,000 liters and so 10ppb would be about a gram of benzene taken by weight. soft drinks in other countries have been reported to have up to 85 ppb although this can be fixed by reducing the amount of sodium benzoate and or citric acid in combination. citric acid can be replaced by malic acid which imparts that sour flavor in drinks.

Re:nothing new

[messner_007]

That means, that it doesn't interfere only with mitochondrial DNA. Is this effect limited to mitochondrial DNA ?

Re:nothing new

[wizardforce]

damn it was ascorbic acid not citric... anyway here's the wiki link with a little more detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_benzoate

Re:nothing new

[wizardforce]

benzene damages DNA no matter where it is. mitochrondrial DNA is however very very important. you get nearly 90% of your energy from the reactions performed in mitochrondria which use enzymes encoded by mitochrondrial DNA. so as you can see, if you damage that DNA it can be very bad for a cell.

Re:nothing new

[flushingmemos]

Small correction: an intercalating molecule slips between the aromatic bases that are "stacked" in the center of the DNA helix, not the grooves of the helix. Intercalating mutagens are usually aromatic molecules because they like to stack like this.

Re:nothing new

[LightPhoenix7]

I'm always impressed when people even know what intercalating means, let alone how it happens and what causes it. If you can grasp that, why can't you grasp the concept of proper punctuation?

Re:nothing new

[toddhisattva]

this is nothing new

You can say that again: scaremongering by scandal sheets.

The danger posed by benzene and/or its salts in drinks is nothing compared to the damaged proteins, dioxins, carbon monoxide products, carmelized sugars, benzene with its polycyclic aromatic buddies, and other scary monsters in barbecue, the most delicious of all foods.

OMFG: did you know tomato is related to nightshade? We're doomed!

Re:nothing new

[Prune]

Mod parent down, for he is factually wrong: the study discussed in the article had nothing to do with benzene as vitamin C was not present to react with the sodium benzoate and create it; the mitochondrial DNA damage was caused directly by the sodium benzoate!

Re:nothing new

[Prune]

The article is not about benzene; it is an additional effect directly from the sodium benzoate, you idiot! Ever RTFA before trolling?

Re:nothing new

[Prune]

You cretinous imbecile, there's neither acid in the fucking article; the study was on the direct effect of sodium benzoate on mitochondrial DNA in yeast cells!

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

That's more like a regular sized swimming pool. An Olympic sized pool is more like 660,000 US gallons (550,000 imperial gallons).

Potassium Benzoate?

[revlayle]

Similar beyond they both preserve freshness?

Re:Potassium Benzoate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, seems like Sodium Benzoate doesn't do much "preserving" as far as the consumer goes.

Re:Potassium Benzoate?

[TheLink]

Well drink enough of it at an early age and you might leave a youthful corpse that takes a long time to decay.

How's that for consumer preservation?

Re:rots your brain as well

[Rod76]

I stayed away from Diet drinks due to Aspartame and its siblings and now my high fructose corm syrup addiction lays on the chopping block because of some second rate preservative, is there no decency in the world? Why can't we go back to making things that are only bad for your teeth and waistline, is that to much to ask?

A Sign From God

[DrRevotron]

Does that mean that they're going to stop airing those annoying Fanta commercials?

"WANNA FANTA, DO YOU WANNA, WANNA FANTA?"
"No thanks, I like my genetic identity the way it is."

Re:A Sign From God

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Funny man. Love it. Heheh :)

The important question...

[selex]

...What about Mountain Dew? Are we safe? Selex

Re:The important question...

[edwardpickman]

Mountain Dew hell, what about Red Bull! Would six or eight a day be considered safe or do I need to cut back?

swimming pools and bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it that when terrorists have some inifnitesimal amount of poison, it is enough to wipe out the entire planet,
but when big companies put the same infinitesimal amount in your body, its nothing to be worried about?

colin powell at the UN with a tiny vial of risin, then there are various snake venoms that can kill even in ppb, then of course
the evil of joe blow street kid having a few ounces of marijuana in his jacket.

oh, but theres poison in soda pop, and making a profit for "big corn" (soda is just a way to add value to corn),
lead in drinking water, etc etc etc, then its ok.

hypocrisy does science no credit.

Re:swimming pools and bullshit

[wizardforce]

why is it that when terrorists have some inifnitesimal amount of poison, it is enough to wipe out the entire planet, but when big companies put the same infinitesimal amount in your body, its nothing to be worried about?

that is because terrorism is a lot more fun for the media and the current administration to fear-monger than something very rich companies put in our soda pop.

Re:swimming pools and bullshit

[hughk]

Wrong!!! Terrorists don't pay for advertising, the food companies do.

Re:swimming pools and bullshit

[Goaway]

why is it that when terrorists have some inifnitesimal amount of poison, it is enough to wipe out the entire planet,
but when big companies put the same infinitesimal amount in your body, its nothing to be worried about?

That's because wait no nobody ever said anything even remotely like that, what the hell are you talking about you goddamn moron?

Re:swimming pools and bullshit

[ScentCone]

Terrorists don't pay for advertising

True! They get free mentions on Al Jazeera and worse on a dozen other channels, and whole free blocks of airtime courtesy of Iran by way of Hezbollah. Why pay for ads when you've got all those people working for you.

Re:Technical details

[Nymz]

Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst (pdf warning) from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5

Frogurt

[lamasquerade]

Shopkeeper: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse!
Homer: Ooh, that's bad.
Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!
Homer: That's good.
Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: That's bad.
Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings.
Homer: That's good!
Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
[Homer looks puzzled]
Shopkeeper: ...That's bad.
Homer: Can I go now? ....and just to add some actual comment: with the constant uncovering of bad effects of things thought previously to be entirely safe I find myself beginning to side with the anti-GM people... I mean I don't think it's definitely harmful, but the positive effects are mainly economic (and so reletively uninteresting unless money turns you on)- why can't be just deal with the good old food we're used to and know isn't going to do anything bizarre to our bodies. Not just with GM but with over-processing of any kind. When you've got beverages being made in ways to minimise only cost and maximise only the positive reaction with our taste buds then you're going to get stuff like this.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

but the positive effects are mainly economic

we have been genetically modifying foods in one way or another for hundreds of years- only now are we using genes from OTHER species. crops engineered to be resistant to a certain pest can reduce the amount of pesticide or [ergot fungus] that gets into the food supply. there are genes that over time have broken or exist in similar but uncrossable species that are very useful. in the case of yellow rice for example, a gene for beta carotene was introduced resulting in a rice that can help prevent blindness in third world countries where rice is a major food crop. the gene that produces vitamin C in mammals is broken in primates and other species that if corrected could prevent scurvy in malnourished nations. it is good to test and try to understand the effects of genetic engineering but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible

Re:Frogurt

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

why can't be just deal with the good old food we're used to and know isn't going to do anything bizarre to our bodies

You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?

Or, maybe you'd rather be hurt by mold or bacteria than by the preservatives that prevent them?

When you've got beverages being made in ways to minimise only cost and maximise only the positive reaction with our taste buds then you're going to get stuff like this.

You mean like stuff that one scientist claims is dangerous and is rightfully being investigated?

The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food". We should take health issues seriously, and Sodium Benzoate needs to be further tested.

So, yeah, go eat your organic non-GMO veggies and "free range" chicken. But not all of us can afford to pay 5x as much for our food. This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition. It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.

We live in a world of risks. Sometimes our chemistry screws up and we end up killing some people. But we rarely kill very many. We live in a world of chemicals, some of which are safe, some of which we know are harmful, and some of which we think are safe but are actually (somewhat) harmful. The vast majority are in either of the first two categories. Some are in the third. We will find more as time goes on. That's a good thing.

So, don't look at this discovery as, "OMG we need to throw out 50 years of food science". Look at it as, "well, we screwed up, but at least we know now".

If you want to go after anything, attack our high-fat high-calorie low-excersize lifestyle.

Re:Frogurt

[chartreuse]

in the case of yellow rice for example, a gene for beta carotene was introduced resulting in a rice that can help prevent blindness in third world countries That "golden rice" is patented and requires a license if a farmer or subsequent user of its genetics makes more than USD$10,000 per year. I think that's an economic effect.

Re:Frogurt

[MrNaz]

There's a difference between "Genetic Modification" and "breeding". Perhaps an example will help you understand this: My gardener created a hybrid plant by pollinating one flower with the pollen of another. He does not have a PhD in genetics. Actually I don't even think he passed high school. Which is why he's my gardener, and not a rocket scientist.

Given that you are unable to draw a distinction between genetic modification and selective breeding, I can safely conclude that you too, are not a rocket scientist.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

yes and do you remember what happened to that rice? it never did got used widescale- people wouldnt eat it because of the color. african nations were offered GM corn which they refused during FAMINE times. I understand if there was some apprehension but the idea of refusing to use the corn which otherwise would have actually saved lives is too far. the mere idea of there needing to be some sort of license on such things is to me appalling in every respect. this kind of thing is going to kill a lot of people unfortunately

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between "Genetic Modification" and "breeding".

Not as much as you might think. I remember reading an article about how some companies were using breeding techniques to get around GM patents. Basically, they knew the end result that they were looking for and strategically bred the plants until they were able to get that result.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

genetic modification by definition is introducing a gene or several into a population to cause a desired effect. your gardener lack of PHD not withstanding, is still modifying the genepool of those plants. the nitpicking over GM has more to do with the method by which genes are introduced which it is claimed that genes can activate adjacent ones with negative consequences. there are ways around this however, at the local college plants are genetically modified and crossed with plants, bred over generations to weed out any oddities in their gene expression.

Re:Frogurt

[chartreuse]

the idea of refusing to use the corn which otherwise would have actually saved lives is too far In the meantime promotion of the use of corn for ethanol in this country is causing political unrest in Mexico because it's driving up prices for their staple food.

You know, it's almost as though we're all part of the same planet... I remember Ted Nelson's meme from quite a while back, "everything is deeply intertwingled."

Re:Frogurt

[suv4x4]

So, yeah, go eat your organic non-GMO veggies and "free range" chicken. But not all of us can afford to pay 5x as much for our food. This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition. It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.

But... dude... Check it out:

And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA -- Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of aging.

See? If I never had Pepsi MAX, I'd never age dude! I think we gotta sue 'em or something. That's all I could think of, I'll see later. I'll go buy some Pepsi MAX now.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

In the meantime promotion of the use of corn for ethanol in this country is causing political unrest in Mexico because it's driving up prices for their staple food.

I know. the idea that food should be used for anything other than feeding people is a really bad idea. corn uses minerals, nitrogen and phosphorus from the soil which is hard to replace except for the nitrogen. they really should have made the ethanol from renewable non-plant sources. solar power if that ever takes off- fusion energy same thing...

You know, it's almost as though we're all part of the same planet...

if only the powers that be knew that. they are too concerned about what osama bin laden had for munchies than anything truly important like I dont know maybe trying to lessen famine or disease or something equally ignored

Re:Frogurt

[Sycraft-fu]

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this 'processed crap' than we ever did with 'good old food'."

This statement bears repeating. While we may not be acting in what is the most ideally healthy way, our life expectancy has gone up, and continues to do so. In the last 100 years in the US, life expectancy at birth has gone from about 50 years (it varies with race and sex) to about 75 years. Talk about a significant improvement! You think that 25 used to literally be "mid life". Half your life was likely over by 25. These days we still think of 25 year olds as kids to a large extent.

Now that's not to say that processed food is the reason for that, it's not, but clearly it isn't screwing us over as some would believe. People are living longer lives than ever before by a huge margin. It only gets bigger if you go back further.

Also I get really annoyed with this attitude that natural = good. Some people seem to think that nature is somehow incapable of producing anything that can hurt us. Actually, when you get down to it, some of the most deadly things in history are purely natural. Great example would be the bubonic plague. Purely natural in origin, lethal to a great deal of humans.

Just because something is natural (also that term is often used rather fast and loose) doesn't make it safe.

Re:Frogurt

[MrNaz]

Cut the BS. You know full well that in this context we are talking about organisms with modifications made to their genes that are impossible to occur in nature from cross breeding.

Re:Frogurt

[pimp0r]

If you're going to mention GMO (and want to ignore all other risks) you might want to consider one thing:
Cross-pollination is very likely to wipe out our non-GMO crops, and then we will have the great benefit of 100% dependence on the companies producing these "use twice" seeds. How kind of them to let the plants pollinate once before suicide-gene kicks in.
And everyone knows that monopolies never jack up their prices, right?

Re:Frogurt

[jmv]

Or, maybe you'd rather be hurt by mold or bacteria than by the preservatives that prevent them?

Actually, preservatives have a lot more to do with keeping stuff on the shelves for a few months than it has to do with bacteria. Speaking of bacteria, sure some can be bad, but the current trend of disinfecting all the food is becoming a bit extreme (and is likely causing immune system-related diseases).

This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition. It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.

You fail to see one side of the opposition to GMO: the economic objection. I'm personally not too worried about *eating* GMO food. I am, however, quite worried about having the world depend on it. The potential for disaster is simply enormous. You've got private companies messing around with the crops that feed the planet. What if tomorrow, production of [wheat, rice, corn, ...] is destroyed because some new parasite is suddenly able to kill *all* the plants (because there's no diversity in its genes anymore). Yet another problem is that many gains of GMO are short-term. The first few generations are more robust to insects and produce more, but then the insects adapt and non only do you get no benefit, but you're stuck with the GMO crops because if you go back your production will be eaten entirely. Who wins? GMO companies, GMO farmers in the short term. Who loses? GMO-farmers in the long-term *AND* all the ones who didn't use GMOs at all.

We live in a world of risks. Sometimes our chemistry screws up and we end up killing some people. But we rarely kill very many. We live in a world of chemicals, some of which are safe, some of which we know are harmful, and some of which we think are safe but are actually (somewhat) harmful. The vast majority are in either of the first two categories. Some are in the third. We will find more as time goes on. That's a good thing.

The problems is that more chemicals are invented than tested. Because we now eat so many different chemicals, there's simply no way to determine their long-term side effects. Let's say I invent and market a new food preservative that turns out to increase by 200% your chances of getting cancer in 20 years. First, it's likely nobody will notice for the first 20 years. Then people will wonder why cancer rates are up and will have no clue. Because we're eating thousands of different things, it's nearly impossible to separate the long-term effects of everything. Now consider that cancer is currently on the rise and it's not clear why. There are probably many reasons. Some of those could be related to the stuff we eat, but it's really hard to know exactly what (though a few have been identified).

If you want to go after anything, attack our high-fat high-calorie low-excersize lifestyle.

Of course, we *also* need to attack that.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

ok in this context it is irrelevant whether the gene was bred in or inserted artifically, it still works. what I didnt mention was that when you cross bread a species the "natural" way what you are doing is not only introducing a new gene but altering a whole lot of other genes in that species. [and that's why we invented backcrossing] but you are completely missing the point. introducing a new gene from genetic modification is no different than breeding a species with a strain that has than new gene naturally. both methods carry risk, breeding isnt inherantly safer just because any idiot can do it- in fact in some cases it caused all sorts of hell [parasitic plant naturally bred for aquariums now destroying huge swaths of habitat] in short, we should be careful what we are fooling with regardless of how the gene got there not blindly attacking what the media thinks is scary.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Great quote. But, more importantly, "mainly economic"?! I guess feeding over a billion starving people isn't particularly important.

Re:Frogurt

[value_added]

You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?

When I was a kid, our family lived in fairly urban environment in Canada. Despite that, we grew most of our vegetables, and our fruits came from our own trees or those of friends, neighbours, or the occasional trip to a farmer's market. Bread came from the oven, meat came from a farmer that raised livestock or from a reputable butcher, and wine was on the dinner table. Fairly traditional stuff for many Europeans, so you can guess my parents weren't native born. We didn't read labels, or need to, and instead of relying on the latest research on the value (or lack of it) of what we were eating, we trusted in the notion that the way ate was the way people ate for hundreds of years. The fact that it tasted good didn't hurt.

The reason I bring all this up, is that I'm old enough to remember any number of New and Improved products of one sort or another that eventually became part of the popular culture. One of those products was margarine. When it was introduced, all of thought it was obscene and laughed at people bought it, and respectfully ignored the doctors who advised people to use it. I hesitate to count how many years it took until people woke up to the fact that it basically unhealthy stuff to be putting into your body.

So, no thanks. People should stick to what is natural, and address any concerns about calorie intake (a separate issue) by eating less. Or getting off the couch or out of their car to go our for a walk once in a while. More specifically, fat IS good for you and your body needs it to function properly. You just need a lot less than you'd think, or prefer. Similarly, alcohol is also good for you, wine especially. Or do you think that stress-related illnesses or prescriptions for heart medication are more preferrable?

The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food".

My grass is wet; ergo it must have rained, right? Life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last century not because of medical advances, but due to improved hygiene. Throw in vaccinating children for communicable diseases as public policy, and you've pretty much covered the extent to which modern science has had an effect on longevity.

As for the soft drink epidemic, I exect that will fade over the next generation. We've already taken the first step by disallowing our schools to fund themselves by installing vending machines to promote the crap. The second step will be to teach our kids (by example) that what is natural is good. Spending one's free time sucking flavoured corn-syrup water out of an aluminum can or plastic bottles was never natural.

Re:Frogurt

[bigstrat2003]

My grass is wet; ergo it must have rained, right? Life expectancy has increased dramatically in the last century not because of medical advances, but due to improved hygiene. Throw in vaccinating children for communicable diseases as public policy, and you've pretty much covered the extent to which modern science has had an effect on longevity. You missed the whole point. The original poster's point was not to say that processed food is making us all healthier, it was to say that processed food isn't killing us at the alarming rate that the "natural" advocates would have you believe. Hell, if I were to listen to those people, I'd believe that I were going to die 10 years from now because I drink Coke. But just because I know that's false, doesn't mean I think Coke is the elixir of life, and will help me live longer and healthier.

Re:Frogurt

[hankwang]

life expectancy at birth has gone from about 50 years [...] You think that 25 used to literally be "mid life". Half your life was likely over by 25.

Life expectancy at birth includes child diseases that killed about 20% of the children before the age of 5. See page 6, fig 3 of the US life tables. Once you survived the first few years of your life, your life expectancy would increase considerably. See page 30 of the report: at the age of 25, your life expectancy was 65. Your midlife would be around the age of 34. Nowadays, the life expectancy only increases from 77.5 to 78.5 years between the age of 0 and 25 years.

Re:Frogurt

[Organic Brain Damage]

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food". We should take health issues seriously, and Sodium Benzoate needs to be further tested."

Could be coincidental. There are reasonably strong indications the modern US diet is unhealthy.

Obesity to Lower U.S. Life Span
Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999.

Re:Frogurt

[RevAaron]

You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?

Dunno man, don't knock the alcohol. It may be one of the most important things huamnity ever loved. Can't find it now, but I remember an article in Sci Am or the like about how alcohol could have been what kept us from poisoning ourselves throughout a lot of 'civilized' history. Alcohol use goes about as far back as humanity does, but we hadn't always dependend on it to survive as we might have during this (long) period.

I agree with what you said about the food, but there's a dialectic to this- you can't honestly advocate for dirtier, more processed food, can you? Just because it's cheaper for some company? I realize that organic pretentiousness isn't the solution, but rather there is a middle ground to be found.

There's a lot of talk about GMO crops "feeding the world," but all the corn, rice, etc in the world, GMO or not, doesn't feed the world. The problem of feeding the world is social and economic.

Re:Frogurt

[Sycraft-fu]

And so what? You are still talking about a considerable increase in life expectancy, over 13 years for someone aged 25. I'm going to guess that it, much like childhood life expectancy, has more to do with stopping disease than better eating but the point is still the same: We are living longer now by a significant margin than we used to. It may be inspite of the way we eat rather than because of it, but it is clear proof against the idea that processed and GM foods are killing us.

Re:Frogurt

[vorpal22]

It is far too soon to assess the effect of our increased chemical consumption on things like life expectancy, IMO. The number of artificial agents in our food has been increasing dramatically over the last few decades, and hence, we have not yet seen the long term effects of this: our great grandparents' and grandparents' diets were far more natural than those of our parents, which were likely far more natural than ours were during crucial developmental stages. As we, to date the heaviest consumers of these chemicals, are still alive and relatively young, I'm not sure that we can be taken into account when measuring life expectancy and hence the safety of these agents.

In 50 years or so, I think we'll have a better handle on how the preservatives, flavour enhancers, etc. of this generation affect health; of course, by that point, there'll be all new additives, so the learning process will have to keep beginning anew.

Re:Frogurt

[nanosquid]

only now are we using genes from OTHER species

Yes, and that's the crucial difference: there is almost no experience with the safety of that. It may seem plausible to you that taking a beta carotene or vitamin C gene and moving it from one species to another is safe, but showing that is hard.

the gene that produces vitamin C in mammals is broken in primates

No, it's not "broken", it's simply not needed. Primates usually get enough vitamin C through their regular diet. If they don't, something is wrong with their diet. You can add the vitamin C to some food crop, but that doesn't fix the diet.

that if corrected could prevent scurvy in malnourished nations

It may prevent scurvy, but it won't fix the diet. The problem with the diet is that it's imbalanced, not just that it lacks vitamin C.

but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible

Well, the majority of people don't know anything about genetic engineering, and for them, "GMO = bad" is a simple message that gets the point across.

Re:Frogurt

[nanosquid]

the nitpicking over GM has more to do with the method by which genes are introduced

No. Even if GM works exactly as intended and has no direct health risks, it still is a dangerous technology to use for food because of its potential effects on the environment and the economy.

Re:Frogurt

[Snaller]

"in the case of yellow rice for example, a gene for beta carotene was introduced resulting in a rice that can help prevent blindness in third world countries where rice is a major food crop."

But will cause their liver to blow up a generation from now.

" it is good to test and try to understand the effects of genetic engineering but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible"

Lol - typical taht "it is good to try and understand" - NO, it should be required. But they are in it for the money, sole reason.

All doubting is on the side of money not humans. If it was on the side of humans laws would say "unless you can prove this is not harmfull you can't make it" as it is, they say "unless a bunch of people haven't actually died from this then go ahead"

Re:Frogurt

[The Warlock]

Tell me, how do you get ethanol from a solar cell again?

Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Re:Frogurt

[Cuppa 'Joe' Black]

I'm less worried what GM does to my body than what it may do to the natural systems which produce all our food. It is screwing with something very valuable and fundamental. Never mind. Let's just try stuff and see what happens.

Re:Frogurt

[Snaller]

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food". "

Actually no, that's not a fact - remember there is "life lag", the numbers we look at are always 60-70 years behind. The people who die now eat their stuff a long time ago. And many scientists are thinking the curve will drop drastically in the future because of the crap people eat now - the obesity-related diseases in the west have exploded with a ton of related ilnesses.

"This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition."

And why is that? Because the rich west don't give a shit about them. When you get right down to it, most people don't care about the next guy - let him die. Which is also why its dangerous chemically added stuff, who cares if you bump off some people - as long as there are enough left to buy it!

