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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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.?

[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: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.

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

[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: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?

The important question...

[selex]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Mprx]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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....

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.

Well thank goodness

[iminplaya]

Beer is still safe.

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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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:*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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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

[Gryle]

Don't forget all that dihydrogen monoxide in our water supply.

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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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?

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 ?

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:The Best Diet...

[M8e]

You should switch to something healthier... like vodka (less fusel alcohols)

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[AI0867]

Netherlands, no E21* here.

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.

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.

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.

I'll just make my own by

[WormholeFiend]

boiling some sliced ginger root, adding sugar cane juice, and then compressed gas.

Re:rots your brain as well

[WormholeFiend]

try some Open Source Cola?

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.

Re:Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in

[bumby]

Sweden:
E211 in: Coke zero, Coka-cola light and fanta

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

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