Re:Frogurt

[Snaller]

""The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this 'processed crap' than we ever did with 'good old food'."

This statement bears repeating. While we may not be acting in what is the most ideally healthy way, our life expectancy has gone up, and continues to do so."

It also bears repeating that these are not "live results" - people who die now have mostly eaten other things over their life, and we wont see the effects of the current crap until years down the line. Many scientists are saying the life expectancy has peaked and is about to go down because of all the crap we are eating now,

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

The lifeexpectancy-crap is a non-argument since these additives were only created in the last 50 years and we haven't had much time to measure what influence they have on longevity. Why we live longer is because we eat our damn vegetables and meat now, we always have enough food and we can vary our diet.
THIS

The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this 'processed crap' than we ever did with 'good old food'. .. is BULLSHIT

And the rest of your +5 informative uber-redundant argument is just you showing of that you are pro-technology and have a post 9/11 mindset.

Re:Frogurt

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that the companies that make GM foods have been a little sloppy in many cases, genes that shouldn't have gotten out have and so on, I've heard of grain exports being rejected because a certain gene was found in shipments, and that gene had not been approved for food use. I don't think GM companies have every really been honest about the side effects that do pop up.

It's kind of like nuclear energy, it sure sounds nice, but given how sloppily it's being treated to this day, with sloppy or corrupt power generation companies and wholly lackluster enforcement, where it takes a safety accident to find that a plant has violated over a hundred regulations. In the TMI case, technicians in the plant weren't honest about what had happened, saying certain pumps were always on when they weren't.

I'd say that there is some cause for concern, and that the burden of proof is on those that are trying to promote the positive. There have been too many cases where problems were initially solutions.

Re:Frogurt

[yakumo.unr]

That can also be attributed to clean water, an abundance of food of any description, and significantly better healthcare.

While pumping yourselves full of processed crap, and over sterilize your environment, you pump yourself with scientifically advanced other crap to cope with your suffering immune system.

There are plenty of places in the world (Okinawa being one of particular note) where they eat healthy fresh organic food every day, lowest heart disease rates, and have some of the longest and highest quality of life through old age, without any of that crap.

This is becoming an increasing problem in the western world though, as the crap in our food increases, the sterility of our food and environment, and both our bodies, and the bacteria/viri or whatever the drug is designed to fight, build up greater drug tolerance (MRSA etc).

Re:Frogurt

[tgd]

Um... 25 was not mid life...

The average age expectancy has gone up because child mortality rates dropped, not because people are living longer. People who survived childhood have been living into their 80's at a minimum for centuries and there's little evidence that it changed much even before then.

Now the real question is, did you really not know that, or did you know it and were playing on the fact that many people don't to push your position in your reply?

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Homer: Can I go now? ....and just to add some actual comment: with the constant uncovering of bad effects of things thought previously to be entirely safe I find myself beginning to side with the anti-GM people... I mean I don't think it's definitely harmful, but the positive effects are mainly economic (and so reletively uninteresting unless money turns you on)- why can't be just deal with the good old food we're used to and know isn't going to do anything bizarre to our bodies. Not just with GM but with over-processing of any kind. When you've got beverages being made in ways to minimise only cost and maximise only the positive reaction with our taste buds then you're going to get stuff like this. Homer said all that?

Characterisation in The Simpsons is going to hell...

Re:Frogurt

[Antony-Kyre]

Do some genetically modified foodstuffs contain human genes?

Re:Frogurt

[mpe]

Speaking of bacteria, sure some can be bad, but the current trend of disinfecting all the food is becoming a bit extreme (and is likely causing immune system-related diseases).

As well as the possibility of breeding very tough pathogens.

The problems is that more chemicals are invented than tested. Because we now eat so many different chemicals, there's simply no way to determine their long-term side effects.

It's actually a few orders of magnitude worst that it first appears. Since what can matter is combinations, rather than individual chemicals. Not just those combinations in a specific product, but also those which could result from people's eating habits.

Re:Frogurt

[shalmaneser1]

mod parent up! that's a simple but insightful point.

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this "processed crap" than we ever did with "good old food". " Actually no, that's not a fact - remember there is "life lag", the numbers we look at are always 60-70 years behind. The people who die now eat their stuff a long time ago. And many scientists are thinking the curve will drop drastically in the future because of the crap people eat now - the obesity-related diseases in the west have exploded with a ton of related illnesses.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

solar cells convert light into usable energy which can be used to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen can be reacted with CO2 to make ethanol among other things

Re:Frogurt

[gnuman99]

It has gone up because,
    1. people don't die of infections so often (antibiotics)
    2. people don't die of war
    3. people don't starve
    4. people don't die due to childbirth (mother or child)

#4 is very important because childbirth was the *leading* cause of female death in the past. For males, it was probably #2. As one king once said "you paid good money to raise an army - better use it" (costing too much to maintain and disbanding it wouldn't even provide entertainment). And then in war you get infections if maimed so ...

No, natural is not the most deadly. Bubonic plague is *nothing* compared to what humans have created as part of biowarfare (eg. combining Ebola like virus with small pox and encasing it in plastic to maximize delivery and lethality). True, it wasn't used (yet), but when it will be, bubonic plague will look like mild case of hemorrhoids in comparison.

You are right that natural doesn't imply safe. Although natural doesn't mean the enigma that human-made is.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, dipshit, it's not just that childhood mortality has gone down. Point 2, preservatives are a huge part of the reason childhood mortality has gone down. Think Sodium Benzoate is bad for kids? Try the supertoxins created by molds.

You're such a stupid shit you wont even recognize how stunted your leftist thinking is.

Re:Frogurt

[ghyd]

To simply express an intermediate point of view, I'm not disturbed by technological advancement in crops (including GMO), but I'm not fond at all of processed foods (because I know how to cook rather well, it's healthier, most often taste better, is cheaper, and I always have 1/2 hour a day for it).

Re:Frogurt

[ghyd]

I didn't answer to the correct parent, my apologies.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've been reading on the internet, people who lived to age 40 in the 1800's only had a life expectancy of another 20 years. So, I think your post should say "living into their 60's", rather than "living into their 80's".

Re:Frogurt

[yakumo.unr]

God this needs a rewrite. Copying and pasting bits to rearrange it with a killer hangover, I really shouldn't have submitted it without previewing for longer, sorry. At least the gist is clear even with the appalling sentence structure.

Re:Frogurt

[LGagnon]

It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.

Are you kidding me? Factory farms exist to pump out large amounts of food to corporations that sell mostly to the first world. For instance, the vast majority of beef made in them goes to McDonalds. GMOs are used mainly for profit, not for some egalitarian purpose. In the third and second world, a lot of people still can't afford the junk that is produced through those methods. The third world has enough food for itself; they just don't have the infrastructure or political/economic freedom to get their hands on it. We don't need to further pollute our food to help feed everyone; we need to fix the poverty problem and do something about corporate corruption.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

You really do have no idea of basic chemistry, do you?
Yes, it can be done... by plants. And rather inefficiently.

Re:Frogurt

[wizardforce]

nonsense. ethanol in principle can be synthesized from acetic acid which can be made from methanol which is made from carbon monoxide which is made from CO2. there is a bacterium that can synthesize ethanol directly from a hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide feedstock. it has already been patented as a method of doing exactly what you believe to be impossible.

Re:Frogurt

[Prune]

Life expectancy has increased due to decrease in child mortality, not because we are leading healthier lives. Thanks for not addressing the specific danger discussed in the articles and instead indulging into intellectually lazy generalities that amount to no argument whatsoever.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is not liking preservatives Leftist, and why is liking them conservative for that matter?

Do you know what those terms mean?

Re:Frogurt

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I think it's pretty clear that the original commenter was talking about the many big GM food companies that rake in the $$$ because of increased crop yield, reduced costs, and winnings from intellectual property rights lawsuits. Any health benefits that these companies purport are just the marketing department doing their job. Health benefits certainly aren't in their motto, and because of that, they're only going to tell you the good side of things.

GE researches using proper ethical guidelines to help cure diseases are something else all together.

I mean, if the big GM food companies really cared about the third world, they'd use their big profits to by over-priced medicine from the big pharmaceutical companies and donate it to these poorer places.

GE will probably benefit all of us greatly at some point in the future, but I think the original commenter is right about the attitudes towards GE and organic food and many of the big corporations -- they're just in it for the money. If you want a good example of what that does to industries in terms of innovation, just look at the IT industry -- new tech for many of the big companies just means more ways to exploit loopholes in the new laws they create.

Re:Frogurt

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

You mean like alcohol, saturated fats, or tobacco?

They're only recent additions to the humans' menu. And all know they can cause health issues -- some of us refrain completely from all but the saturated fats, and many at least consume alcohol in moderation. These things also became common before there was such a thing as food science. GM food, OTOH, is very new.

As for the 3rd world: What these counties need is infrastructure, not just food drops or special crops.

Re:Frogurt

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Sometimes I think we'd all be better off if we removed the word "natural" from the English language. Then some people wouldn't go around thinking that anything that is natural is good, and others wouldn't use this misconception to blindly support the opposite stance (not saying that's what you were doing).

Re:Frogurt

[XenonOfArcticus]

Best. Comment. Ever.

One of my favorite Simpson's ToH quotes.

Re:Frogurt

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nano.org.uk/news/may2007/latest898.htm

Re:Frogurt

[Snaller]

"Life expectancy has increased due to decrease in child mortality,"

Wrong, but thanks for playing.

"Thanks for not addressing the specific danger discussed in the articles "

Hey, I'm cutting down right this minute.

A no win situation

[rolfwind]

Soda rots your teeth and probably contributes to diabetes II.

Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any.

And all the sugar-substitue additives have been questions for years.

Drink Water or at worst carbonated water. Maybe a little tea or iced tea made from decent leaves (not the garbage leaves in lipton surrounded by bleached paper to dunk in water), or even a little expresso.

Leave out the soda pop, leave out most of the milk (thought to contribute to kidney stones), leave out the juice, etcetera. And for god's sake leave out anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup - poison. Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.

The funny thing is, we have access to the cleanest water in history, without it being muddy or full of minerals, and we found a "need" to have all this oversweetened garbage instead.

It's not hard, start drinking for a week - you'll be over the sweet addiction. I like ice water the best. If you have to, treat yourself to a juice drink or milk once a day.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's great, but the water where I am is from a river where the male fish spontaneously start making eggs even though they are still male (they didn't change genders due to population pressure, they just started making eggs). Oh yeah, and there's lead in the water... so much that they govt sent out water filter kits.

And pure water will kill you, because the minerals in your intestine's cells osmose out and they die.

Leaving out the juice is crazy if you want to live healthy... you need to leave out the sugar-added juice.

Re:A no win situation

[Cyberax]

Juices are also OK if drunk in moderation.

Actually, pure unmineralized water is not very good in combating thirst - your body loses salts with sweat so unmineralized water causes electrolyte imbalance.

Re:A no win situation

[TheLink]

If you're that afraid of pure water, just take it with a pinch of salt ;).

I'd take my chances with pure water over most of the other stuff people are drinking.

The other drinks proven to be ok/good for health are: green tea (without milk!), and black coffee (without milk as well!). Just reduce the sugar by a lot.

As for fruit juices, most usually have too much sugar, so they should be reserved as a treat.

Re:A no win situation

[meekers]

While at one point it may have been thought that drinking milk contributed kidney stones, it is now thought that low-calcium diets can actually increase the risk of developing kidney stones. If you are going to avoid milk, do not avoid it for fear of developing kidney stones.

In addition, I would be interested to know what causes you to believe that high fructose corn syrup, in particular HFCS 45 or HFCS 55, is "poison". While I have seen claims that it is harmful before, I have not been convinced that it is any worse than table sugar.

Re:A no win situation

[suv4x4]

Drink Water or at worst carbonated water. Maybe a little tea or iced tea made from decent leaves (not the garbage leaves in lipton surrounded by bleached paper to dunk in water), or even a little expresso.

Leave out the soda pop, leave out most of the milk (thought to contribute to kidney stones), leave out the juice, etcetera. And for god's sake leave out anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup - poison. Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.


Oh, a little tea from decent leaves, not paper, paper's bad. Oh, I see, I see. You know, how bad for your life is when you die in a car crash, or a truck runs over you, or someone in a club beats you up and shoots you outside, or you fall from a bridge or whatever.

Never go outside, man! NEVER! It's dangerous. Maybe, you know, open your window a little, so air comes inside, but not too much, since air in the city is bad.

Or how about, instead of going all the way to the other extreme, just do things sensibly. I can guarantee you Pepsi MAX won't have profound effect on your health if you wouldn't drink ten gallons of it each day. I, for example, enjoy soft drinks in small quantities during weekends sometimes, or on a vacation, on the beach, or on a birthday party.

Here's the truth: even water will "fuck up with your [whatever] levels" if used in excess. Did you know you could die from water poisoning? Should we eventually stop drinking water and maybe just absorb moisture from the air, like some small mammals do?

USE EVERYTHING IN MODERATION.

Re:A no win situation

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any. If you want to make an outrageous claim like that, you had better back it up. All of the diabetics I know regularly drink diet soda without any significant impact on their insulin levels. If there was, they would know about it.

Re:A no win situation

[jez9999]

Did you know you could die from water poisoning?

Yep.

Re:A no win situation

[jez9999]

and black coffee (without milk as well!).

Sorry, but how can anyone drink that crap? I tried it once. If you took a handful of mud from the ground and added hot water, you'd pretty much have the same taste.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

And most of the non-diabetics I know don't drink soft drinks regularly. Make your own conclusions. Or better yet, don't make conclusions based on "the people you know".

Matt Stat,
from Statville

Re:A no win situation

[Winckle]

Diabetics are UNABLE to produce ANY insulin, the study showed that it fucks with the insulin levels in healthy people, with pancreases that can produce insulin in the first place.

Re:A no win situation

[Grr]

Keep practicing. As soon as you start associating the bitter taste to the upcoming solution of your engineering problem, you're set.

Re:A no win situation

[TheLink]

Nah, I'm pretty sure mud would taste different.

Drinking coffee tastes a bit like drinking unknowned charcoaled stuff (similar to that Korean tea made from roasted barley IMO)... I don't mind once in a while, and sometimes it tastes good (sugar FTW), but I usually prefer drinking other stuff.

Still millions of people drink coffee, and scientific studies seem to indicate that they tend to live longer (and better) than those who just drink water (no wine, no tea). Maybe coz the latter aren't having as much fun :).

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

If it tastes like bitter muddy crap then you're making it wrong. Try a really good espresso (if you live in America, you may have to emigrate).

Re:A no win situation

[JRIsidore]

Maybe because with diabetes the insulin level is the very problem. People with type 1 diabetes can't produce enough insulin and the level is therefore controlled by regular injections, not the body itself. Type 2 is an insulin resistance, so even if the levels rise due to drinking diet soda it might not have any effect. But this is just my guess...

I heard of that effect, too. When eating sweet food the tongue registeres this and the pancreas reacts with increased insulin production. This effect has been confirmed in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2887500&dopt=Abstract

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you even posting when you don't have a fucking clue?

Re:A no win situation

[Cheezymadman]

Or you can man up and drink black coffee like anyone with half a sack. Maxwell House or Sanka.

Re:A no win situation

[Randall_Lind]

It is all a bunch of crap. They said eggs were bad also then they said they were good. I doubt Pepsi is the only factor! What about coffee or tea? I am not stopping drinking of Pepsi! Hey pass that 2 little please :P

Re:A no win situation

[Mprx]

Nonsense, distilled water is perfectly safe to drink:
http://yarchive.net/med/osmotic_damage.html

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Bizarre. You actually think Maxwell House is good? Maxwell house, here in europe, has one advantage - when it's on a building site, its taste before you accidentally spill tiling grout powder into the jar is pretty much the same as afterward...

GOOD coffee comes from a machine like a Gaggia (though there are supposedly much better, Gaggias are quite good enough), and is ground from beans on-site.

Re:A no win situation

[laejoh]

I call for the start of a Purity Of Essence campaign!

Re:A no win situation

[KDR_11k]

Um, you know that there's more than one type of diabetes, right?

Re:A no win situation

[suv4x4]

the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any.

Brain: To.. think? Think?!

Body: Sorry, boss... it was just close to sugar...

Brain: I'm not paying to effin think here, I'm the thinker, you're the doer! Morons.

Re:A no win situation

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

minerals don't osmose, osmosing is something that water does.

Re:A no win situation

[SunTzuWarmaster]

My drink of choice is 70% water, 30% juice (pure, not from concentrate, 100% juice). I'm afraid I can't see why fruit juice made your hit-list.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes something that tastes bad can taste pretty good.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a gay-boy.

Re:A no win situation

[yabos]

Type 2 is your body being insulin insensitive OR not producing enough insulin but still some insulin. Both of these conditions can be caused by stressing your body by intaking high amounts of sugar. Your body will be releasing larger amounts of insulin which stresses your pancreas to the point it might not be able to make enough. Also, having high insulin levels many times per day causes your body to become insulin resistant. This means the cells start to ignore insulin to a point where your blood sugar levels stay higher than normal.

IF insulin release can be caused by your body sensing sweets then the person first stating that is correct, and artificial sweeteners cause insulin release by your pancreas. This is not what most people think. They think they can take all they want of that crap and still be ok because it's not sugar. Well, a quick search of google shows otherwise http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en& q=artificial+sweetener+insulin+response&ie=UTF-8&o e=UTF-8

One interesting result I turned up: http://dietandbody.com/article1082.html

Re:A no win situation

[oneiron]

reverse osmosis is your friend...

Re:A no win situation

[Gryle]

leave out most of the milk (thought to contribute to kidney stones)

Do you have any evidence for this? I go through a gallon of whole or 2% milk (depending on the prices) in about 2 days. I've been drinking milk like this all my life and I've never had any kind of kidney problems. Yes, I know my evidence is entirely anecdotal, but I figured my doctor might have mentioned something to me if drinking that much milk was really a health risk.

Re:A no win situation

[sadler121]

Juices are also OK if drunk in moderation.

If you goto a grocery store in the US, and look at the "juices" 99% of them have no greater than ~30% "juice". Most of what makes up the "juice" is high fructose corn syrup, that yucky Type II Diabetes enabling crap. It is hard to find, but you can find the 100% juice stuff which has the natural sugers that are easier for you body to digest.

Actually, pure unmineralized water is not very good in combating thirst - your body loses salts with sweat so unmineralized water causes electrolyte imbalance.

Cause we all know electrolyte's are good for everything!

Re:A no win situation

[profplump]

No, he doesn't think it's good, he just thinks the parent should man up and drink it anyway.

Re:A no win situation

[Afecks]

The funny thing is, we have access to the cleanest water in history, without it being muddy or full of minerals, and we found a "need" to have all this oversweetened garbage instead.

Enjoy your water. I'll enjoy my soda. We'll both die someday, I'll just have a bigger smile when I do.

Re:A no win situation

[vivIsel]

I agree with some of this, typos--it's espresso, not expresso, for one--not withstanding. A few things, though:

1) Many of our ancestors didn't make do with water. Actually, it made a lot of them very sick, because it couldn't be sanitized efficiently. To stay healthy, they turned to alcohol. (ha!) I agree that we should have more water drinkers, but on the historical point I take issue. Water hasn't always been mankind's cup of tea. So to speak. (:

2) I think the kidney stones-milk connection is a very dubious one, which basically rests on the assertion that "AHHH KIDNEY STONES CONTAIN CALCIUM AND SO DOES MILK WHAT WILL I DO?!?!" And while it's true that both things contain lots of calcium, the only people I'd advise to stay away from milk on that account would be people who have kidney stones. Otherwise it's just scare tactics. Unless you can show me some (peer-reviewed, major journal published) evidence to the contrary.

3) Unless you're hypertensive, there's nothing particularly wrong with a *lot* of espresso. Except that it dehydrates you a bit. People have been trying to spoil coffee for the masses with damning scientific evidence for years now, and it seems that it just isn't there. (:

4) Don't leave out all of the juice! Sure, a glass of good orange juice has a lot of sugar, but it's not artificial. It's got plenty of good stuff too. One should be moderate with it, but one should be moderate with everything!

Re:A no win situation

[austexmonkey]

> Type 2 is your body being insulin insensitive OR not producing enough insulin but still some insulin. Both of these conditions can be caused by stressing your body by intaking high amounts of sugar

No, the onset of Type I diabetes has absolutely nothing to do with diet. Absolutely nothing at all. Type I diabetes is an auto-imune disease caused by the immune system attacking the insulin producing beta cells. This is why implanting a type I diabetic with more beta cells simply doesn't work, the immune system just kills the new cells as well.

As far as I know the only treatment that has "cured" a type I diabetic has been an implantation of beta cells, followed with a permanent course of immunosuppressants. These are the drugs given to the folks who have had organ transplants, and have horrendous side affects. Its a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Anyway, type II diabetes has a strong dependence on diet and weight (as well as genetic factors). Type I does not.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful. I used to drink that much milk too, and now I'm lactose-intolerant. Is there a relation between the two? No idea, but I just thought I'd warn you.

Keep milk as a treat, not your main beverage.

If you do become lactose-intolerant and have to switch to soy beverages, be aware that some are pretty good and most are pretty crap. Texture, viscosity, etc. Try them all, you should find one that suits you.

Re:A no win situation

[yabos]

Which is why I said type 2 not type 1. Both of these conditions I was talking about insulin insensitive and not producing enough insulin which are both causes of type 2 diabetes http://diabetes.webmd.com/tc/Type-2-Diabetes-Cause

Re:A no win situation

[rolfwind]

I disagree with the ancestors comment. Here's why.

Alcohol came with the rise of civilizations. That is at most 10-12K old, as far as I am aware. What did they drink in the millions of years before that? Evolution acclimated us toward water.

Also, before the white man came, Indians never had alcohol. Once they came in contact with it, they had such an weakness for it, that many became addicted and became sick over it.

We tolerate alcohol, but only to a point.

Re:A no win situation

[vivIsel]

That's why I said "many of our ancestors", not "all of them." Of course alcohol was an imperfect substitute for water, one that was most useful for cities and towns where contamination of water supplies was an issue. But I wasn't making claims of universality--only that when my parent comment said that water was good enough for our ancestors, that it was a little more complex than that.

Re:A no win situation

[austexmonkey]

Ignore my comment then. :) I assumed that "both these conditions" was referring to type I and type II diabetes.

Re:A no win situation

[norman619]

"Diabetics are UNABLE to produce ANY insulin"

Sorry but you are wrong and really should do some research bofore speaking on a topic you obviously don't know anything about. My father was a diabetic. His body produced insulin just not enough.

Re:A no win situation

[RealGrouchy]

Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.

From what I recall, beer became such a popular drink precisely because water was too dirty to drink. The processes by which beer was/is produced eliminated most of the nasties from water.

- RG>

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to read, retard.

Re:A no win situation

[Canthros]

Mud's got a flat taste and chalky texture to it. Not very tasty, really.

Try a mild brew from your nearest coffee house, actually. Be careful about anything you get in a cafeteria or pre-ground in a 5lb. can. Personal suggestion? Skip the French and Italian roasts: stuff always tastes burnt to me, anyway. You may find black or green tea a better alternative if you need a caffeine fix, though.

Re:A no win situation

[Firethorn]

, but you can find the 100% juice stuff which has the natural sugers that are easier for you body to digest.

Huh, I thought it was the opposite. Well, 'easier' and 'harder' aren't necessarily the best words, but HFCS is actually faster to metabolize than sugar, which is faster than most fruit sugars.

Therefore HFCS creates more of a spike than even sugar, making kids hyper then crashing(wanting more). Because this spike is WAY too much to be used immediatly, it triggers storage mechanisms, leading to fat.

Re:A no win situation

[zombie_striptease]

Drinking coffee tastes a bit like drinking unknowned charcoaled stuff (similar to that Korean tea made from roasted barley IMO)...

Correction: Korean barley tea tastes like Cheerios. Hot liquid Cheerios.

Re:A no win situation

[ml10422]

Drink Water or at worst carbonated water.

My solution is to drink water with a tiny amount of cola in it. It tastes much better than full-strength soda, sort of like weak ice tea with a teaspoon or two of sugar in it.

Re:A no win situation

[Nutty_Irishman]

As for fruit juices, most usually have too much sugar, so they should be reserved as a treat.

Just mix the juice with some water. I've been doing 1/3 juice 2/3 water for years now and have gotten to the point where I can't drink pure juice as it's too sweet.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm...5 Informative? The comment is simply wrong.

Re:A no win situation

[billcopc]

That's because people who drink water don't make money for the people who are paying for scientific studies in the first place: the coffee, wine/beer and milk producers.

I'll tell the world sucking dick will make you live longer, if they pay me enough.

Re:A no win situation

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Don't forget to hold your wee for a Wii ;)

Re:A no win situation

[ModDoc]

or even a little expresso.

I really hate that the English language has been adulterated so that the incorrect spelling "expresso" is acceptable. I prefer espresso.

Re:A no win situation

[tmosley]

Actually, our ancestors dealt with bad water by making alcoholic beverages. For most of human history since men became civilized, we have drunk alcohol for hydration as well as to avoid dysentery and other water bourne diseases.

Re:A no win situation

[TheLink]

I guess the bottled water people are making enough money without scientific studies. USD10 billion in sales?

Maybe they're actually worried about people finding out about the genuine health hazards of drinking too much water... ;)

Re:A no win situation

[aethera]

While I agree with your assertion that we are better off without soda and, corn syrup and all of the other refined (or artificial ) sugars, and am currently drinking a very fine iced tea ( Sumatra BOP, Kyu Aro Estate), its a mistake to think that our ancestors drank a lot of water. The truth is poor sanitation and hygiene quickly contaminated all but the most rural water sources. How did our ancestors avoid all the bugs that can live in such water? Well, a lot of them didn't, others had a higher comparative resistance, and alcohol. Fermentation is a great way to preserve all manners of food, from kimchee to beer. In the US Johnny Appleseed didn't become a folk hero because of "an apple a day.....(a 1930s marketing campaign) but because apple trees (especially those grown from seed) mean cider and cider (the orginal fermented hard cider) is a source of "safe" drinking water. A pioneer doesn't have to worry about getting sick from bad water, and can get buzzed at the same time. And a good time was had by all....;)

Re:A no win situation

[Evilest Doer]

Sorry, but how can anyone drink that crap?

Well, you probably didn't try *good* coffee. Good coffee doesn't need milk or sugar. Your comment reminds me of a friend of mine who said he hated beer because he tried it once and it tasted the way he would imagine flat horse piss tastes. I asked him what kind he tried, and he said "Budweiser". After my initial shriek of horror, I explained that this is why he hates "beer" and he should try some of the real stuff instead.

BTW, I think it's hilarious someone modded you "Troll". It looks like some slashdotters are pretty touchy about their coffee :-p

Re:A no win situation

[boingo82]

That's inaccurate - anything less than 100% juice cannot be labelled as "juice". It must be labelled as "juice cocktail", "juice punch", or "juice drink" depending on the percentage.

Also, it is really NOT that hard to find 100% juice once you know what to look for - usually a gigantic 100% JUICE!!!! label on the front.

Re:A no win situation

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.

And our ancestors were able to make do with dying a lot because they had no contraceptives and so they had babies at a rate that made up for the high mortality rate. Are you proposing we return to that way of life too?

Re:A no win situation

[brsmith4]

anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup - poison

Is there any evidence to back this claim? There is a lot of fear mongering and very little science to back this. Care to elaborate?

Re:A no win situation

[Zonk (troll)]

By comparing Budweiser to flat horse piss you're insulting flat horse piss.

Re:A no win situation

[evilviper]

Soda rots your teeth and probably contributes to diabetes II.

Orange Juice rots your teeth and probably contributes to diabetes II.

Drink Water or at worst carbonated water. Maybe a little tea or iced tea made from decent leaves (not the garbage leaves in lipton surrounded by bleached paper to dunk in water), or even a little expresso.

Your refreshment preferences have no bearing. You have no scientific basis for claiming they are more or less healthy than anything else.

And for god's sake leave out anything sweetened with high fructose corn syrup - poison.

People have been eating corn for a very long time. Ditto for drinking milk, and the like.

Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it.

The funny thing is, we have access to the cleanest water in history, without it being muddy or full of minerals,

Our ancestors didn't drink water with chlorine and fluoride in it. They didn't drink distilled or reverse-osmosis filtered water with all the crucial minerals removed from it.

Re:A no win situation

[UncleTogie]

I refuse to drink bottled water, probably 'cause I'm annoyed they're selling a life-critical resource at a ridiculous profit margin. "Designer Water", f'r cryin' out loud?!?

Re:A no win situation

[marcomarrero]

Unfortunately corn syrup doesn't taste as good as table sugar. That's why Coca Colas in Mexico are better, similar to the little, overpriced, "Christmas" ones in glass bottles.

Sugar might be poisonous also, when I was a kid I remember they burned down crops because it was the cheapest method. They also had to switch to a type of sugar cane more fire resistant, which was thinner, drier, and not that sweet. I miss real sugar canes, and really miss obtaining unprocessed sugar molasses.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a nice way to say that.

Re:A no win situation

[Astro Dr Dave]

Two comments on that abstract...

First, the sweetener was not aspartame (though this may well be irrelevant).

Second, the amount injected into the rats was 150 mg/kg, which roughly doubled the expressed insulin levels. That is roughly (to witin a factor of a few) the amount of sweetener in a typical 12-oz soft drink... and humans typically mass hundreds of kg. So it's not clear that there is a significant effect of diet soft drinks on insulin levels in humans.

Re:A no win situation

[fireman sam]

I think that the GP meant water dilution. This is a serious problem with marathon runners. There have been cases of runners collapsing and in some cases dying because they have diluted their body salts. Or, according to this web site:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070220/n ews_lz1c20fluids.html

  "Too much water and you can experience hyponatremia or water intoxication. Your blood becomes diluted, your brain swells and coma or death can follow, as demonstrated recently by a California woman who died after participating in a radio station's water-drinking contest."

Damn, I wonder if she won?

Re:A no win situation

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

She didn't win. I don't know why she didn't win if she drank enough to kill her but perhaps it was a body mass issue - there wasn't enough of her to soak up the water. Most of these ConsumeLargeAmountsOfX competitions naturally favour large males. If I remember correctly she wanted to win something for her son, like an X-Box or something equally not worth dying for.

Re:A no win situation

[BertieBaggio]

[pedant mode]

Minerals don't move by osmosis, water does. Drinking pure water is unlikely to kill you either, unless you drink a LOT of it. Distilled/filtered water is fine.

[/pedant mode]

PS What species of fish is it undergoing male parthenogenesis where you live? I've heard of the female variety, but not male.

Re:A no win situation

[compro01]

yes, but unless my reading and math skills are way out of whack right now, that is using very high doses (150mg/kg, then 20mg/kg/min)

going by the can i have handy, there are 124mg in a 355ml can of diet cola. that is 1.51mg/kg for a 180lb (82kg) man. they're showing this effect with a dosage nearly 100x that.

are there any studies around using more realistic dosages?

Re:A no win situation

[Torvaun]

Nintendo Wii, and it was for her three kids. Also, a nurse called the radio station to warn them about the dangers of drinking water like this, and got blown off. Last I saw the radio station wasn't getting sued, but pretty much everyone who had anything to do with the contest was out on their collective asses.

Re:A no win situation

[Khazunga]

Diet Soda, it has been found in a European study (German?) to fuck with your blood sugar level - the body thinks it's getting sugar, pumps you with insulin, and it turns out you aren't getting any.

Rubbish. If it were so, people would faint left and right after drinking light sodas, because of the drop in blood sugar levels.

Re:A no win situation

[lgordon]

Type 1 diabetes is an insulin production problem. Type 2 diabetes is an inability to correctly process insulin that is produced.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

For an AC, I think that was the nice way.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

When eating sweet food the tongue registeres this and the pancreas reacts with increased insulin production.

Does this mean it is safer to avoid contact with the tongue by pumping diet sodas down a tube in your throat?

Re:A no win situation

[Lumpy]

Excuse me? so you are saying that ALL diabetics cant produce any insulin?

Where the hell do you get such a wild ass claim such as that? please cite me sources to your information as I know for a fact that you are incredibly wrong.

Type 1 Diabetes has that problem, Type 2 can have varying states from low levels they create to even the horrible version where they produce erratic levels.

how about the hypoglycemic people? they dont have the problem when consuming Diet sodas. both the Aspertame and Splenda based sweeteners.

I know this for a FACT as I AM hypoglycemic. If I take a drink of a regular coke I can monitor my blood sugar levels and watch the mess that happens. while the same thign with diet soads has ZERO effect. ZERO. I get no drastic drop as my body produces insulin to take out the imaginary sugars.

Re:A no win situation

[wirefarm]

Someone pointed out a funny thing to me a while back:

          "Man is the only animal that drinks anything other than water as an adult."

If you think about that, it makes sense that we should do the same.
A coder might argue that they need coca-cola to program, but drinks like that actually make your brain work less efficiently than plain water.
Caffeine contributes to sleep deprivation, which also impedes clear thought.

If you want to be at your best, get enough sleep, put yourself on a strict diet that doesn't include sugar, gluten, caffeine, salt or fat. Meditate a bit before a project. Then, when it comes time to sit down and write some code, compare the clarity of thought you have with how you feel while on an all-night caffeine-fueled, pizza-fed coding binge.

Re:A no win situation

[zitch]

Enjoy your water. I'll enjoy my soda. We'll both die someday, I'll just have a bigger smile when I do.
Either:
1 - Soda is a significant contributor to happiness in your life (assuming that bigger smile at death means a larger accumulation of happiness during life)
Or
2 - You got some very special soda...

Ah well, it's a short life. Enjoy it... ;)

Re:A no win situation

[Duhavid]

Have you a wing of B-52's? If so, all you need is attack plan "R".

"Buck" Turgidson.

PS: Dont forget to switch in your CRM-114 discriminator!

Re:A no win situation

[dgatwood]

Yes, but they come up with other interesting terms, too. For example, I never noticed any obvous indication that Kern's isn't fruit juice, but it is artificially sweetened with loads of HFCS, much to my chagrin. You think you're drinking something healthy, then read more carefully and find out that your apricot purée contains 14% juice or some such.

And even things that are 100% juice are often... say 15% of the juice you think you're getting and 85% white grape juice (from concentrate)---the cheapest fruit juice available, and among the worst fruit juices for you in terms of having relatively little nutritional value.

You have to seriously scrutinize fruit juice if you actually care about what you are getting....

Re:A no win situation

[aclarke]

Yeah, WTF is up with Kern. I was SOOOO excited to find Guava juice in the stores when I first moved to California. I couldn't believe it. Then I saw that they sweeten their guava and mango juice! I mean, are they not sweet enough already? Plus, I'd think that anyone who knows to buy guava juice also doesn't feel that they need it artificially sweetened.

Depressing.

Re:A no win situation

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, post your conclusions from some study whose origin you do not remember and cannot readily cite.

I'd take "people I know" over that any day

Re:A no win situation

[Trogre]

I thought 100% pure H2O, besides being utterly unobtainable, would kill you due to it having no hydronium ions and thus having an infinite pH making it a strong alkali.

Re:A no win situation

[boingo82]

Oh yes, Kerns. I am ticked at them for that. Why can I not buy straight-up guava juice without added crap?

Them, and "Hansen's All Natural" which is loaded with HFCS. How fortunate for them that the FDA does not regulate the term "all natural" like they do, say, "organic", and thus Hansen's can slap it on anything they want.

I guess I do not see the scrutinizing as a big deal as we read the labels on every product we buy. Unfortunately most breads, ketchups, pickles, baked goods, and other products are full of HFCS, so I have to be careful. We have a few different ingredients that we simply will not eat. Thank goodness the gov'm't started requiring more labeling for trans-fats, because a lot of companies eliminated them. Nutella for example used to have something like 8 gm of trans-fats per serving. Now, less than .5 gm.

Re:A no win situation

[dgatwood]

And Snapple's "all-natural" products contain HFCS, too, I've noticed. Natural, my @$$.

Re:A no win situation

[boingo82]

Well, there's still Archer Farms italian sodas, and Jones sodas (now HFCS free!!) at Target. And the other day I got some "sodas" there that are 100% juice with added carbonation. Called "The Switch". Their site is obnoxiously edgy, but if you want "soda" without as much crap in it, it's worth considering.

Re:A no win situation

[dgatwood]

Yes. Izze has a similar product (carbonated blackberry juice, etc.) in Target. Quite good.

Re:A no win situation

[mink]

My wife, who has something going on with blood glucose (verified not type 1) cant drink aspartame because after a few days he blood glucose levels go crazy high and stay there. We tried standard type 2 stuff involving diet and foods (as well as common sense of paying attention to what we eat) and the only difference between her at normal levels for a healthy adult and the sky high plateau was a regular intake of 3 sodas a day or more containing aspartame. Aspartame also seems to affect her vision (makes it blurry) after a few days of regular intake. Sucralose does not produce the same result.

All the things I mention we observed before we started reading about people having headaches (something she does not experience) from diet soda. It was the only change to her diet and if she quit them after a few days he body would go back to normal.

Then again we discovered she must maintain a certain level of carbohydrate (preferable low glycemic index, but even high GI is ok) intake (at least 40G a day) or her blood glucose starts to weird out (stay high). If she eats at least that much a day it stays in normal ranges (for fasting and after meals). The doctors say she is just diabetic, but for some reason if she eats a "diabetic" diet it makes things worse rather then better.

Frankly she sees most benefit to healthy glucose levels from exercise on a regular basis as well as moderation in food and drink.

Re:Technical details

[messner_007]

Why is this effect limited only to mitochondrial DNA ?

Destroys Mitochondrial DNA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this be used to destroy Mitochondria Eve??
Either that, or bullets work just fine too...

This sodium benzonate has been known to be bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This (sodium benzonate) has been known to be bad, bad to the bone, for several years.

If you haven't seen it before, it's news to you!!

Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Stickerboy]

News at 11.

This should be trivially easy to prove/disprove by an epidemiologic study. There are plenty of people who drink soda with the benzoates in them; there are plenty of people (myself included) who drink a rather large amount of soda with potassium/sodium benzoate added.

Obviously, if the benzoates are really bad for you, there should be more things wrong with us, and the effect should be dose-dependent on how much benzoate you take in.

Honestly, the smell test (do I detect a whiff of paranoid, protect-the-children bullshit?) makes me think this is the Alar Scare of 2007.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Anonymous Coward]

It might take a while for negative effects to manifest themselves, say decades. Not so easy to prove then.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you right now what benzoates do to my room mate. If he drinks a single 12 oz can of mountain dew, sprite, cherry 7up, root beer, mr Pibb, Dr Pepper, etc that have benzoate preservatives in them, he breaks out in hives. They start out small, and if he only has one can, they stay small.

If he drinks it in quantity, say having sodas with benzoate in them constantly throughout the day, he puffs up, gets welts on his back, arms, chest, legs, face... And only in direct correlation to the quantify of benzoate he consumes. The welts and swelling are abrasion based, so if he bumps a wall, or scratches an itch, etc, they swell up, but only after direct exposure to benzoate.

It takes weeks of detox after heavy exposure to make him less suseptable to the abrasion welts. And it comes right back after a single can of any benzoate laden soda.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[jez9999]

makes me think this is the Alar Scare [wikipedia.org] of 2007.

Did you mean to say that?

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Secrity]

Non-food chemicals such as Alar, benzoates, and artificial colors/flavors should not be added to the food chain - period.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Kierthos]

Cool, you can eat the fungus growing in your food. Me? I'll take the risk of a little sodium benzoate.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, the smell test (do I detect a whiff of paranoid, protect-the-children bullshit?) makes me think this is the Alar Scare of 2007.

Umm, the article you linked to basically says that Alar is a dangerous carcinogen and was rightly banned. And that a food and chemical industry lobbying group has since (rather successfully, it seems) managed to manipulate the media and deceive people into thinking that it was all overblown.

So I'm confused. Did you not read said article, or are you conducting an experiment to determine if /. readers actually read linked articles before responding? Or maybe you work for said lobbying group?

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[Stickerboy]

>>makes me think this is the Alar Scare [wikipedia.org] of 2007.

>Did you mean to say that?

Err, yes? If George Bush broke into the Democrat's political offices, it would be the Watergate for 2007. Check your calendar.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[LGagnon]

Alar wasn't as big of a problem because we don't eat that many apples. Soft drinks are completely different; people drink way too much of them (although really, drinking soft drinks in any amount is unhealthy because of all the other problems associated with them). Thus, this could be an actual serious risk.

Re:Bad News For Yeast Cells!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I'm not saying sodium benzoate is an issue, but you really are simplifying the situation too much. That you started your comment with "This should be trivially easy..." is what raised a red flag. In science, designing proper experiment, getting accurate results, interpreting them correctly, and applying them to the real word in a meaningful way can be incredibly hard.

Simplifying such things is how health scares like this happen in the first place (except for when the media is solely to blame).

Re:Technical details

[Nymz]

Why is this effect limited only to mitochondrial DNA ?

I believe that the common understanding has been that the amount used in food items was too small to cause much damage. But this new information might lead to evidence of a long term health risk from even small amounts.

Well thank goodness

[iminplaya]

Beer is still safe.

Re:Well thank goodness

[freedom_india]

Actually you are right.
I find beer more satisfying, and filling, than a mere coke (pepsi is for those with diabetes).
But then schools can't sell beer. ! Wait they can sell the non-alcoholic variety.

Re:Well thank goodness

[diamondc]

Beer is all-natural too! (water, barley, yeast, & hops). Skip the big name swill like Bud or Coors and check out any local breweries. It's my beverage of choice instead of going for a coke.

Re:Technical details

[arivanov]

That is different, but even scarier.

If you combine peroxides which always exist in trace quantities in mitohondria, ascorbic acid and benzoate in the presense of free (very few are free in a living tissue, most are helated by something) popular metal ions you get benzene which fucks with nearly anything in your body. Mutagen, changes in properties of proteins, etc. One good thing, is that this reaction is outside normal pH range as it is optimal at 2 and decreases to nearly 0 at 5.

Still, the article quotes a number of others that discuss what happens in the 5+ pH range and the list of substances there is similarly obnoxious - phenol, diphenil stuff, etc.

Gawd, do not care about eurocritters, but that by itself is enough to ban the stuff in my house. Funnily enough I loved fanta when I was a kid. It gives you this strange buzz which no other soda can do. Now I see why...

The Independent started WiFi Scare

[cruachan]

Not to say that there might not be an issue, but The Independent was the Newspaper that first ran the WiFi scare in the UK - a couple of weeks ago and well before the BBC - and last Sunday's scare in the paper was over baby alarms. Both pieces were examples of really bad science journalism with widespread scattering of the term 'radiation' throughout and cleverly writen to wrap as much scaremongering as possible up in pseudo-objective and precautionary language.

Today's leader article is a classic 'For The Sake Of The Children' rant (http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles /article2586569.ece)

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[Anonymous Coward]

The research comes from a University, not a newspaper.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[frogblast]

I buy the independent - it's one of the better, if not the best national newspaper in the uk, but in recent years the amount of editorialising on the front page has become ridiculous. their science coverage is often very very poor, like the wifi articles recently, and before that various stories about mobile phones - including the one one about them killing bees.

they do just about make up for it with their excellent middle east coverage (Patrick Cockburn and Robert Fisk) and decent columnists, but really the only reason i continue to read it is that the other papers are so shockingly bad.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, the Indy is normally a solid paper and this weak tabloid science is beneath it. Did they change science editor or something?

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[Threni]

> their science coverage is often very very poor

They've also taken up the `cannabis is harmful` line, after years of campaigning for its decriminalisation. Its rival, the Guardian, covered the Independent's ridiculous change in its Bad Science column, noting that there was no proof that cannabis was 1) stronger now than before, or 2) causing more harm. I no longer buy the Independent.

> but really the only reason i continue to read it is that the other papers are so shockingly bad.

In my experience, people buy papers which reflect their world view, particularly their political views. If you think about it, though, it doesn't matter if you agree with the views as long as you understand the filtering process. It's possible for me to read, say the Times or the Telegraph (very conservative - with a small c - papers) and find out about something even if I believe in the exact opposite of the spin being put on the article by the paper.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[jb.hl.com]

I switched to the Guardian for the simple reason that the Independent has become nothing more than a left wing Daily Mail, presenting biased editorials as front page leaders, producing an increasing amount of celebrity/fashion coverage and treating its readers like children. Additionally, the Guardian appears to do more actual investigative reporting than any other newspaper. A few reasons, among many others, why I switched.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[Kijori]

Just to clear things up, the Telegraph is a conservative paper, the Times is a centre-right paper, a long way to the left of the Telegraph and actually moving towards the centre - they've dropped support for the Conservative party, for example.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[asobala]

The research comes from a University, not a newspaper.

It's not been published. (I looked.)

To all intents and purposes, this means the research hasn't been completed yet. Publishing a popular-science article about unpublished data is irresponsible and misleading to say the least, regardless of the accuracy of the conclusions.

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[Prune]

I don't know about WiFi, but here's a sampling of the recent papers on cellphones.

"Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1703462 7
From the abstract: "We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours."

"Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma" 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1547571 3
From the abstract: "However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years' duration."

And so on. There also appear to be direct cognitive effects:

"Mobile phone effects on children's event-related oscillatory EEG during an auditory memory task." 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1684697 9
From the abstract: "The current findings suggest that EMF emitted by mobile phones has effects on brain oscillatory responses during cognitive processing in children."

Then a number of studies related to changes in specific cellular functions:

"Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1689826 3
From the abstract: "The levels of lipid peroxidation in the brain cortex and hippocampus increased in the MW group"

"Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones" 2003
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1278248 6
From the abstract: "weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier....We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats."

"Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1697122 2
From the abstract: "In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell."

And so on. A lot of studies discuss issues with DNA related issues:

"Mobile phone radiation causes changes in gene and protein expression in human endothelial cell lines and the response seems to be genome- and proteome-dependent" 2006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=p ubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do

Re:The Independent started WiFi Scare

[cruachan]

Well yes, but we've had heavy mobile use by the general population for what? 10 years at least now, probably nearer 15 and by some sectors for 20. And yet any risk is at the level where we need really large statistical studies to find the mearest hint of any problem in practice.

Now sure this could be because the effects take longer than 10-20 years to appear, or are at very marginal levels, or both. But in any experiment of this type the results are always a bell curve, and if there was a significant effect lurking with say 30 years exposure required you'd expect to see greaters sign of it by the outliers now. But we don't. So the conclusion has to be that there is no risk at any significant level. This isn't to say that some effect in the order of low n per million over 40 years or more exposure might turn up, but it'll be of the same or lower level than taking a long distance flight and that's regarded as perfectly acceptable by most people.

*sigh* Old news

[Quiet_Desperation]

You get more benzene exposure from car exhaust while driving then you'll ever get from soda. It's everywhere. You get doses of it just breathing every day.

Why do people instantly buy into scaremongering stories like this? Look how there's already several posts crying "Why not the FDA doooooo something!"

Do what? Just don't drink soda if your panties got soiled by this story. Oh, and don't pump gas, either.

Re:*sigh* Old news

[SetupWeasel]

Yes, but where is the money in sensibility? Think, McFly!

Re:*sigh* Old news

[Death_Aparatus]

Amusingly, by this time next week I'm sure they're going to be drinking the same old crap again, with all of this forgotten.

Re:*sigh* Old news

[zCyl]

You get more benzene exposure from car exhaust while driving then you'll ever get from soda. It's everywhere. You get doses of it just breathing every day.

Why do people instantly buy into scaremongering stories like this? Look how there's already several posts crying "Why not the FDA doooooo something!"

I have a better question. Why do you call it scaremongering when you clearly haven't even read the article? It's not the benzene byproduct that is the problem, it's the benzoate itself which was found to be damaging DNA (and not for the first time). And a drinker of soda containing benzoate is certainly intaking more benzoate from the soda than from car exhaust.

Re:*sigh* Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

I tell you what, how about this... I avoid the soft drink (which I already do) and people like you poison me with your cars anyway.

Just because you are already poisoning someone, doesn't make it any better that we're finding out that someone else is, too.

Re:*sigh* Old news

[Quiet_Desperation]

The article referred to the benzene issue.

Re:*sigh* Old news

[Quiet_Desperation]

and people like you poison me with your cars anyway.

Poison idiots like you? OK, and with great glee.

Newsflash: Weird chems mess you up

[Anonymous Coward]

Big surprise there. Man how long is it gonna take for us to stop using this crap?

Seriously, it's not a necessity, it all comes down to keeping prices lower.

Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

For these united States of America at least, maybe it is time to ban soda pop being sold in schools. (This can be by vending machine or served in the lunch line. Students would be free to bring it from home.)

By banning it, I mean for each INDIVIDUAL STATE to take it upon themselves to make it illegal for K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS to sell or serve soft drinks. Let the schools get the money they need another way. Health is more important.

If it turns out that this is a false alarm, the ban can be lifted. Why not simply ban things containing sodium benzoate? Well, there may always be scares involving the chemicals in soft drinks, and more importantly, there may be contract issues if some pops of a given brand are not sold.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[ross.w]

There are numerous other reasons not to have soft drinks in school canteens, including the sugar content. In NSW most school canteens have a policy of offering healthy food choices, and I don't hear the kids conplaining.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

Over the years, there have been conspiracy theories and scares regarding to the chemicals in soft drinks. I feel it is safe to say that each state should take it upon themselves to prohibit k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks solely because of this.

To ban soda drinks (students still free to bring their own from home) based on sugar content alone isn't sufficient. Although I feel it would be a good idea, as a small portion of the population has trouble saying, "No." when it comes to the availability of such products, it would be infringing on those who have no problem. Afterall, a caffeinated beverage before class can be useful, can it not?

Nonetheless, if the chemical scare wasn't the issue, I would be saying require schools to sell soft drinks for a higher price than now. Perhaps $1.50 or more per 12 ounce can would be justified.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the years, there have been conspiracy theories and scares regarding to the chemicals in soft drinks. I feel it is safe to say that each state should take it upon themselves to prohibit k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks solely because of this. Yes, by all means. Let's have states passing legislation based on conspiracy theories.

Turing Word: reject

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

Maybe you misunderstand what I'm trying to say.

Conspiracy theories alone aren't sufficient to ban pop sales in k-12 public schools, but perhaps given the recent news article of sodium benzoate being harmful (assuming it is true), maybe some of those theories were justified. Maybe we should play it safe and prohibit k-12 public schools from selling pop.

This does not prevent students from bringing their own pop to school. This does not prohibit stores from selling pop to children. This does not add a tax to pop. This simply prohibits k-12 public schools from selling or serving pop, especially when they have a vested interest in the profits from soda sales. The issue should be trying to get the government to provide more funding to schools so they don't have to worry about trying to get it through other means.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[bigstrat2003]

To ban soda drinks (students still free to bring their own from home) based on sugar content alone isn't sufficient. Although I feel it would be a good idea, as a small portion of the population has trouble saying, "No." when it comes to the availability of such products, it would be infringing on those who have no problem.

Nonetheless, if the chemical scare wasn't the issue, I would be saying require schools to sell soft drinks for a higher price than now. Perhaps $1.50 or more per 12 ounce can would be justified. So you don't want to infringe upon those who have no problem with soft drinks, but you're ok with screwing them over via the prices of said beverages? I'm glad you don't run our nation's schools, sir.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

One, I don't believe there should be anyone running our nation's schools. It is a state issue.

Two, as I said, it wouldn't be infringing on those who have no problem with soft drinks because they would still be free to bring them from home. However, those who do have problems with it, trouble saying no, this would help a lot because they wouldn't have the convenience of buying it at school, and parents can more easily prevent their child from bringing pop to school.

I'm not going to get into this issue in depth. The fact is, sodium benzoate is most likely harmful, according to the article, therefore, I am illogically going to conclude that the chemicals put in pop, whether that specific chemical or not, may pose a risk. We might not know the risk for some time. I feel it is better safe than sorry. I feel the state governments should restrict k-12 public schools from selling or serving soft drinks. Pay attention to the adjestives I used.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

New Hampshire's way ahead of you.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

I think someone is abusing their moderator privledges. How is this even considered off topic? Or does someone simply don't like my opinion on what should be done?

Yes, it is an opinion I stated. It is not a fact. I can contact legislators all I want. I could even get an initiative done. That doesn't mean it will be done, or people will think the way I do.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[mshurpik]

They've banned soft drinks here. At least that's what I've read.

In place of soda they have to sell "juice," which (in practice) means 100% from concentrate. Which is basically sugar-water. Go pta moms!

Trivia, can you name 3 juices that are not from concentrate, in US supermarkets?

If you include the kosher and organic aisles, you can get up to about 5...out of ~100 brands/varieties.

Re:Time for a ban for pop in schools

[Antony-Kyre]

Banned at what level, district or state level? If at the state level, do you have the initiative process?

Sell...

[sporkme]

Hello, E-trade? Yeah... how invested am I am in the stock "PBG" and how much have I lost? Oh, I just read that the sky is falling is all.

Re:rots your brain as well

[polar red]

I would say "YES". But i can suggest Chocolate , dark(>50% cacao).

Some Soft Drinks May Damage Your *DNA*

[iamacat]

Should I obstain after drinking a pop then??

Re:Some Soft Drinks May Damage Your *DNA*

[DeeVeeAnt]

No need to worry, the kleenex will safely absorb your dubious DNA. In the interests of public safety, always incinerate just in case.

95000 litres?

[Anonymous Coward]

Olympic size swimming pool.

I used to be totally addicted...

[Greg_D]

... to Coca Cola. That was after growing up for 21 years in which cola was a treat that almost never found its way into my family's household.

Sugar? Check.
Caffeine? Check.
Citrus flavor? Check.

But the main thing that I loved above all else was the bite from the fizz. After I realized this, I made a quick switch to seltzer water with a lemon or lime wedge and sometimes some crushed mint. I get the same bite, but without all that extra stuff.

Dropped 30lbs in 3 months after that switch.

Re:I used to be totally addicted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Random tidbit: I actually gained 5 pounds after I dropped soda. But I am a very skinny man.

Re:I used to be totally addicted...

[B5_geek]

I was in addicted to the stuff too, I was drinking upto 6L per day. I stopped drinking it (when I went on the Atkins diet) and lost 40 pounds in my first month.

Re:I used to be totally addicted...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an American? If you are, you should put HFCS instead of sugar. Just sayin'.

Re:I used to be totally addicted...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I actually did the same thing. I switched to seltzer and i lost 50+lbs. I drink mostly water now, not seltzer, but yeah definatly it makes a huge difference when you just drop the sugar and other silly shit.

Another day another warning.

[sunforged]

There are so many arguments about what is and what isn't good for you but for me the bottom line is this: a can of soda once a month shouldn't do too much harm. A can of soda four times a day is going to rot my teeth, let alone damage my DNA.

Re:Another day another warning.

[justinlee37]

A can of soda four times a day is going to rot my teeth

I wouldn't blow this out of proportion. While ingredients in some sodas can eat at the enamel of your teeth, most people don't soak their teeth in soda -- in fact, if you drink it with a straw, it probably never touches your teeth at all.

It isn't as simple as "four sodas a day will rot out your teeth," and I feel bad for any children you may have that you preach this inanity to -- just use a straw!

Of course, on an unrelated note, soda does have a high sugar content and is a contributing factor to many people's obesity. It also dehydrates you and gives you headaches from constantly fluctuating levels of caffeine in your system (if you drink a lot).

So the bottom line is, you should restrict your soda intake for reasons regarding your overall health (try to drink water instead!); but please don't blindly buy into the "soda rots your teeth" craze and try to suggest or enforce arbitrary "ideal soda limits" without considering the various contributing factors to tooth loss (such as how much time individual consumers allow the soda to contact their teeth, how often they brush their teeth, how much they salivate, how often they drink water, and so on and so forth).

I just checked...

[Cyno01]

the 17 empty mt dew cans in the waste basket next to me, all of them have sodium benzoate!

No kidding.

[zCyl]

Not to mention sodium benzoate causes headaches in a good percentage of humans, and over the long term has been found to trigger obesity and diabetes in lab rats. (It might do this in humans too over the long term, but it's hard to get humans to sign up for such studies.)

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that people drink diet sodas that are loaded with this, and they think they are doing their body a favor.

Re:No kidding.

[PatrickThomson]

Yes, because obesity and diabetes are much better than headaches. I do agree that the next stage after switching to diet sodas is to drop them altogether, but I don't want to catch you running up to waddly mcfatfat and screaming "don't switch to diet soda, it'll kill you!".

Re:No kidding.

[zCyl]

I do agree that the next stage after switching to diet sodas is to drop them altogether, but I don't want to catch you running up to waddly mcfatfat and screaming "don't switch to diet soda, it'll kill you!".

Show me a study which shows that in the long term, consumption of diet soda with aspartame and sodium benzoate results in lower average weight than consumption of equivalent amounts of, say, standard coke or pepsi (which both have neither).

The entire justification for switching to diet sodas is based on this presumption, yet it might actually be the opposite. These additives seem to have much more of a biological impact than a few calories.

Re:No kidding.

[russotto]

Are you seriously suggesting that substituting a non-caloric substance for a high-calorie substance in one's diet, without changing the diet otherwise, will not result in lower average weight?

Re:No kidding.

[DamnStupidElf]

Are you seriously suggesting that substituting a non-caloric substance for a high-calorie substance in one's diet, without changing the diet otherwise, will not result in lower average weight?

If it fucks up the endocrine system, more calories could be converted to fat than normal, outweighing the reduction in calories from drinking diet soda. Basically, you'd get less working energy from food but more fat. Not that it necessarily does this, just that it's a possibility.

Re:No kidding.

[zCyl]

Are you seriously suggesting that substituting a non-caloric substance for a high-calorie substance in one's diet, without changing the diet otherwise, will not result in lower average weight?

Yes, I am suggesting that it will not in this case. The caloric model is naively simplified, and does not take into account the side-effects that the other substances would have on the body's metabolism. Metabolism has far more to do with one's weight than 30 grams of sugar in a can of soda.

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll me, but you sound like a fatass in denial, who is desperately trying to blame something other than his sweet sweet delicious cokes.

Re:No kidding.

[zCyl]

I have about 10% body fat, and I don't even like soda. I'm simply discussing the science.

Peter Piper

[Oxen]

From the article "Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory."
and
"It is also added to pickles and sauces."

We've always known about Peter Piper's obsession with pickled peppers. Perhaps he is just starting a smear campaign so we will no longer have to worry about how pecks of pickled peppers Peter Piper actually picked.

On a side note, it says that sodium benzoate is used to prevent fungal growth, and yet Dr. Piper is declaring that it news newsworthy to note that benzoate inhibits the growth of yeast (a fungus). In related news, it appears that antibiotics may also kill off bacteria living in your gut. Dear God...

Re:rots your brain as well

[Simpsoid]

Unfortunately I became relitavely addicted to Pepsi Max over the Christmas break just gone.

Our local supermarket chain had them on sale for AU$7.95 for a 24 can carton.
I bought like 8 cartons because it was so cheap.

Since that ran out I relied on the competing chain of grocery stores to price match. Every few weeks one of the stores will have a sale on Pepsi (and its varieties). I now go week to week buying about 4 cartons and when I run out I wait till the next sale is on.

I am a type 1 diabetic and have been for over 10 years, so I only get Pepsi Max. This seems to be some alarming news. I drink 2 or 3 cans every day and have since Christmas.
I was always aware that carbonated drinks were not good for you. They tend to leech calcium from your bones as well as other unhealthy side effects.

As someone previously posted though the no-sugar drinks don't mess with your blood glucose level. My body doesn't think that its about to have a sugary drink and release some more insulin (apart from the fact that it actually can't) it doesn't adversly affect me.

It's horrible stuff and I'm going to ween myself off it after reading this.

Re:Technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

This is purely guessing, but perhaps because chromosomal DNA is in the cell nucleus and is thus better protected.

Hahaha, trivially easy

[jenik]

I'm not sure if you're serious but if yes, than you have no idea about how this kind of science works. What exactly would you be looking for in the study? Saying that `more things should be wrong' is a little vague. Also, where would you get a large enough control group (age, sex etc. matched) if EVERYONE drinks these drinks. One more point, since nobody has observed any ill effects of benzoic acid the effects, if any, will be very subtle, i.e. you will need a massive sample to see anything... Not so trivial anymore, is it. (Leaving out the issue that facts cannot prove or disprove a proposition, see Popper, Lakatos, etc)

evil

[nanosquid]

Drinks manufacturers point out that sodium benzoate has been approved for use by regulators

Regulatory approval should not permit manufacturers to escape their responsibility: "it was approved" should never be a way of escaping liability over dangerous substances. Regulatory approval can, at best, be an extra safety check, not something manufacturers can rely on.

Re:evil

[crazyjimmy]

If they label something as non-toxic, and it turns out it is, then it should be the fault of the group who said "use this", especially when that group is our Government. Otherwise, why are we giving them our money to keep us safe?

I'm not saying that the companies shouldn't be on top of the latest research, but seriously, these regulatory bodies exist to keep us safe. If they're not able to do that effectively, then maybe it's time to replace them.

To put it another way:
The company offers us an optional product in exchange for money.
The Government demands our money in exchange for a mandatory service.

The difference is I can choose to avoid one of these two groups.
--Jimmy

Re:evil

[JonathanR]

When corporations monitor and know all the gory details of their product's market penetration, surely it is not too much of an imposition to ask for them to also monitor and understand the public health consequences of attaining such market share.

Why does it take documentaries like Super Size Me and the like to force corporations to consider the social and community health effects of their efforts.

romantic and calvinistic notions?

[nietsch]

"Our ancestors were able to make due with water as a drink and so our bodies should be acclimated to it."
Sorry, but do you have any proof for this except from "it should be, because out ancestors did it"? You may disguise it with some evolutionary selection handwaving, but basically you are propagating the romantic notion of 'le bon sauvage' (the good wild [man]). Did you ever compare the average lifespan of 'our ancestors' with the current average lifespan? Maybe current culture does some things detrimental to your health, but overall it is much better then what our ancestors had to go through if you measure it by lifespan.
The other hidden argument that you use is that it is morally better to restrict yourself and almost never indulge on luxury. What are you, some monk that derives pleasure (oh no, bad!) from chastising himself?
The article was about someone making a health scare over an additive that has been tested and approved decades ago, on the basis of some muddy test in-vitro by, afaict, one researcher. Where are the references to peer-reviewed journals, have others replicated his results, etc. People apparently have a hard time understanding that a poison is not only in the substance, but also in the dose. It could very well be that with normal consumption you never reach a significant dose that has any effect at all.
I think that there is more danger in the trip to the grocery store wit your car, than there is in the additives in the soda pop you buy there.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[jafiwam]

Actually, for a good portion of European history mild beer was pretty much the safest way to get liquid. Not only did it provide some calories and vitamins, it sterilized the water and helped lots of ugly Europeans get their groove on. They went on to dominate the world for a long time.

I, for one am doing my part to uphold European tradition by consuming large quantities of beer.

You are right though, the article is suspected FUD until proven to be FUD. Look for some bottled water company funding it in the background....

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[rolfwind]

Before civilization started, 12K years ago, I really doubt people had a constant or ready access to anything but water. That millions of years of evolution that acclimated us to drinking water. And what of our evolution as animals, what did they drink?

If you have another theory, tell me.

As for being a monk, no. I'm someone that poisoned himself in a way with that junk.

It is a well known fact in science that depriving yourself of calories (1200-1400 a day for a sedentary lifestyle instead of 2000) is one of the surest ways of extending your life and living healthy. That means kicking out caloric drinks.

Look it up.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[dobestpossible]

While I agree that the danger involved in a trip to the grocery store is more immediate, if an accident does occur, than the danger presented by additives, I don't feel that the discussion and informing others of possible adverse health effects should be silenced.
  The argument about water should be good for you because our ancestors drank it (and our species survived well on it) seems self evident, doesn't it? If not, perhaps the fact that our bodies are made up of 70% water is evident? The way you compare the shorter lifespans of generations past to their drinking water is absurd. The reasons we are living longer these days is based on several factors, with the main one being advances in research and technology. Vaccines for diseases that used to be prevalent, plumbing systems that allowed for better hygiene (daily showers, brushing teeth, sinks, and toilets), and refrigeration devices to protect foods from spoiling and contamination, faster methods of transportation (allowing medical supplies to reach people in need to save lives), surgical procedures to transplant organs (can you believe they can even implant an artificial heart to keep you going?! F-king amazing) are some of the key areas that allow for our longer lasting life. There are drawbacks to these conveniences as well, such as the health problems caused by a diet that is too rich in fats, salt, and sugar.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[buswolley]

Well here are some relevant articles drawn from PubMed Most are peer reviewed, I think:

Mowafy, AR, Darwish, AM, El-Kholy, SA, et al. (2001). Effect of food preservatives on mother rats and survival of their offspring. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 76(3-4), 281-95.

Türkolu, S. (2007). Genotoxicity of five food preservatives tested on root tips of Allium cepa L. Mutation research. Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 626(1-2), 4-14.

(2006). Beverage ingredients can form carcinogen. Consumer reports, 71(10), 7-.

Asero, R. (2006). Sodium benzoate-induced pruritus. Allergy, 61(10), 1240-1.

Andersen, A. (2006). Final report on the safety assessment of benzaldehyde. International journal of toxicology, 25 Suppl 1, 11-27.

Seems like the literature is sparse though I am not a biochemist, and may not recognize relevant articles.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[Bamafan77]

It is a well known fact in science that depriving yourself of calories (1200-1400 a day for a sedentary lifestyle instead of 2000) is one of the surest ways of extending your life and living healthy. That means kicking out caloric drinks.

Look it up.

Look what up? This is the Age of the Internet man, with hyperlinking! Throw us a bone, especially when making claims about scienfitic studies that seem like they could be interesting if we only knew where to look.

Anyway I'll let you off easy this time and do it for you. :) Very interesting study btw. I've always suspected that we probably don't actually need to eat every single day. This study shows that not only is it not needed, but it could actually be detrimental.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. That's the best argument I've heard against the Atkins Diet.

I challenge everyone here to stop drinking sodas (and preferably sugar too) for one month then have a soda. THEN see if you still want to argue about soda not being that bad for you.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[rolfwind]

There was a big article in the New York Times earlier this year about it (paper) but I'm lazy and don't want to register. If you want to look further into it, wikipedia is a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[node 3]

Sorry, but do you have any proof for this except from "it should be, because out ancestors did it"? You may disguise it with some evolutionary selection handwaving, but basically you are propagating the romantic notion of 'le bon sauvage' (the good wild [man]). Did you ever compare the average lifespan of 'our ancestors' with the current average lifespan? Where did that come from? You might have a point if there was some actual, physiological, benefit to sodas (the primary target of the GP's attack) over water. By all medical measures, water is superior to pop. The "noble savage" doesn't enter into it.

Maybe current culture does some things detrimental to your health, but overall it is much better then what our ancestors had to go through if you measure it by lifespan. This wasn't about "current culture", it was about soft drinks vs water. You're reading way too much into this.

The other hidden argument that you use is that it is morally better to restrict yourself and almost never indulge on luxury. What are you, some monk that derives pleasure (oh no, bad!) from chastising himself? Pop isn't a luxury. For most of us, it's a daily (even the primary) drink. It's not more healthy than water.

It could very well be that with normal consumption you never reach a significant dose that has any effect at all. It damages your DNA. Dosage, in the way you're talking about it, doesn't enter into it. The way you're using the term is the "LD50" type (Lethal Dosage 50% of the time). This additive will not kill you directly at the dosage in soda. What it *will* do is damage your DNA, so the damage is cumulative--the more you drink, the higher your risks, unlike a poison which will kill after a certain threshold.

There are two points here, which you seem to be conflating. One is soda in general. The other is sodium benzoate in particular. Soda is definitely not all that good for you, and often times is quite detrimental. It's not going to kill you right off, but it can lead to serious health issues (osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity) or, more often, lesser problems (but problems nonetheless). All of which, however, is within the realm of reasonable personal risks. Sodium benzoate, on the other hand, appears to be extremely dangerous, and seemingly has no business being added into our foods and drinks.

I do fully and completely agree with your premise that there's a lot of nonsense arguments against modern society which tends to be very anti-modernity and (ultimately) anti-human (hippies, amish, religious extremists, and reactionaries, are some examples of such people), but I really don't think it applies here at all.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[Khazunga]

It is a well known fact in science that depriving yourself of calories (1200-1400 a day for a sedentary lifestyle instead of 2000)

If you're a male, I'd be surprised if your metabolic consumption wasn't at lest 2300 calories per day. 1200 calories per day amounts to starving in a few months (how many depends on how much fat you have to start with).

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[Prune]

Actually, the danger of sodium benzoate has been well established by a series of papers starting from the 90s. This was one of the first: Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst [commercialalert.org] (pdf warning) from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5

Seriously, asshole, do your research before posting nonsense.

Re:romantic and calvinistic notions?

[nietsch]

It could very well be that with normal consumption you never reach a significant dose that has any effect at all.
  It damages your DNA. Dosage, in the way you're talking about it, doesn't enter into it. The way you're using the term is the "LD50" type (Lethal Dosage 50% of the time). This additive will not kill you directly at the dosage in soda. What it *will* do is damage your DNA, so the damage is cumulative--the more you drink, the higher your risks, unlike a poison which will kill after a certain threshold.

May I suggest a smidgen more biology in your knowledge? DNA is constantly damaged just by natural causes alone, let alone what happens in the sunshine. The cellular mechanisms are well in place to repair just that damage, and in most cases where damage is too extensive, the cell pulls the emergency brake and goes into programmed cell death (apoptosis). That means that there is a minimal dose below which something is no longer toxic, there are no exceptions because it involves something you have trouble understanding (DNA).
Noble savage was indeed the correct translation of le bon sauvage, though.

The US FDA DID look into it, kind of

[MedicinalMan]

from 1990 until as recently as 2006. Here's a link This has to do with benzene formation in the actual can of soda from ascorbic acid and benz. acid reacting due to heat/light. They decided the amount was too small to cause harm. The importance of the finding is that it seems to imply that benzoic acid/benzene are BOTH safe in small amounts. Or if you want, that only benzene in small amounts is safe. This argument altogether skips a little known property of molecules such as benzene known as "nonpolarity". The nonpolar benzene in soft drinks may enter gastrointestinal cells, but won't get very far since it is not soluble in water/blood. The benzoic acid is very much like certain pharmaceutical drugs in that it can be delivered as a "prodrug" (a pre-drug before the cell converts it to the actual drug). Basically my point is that this issue can be skirted by industry who claim the benzene/benz acid health effect was already dealt with, when it has not.

Did you read that link?

[msimm]

Basically the article says:

While the lab tests that prompted the scare required an amount of Alar equal to over 5000 gallons (20,000 L) of apple juice per day, Consumers Union ran its own studies and estimated the human lifetime cancer risk to be between 5 - 50 per million (1 case per million is the threshold at which the government considers a carcinogen a significant public health concern).

and then:

Whelan's campaign was so effective that today, Alar scare is shorthand among news media and food industry professionals for an irrational, emotional public scare based on propaganda rather than facts.

So if I'm reading it right, Alar scare is term based on the a little sensationalism (bad CBS!) and a lot of spin-doctoring by the ACSH. Alar causes cancer, at least in enough people to be considered an unnecessary risk (personally, I don't see the benefit outweighing the risk even if I wasn't one of the 5-50 unlucky people, at least not for a silly additive).

Pffft

[Mystery00]

Pffffft, been drinking this stuff for years, completely harmless, I'm just fi- *urk*

No publication?

[jenik]

PubMed doesn't seem to have any papers on this, at least by this Piper guy... I'll wait for a peer reviewed publication.

Re:No publication?

[KIFulgore]

Mod parent up, this guy knows where to go to be informed and make your own decisions. The recent aspartame articles on PubMed are a bag of mixed reviews, nothing concrete yet.

Re:No publication?

[Prune]

Mod parent and grandparent down. There is a whole series of articles starting with Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5

Re:Well thank goodness (low-alchohol)

[dltaylor]

I have found two real (according to the Germans) beers at Trader Joe's that are essentially alcohol-free and that we like. "Clausthaler" http://us.clausthaler.com/ has two flavors (we prefer the amber). There are others that we have also found consumable: "Haake Beck" and "Sharp's". Calories are in the range of sugared drinks, so you don't want to load up on them unless you burn it off, but definitely preferable to "corn syrup" or sugar substitutes in soft drinks.

Re:Technical details

[Anonymous Coward]

i think he meant a more scientific paper ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.

Always blame the Soft drinks

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia:

Sodium benzoate is found naturally in cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples.

Re:Always blame the Soft drinks

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, arsenic is also found naturally in apples. where are you going with this?

Re:rots your brain as well

[(negative video)]

I was always aware that carbonated drinks were not good for you. They tend to leech calcium from your bones ...

I thought the calcium balance was affected by the phosphoric acid used to make some soft drinks taste tart.

Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[saforrest]

the gene that produces vitamin C in mammals is broken in primates and other species that if corrected could prevent scurvy in malnourished nations. it is good to test and try to understand the effects of genetic engineering but to blindly fear it because of things like this is irresponsible

You're not just talking about genetically engineering foods, but now humans? On a massive, global scale?

1) Vitamin C is an essential nutrient for higher primates for a reason: our ancestors ate a lot of it, and thus no longer needed to produce it. These genes for synthesizing it that you want to "reactivate" haven't been expressed for millions of years, which means they haven't been selected on (to the same degree). For a programming analogy, how quickly does commented-out code become obsolete?

It's not at all clear that we're still capable of synthesizing Vitamin-C, that it's just a matter of "turning on" a gene somewhere: it might require extensive implantation of non-primate mammalian DNA into our genomes. And this is not a small change.

2) Who would research and administer this genetic re-engineering system? Big Pharmaceutical, that's who. You're naive if you think there's any good side to letting go about re-engineering the genes of any person, let alone impoverished people who are in less of a position to speak up about abuses.

3) I frequently hear pitches like this, for certain types of technological solutions which could save the lives of the desperate poor. In addition to your suggestion, we could, for example:
  - i) genetically engineer a number of crops with higher yields, providing more food,
  - ii) blanket Africa with DDT, killing mosquitoes (and therefore preventing malaria transmission),
  - iii) actively destroy swampland in rural Africa and other tropical regions, to reduce the size of mosquito breeding grounds.
The argument for these technologies (saved human lives) is easy to advance. There are various specific counterarguments to be used for specific cases, but there are two general counterarguments:

A straightforward swap of human lives in exchange for some consequence we haven't defined or investigated is never a great idea. What if we replace all crops with engineered ones, but those are all wiped out ten years later by a plague that preys on the new genetic homogenity of these crops? What if there's something else that grows in swamps that, it turns out, we really need? The appeal to lives saved is always an emotional appeal, but there's no point to the trade if we don't know the price.

The reasons for Third World poverty are not technological, but social and political. We could give more food to hungry people now; we don't need to wait till we get higher-yield crops. (To relate to your example, we could send Vitamin-C pills to malnurished nations now: surely this would be cheaper that a widespread program of genetic re-engineering!) And if we aren't giving it away now, aren't we fooling ourselves by thinking that we will when we have more to give away?

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[deacon]

3) I frequently hear pitches like this, for certain types of technological solutions which could save the lives of the desperate poor. In addition to your suggestion, we could, for example: - i) genetically engineer a number of crops with higher yields, providing more food, - ii) blanket Africa with DDT, killing mosquitoes (and therefore preventing malaria transmission), - iii) actively destroy swampland in rural Africa and other tropical regions, to reduce the size of mosquito breeding grounds. The argument for these technologies (saved human lives) is easy to advance. There are various specific counterarguments to be used for specific cases, but there are two general counterarguments:

Let's see: Silent Spring has been debunked. 2000 people die in Africa from Malaria EVERY DAY. Africans WANT to use DDT, to save their lives. Rich White granola munching hippies in rich countries have decided that dead brown people are unimportant relative to the teachings of the sacred scrolls of the Cult of Gaia.

I'll go with the Africans on this one.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[saforrest]

Silent Spring has been debunked. 2000 people die in Africa from Malaria EVERY DAY.

Whether or not Silent Spring was overly sensationalist or exaggerated is separate from the question of whether DDT has an environmental impact. There are a reasonable number of references in the Wikipedia article on DDT suggesting it has a significant effect on the populations of certain birds and other predators.

Africans WANT to use DDT, to save their lives.

They want to, and do: DDT has never been banned there. I said "blanket Africa with DDT", suggesting a more widespread use than is currently practised, with a correspondingly larger environmental impact.

What you say about rich white granola-munching hippies in rich countries is frequently true. This is symptomatic of Western idealism in general: lots of interest in ideas, too little interest in their implementation. How many kindred spirits have communed about the evils of exploitation in the Third World over lattés at Starbuck's?

But you seem to be concluding that just because many Western idealists are disgusting hypocrites that the science must be wrong. Why?

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[pla]

Let's see: Silent Spring has been debunked.

In a broad sense, yes. That doesn't make every point contained therein false - DDT does thin eggshells resulting in a much lower rate of successful hatching, for example. More importantly - It does kill mosquitos and countless other base-of-the-food-chain insects! That doesn't just mean "lower incidence of malaria", as much as you might try to paint it as such.

I would agree, though, that Carson did more of a disservice than promotion for ecology. Baby and Bathwater, though.



dead brown people are unimportant relative to the teachings of the sacred scrolls of the Cult of Gaia.

Not quite - dead brown (and yellow, and yes, even white!) people do not so much matter compared with the danger of removing one of the lower levels of the food chain. No matter how much of a nuissance, even danger, Mosquitos pose to humans, that means nothing compared to the up-chain consequences of making them all dissapear.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already practice genetic engineering. Every time a cancer patient is saved the gene pool is degraded. Genetic engineering might be the only future the human race has since we are currently devolving.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[saforrest]

Every time a cancer patient is saved the gene pool is degraded. Genetic engineering might be the only future the human race has since we are currently devolving.

There's no such thing as "devolving".

And the survival of cancer patients is hardly the central thing freeing us from the selective forces to which we used to be exposed.

In the past, people often died from other things before cancer could kill them, meaning a resistance to cancer was not selected for. And many of the cancers which we now suffer from are produced by modern toxins anyway, so they would not have occurred in these numbers in antiquity.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see: Silent Spring has been debunked.

As if "Silent Spring" was the whole of the issue.

By the time DDT was canned, the widespread use of it had already led to pockets of DDT-resistant mosquitos. Even if it was still being used, your bleeding heart would STILL be bleeding, only now it'd be bleeding for whatever stronger poison to spray everywhere until the mosquitos began to resist that too, at which point it'd be bleeding for something even more poisonous.

The "right" thing to do is to reintroduce DDT at vastly lower levels, under WHO guidelines to spray only around homes and businesses, which would kill most of the mosquitos around humans, while leaving the majority of the population unaffected.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[naoursla]

Only if that cancer patient has children afterwards. If they had children before then curing them or letting them die has no effect on the future gene pool.

And it isn't really devolution. That would imply that a species becomes less fit for its environment. Just because one feature that used to be useful is disappearing does not mean that the species as a whole isn't a better fit for its environment.

Are humans "less evolved" because we lost the ability to produce Vitamin-C or because we no longer have gills?

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Silent Spring has been debunked.

Really? Over the years, there have been several straw man arguments put forward by spokesmen for the chemical industry that purported to represent Carson's arguments, that were then easliy cut to pieces. That is the nature of straw man arguments.

But Carson's actual thesis has proven true: pesticide manufacture and usage needs to be regulated by government for the good of the people, because the chemical industry has proven itself incapable of sane self-regulation.

In 1962 through 1964, I worked after school on a cider mill outside of Boston MA, in an area with a very high number of Ph.D.s per square mile. We made thousands of gallons of apple cider in an open air operation between August and December. One of my jobs was to periodically spray the bottling area with DDT powder to keep the yellow jackets (wasps) away. None of us had any training with the spray rig: there was no such training available. There is no question that DDT got into that apple cider, and no question that little kids and pregnant women drank the stuff. Since the cider mill was only a couple hundred yards up hill from the reservoir that supplied much of Cambridge's water, every year we were putting a couple of dozen pounds of DDT into the coffee and tea that Harvard and MIT students were drinking. But since the stuff concentrates as it goes up the food chain, our bad practices probably affected the dads and kids who fished that reservoir more than anybody else.

Rachel Carson argued for informed, intelligent use of pesticides, with proper controls. Her argument was persuasive to the overwhelming majority of US citizens. The results have been a system of regulation based on training and licensing that has on the whole been more sensible than the total lack of regulation that her most vocal opponents continue to push for. Teenagers not yet old enough to drive should never have been given the responsibility for spraying toxic substances around, and certainly not spraying it around food. Yet that is what the chemical industry thought was good, and what they still want to go back to.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[Zinho]

DDT does thin eggshells resulting in a much lower rate of successful hatching, for example.

Does it now? Here's a second opinion on that:

In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment - and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild. Reference: Steven Milloy of Junk Science writing for Fox News

If you're offended by the Fox News reference, check out his bibliography.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with argument that we should protect the base of the food chain. I just get touchy when people assume things are absolute fact when they are based on shaky research. If it's true (as stated in the quote) that the thinning egg shell results were the result of inadequate calcium in the diet of the test birds, then an adequate control group (same diet/conditions minus DDT) would have been enough for the research to refute itself. It just wouldn't have been as fun to publish as comparing their test birds' egg thickness to a table of "average shell thickness in healthy birds".

Honestly, it makes me wonder if the environmentalists aren't just engaging in projection when complaining about bad science and rigged/paid-for studies on the part of big industry.

Re:Genetic engineering of humans, etc.

[chartreuse]

2000 people die in Africa from Malaria EVERY DAY. Africans WANT to use DDT, to save their lives. Rich White granola munching hippies in rich countries have decided that dead brown people are unimportant relative to the teachings of the sacred scrolls of the Cult of Gaia. Would you like some soda to go with that strawman? DDT use for malaria has never been banned, not even in the US. Though synthetic pyrethroids are cheaper and less likely to promote the development of resistance.

Perhaps you could consult your sacred scrolls and make a few changes to make them fit your facts better.

Coca-Cola Zero

[dysfunct]

If anybody's interested: There's currently quite a number of marketing campaigns across of Europe for the new Coca-Cola Zero. According to its Wikipedia's entry, the product can contain sodium benzoate depending on the country where it's sold. If you're cautious and want to be on the safe side, you might want to stick to regular Coca Cola or Diet Coke which appear not to contain this stuff.

The Best Diet...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I only drink water, fruit juice, and whiskey.

Mostly whiskey.

Re:The Best Diet...

[M8e]

You should switch to something healthier... like vodka (less fusel alcohols)

Re:The Best Diet...

[GnuDiff]

It really depends on the way particular stuff is made.

For example, a lot of major "folk" vodkas are made in a way which doesn't even closely resemble their adverts.

Ditto for eg. East European sparkling wines - a (comparatively major) brand servicing Russia switched from making "natural" bubbles to just adding CO2 a couple years ago.

Same for a popular semi-soft drink "kvass" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvass) [fermented mildly alcoholic beverage very popular in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and other Eastern European countries].

Whereas in Soviet times kvass had sort of mild "bubbles" coming from fermented bread, and was a pretty good drink, since both sugar and CO2 were too expensive to add, it is now basically the same kind of artificial sugary added-CO2 drink the worst examples of which are Coke, Pepsi and 7up.

Re:Technical details

[VariableGHz]

...and this, for dangers on aspartame.

In Soviet Russia...

[b166er_zeroone]

Oops, I meant in Europe Pepsi mutates you!

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[justinlee37]

How does "and everywhere else you mutate pepsi" actually make any sense?

Nothing personal, but this is epic fail.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[M8e]

In facist US of A soft drinks mutates you! In soviet russia you mutates soft drinks!

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse is that Pepsi doesn't even have sodium benzoate.

Spend $1, find out for yourself.

Anyway, to make it worth your while, in Soviet Russia, parents raise you.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[mink]

I can see the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. mods now. Goes along with the relistic drink/smokes brand hi-res graphics mods.

Is it the same Peter Piper

[Anonymous Coward]

who once picked a pack of pickled peppers?

Re:Is it the same Peter Piper

[Anonymous Coward]

He picked a "peck" of pickled peppers. It's a container of about 8 quarts.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants

[Anonymous Coward]

"you might want to stick to regular Coca Cola or Diet Coke which appear not to contain this stuff."

Or try coffee if you want caffeine or orange juice if you want orange, or just plain soda water if the fizz is your thing.

Honestly, you pay a fortune for a drink that's poisoning you, why would you choose one of the companies other products? If they know there is concern over this, and they still put it in in some countries, then this is not a company that's doing you any favours. I wouldn't trust them with any of their other products.

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

Remember that article recently, where his first paragraph told you to 'eat food', and reminded you that food is the stuff your grandmothers could recognise as food. Every time I read about how food manufacturers have found news ways to screw around with processed foods, I'm just glad that I stick to eating food. My dad use to make phosphoric acid for Coke, he said, don't touch the stuff.

Now if I can only stop them pumping chemicals into the meat to get it to absorb water to make it seem bigger than it is, I'll be happy. And don't get me started on the move to replace cocoa butter in chocolate with cheaper fats, and still be able to call it chocolate.

Re:Eat food, not too much, mostly plants

[dysfunct]

Honestly, you pay a fortune for a drink that's poisoning you, why would you choose one of the companies other products?

Because it won't kill you in moderate amounts. All I said was that if you do have a desire to drink Cola, you might want to avoid that specific product line that's currently being heavily advertised. Whether or not you should consume that stuff at all is an entirely different topic.

Now if I can only stop them pumping chemicals into the meat to get it to absorb water to make it seem bigger than it is, I'll be happy. And don't get me started on the move to replace cocoa butter in chocolate with cheaper fats, and still be able to call it chocolate.

I'm sorry, but I can't really comment on that as those problems appear to be much more common in the US. In my nice little country of 8 million inhabitants I could still visit the cow I'm going to consume and watch it eating grass on the pasture. And when I buy eggs at the supermarket, there's a sheet inside the box with the name and address of the farmer they're from, inviting me to come and have a look at the chickens. I also have yet to see any product that contains HFCS instead of normal sugar cane sweetener.

Re:Eat food, not too much, mostly plants

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because it won't kill you in moderate amounts."

Drink coke, because space bears won't come down and suck out your eyeball? I don't understand your reasoning, it's a mutagen, so you don't know how many deaths it's caused, only that they're too small to measure with certainty.
Since when has 'only causes a unmeasurably small number of cancer deaths' been a reason to drink something?

"In my nice little country of 8 million inhabitants I could still visit the cow I'm going to consume and watch it eating grass on the pasture."

Buy Aldi chicken, cook it slowly in a pan, watch the huge amount of water coming out, these crap food is getting everywhere.

Re:Eat food, not too much, mostly plants

[bnenning]

Since when has 'only causes a unmeasurably small number of cancer deaths' been a reason to drink something?

Because it tastes good, and we're not all monks dedicated to forgoing pleasure. This "all processed foods are evil" thing is just the granola version of abstinence-only education.

What about lingonberries?

[Kattspya]

Lingonberries contain vast amounts of what I thought was sodium benzoate but appears to be benzoic acid. I'm not sure if some of the benzoic acid turns to sodium benzoate but I'm not a chemist. Does this report mean that lingonberries are bad for you?

Re:What about lingonberries?

[0b1knob]

Benzoic acid is found in many berries and fruits, although in lower quantities than in soft drinks.

The name benzoic acid comes from the scientific name of cranberries, from which the chemical was first isolated. The presence of benzoic acid in cranberries is responsible for their long shelf life.

sodium benzoate also used as food preservative

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew I had heard this chemical name before.

For example, look what is on the Panera menu:

http://panera.com/menu/nutrition/profile.php?id=12 3

It is also known as E211 and used in a variety of industrial food products.

http://www.ukfoodguide.net/e211.htm

toxic chemical in soda

[nanosquid]

The toxic chemical in soda is well known, and it kills millions: it's called sugar.

Re:toxic chemical in soda

[that IT girl]

Not just sugar, but high fructose corn syrup. Plain old sugar actually wouldn't be nearly as bad for you.

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructos e.html

from the article...
"Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar."

and

"However, research on other hormonal factors suggests that fructose actually promotes disease more readily than glucose. Glucose is metabolized in every cell in the body but all fructose must be metabolized in the liver."

Re:toxic chemical in soda

[Gryle]

Don't forget all that dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply.

Does it go away again?

[Snaller]

If you have been damaged from drinking these soft drinks, if you stop entirely - does the body regenrate itself over time?

Re:rots your brain as well

[Kierthos]

Okay, here's some numbers for you...

The acceptable FDA levels for caffiene consumption is 200 mg/day. (please note the lack of any determination of this based on how much you weigh.)

The acceptable FDA levels for aspartame consumption is 50 mg/kg of body weight. The more you weigh, the more you can acceptably consume. (The American Diabetic Association disagrees, and puts the acceptable levels at 17 mg/kg of body weight.)

The acceptable FDA levels for sodium benzoate consumption is 340 mg/day. Again, note the lack of any change in this based on your body weight.

Now, sodium benzoate is what the article is about, right? So, how much sodium benzoate is in a soda?

All of these are for 12 oz. cans.

Pepsi: 1.15 mg
Mountain Dew: 2.3 mg
Diet Mountain Dew: 2.5 mg
Dr Pepper: 1.15 mg
Coke: 1.15 mg
Diet Coke: 2.5 mg

So, if you're a Dr Pepper "junkie" like me, you'd have to drink almost 300 cans a day before you would have to worry about being above the FDA guidelines.

Now, yes, of course, it's possible that the FDA data is out of date. Yes, it's possible that there hasn't been enough study and maybe the acceptable levels of sodium benzoate need to be adjusted.

Even if they're off by a factor of 10, how many people do you know that drink 30 Pepsis a day?

More research, less scare tactics. Thank you.

Contains the E211 in Australia

[funkdancer]

I'm a big Zero drinker here in Australia... Looks like I should give it a rest...:
http://www.thezeromovement.org/coke_zero_ingredien ts.html

The information on www.cocacola.com.au (if you can patience the massive flash object) is close to worthless. Under "About", the entire text on "PRODUCT DIETARY INFORMATION" is:


Beverage pH Range
'Coca-Cola' 2.5
'diet Sprite' 3.1
'diet Coke' 3.1
'Lift' 3.0
caffeine free 'diet Coke' 3.1
'diet Lift' 3.0
'Sprite' 3.2
'Fanta' 2.6
'cherry Coke' 2.5
vanilla 'Coke' 2.5

Sugar Content (grams per 100ml)
'Coca-Cola' 10.6
'Lift' 12.0
'diet Coke' 0
'Fanta' 13
'Sprite' 10.0
'POWERADE' 6
'cherry Coke' 10.7
vanilla 'Coke' 10.9

Calorie Count (per 100ml)
'Coca-Cola' 41
'Lift' 47
'diet Coke' 0.41
'diet Lift' 1.7
'Sprite' 40
'Fanta' 52
'diet Sprite' 1
'cherry Coke' 44
vanilla 'Coke' 44

Black and two, please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Why ruin a perfectly good drink with sickly sweetness? Tea is best enjoyed with a small amount of milk, nothing more.

*sigh* tea is enjoyed as you like it, and I'm a little sick of this argument.

I enjoy my tea black with two sugar. Sometimes more, I enjoy sweet tea, and I'm not a fan of milk. I'm not exactly the same as you. Some people love chocolate. I can't stand it.

Please don't tell me what you think I should enjoy because you happen to like it, I'm not identical to you and it's patronising to assume I've accidentally been drinking the wrong thing all these years. (I'm Australian, patronising is supposed to be spelt like that)

It's not like I haven't tried tea with a small bit of milk, I just find that I enjoy sweet black tea a great deal more. Personally I find dairy slowly cooling in warm water kind of sickening, for some reason, but I don't run around telling people they aren't drinking their tea right.

I especially resent this argument coming from someone who has stopped drinking tea with sugar, grown accustomed to the taste, then after trying tea with sugar again declared it the most sicking thing known to man. If you've grown accustomed to something else, that's great and healthy for you (probably because you couldn't control your weight before, tubby) but I need the extra calories and I like the taste.

And what's with the elitist attitude among tea drinkers that you're somehow superior to other tea drinkers if you enjoy it without sugar? Look at me, I'm so much more of a tea fan than you. I have such better taste, you can't possibly be appreciating your tea the way I am. Anything can be turned into pretentious competitive argument, but telling people how to drink their tea is a step too far.

In conclusion, die.

(Yes I know I need to relax. Shush and leave me to my ranting.)

Re:Black and two, please.

[Chyeld]

*sigh* tea is enjoyed as you like it, and I'm a little sick of this argument.
...
In conclusion, die.
(Yes I know I need to relax. Shush and leave me to my ranting.)

You know, if you had milk in your tea more often, you wouldn't be so cranky. *ducks*

Simple vs complex dangers

[CustomDesigned]

I think that there is more danger in the trip to the grocery store wit your car, than there is in the additives in the soda pop you buy there.

Driving your car is a simple danger. You know immediately upon arrival whether you dodged that 2 ton bullet. However, you won't know for 10 years whether that hamburger you ate gave you mad cow disease. I won't know for 30 years whether the orange soil (containing natural asbestos) construction sites in my area has given me lung cancer (and the companies responsible for digging up the stuff will be out of business, so I won't be able to sue them). Apparently you have to wait 40 years before you know whether the sodium benzoate you are drinking gave you parkinsons. (I gave up sodas for unsweetened green tea 10 years ago because the concentrated sugar/corn syrup alone was killing me in much more immediately noticeable ways.)

I find simple dangers much easier to handle than complex ones. Our area (Virgina) has Lyme disease and copperhead snakes. You won't know for a year whether an unnoticed tick from your walk in the woods gave you Lyme disease - a life long debilitating illness. But you know right away whether a snake bit you. The complex dangers just pile up in my mind with no resolution, causing a general background of stress of worry. The simple dangers cause momentary stress that is soon resolved, leaving a feeling of relief. I can see getting addicted to simple dangers just to experience the relief at the end.

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Assassin bug]

I agree, accute dangers can be much more obvious than chronic dangers. But I also agree that the public needs to become much more informed about the scientific method and review. Much as you describe the complexities of hidden chronic dangers burden you, it seems that some people (many?) are unable to keep pace with the microscopic world that science tinkers with. The unknown is by its nature mysterious and thereby frightening. Understanding something, while not necessarily improving your safety, alleviates the burden of aimless fear.

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Just Some Guy]

I won't know for 30 years whether the orange soil (containing natural asbestos) construction sites in my area has given me lung cancer (and the companies responsible for digging up the stuff will be out of business, so I won't be able to sue them).

You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else, from the dairy stocker that moves too slow and lets a couple of bacteria grow in a jug of milk, to the people who design keyboards that don't actively fight carpal tunnel syndrome. I don't care what you do for a living - you've caused harm or allowed harm to be caused either accidentally, unknowingly, or purposefully. So on behalf of everyone you may eventually want to sue for some real or perceived malady, kiss my ass, hypocrite.

Sorry, I know this is off-topic but whenever I see someone with their finger on the lawyer trigger, my first instinct is to kick them in the butt. I just don't have any tolerance for people who are so desperate to be a paid victim that they don't care how badly they destroy our society in the process.

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Arterion]

And you think that same company that dug up the orange soil wasn't raking in the money, or doesn't have their own team of lawyers?

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[node 3]

You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else You know what? Fuck you.

First off, there's nothing wrong with lawsuits. They are the civilized way to resolve disputes. The only alternatives are to: A. resort to force or B. take whatever injustice you are unable to prevent (which is what you are advocating). This notion that lawsuits are bad is extremely disturbing.

Second, whether there's a lawsuit or not, there's a cost involved in the actions which the construction company and land developer (in this case) should be completely aware of. Namely, their actions may lead to the *DEATHS* of others. This cost is not part of the initial construction project, and is paid for by the victims. In any rational, civilized society, this is called an injustice. The point of a lawsuit in this case is to rectify (as much as possible) the injustice. Specifically, to force the developer to pay the costs for their actions, and not force them on to others.

Why is it that the anti-lawsuit types always seem to promote the notion that individuals should be held responsible for their actions, yet when it comes to corporations, any attempt to use the legal system to enforce responsibility for *their* actions is seen as some sort of atrocity?

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Tsagadai]

When that logic explains why there are no playgrounds in schools and why my kids aren't aloowed to climb trees in parks anymore then I will listen to your opinions. The damage is done the world is screwed. All hail our law degree holding overlords!

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[node 3]

Let's see, on the one hand, we have the deaths of innocent people. On the other, your kids' school doesn't have a playground, and they aren't allowed to climb trees which you do not own.

Which of these two are more indicative, in your own words, that the "world is screwed"?

That's the general. Now the specific. I really don't see what your examples are meant to convey. Schools can have playgrounds. In fact, many (most?) do. If *your* school tore down their playground, it wasn't because they aren't allowed to have one. It's because (assuming lawsuits had anything to do with it in the first place) they can't afford to make a safe playground. I'll bet you also whine about your taxes being too high. You get what you pay for, you know.

As for the park issue, I highly doubt the tree-climbing issue is a matter of safety-for-fear-of-lawsuits. More likely, it's meant to keep the commons from being trampled over. Do you think the "keep off the grass" and "don't pick the flowers" signs are about safety and lawsuits?

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Anonymous Coward]

Our area (Virgina)

woohoo, virgina!

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[DjRenigade]

Ok sure they are bad for you, but so is smoking and drinking beer. IF you exercise any at all, you can offset most of the symptoms and reverse diabetes. That is a proven fact. I also live in Virginia and I started mountain biking about 8 months ago. I was about 185lbs, I got on the scales about 1 week ago and I was 172lbs. no dieting was done and I never will unless I am ordered by a Dr. for health reasons. We can't go in our lives and worry about what might happen in 40 years, we may all be gone and the rapture happened. WHO knows? I take a chance going in my yard at night by being bitten by a snake b/c of construction messing with their snake dens, I take precautions with "poison" to keep them out, but I could get bitten. DO I worry that I might? Sometimes, but that does not stop me from going out. I am 35 and in 40 years if I am all fucked up from some Parkinson's, then that I get. My point is that I can't live my life worrying about what might happen to me 30-50 years from know... I am 35 and in the best shape of my life. All my blood work is good with in limits and I live my life. cut-n-past then F7 works every time.

Re:Simple vs complex dangers

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? Fuck you.

My, aren't we civilized!

Nothing new? RTFA!

[blind biker]

The whole POINT of the article is, that the OLD findings, which you talk about, have been COMPOUNDED by sodium benzoate's ability to alter DNA even if there's no acidic medium present!

Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance.

Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria. He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether. "The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."

Trigger-happy to post something smart while the mods are fresh and stupid, huh? Without RTFA, obviously.

Re:Nothing new? RTFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

So,

"but above all the whole process of ageing."

Well there we go, All we have to do is stop drinking soda and we can live forever!!!

Anyone else ever notice that the more claims made about something, (regardless of good or bad) the less likely it is that any of them are true?
(Also, did anyone notice that "aging" is misspelled in tfa?)

Re:Nothing new? RTFA!

[Prune]

Mod parent up and grandparent down! This is a direct effect that has nothing to do with benzene creation in the presence of vitamin C!

Re:Nothing new? RTFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Also, did anyone notice that "aging" is misspelled in tfa?)

No, probably because it isn't. Not all words have a single spelling.

Re:Nothing new? RTFA!

[ThaReetLad]

Ageing
n. Chiefly British.

Variant of aging.

in fact, my firefox british dictionary is underlining Aging as the incorrect spelling.

And I buy the Financial Times.

[asobala]

Because I have a pink bathroom.

Re:rots your brain as well

[rsmoody]

So, the myth of drinking soda will make you short of breath seems to have some real credibility then. Boy, the lady at the cafeteria from school is gonna have a HUGE ego now!

Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in EU

[DrYak]

Specially because benzene and its derivative (the aromatic group on Benzoat) are known to cause blood cancer (Acute Myeloid Leukemia) and other problems (Medular Aplasy).

It has been linked in several studies, and the whole family of preservative food (E210 to E213) is *supposed* not to be used anymore in Europe (compare the French wikipedia page saying that it's cancerogenic and english language saying that WHO has only set tolerance levels).
At least for Switzerland (non-EU country), I know it is illegal. I strongly suspect that it's also the case in most countries member of the EU.

It's is something that is known, and though in medical school. I'm just flagerblasted to learn that they still produce soft drinks with E21# inside.
A quick check on the soda I have in fridge (bottled in Switzerland) reveals non of them has E21x preservative inside.

Could /. from EU contries confirm ?

Skippy all natural tastes great, and no stirring..

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Dose-Response

[The Step Child]

Before we indulge in conspiracy theories (though it appears that it's too late), I think that eyebrows should be raised, but we shouldn't be screaming that the sky is falling. I think this famous quote can't be repeated enough with respect to these kinds of articles: "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." (Paracelsus)

The study mentioned in the article was done on yeast cells. We need to do a controlled animal study in which different doses of this chemical are administered. By doing these kinds of studies, we can begin to understand the risk that this chemical poses to us given the most common range of exposure levels. Who knows - maybe we'll begin to see warning labels, or the industry may just switch to another, less hazardous preservative. Until then, calm down, and remember that every ingredient in your food and drinks can be considered toxic in sufficient quantities!

Re:Dose-Response

[mshurpik]

There's a couple of huge factual errors in this article. And it does predict that the sky is falling which is rather bold considering the author can't even read an ingredients label.

TFA:

"Coca-Cola contains Sodium Benzoate"...WRONG.

"Sodium Benzoate is found in Fanta and Diet Pepsi"...ALSO SPRITE, GRAPE, ORANGE, DR PEPPER, ROOT BEER, ALL OTHER (SUGAR) FLAVORS AND ALL OTHER DIET DRINKS.

"Vitamin C turns into benzene"...WOW!!!

"Sprite causes cancer and DNA damage"...(Implied).

broken mitochondria can trigger cancer

[Anonymous Coward]

the turning off of mitochondria is related to cancer remember Di Chloro Acetate????

expresso?

[newdsfornerds]

espresso, not expresso.

Re:expresso?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends if you want it fast or not.

Re:expresso?

[RobertM1968]

Nah, I think it's expresso at Starbucks and the fast food joints that sell it. You need to go to a really decent coffee shop to get espresso. ;-)

Hugh Hefner Drinks Pepsi

[SDHypnotist]

Hugh Hefner drinks pepsi and seems to be aging quite nicely, even better perhaps than most 80 year olds. But, hey, maybe the effects of his on going night time activities offset any ill effects of all the pepsi drinking.

Re:Hugh Hefner Drinks Pepsi

[GnuDiff]

There were a number of propoganda-style books back in the USSR about the "bad capitalist way of living".

One of the interesting ones tried to summarize the lives of then-popular richest people of the US. I think among them was Paul Getty, Hugh Hefner, Howard Hughes(sp?) and some others. And among other things, there was a thing which stuck in my adolescent mind and which (contrary to most other things of that time) seems to make sense even now. I think the book cited Paul Getty as declaring that "white edible things are bad for you - white flour, white sugar, etc". And the book rather acidly remarked that it seemed that as long as you were fabulously rich, your diet wasn't of any particular interest, since it was the wealth that helped ensure you live a long life.

Re:Hugh Hefner Drinks Pepsi

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

The health benefits of fucking numerous gorgeous women, sometimes multiples at the same time... certainly outweigh any negative effects drinking coke or pepsi has.

Now all we need is a company to package hot blondes with giant tits in cases of 24 that sell 3 for $5.00

Re:Hugh Hefner Drinks Pepsi

[Cadallin]

I'll take 10!

Seriously though, Hugh Hefner is a fascinating case study in the apparent *lack* of any ill effects of living the good life. If Hefner has done anything in his life, its indulge. In wine, women, song, and I suspect a not insignificant amount of Weed, Hash, Cocaine, LSD, Tobacco, Shrooms, Heroine, etc. Even if he were to drop dead tomorrow, you'd have a hard time convincing me it wasn't worth it. I'd take 80-odd years of living up in drugs, sex, and excess over 150+ years of abstinence and monastic clean living without even a thought.

Which brings me to another point, let's face it, we *could* all start living exactly the way doctors say we ought to, and avoid dangerous activities. We certainly might live longer. Perhaps even well over a century of good health. But would it be worth it? Is living a long, sheltered life in perfect health better than living a shorter, but much more exciting life? Nay! Fie, Fie say I! It's better to burn out than to fade away!

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[AI0867]

Netherlands, no E21* here.

What about sugar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, REAL sugar? Trying to find something without any of those countless artificial sweeteners is getting harder everyday.

As an example: I don't drink coffee, tea or soft drinks. The only thing available to me, with real sugar, is either kid drinks (Kool-Aid, etc) or Lemon/Citrus Iced Tea. I hate lemon/citrus. If I want another flavour of iced tea, it's only available in those damn "bottle water powder sticks", which are of course full of artificial sweeteners instead of real sugar. And it's over-packaged too, no good for home use.

Nestea used to have tangerine iced tea in those big cans. With real sugar, too. Lack of sales terminated that flavor.

Re:What about sugar?

[mink]

Do you drink shopping around passover.

So this is where I get my incredible powers

[DumbSwede]

I drink so much soda I've turned into one of the X-Men

Re:So this is where I get my incredible powers

[Anonymous Coward]

I drink so much soda I've turned into one of the X-Men

You mean one with two X chromosomes and an urge to wear tight pants?

Quick check of the literature....

[whovian]

Well, the article referenced in the OP seems to me to be making quite a leap from the scientific literature. (BTW, one has to wonder why this news is hitting the wire without reference to a journal article.) On Piper's website we have

Mollapour, M. and Piper, P.W. (2001) The ZbYME2 gene from the food spoilage yeast Zygosaccharomyces bailii confers not just the functions of the native YME2 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but also a capacity for catabolism of sorbate and benzoate, two major weak organic acid preservatives. Mol. Microbiol. 42, 919-930.

A google search leads to this article:

http://www.biochemj.org/bj/395/0073/bj3950073.htm

which seems to show that that preservatives like sorbate and benzoate are affecting the actin cytoskeleton. So something seems to be going on, but it looks to me more studies, or a better journal search, are needed.

The seminal article Re:Quick check of the lite

[whovian]

Weak acid adaptation: the stress response that confers yeasts with resistance to organic acid food preservatives

Peter Piper1, Claudia Ortiz Calderona,1, Kostas Hatzixanthis1 and Mehdi Mollapour1

Frequently the decomposing plant materials where fungi grow as saprophytes will contain high concentrations of weak organic acids. Not only are acetate and lactate products of bacterial fermentation, but acetate is also secreted in high levels by certain yeasts, such as the Brettanomyces and Dekkera that have attracted attention as spoilage agents of wine fermentations (Pretorius, 2000Down ). Saccharomyces cerevisiae is frequently inhibited by these acids produced by competitor microbes. To counteract their effects, it is endowed with a stress response that acts to reduce the possibility that the weak acid will accumulate within its cells to high, potentially toxic, levels.

Although weak acid adaptation probably evolved to facilitate growth at low pH in the presence of weak organic acids, it poses problems for the food industry as it leads to substantial increases in resistance to the major organic acid food preservatives. As a result, it is often necessary to use these preservatives at millimolar rather than micromolar levels in order to prevent yeast spoilage of low pH foods and beverages. This review summarizes the current knowledge of the mechanisms of weak acid resistance in S. cerevisiae and Zygosaccharomyces bailii, two important food spoilage yeasts. Both organisms are able to maintain lower intracellular levels of weak acid than would be expected on the basis of a free equilibration across the cell membrane. Nevertheless, it is unlikely they achieve this by identical strategies. S. cerevisiae expends considerable energy in actively extruding acid from the cell, high levels of a specific ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporter (Pdr12) being induced in its plasma membrane in order to catalyse this efflux. Z. bailii, in contrast, does not show major changes to its plasma membrane protein composition, but may place more reliance instead on limiting the initial diffusional entry of the acid to the cells. Z. bailii, unlike S. cerevisiae, can also catalyse oxidative degradation of two of the most commonly used food preservatives, sorbate and benzoate.

More at http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/147/10 /2635?view=long&pmid=11577142

Natural?

[mux2000]

What is natural?

Is crude oil natural? Is plastic? Is jet-fuel?
Is salt natural? Is Chlorine? Is CFC?
Is CO2 natural? Is Amonia?

Most of what is called 'chemicals' can be found in nature, so where do we draw the line?

Can you say... "slippery slope"?

[mistermocha]

Regardless, I'm sure I may end up telling this to my kid so he will drink healthier beverages in the future.

Re:rots your brain as well

[thelandp]

Wow ... your logic seems to be: This finding about sodium benzoate disagrees with the previous FDA position. Therefore it must be wrong.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which that this is a new finding about the dangers of this substance. Naturally the previous FDA numbers would be out of date if the new finding is true. And your example of a factor of ten is completely spurious - where did you get the ten figure from?

More thought, less posts. Thank you.

dihydroxy oxide all the way!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I drink only 100% dihydroxy-oxide.....

Re:rots your brain as well

[bdjacobson]

Wow ... your logic seems to be: This finding about sodium benzoate disagrees with the previous FDA position. Therefore it must be wrong.

You seem to have completely missed the point of the article, which that this is a new finding about the dangers of this substance. Naturally the previous FDA numbers would be out of date if the new finding is true. And your example of a factor of ten is completely spurious - where did you get the ten figure from?

More thought, less posts. Thank you. Do you seriously have to ask that question? It was given as an example. In case you missed it, 300/10 = 30.

Your other point was fine though.

It is cursed

[sabernet]

Mystic: But you get your choice of a free frogurt.

Homer: That's good!

Mystic: But it contains sodium benzoate.

Homer: ...

Mystic: That's bad.

Homer: Can I go now?

Not entirely correct.

[DerekLyons]

"The fact is, we're living longer and healthier with all of this 'processed crap' than we ever did with 'good old food'."

This statement bears repeating. While we may not be acting in what is the most ideally healthy way, our life expectancy has gone up, and continues to do so. In the last 100 years in the US, life expectancy at birth has gone from about 50 years (it varies with race and sex) to about 75 years. Talk about a significant improvement! You think that 25 used to literally be "mid life". Half your life was likely over by 25. These days we still think of 25 year olds as kids to a large extent.

Actually, if you survived to 25 - you were generally about five to six years short of your midpoint, and it was not uncommon to actually be sitting at your 'one third of the way' point. It was surviving to 25 that was trick. Admittedly, not as bad as a century before, but there was significant infant and childhood mortality - which has been virtually wiped out today.
 
I.E. you have to be really careful about what conclusions you draw from 'average life span' statistics - as infant and childhood mortality skews the curves. (As does death in childbirth - still common in the early years of the 20th century, and also virtually elimated today.)

Re:rots your brain as well

[nospam007]

Aspartame scare is an urban legend, dude.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm

Re:rots your brain as well

[lbredeso]

From the Coke can I hold in front of me (it is the only of the above sodas I have in front of me at the moment), the ingredients are: Carbonated Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Caramel Color, Phosphoric Acid, Natural Flavors, Caffeine. Curiously missing is Sodium Benzoate. Unless it is one of the "Natural Flavors", or I am misunderstanding the ingredient list somehow. Can you please point out the "research" you did to get these figures? Thanks.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Kierthos]

I'm saying that instead of treating this like "OMG! Coke is gonna make me die and my kids will all have cancer by age 15!", you should actually have... I don't know... some numbers to go with the article?

Does the article say what amount of sodium benzoate was used in their tests? Why, no.

Does the article give any numbers at all, referring to the FDA figures I quoted? Why, no.

How about the amount of sodium benzoate in certain sodes? (Information I provided.) Why, no.

So, can we, from the article, extrapolate how much soda we would have to drink to see the same reaction in our mitochondria as in the yeast cell mitochondria? Why, no.

So, in summary, is the article long on scare tactics and short on actual information as to how much soda could be bad for you?

Why, yes. Yes, it is.

Drinking Milk is Important

[EmotionToilet]

Actually, studies show that once humans adapted the ability to drink milk that our population increased dramatically. There was a genetic shift in our ability to digest lactose in Europe a few thousand years ago that they believe helped increase our vitamin intake. We also grow taller now, partly because of our calcium intake. We probably live longer too. I think the article also said that drinking milk helped fight infection as well.

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[pirho666]

This is the problem with the state of science education in the world. I had hoped it was better in the EU than in the US, but obviously this isnt the case. Benzene itself is regulated and has been shown to cause certain forms of cancer. This is mainly due to the problems with enzymatic oxidation to allow for excretion of the benzene. Benzoate is NOT BENZENE! If you were to make everything that has an aromatic ring illegal you couldn't sell meat as the proteins contain a large amount of phenylalanine, which has a benzyl group> Oh my you would also have to be made illegal because you have a lot of phe as well.

Please learn something about chemistry before you start to talk about chemicals.

(Note I am not saying that sodiumbenzoate is a good thing but it isnt benzene.)

I'm just a psych student....

[GnomeChompsky]

but it sounds to me as though your body was accustomed ("conditioned") to getting a sugar rush whenever it consumed soda, and prepared for it even when you were drinking diet soda, which contains no sugar. Your body adapts to expected influxes of blood-glucose by increasing insulin production - BEFORE the intake of the expected substance. If you don't ACTUALLY ingest any sugar, then the insulin works on the sugar already present in your blood and you wind up feeling AWFUL.

It's kind of the same reason you get headaches if you skip meals, or have them at later times; or why eating a snack at an unexpected time when you're not really hungry will make you feel nauseous. The unpleasant side of hunger isn't because your body doesn't have enough energy to sustain itself - you're made up of meat, for god's sake, you have enough stored calories to go on for a very long time without eating - it's just because it's preparing for an expected meal and if you don't get it, in the short term it depletes the nutrients from your bloodstream.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Contents such as SB are not listed on the cans ingredients even tho they are in the product. You can find such information on their website .

AC

mitochondria?

[SP33doh]

yeah, the DNA in your mitochondria isn't even your DNA.

Re:mitochondria?

[rubycodez]

it's your mother's

Re:mitochondria?

[Zorque]

Kinda the point there, champ.

Re:mitochondria?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> yeah, the DNA in your mitochondria isn't even your DNA.

> it's your mother's

No, it's your grandmother's! No wait, I mean your great-grandmother's! No, wait... er, -*>brain explodes*-

Re:mitochondria?

[aadvancedGIR]

BTW, only about 10% of the cells in your body are human (the other ones are mostly bowel bacteria), but that doesn't mean you can live without most of them.

Re:mitochondria?

[rubycodez]

except it's really just a copy of your mothers, it's 100% yours just as your nucleic DNA is. I would have replied sooner but my mother was much less proactive and energetic than my father ever was, so my mitocondria don't give me much energy for initiative

Re:mitochondria?

[Zorque]

Yeah, that's... what he was saying.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Kierthos]

Actually, some sodas do list it on the cans/bottles.

Sprite, Dr Pepper and A&W Root Beer do.

I guess it varies from company to company.

Oh, and as where I got my info... http://www.valpo.edu/organization/psme/labs/teache rs/2003/JScaffeine.pdf

And yes, I know it's referring to 1999 data. I can't see the amount of sodium benzoate in sodas going up horribly since then, though.

Unit conversion

[untree]

an olympic swimming pool is 25,000 gallons, 95,000 liters and so 10ppb would be about a gram of benzene taken by weight

Any chance you know how many Libraries of Congress per football field that would be?

Re:Well thank goodness (low-alchohol)

[Phleg]

Clausthaler is crap. You want lower calories? Drink Guinness. 125 calories, 10 grabs of carbohydrates. Compared to 96 calories and 5.8 carbs in Clausthaler (their Classic; I would wager that the Golden Amber has slightly higher stats for both). Guinness isn't amazing by any means, but it's far better than that swill and boasts only slightly higher stats for calories and carbs.

It shuts off my midiclorians?

[grapeape]

So thats why my jedi powers dont work...

Re:It shuts off my midiclorians?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

No no no... You've got it all wrong. It kicks in at puberty.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Salmar]

Just so you know, the article does not actually refer to Coca-Cola, but to drinks like Pepsi MAX. I somehow doubt that all popular sodas contain sodium benzoate. I've seen it in several other soda's ingredient lists, but not, as you discovered, in Coke's. That being said, I still wouldn't touch a Coke or many other soft drinks for their carbonic acid! >P

Re:Technical details

[novus ordo]

Actually that is precisely what TFA is talking about and goes to show that this has been known for a while. I noticed FDA did a test on drinks last year and found drinks that exceeded FDA recommendations.

This caught my eye:

A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale. So I went to their site and found this helpful FAQ. Here is the study they did last year.

Interestingly on the study website they note this:

Samples were collected and analyzed by CFSAN except for reformulated samples that were provided by the manufacturer for CFSAN to analyze. If that doesn't set off your WTF detector, I don't know what will...
Luckily I was able to find this previous un-reformulated sample.

Somehow I think we need random testing of products for these kinds of things. Incidentally, anybody's pets die from petfood recently?

Speaking of potassium benzoate...

[mrchaotica]

Potassium bensoate, on the other hand, occurs naturally in _higher_ than approved FDA levels in some fruits.

After seeing this article, I went and checked the ingredients of the store-brand Dr. Pepper knock-off I've been drinking. It doesn't have sodium benzoate, but it does have potassium benzoate. Since the problem seems to be the benzene part, I assume it's just as bad. But is it?

Re:Speaking of potassium benzoate...

[Znork]

"Since the problem seems to be the benzene part, I assume it's just as bad."

Perhaps. Looking over it a bit more it seems the occurrence of benzene is mostly caused by ascorbic acid (vitamin C) combined with benzoates and stored at relatively high temperatures over long periods, rather than the benzoates themselves (usually you'll combine it with citric acid when preserving, at least in most recipies I've seen). Naturally occuring benzoates, of course, carry no guarantee of being separate from vitamin C.

As such, I'd consider the article scaremongering and dishonest; for what it's worth, you could as well say 'vitamin C causes cancer', and blame apples and cranberries rather than soft-drinks.

Of course, it might still be a good idea to avoid drinking soft-drinks stored beyond expiration date in above room temperature (which I'd avoid anyway, and especially if it didn't have any preservatives). Or avoiding drinking soft-drinks at all. For a whole host of other reasons. But avoiding benzoates probably shouldnt be one of the more serious concerns.

oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

There is so little actual "food" in soda it's embarrassing to think that it could be possibly be good for you to drink. Is there something about raw poisonous chemicals you fail to understand? You don't need "peer review" beyond human history, we are totally designed to consume FOOD, not non food. It's only in the last century we've been eating non-food stuff, and we've had an explosion in strange diseases that humans hardly ever got before right along with it.. Food is food, non food is non food, there, peer review that DATA. Your body has no "minimal daily requirement" of red dye or sodium benzoate or any other of that crap, including the sprays they spray on fruits and vegetables. Just the other day a conference in the faroe islands had a shed pot of chemists, environmentalists and pediatricians give a really strong public warning about mothers and their unborn, telling them that the levels of so called "acceptable" exposure to "non food" is way way way way too high, the evidence is simply overhwleming, it causes permanent damage to kids in a variety of ways and possibly even generational damage, just like this soda study. And that's because it's NON FOOD. And it's as freaking obvious to anyone with a room temperature IQ as "bullet to the head, what are the acceptable levels?" It's retarded. Non-food is poisonous,it's toxic, any amount is toxic, different people have different levels at where they show *severe* outward effects from non-food, that's the only variable. Non food is designed to make fatcats more money, not for any "added nutritional value". That recent chinese dogfood crap should be sufficient a clue, melamine is "non food" it adds nothing by artifically bump up the cheapest protein test to make it "appear' to be better, but it actually made a lot of dogs and cats sick or dead. Non-food tends to accumulate in the body as well, humans are actually toxic to eat should some grizzly bear eat you, because of all the non-food we eat now.

As to our ancestors, if you throw out first year of life from birth deaths, they lived to be pretty old. And that's because they didn't eat a lot of non-food, because it didn't exist. Evolution works, over millenia we have become adapted to "food", no way in heck have humans "evolved" to be able to safely digest "non food" right now, it makes folks sick, the levels of sickness vary, and that's it. I know I've helped several sets of parents who hasd "problem kids" with ADD and I go over to their house and EVERYTHING they eat has non food in it. the ones who actually grok what I tell them and chuck out most of that stuff and go to eating FOOD have all had a remarkable turn around in their kids behwavior, and no ritalin needed then. Non food is not food, just believe it, it's raw data, easy to understand. A lady I used to work for was getting "MS", had to use a walker or w wheelchair, getting to the point she couldn't type well enough to keep running her business. thousands and thousands of dollrs to the doctors, who have 6 hours total nutrinal training on average, 6! As in "hardly anything at all", they push pills, that's it mostly. So anyway, I noticed she slammed down near a 12 pack a day of diet soda,pepsi actually, I told her to cut that stuff out if she didn't want to be cripled up, showed her some papers, she stopped it cold as a "trial", and had a "mysterious remission". Her doc "astounded" and stuff. Uh huh. It's because she cut out a lot of the non-food in her diet which is toxic. After the soda she started looking at all the other crap she ate, it all toxins in it.

    It all adds up, this cheeto, that twinkie, this soda, that food coloring, this preservative, that magic chemical snakeoil, up and down and sideways in the grocery store, the crap is adulterated beyond belief. Cut all that stuff out and go back to just "food", and you get a lot healthier in a short time frame. It just works.

No, busy, not going to fix my typos right now, back to work, see ya. Remember, food is food, non food should be avoided because it isn't food. It doesn't get any simpler or any easier to understand than that.

Re:oh please

[Torvaun]

I partially agree with you, though some of your ideas hurt my brain. The big one: Explosion of new diseases. Is this at least partially due to all sorts of industrialization and chemical manufacture? Probably. But there's other stuff too. Ebola's probably been around for thousands of years. It wasn't until information spread got good that people started knowing about it. Before, it'd appear, destroy a village or tribe, and it's gone. Now, people start to survive, or people take proper precautions around blood and see it without catching it, and people find out about it. How long was it that there were just 'crazy people' who got put in asylums? Now we've got names like autism, Asperger's, Down's syndrome, schizophrenia, the whole set of dissociative disorders, etc. Better research and knowledge provides 'more' diseases, but most of them are things that were already there, and are just now being named or separated out from other things.

Re:oh please

[Anonymous Coward]

> Explosion of new diseases. Is this at least partially due to all sorts of industrialization and chemical manufacture? Probably.

Probably not. It's more likely due to increased population, increased population density, and increased long-distance travel.

Re:oh please

[Sassinak]

This seems to be a evolutionary Schrödinger's cat case.

By the time we are "wise" enough and have enough knowledge to identify a disease or problem, we seem to have already been the contributers to (or the creators of) the problem by the introduction of elements (insert your fav, but I know from my own personal experience I know that diet has had a SIGNIFICANT impact on my health (including, without hyperbole, my not dying)) of our problems and potentially demise there by changing the outcome by our ability (in time) to observe.

So yes, as everyone keeps pointing out, the article is light on specific details, but honestly the point of the article is not "consuming 50mg or more of sodium benzinate will kill you". the article's point is that this element may have harmful effects on humans. Obviously everyone's tolerance level is different, and what no article can say is what the long term effects of ANYTHING that, in low doses SEEMS to have no effect.

Me personally, I tend to keep as much "junk" out of my diet, and I find I feel better, look better, and most importantly, think clearer. Now granted, my tolerance levels for some things may be very low or very high, but one can't denigh that the effects of these things do have an impact on EVERYONE.. we just don't know where someone's breaking point is.

Just my 3.582 cents (adjusted for US currency)

Re:oh please

[Torvaun]

Partially. That word is important. There was a lot less blacklung going around before the Industrial Revolution, because we didn't need coal miners. There's been a lot more asthma than there used to be. I realize that for the most part this isn't the problem, I was just saying that this post's great-grandparent was not completely baseless and unfounded.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Scrameustache]

worry about being above the FDA guidelines.
Now, yes, of course, it's possible that the FDA data is out of date. Yes, it's possible that there hasn't been enough study and maybe the acceptable levels of sodium benzoate need to be adjusted. Have you considered that the FDA is corrupt?

Only E21x are forbiden.

[DrYak]

Benzoate is NOT BENZENE!

No, it falls under the category "derivative". (The long story is that under the activity of some molecules like vitamin C the Benzoate gets broken into benzene. Also, benzoate are also somewhat bad for your health by themeselves)

If you were to make everything that has an aromatic ring illegal you couldn't sell meat

It's not the ring that is forbidden, it's that addition of the E21x family of food preservative.
In short : You are just not allowed to ADD MORE benzene and benzene derivative in the food.

(Also usage in the industry of chemical compound containing benzene groups is regulated and special protection must be used to avoid unnecessary exposition. But that's not the current subject of food enriched with benzoate as preservative)

Re:Only E21x are forbiden.

[Noehre]

Benzoate is not metabolized into benzene.

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/reaction/m isc/benzoate.html

murder!

[Jenovaside]

So chug alot of them after your blood is all over a murder site? This will be very helpful for my court hearing.

Frogurt and GM

[Anonymous Coward]

GM is bad.

It is really bad now, but possibly some kinds of GM will be okay, or even good, in the future.

It is bad now because the genetic engineers like Monsanto insist that all they are doing is changing the targeted species. But this whole taxonomy thing of species, genera, phylum, etc, is an abstract human construct that we overlay on the very much more complex natural world. In other words, nature doesn't know about species. Whether nature "knows" about anything (or can "know" about anything) isn't important— here. You don't have to be a Gaiaist to see that what is important is that nature definitely doesn't know about species.

That means that nature isn't obligated to stay within the boundaries of a human imposed taxonomy. Genetic patterns can be transmitted from pigs to viruses to humans, across species lines, and phylum designations, and even across kingdoms. That means that nature doesn't bother to obey the limits of the taxonomy that the genetic engineers think apply. In other words, Monsanto and the other genetic engineers are simpletons. In other words, they are messing about where they shouldn't ought to be messing. Not until we've got a better model of nature. And I don't mean an improvement on a taxonomy, a simple means of categorization, that is centuries old.

What this means is that when Monsanto says it has developed a safe GM corn or GM rice, they are talking in stupid ignorance. Because all they, or anyone else, can do with our current state of knowledge is introduce changes in an entire ecosystem. They can't know how a change in a corn gene might get transmitted to other species in nature, because the model they are using, which was developed with the limited understanding of a couple of hundred years ago, is too simplistic to account for all the various vectors of transmission of genetic code through an ecosystem. In other words, Monsanto and the other companies messing around with GM are talking out of their asses.

So how good did I do with my first ever GWB impersonation? Did I use the phrase "in other words" enough?

Still no evidence....?

[Joce640k]

"Diabetics are UNABLE to produce ANY insulin..."

SWITCHING TO CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't win arguments. Verifiable facts, medical references, etc., do.

I'll just make my own by

[WormholeFiend]

boiling some sliced ginger root, adding sugar cane juice, and then compressed gas.

Re:I'll just make my own by

[Fantastic Lad]

Right on!

I've been making Ginger-tea for a couple of weeks now. It totally rocks.

I recommend adding a drop or two of vanilla. Yummy.

-FL

Don't "ween" youself off of soda. Just stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't waste your time weaning yourself off of soft drinks. Just stop drinking them immediately. You'll probably have cravings for a week. But suck it up. When you feel that you need to drink a Pepsi, drink some water instead. Normal water, not soda water or any of that jacked up shit. Go take a walk if you still have cravings. But to wean yourself will just make it so much easier for you to relapse.

On, and the correct word is wean. The word ween doesn't mean what you think it does. And beyond that, in many places "ween" is slang for a man's penis.

Re:Don't "ween" youself off of soda. Just stop.

[qnetter]

Water, walk, whatever. Some of us would rather enjoy ourselves.

Re:rots your brain as well

[WormholeFiend]

try some Open Source Cola?

Old news

[D H NG]

Google's been doing this for several years.

Drugs 'R Bad M'Kay

[joe_n_bloe]

See?

Orange soil

[CustomDesigned]

There is plenty of non orange soil to build on. Orange soil is perfectly safe as long as you don't dig it up. The only reason to build on the orange soil, instead of leaving it as a park, is the intense housing pressure in Northern Virginia. In other words, moolah. The companies digging up the orange soil to build stuff made all kinds of promises about how careful they were going to be, and how they would always keep the orange soil wet until it was buried again and never ever let it become dust to blow in the wind, and how they would provide monitoring stations to ensure that none of the dust that they weren't going to make was blowing into nearby developments, and how they promised to be liable for anyone who could be shown to have been exposed by their digging. So yes, I would hold them to their promises. But they won't be around 30 years from now, so it is a safe bet for them. Hopefully, they were true to their word about the preventative measures (although leaving the stuff in the ground is the best preventative measure), and no one will have a problem.

30 years ago, there was a Buddist temple that started building on orange soil. Their construction was halted. They just didn't have the money to push their temple through. That has not been a problem for the current crop of orange soil builders.

Sodium benzoate makes me feel ill!

[musther]

I was interested reading the article because consumption of anything containing sodium benzoate makes me feel slightly sick and gives me a headache. I don't know if my sensitivity (which is rare, but a google search will find some info eventually) is related to the mitochondrial effect, but it is very fast, almost instantaneous with soft drinks - I begin to feel sick in my throat almost immediately after consumption.

Re:GOD BLESS AMERICAN EQUALITY!

[penguinwhoflew]

What the hell are you even talking about? If you were trying to make a point, you failed. All I got out of it was that you have some kind of dead sheep fetish...

Re:rots your brain as well

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, but how does the fda define 'maximum reccomended levels', and what will happen to you if you exceed those levels? How about someone who drinkss 1/2 the reccomended level every day of their life, say 15 sodas a day? (from your quote of 30 soda if they have new info). If someone does this every day, will it have adverse effects on their health in the long term? (ie, drinking this level of sodium benzoate for 10-15 years straight? and yes some people do). I respect you have numbers to back the study up, but think about maximum.. The maximum amount of herion, coke, speed, pcp, anything that is toxic, if you take 1/2 of a maximum amount of a toxic subtance into the human body over an extended period of time it is going to have some kind of minor, or major adverse effect. Now I don't think its a queue to stop drinking soda yet, because 1 or 2 probably can't hurt. It is people who rely on diet soda every day that are at the most risk of this alleged dna claim. There any many other preservatives that have also not been studied enough for us to know there long term effects. Combine all of these subtances into a daily diet, and it can't be good.

Why start there?

[Rix]

Horses have served us as a transportation medium for millenia, why do we want cars? Our ancestors were perfectly happy in caves, why go to the trouble of erecting building?

Technophobia is never a reasonable position.

I'll add another data point

[nixman99]

I started drinking diet sodas when Aspertame first came out, and started getting severe headaches. It took a few months to figure out the correlation, but no Aspertame, no headaches. I don't have this problem with Splenda or Saccharin. I found out just last month that my brother had a similar experience.

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[bumby]

Sweden:
E211 in: Coke zero, Coka-cola light and fanta

What about cranberries?

[brunes69]

Cranberries and some other berries create sodium bezonate naturally - and often higher than the 0.1% value allowed by the FDA.

Cranberries are known to be very good for you - in fact my doctor once prescribed it to me for an ailment :P

Re:What about cranberries?

[Fantastic Lad]

I'd be curious to know if there are any mitigating chemicals in berries. --Monsanto used a similar half-fact to help quell concerns about their product, Aspartame.

--That is, that the Methanol (wood alcohol) which Aspartame breaks down into is not a problem because Methanol also appears in tomatoes. Monsanto failed to add that the Methanol in tomatoes is canceled out by the Ethanol which also naturally appears in tomatoes, but which does not appear in Aspartame.

Just a thought.

-FL

Artificial Sweeteners & such...

[Phoobarnvaz]

While the drugs which companies add to our food supply may or may not be good for you...they are great for the bottom line of these companies. Am not going to tell anyone to consume or not to consume anything. The reason is that a friend of mine with diabetes & nerve damage told me this truism...you are going to die 1 of these days...whether or not you consume anything they say it bad for you. Losing a few minutes/days or years off of your life isn't going to mean anything at all. The reason...look at the time you spend at the computer...watching TV or wasting time. Worrying about what you eat or drink will only shorten your life even more.

Unless you have a particular reason for not consuming a chemical...enjoy your life while you can. It only comes around once!!! Aspartame or whatever can only kill you once.

Anyway...with the way the world is going down the tubes...just look at the Mad Max/Road Warrior or Soylent Green movies to see what you have to look forward to.

Re:rots your brain as well

[el_jake]

Even if they're off by a factor of 10, how many people do you know that drink 30 Pepsis a day? This is /. 30 cans of soda isn't unlikely

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[zoney_ie]

I've seen Sodium Benzoate (or other things with benzoate) in ingredient lists on products here in Ireland. I don't drink soft drinks or eat much junk, so I've nothing on hand at the moment to check.

Re:Technical details

[Prune]

Did you RTFA? The new study has nothing to do with benzene since there was no vitamin C; it's about DIRECT damange to yeast cell mitochondrial DNA by the sodium benzoate. Thanks for posting something totally different; nothing but a mod-point grab from dumb moderators that also failed to RTFA.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Prune]

Actually, the whole fucking article is about the FDA being way off base with this number. RTFA next time before trolling.

Re:Well thank goodness (low-alchohol)

[dltaylor]

You've obviously had too many to be able to read or think (assuming that you could before it all).

My post discussed low-alcohol brews, which Guinness doesn't sell in the 'States, or even make, AFAICT, http://www.guinness.com/us_en/beer/default.aspx/ so your comment is simple stupid trolling, but I'm going to try to educate you anyway. Please re-read this post and my original when straight and sober.

For starters, I will use the term brew, rather than beer, since not all of the former are the latter.

Not everyone can drink a brew with significant alcohol. My wife likes brews (Harp being one of her favorites), but alcohol conflicts with her medication. Sometimes I like to have "a bit" of brew when I know I am going to be on my Duc' or driving, and that's not really very intelligent.

I have had brews of various types in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, England, and Canada, including brews that were "domestic" in their respective countries, plus the US of A, so I have some personal experience. We have tried "real" beers of various types (mass production and craft) and the stuff major US of A manufacturers call beer, wheat beers, stouts, ales, malt liquors, porters, ...

We have also tried every low-alcohol brew we can find. None of them have tasted as good to us as the better of the alcohol-containing varieties, but the Clausthaler and others previously listed are acceptable (recommendations accepted).

You refer to an on-line rating service? That is as stupid as buying a mail-order bride rather than meeting and getting to know someone before marriage. Beer is not as expensive as a car, nor as infrequently replaced as tires, so there's no excuse for on-line rating services. Buy a bottle and try it, then decide whether, or not, YOU like it. If you're not legally able to purchase alcohol-containing beverages, then give us all a break and wait thirty or forty years before you post again.

I happen to like Guinness, 'specially when sitting in the "Dubh Linn Gate" at the Pan Pacific in Whistler, BC, where they fly it in daily for freshness and I'm not driving. OTOH, if your mental state is the result of significant consumption, I may have to give it up to prevent the same happening to me.

Diet

[Mark_MF-WN]

So... you stopped eating garbage, and now you feel better? Who would have thought!

I kid, I kid... although it's kind of remarkable that this kind of thing is so counterintuitive to most people. It would never occur to most of us that 80g of concentrated sugar, or inbibing a poison designed to kill bacteria, would be a BAD thing. It would occur to even fewer people to approach the problem objectively by actually keeping track of what they consume.

Aspartame

[Mark_MF-WN]

Well, other supposed health complications aside, aspartame HAS been found to trigger migraines. Lots of things do, but aspartame IS one of them (so is sugar, actually). Caffeine, by contrast, does NOT trigger migraines, although withdrawal from caffeine can.

Water

[Mark_MF-WN]

Substituting soda for water is a GOOD thing.

I mean, come on! Water doesn't even have any preservatives in it. It can start rotting, transforming into molecules and auto-ionizing and all kinds of terrible, un-Christian behaviours. God wouldn't have invented soda unless he had meant for us to drink it. And if he'd wanted us to drink water, he would have put ascorbic acid and artificial flavours in it.

Adjustment

[Mark_MF-WN]

Did you ever see the movie "Super-Size Me"?

Of course, it's a very visceral film, that makes a big impact on people.

But one of the things that most people somehow fail to remember is that at the end of the film, the guy had stopped gaining weight and had started to feel a bit better. His liver was no longer turning into pate. His body had begun to adapt to that atrocious diet, to at least some extent. That's not to suggest that an all-Mcdonalds diet is an acceptable lifestyle, but it does show that the body can adapt to handle at least some amount of junk.

Re:Adjustment

[hazem]

I DID see that show, but AFTER I had tried to cut out fast food from my diet. And while I agree with the general idea of trying to cut down on fast food, I felt the movie was very "sensationalist".

For example, in the outtakes he does an "experiment" where he puts different kinds of hamburgers in glass jars and watches their progress over the course of a month as they rot. The McDonald's burger looked mostly unrotted for most of that time. But, it's not any kind of valid experiment that proves anything about the health-quality of the food. I don't care how "ok" it looks, I'm not going to eat a 3-day old McDonald's hamburger!

It's good, however, that he's working to raise consciousness of a growing health problem - at least in the US.

Re:Adjustment

[drgonzo59]

I don't care how "OK" it looks, I'm not going to eat a 3-day old McDonald's hamburger!

The point I think was that "normal" hamburgers shouldn't last for months in a jar. The maggots and bacteria should eat them with a great appetite that only they can have. Put a piece of meat out and you'll see how fast it goes bad, then put a piece of plastic outside and see how fast that decomposes. The idea was that a Mc.-burger is closer to the piece of plastic than to a natural piece of meat. If maggots won't eat it, you know it's crap.

Now I know that anyway, but it doesn't mean I won't eat at McGoldenArches once a year or so. It's not about the hunger or the food, all fast food is just as filling (and just as bad for you) -- it is all about the brand and the experience. That has been demonstrated many many times. I am nostalgic for the past when I used to go there with my friends back in the day. I will eat the horrible "chemical burger" once in a great while if I can experience that nostalgic feeling. I am quite conscious of it but I am sure most people aren't and the "brands" and "labels" influence them on e a more subliminal level.

The same thing happens with Coke. It has been shown that most people will enjoy Coke better if they know it is Coke. In a blind study some will prefer Pepsi or other such drinks but once they see the label they choose the bright red -- all American carbonated sugar water.

Interesting, if naive, analysis.

[jd]

Lots of things occur naturally that are toxic at ANY concentration. Mercury is a perfectly natural substance but I don't recommend drinking any.

Lots of things occur naturally that are toxic above a critical threshold but are safe below it. Those who drink any kind of drink made from the leaves of the tea plant are drinking all kinds of weird stuff, including arsenic. Not only is it perfectly safe at that concentration, it is actually good for you. Tea also contains aluminium, which replaces the calcium in bones and the iron in haemoglobin at very high concentrations, but does not appear to have any impact whatsoever on healthy people who drink tea.

Aspartame does not occur naturally and is only worthy of mention in that it is certainly known to have adverse neurological effects.

Sodium Benzoate is a weird one. It is certainly safe at the concentrations found in fruit, but the concentrations used in soft drinks will be substantially higher. Interactions are also possible, and are very hard to chart. I doubt there has been much study there - vitamin C's interactions are much better known, for just about everything, although a recent (as in a week or so ago) conference in Portland, Oregon, on food science suggests that our understanding of extreme concentrations is actually very bad.

Dihydrogen monoxide is no different. Very safe at normal concentrations, but deadly when mixed with radio gameshows or taken at excessive levels. It's all about ratios.

To assume that something has property X at level Y means that it will also have property X at level Z is naive in the extreme.

Oh, and modern additives are not the reason we live longer. In fact, the maximum age of a human has not changed substantially over the entire of recorded history. The average age before death has changed, but that's it, and that is more down to better availability of clean water and better healthcare. Healthy eating on top of that MIGHT improve life-expectancy, but if it does, it won't be by the trivial amount suggested. Laboratory mammals fed on a healthy, restricted calorie diet have almost doubled their life expectancy. It is unclear if this would work the same way on humans, but it is likely to have a dramatic impact regardless.

(America also has acute problems with alzeimers, obesity, and other diet-related diseases - far more so than other western industrialized nations.)

Which means that we love longer IN SPITE of food additives, not because of them. If we produced and ate healthier food, and less of it, diet-related diseases would diminish, quality of life would improve, and possibly life-expectancy would increase.

Personally, I would welcome insurance companies refusing to pay out on lifestyle-created conditions and diseases. Healthcare would become a lot cheaper and those who deny the problem would be removed from the gene pool.

Aspartame -- real effects

[Anonymous Coward]

Aspartame causes very real memory and cognitive disruptions for me. You can double-blind test me and I guarantee I can tell you which product has aspartame. It took me months to figure out why I was suffering so badly while drinking diet coke. I am still not myself.

Anyone who says Aspartame cannot cause damage is an idiot. It can and it DOES in certain people, and apparently does not affect others as much. Obviously there is some genetic component here.

Re: Aspartame -- real effects

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who says Aspartame cannot cause damage is an idiot. It can and it DOES in certain people, and apparently does not affect others as much. Obviously there is some genetic component here.

You should get yourself into a clinical study. Here is a list of a bunch of sources describing how fears about aspartame are unwarranted based on the research.

I emphasize based on the research, because if there is any such effect as you are describing among the general population, they haven't been able to pin it down. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it probably does mean one of two things: 1. you are somehow different from the people in these studies, or 2. the cause of your problems is something other than aspartame. The statistics are way not favor of your explanation.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how sodium benzoate is classified as an "inhibitor", like an "anti-oxidant" (which it is), there is no surprise that it will inhibit oxygen-based reactions. Just like vitamin C.

A (very) little common sense negates your post.

[Fantastic Lad]

Read through that, including all of the links at the bottom. Why not talk about dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it? It's responsible for everything from leukemia to water poisoning. It's so dangerous that it will literally eat away unprotected metal if exposed for a number of years. It's like an acid! Now that's powerful stuff - and powerful dangerous!

Okay, I read through the link you provided AND the associated links, and none of it was worth a dented copper penny; all it did was re-state that, "We're not going to offer any science, but Aspartame is safe. Honest!" --Two of the links even went right back to the FDA, which was complicit in allowing Aspartame onto the market in the first place. If they lied once, then how on earth does it make sense to allow them any credibility a second time? That's just silly.

The Time Magazine article even reiterates the old Monsanto saw; --that the Methanol aka, wood alcohol, which Aspartame breaks down into isn't a problem because Methanol also appears in tomatoes, (which everybody knows are safe, right?). --A true claim which nonetheless fails to add that tomatoes also contain ethanol which chemically neutralizes the toxic effects of methanol, which is NOT true for Aspartame or any of the products Aspartame is used in. That Time Magazine can make such a stupid editorial mistake as to reprint Monsanto PR spin only illustrates just how poorly researched the article was. (Not surprising for a lousy propaganda rag like Time, but that's beside the point.)

The point is that you have provided rotten links which do nothing at all to prove the safety of a toxic substance.

-FL

Re:A (very) little common sense negates your post.

[lukesl]

Ethanol does not neutralize methanol toxicity, as methanol itself is not all that toxic. It's that your body breaks methanol down into formic acid and formaldehyde, which are substantially more toxic--ethanol slows that breakdown, but only at doses that are likely much higher than what you find in a tomato. The issue is with dosage: your body can tolerate small amounts of methanol, just not large ones. Just because something is toxic in a large dose does not mean that small doses cause cumulative damage. If you extracted the caffeine from 365 cups of coffee and took it all at once, you would probably die, but if you drink one cup a day for a year you would be fine. The question to ask is how much aspartame does a person typically consume, and how much methanol is released?

Born Yesterday.

[Fantastic Lad]

Aspartame scare is an urban legend, dude.

I read the article you linked to. All it did was refute an internet chain letter. So what? Even though he danced around the fact, the author even conceded that there were known problems with Aspartame. He even snidely commented. . .

"A recent MIT study reaffirms that aspartame is harmless for most users, but again, skeptics will object that the research was funded by a grant from the NutraSweet Company and therefore cannot be trusted."

Well, yes, actually, the fact that a lab is funded by the same people who are suspected of poisoning the public is indeed a very good reason to not trust the results. Was the author born yesterday?

Just because one concerned truth-seeker comes off as sounding hysterical, it does not mean that a toxic substance is suddenly not toxic.

-FL

Re:rots your brain as well

[Kierthos]

I'm sure it would have some sort of adverse effect, even if it's nothing more being bad teeth and potential diabetes and obesity problems.

The thing is, the article is FUD. They don't quote any numbers at all. They don't tell us anything about the experiment used on the yeast cells, such as what the equivalent number of sodas a day would be for a typical human being. Or, for that matter, do they explain why yeast cells were used.

Is soda bad for you? Well, just ask most parents. Yes, it is. Is it going to give you cancer and/or kill you? Seriously doubt it.

Of course, if you're chugging 50 Cokes a day, yeah, you're going to see some ill effects, but that's almost certainly from the other ingredients in Coke, not the sodium benzoate. (I'm sure the caffience and the sugar would be doing wonderfully bad things to you at that point.)

Just about every mass-marketed drink is going to have something in it that's unhealthy for you. Trying to avoid sodium benzoate? Okay, drink Gatorade. Whoops.... 1-32 oz. Gatorade has about 20% of your sodium intake for the day. But it doesn't have sodium benzoate. How about bottled water? Well, actually, depending on the company, that will have sodium benzoate in it too. Tap water? Hope your area's water filtration system is good or you can spring for a Brita filter.

Everything can be harmful if you take too much of it. My problem with the article is that they don't tell you how much is too much, or even how much is 50% of too much, or even anything useful at all other then trying to scare the pants off of people.

Re:rots your brain as well

[Colourspace]

I too have been type one for about 10 years and Pepsi Max is about the only soda I drink - up to a two litre bottle a day. I'm not too alarmed by any of this. As many posters have said there is no linked peer review, and also anything in sufficient quantities is poisonous. Interestingly I heard over the weekend that something like 22 pounds of chocolate ingested will kill a human being - probably a quarter of that for us diabetics. Fuck it you know? Life is too short and we are all going to die of something so I'm off to the fridge for a nice cold glass of Pepsi Max. It's the cigarrettes I REALLY need to give up.... That shit will kill anyone...

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[dascandy]

Oh yes there is. Quote from the diet coke bottle next to me:

"voedingszuren: E338, E330; plantenextracten; cafeine; conserveermiddel: E211. (Bevat een bron van fenylalanine).

So I'm sorry about that but yes, we do somehow still have it.

What are soft drinks good for, anyway?

[daem0n1x]

Why would someone drink something awful like Pepsi or Coca Cola? What good are those drinks, anyway? What was the purpose of someone inventing them, apart from making huge loads of money? What did these drinks contribute to the advancement of Mankind?

Re:What are soft drinks good for, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

They taste nice.

Does everything have to contribute to the advancement of mankind? Life would be pretty fucking boring and not so enjoyable if it did, for a start having sex for any purpose other than procreation would be a waste of time and you shouldn't do it.

That's not true!

[mario_grgic]

Depending on the type of diabetes, pancreas may indeed produce more than enough insulin. However cells are not able to utilize it (it's called insulin resistance).

The other type of diabetes is when pancreas does not produce enough/any insulin.

Moderation

[SupaYoda]

Moderation is key for anything. I don't think that anyone will argue that a soda is good for you, much less that 2-3 a day is anything but bad for you. The same goes for artificial additives. It's unlikely that you'll hear an argument that these things are good for you in mass quantities. Whole, natural foods are always better for you than the processed stuff.

But 2-3 sodas (or even diet sodas) a week isn't going to kill you or even spoil your diet.

As to the additive sodium benzoate, it's a preservative. If there is a problem, it's easy enough for soft drink companies to replace with good old fashioned salt. The overall recipe of the syrup might have to be adjusted for taste, but it shouldn't be too big a deal.

Exercise

[CustomDesigned]

I started riding my bike to work (7 miles) a year ago - because of the price of gas, not because I like exercise. However, a side benefit is that my blood pressure has dropped substantially. It was 140/90, and last I checked it was 115/75. My route takes me through a park, where deer stare at me as I ride past (I am careful not to brush against any foliage so as to pick up any deer ticks). Crazy drivers try to run me over, but that is a simple danger. Sunburn and poison ivy are more complex, but still less than 24 hours for a resolution. So overall, stress is reduced.

Re:Exercise

[DjRenigade]

Well, i did it for the exercise. I was not over weight or in bad health. my heart was like 67 at rest and my blood was 132/67 and colestrol is like 189 total. i have not been back since my last physical, but i need to so i can see progress. Because of my work schedule, i need to get exercise as i work a compressed 12.5 hr shift and 3 on 2 off 2 on 3 off workweek. It plays hell on sleep and stuff like that. So, to use your words, simple danger is me busting my ass in the park like i did a few weeks ago, but i dont worry all the time as it is inherent part of the biking pleasure. I am at work once again, 1 day off this week due to staffing issues...complex concerne. http://renigade.blogspot.com/ is my blog.

Re:rots your brain as well

[BandwidthHog]

Yes.

Yes, I have.

While health is important....

[Kaffien]

Sure health is important.... and you should want to improve the quality of your life while your living. In the end though we are all doomed to DIE, 5 - 25 years extra... your still all, ultimately dead in the end. It's pessimistic, but true. I think I'll try that seltzer and lime trick, I drink to much darned pop. Maybe I just need an alcohol that I don't need to mix, thats the only time i usually drink soda!

MOD PARENT EVERYTHING!

[srussia]

Just got some mod points, but couldn't find "+1 Everything"

On second thought, -1 Redundant could have been appropriate because "USE EVERYTHING IN MODERATION" is a tautological imperative in the same way that "TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS BAD" is a tautological statement.

WARNING

[famikon]

Some soft drinks may damage your DNA Evidence http://www.homestarrunner.com/DNA.html

Happiness sold in bottles ?

[freaker_TuC]

for only $1.99 a piece ; sounds like cheap happiness to me; please give me two of them!

They over-concentrate the from-concentrate juice!

[Serpentegena]

Yaa, but the question is "who decides on the definition of the 100% Juice?"

Nowadays large fruit juice manufacturers/distributors screw over the consumer by slapping a bold :D, gigantic 100% JUICE!!!! label on the front. However, there are several varieties of juice that fit under that umbrella-denomination. There is fresh-squeezed juice and juice made from concentrate; 100% natural juice/juice without any artificial additives, and juice with (natural?) additives that are not statistically significant(obviously the producer is not going to shoot himself in the foot by adding some creepy chemical and then having to list it on the side of the carton, but they usually supplement the vitamin or mineral content - and that's OK by me). The hitch is, juice can be 100% natural, and made from concentrate at the same time. If the juice is made out of concentrate, there is NOTHING stopping the manufacturer from adding LESS water than the initial water content of the juice. This results in juice with a high sugar concentration(and a high everything-else concentration, mind ye). This would seem remarkably retarded at first, since the company is losing money by not using the juice concentrate to its full product yield potential, but then again, if what sells is sugary drinks, they're just responding to the market demand, and being competitive.

Note: this is just a personal, unproven theory, based on empirical observations.

Damaged DNA

[disturbedite]

i believe there are some studies that have shown that the aluminum salts in deodorants can damage DNA as well.

Re:GOD BLESS AMERICAN EQUALITY!

[OldHawk777]

What, you didn't see the humor? It is really good and appropriate humor for the present state of global/local politics, religion, business, society... reasoning/logic. You cannot possibly "make a point" with all the nonsense accepted as facts, truth a/o reality.

IOW: I was not trying to make a point; So, just laugh PLEASE!

how you "feel" is subjective

[WebCowboy]

The reason why you feel like crap when eating something unusual is because you've allowed that consumption to lax and your body has adjusted to that diet. It does not follow that eating at Wendy's occasionally makes people ill. It makes YOU ill because your body is no longer accustomed to it.

Actually by in large it isn't because you aren't used to the food--it is because you aren't used to feeling like crap. Much of the adjustment your body makes to a particular diet is actually mental perception. Yes, your body does make adjustments to sustained exposure to certain diets so it is better prepared to handle, for example, a diet of Big Macs, fries and pop. However, the result of that is basically a sustained low-level feeling of malaise. Since that "feeling like crap" state is of constant intensity (it doesn't come and go) your mental perception of your state of health is that it is normal.

When I was younger I was a great fan of McDonalds, then one day I got ill from what was probably an undercooked Quarter Pounder (the burgers never made me ill previously). I was put off from McD's for awhile (almost a year) then I tried it out again and "felt like crap". Since then (almost 15 years now) I've tried eating a burger at McD's on occasion and each and every time it makes me feel like crap. I'm sure that they aren't ALL mis-prepared so I'm guessing it is mostly mental perception--not being used to the effects of such food on my body and the memory of that one bad burger years ago.

Point is, you can't trust mental perception. Occasional consumption of McD's is NOT harmful to anyone (except perhaps those with severe allergies to any ingredients they use), but everyone's mental perception is different. You might "get used to it" but the body is still dealing with it.

Re:how you "feel" is subjective

[mr_matticus]

All of your feelings are mental perceptions, and the high levels of sodium and fat do not cause a "low level malaise" in any physical sense from a single meal.

The body is more than capable of processing dips and spikes associated with food intake, because diet is naturally varied. Sodium and fat are essential to proper bodily function, and even if you ingested 100% of your daily allowance in a single meal, you'd be fine. Same with any vitamin, mineral, or protein you might consume.

You would have to eat multiple meals at McDonald's in the span of a day or two in order to cause any negative physical effects, and then you'd be in that "excessive" category I already spoke of.

Re:how you "feel" is subjective

[WebCowboy]

the high levels of sodium and fat do not cause a "low level malaise" in any physical sense from a single meal

From personal experience I can tell you it only takes a single meal at McD's to cause negative effects. Ask a diabetic and they'll tell you that a single meal or snack most certainly DOES have a drastic effect on their blood sugar levels, so you can imagine how much work your pancreas and internal organs have to do to deal with such a meal when they DO work properly.

In fact any doctor or biologist would tell you that a single meal of greasy fries, burger and sugary drink most certainly WOULD have a very nearly immediate negative effect on ANY person who would consume it. The magnitude and exact nature of that effect varies however, especially in how it is perceived. Most normal people, even having not eaten fast food in a long time and not used to it, would at most feel lethargic after such a meal (the effects would be small and temporary). Some might get a headache or a stomach ache, or get constipated. A single fast food meal consumed by someone with allergies to the ingredients could cause severe illness or even death. In any case, the effect is present even with a single fast-food meal whether you perceive it or not.

You would have to eat multiple meals at McDonald's in the span of a day or two in order to cause any negative physical effects

As you mentioned, our diets are supposed to be "naturally varied". If you regularly ate at McD's for too long you'd be reducing that variation, and could be conditioning your body to such a diet--it would cause negative effects but the body would adjust in some way to live with those effects (including shifting the balance of your brain chemistry which alters perception and mood), but the effects are still there and can be cumulative.

Of course moderation is the key--it just seems that most people have lost site of moderation. The negative effects on your body from eating a single fast food meal are small and temporary but will accumulate if you do not give your body enough time to deal with them. Multiple meals is obviously excessive...however so is one meal a day. In fact, 3 meals PER WEEK is considered by many dieticians to be the point where the negative effects may start to accumulate, so if you eat more than 3 fast food meals in a week you are subjecting your body to ill effects of such food faster than your body can process them, and at that point your body starts to make adjustments to live with those effects and even though your cholesterol is elevated, your body fat is too high, blood sugars are out of whack, etc you still "feel fine" even as the ill effects continue to accumulate as they did before.

Re:how you "feel" is subjective

[mr_matticus]

Diabetics have problem with blood sugar because they're diabetic. It doesn't matter whether they eat a hamburger or chew on some pure, organic sugar cane.

They can't properly control their blood sugar levels, and ANYTHING they eat has a drastic effect on their blood sugar if it contains carbs, starches, or sugars, period. If they're allergic to an ingredient, then the negative effects are a result of the allergy, not the consumption of fast food. If they ingested that ingredient in an organic snack, they'd have an equally strong reaction to it.

Your logic does not hold up even in the most cursory of reviews, and moreover, NO doctor would claim that a single meal, whether greasy or not, would have an "immediate negative effect" on anything. The ingredients for which fast food is rightly criticized (fat, salt, sugar) are all necessary for the normal functioning of the human body. There is no "automatic" negative effect as you describe. If you eat just fresh vegetables and fruit, drink water all day, and then go to Wendy's and pick up a hamburger and fries, you've had a healthier day than the average American and no negative physical consequences.

In order to produce the kind of negative effects that have been alleged, you'd have to eat nothing but fast food for a day or two. If you eat a healthy diet and occasionally stop for fast food, you can be (and likely are) healthy by any standard measure. The key word is "occasionally"--3 meals per week is not "occasional." Once or twice a month (or more infrequently) is occasional, and is perfectly healthy and acceptable the human body and to nutrition science.

buried in the press

[Scrameustache]

you think eating (drinking) Splenda will give you headaches, so it does. People that DON'T have this idea in their head generally do NOT notice any sort of correlation between Splenda and headaches. I get a sudden migraine.
When I'm well enough to think straight and read ingredients, I retrace what I ate in the last 3 days. My neurologist gave me a long list of possible migraine-causing foods and additives, I check to see if anything slipped in.

Aspartame is THE worse offender. It takes very little to cause a migraine, and they come in fast and hard. About 30 minutes after unknowingly accepting a poisoned mint (or whatever), I get very sick. Every. Fucking. Time.
MSG is pretty bad too, but it takes more to hurt as much, and it comes in slower.

I wish I had the lobbying power of Pesico, so I could fight back against their disinformation campaign. But the best I can do is offer my testimonial and research links on slashdot.

Re:They over-concentrate the from-concentrate juic

[boingo82]

Good point- I had not considered it not being properly reconstituted. Most of the juice we drink around here is not-from-concentrate Florida OJ, but that is definitely a consideration with apple, cherry, grape, etc. And like you point out, most "100%" juices are 98% apple or white grape with 2% whatever flavor the bottle advertises. Cheating.

Re:rots your brain as well

[skrotnisse]

Everything we eat or drink is "poisoned". I worry more about Aluminum in deodorants, or sodium lauryl ether sulfate and triethanolamine/Diethanolamine in my shampoo etc. These are additives found in many products today that may give you cancer.

Since most bottled water companies

[rsilvergun]

are owned in part or whole by soda manufacturers, wouldn't that be counter productive?

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[witte]

Yes, zis is true. In ze motherland vee no longer use benzeen in our zoft drinks !

Re:rots your brain as well

[dolson]

You ever try xylitol as a sugar substitute? It's a sugar alcohol extracted from some kinds of vegetables and fruits, and it tastes quite close to sugar. But it's often found in toothpaste and gums and such, because it's actually GOOD for your teeth. It's such a strange feeling, eating something that tastes good and isn't damaging my teeth.

Soy Sauce

[mr100percent]

Isn't this stuff in soy sauce too?

Re:What are other things good for, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would someone eat something awful like chocolate, or eat spaghetti? What good are those things, anyway? What was the purpose of someone inventing them, apart from making huge loads of money? What did these things contribute to the advancement of Mankind?

    YO!
  Just shoot yourself in the head. You do not appreciate life. Right?

    Only Pinoqachole can possibly save a depressive low-IQ chimp like you!

    LOL!

Re:toxic chemical in dihydrogen monoxide

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dihydrogen Monoxide IS our water supply, you dope!