Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Some Soft Drinks May Damage Your DNA

Posted by Zonk on from the argh-my-mitochondria dept.

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."

55 of 643 comments (clear)

  1. And what about the U.S.? by pcmanjon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    1. Re:And what about the U.S.? by pcmanjon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:And what about the U.S.? by hazem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:And what about the U.S.? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    4. Re:And what about the U.S.? by bl8n8r · · Score: 4, Funny

      > 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

      --
      boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    5. Re:And what about the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:And what about the U.S.? by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:And what about the U.S.? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:And what about the U.S.? by mr_matticus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:And what about the U.S.? by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:And what about the U.S.? by perral1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. nothing new by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  3. Re:rots your brain as well by Rod76 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Die First, Then Quit
  4. The important question... by selex · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  5. Re:Technical details by Nymz · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  6. Frogurt by lamasquerade · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --

    // It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis

    1. Re:Frogurt by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Frogurt by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Frogurt by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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.

    4. Re:Frogurt by hankwang · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    5. Re:Frogurt by Snaller · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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!

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:Frogurt by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  7. A no win situation by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A no win situation by meekers · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:A no win situation by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:A no win situation by Winckle · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:A no win situation by Grr · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    5. Re:A no win situation by JRIsidore · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      :w!q
    6. Re:A no win situation by Mprx · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    7. Re:A no win situation by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:A no win situation by boingo82 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    9. Re:A no win situation by Zonk+(troll) · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      "The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
      End The FED. -
  8. Bad News For Yeast Cells! by Stickerboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  9. Well thank goodness by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Funny

    Beer is still safe.

    --
    What?
  10. The Independent started WiFi Scare by cruachan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  11. I used to be totally addicted... by Greg_D · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... 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.

  12. No kidding. by zCyl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Peter Piper by Oxen · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    --
    First you animate. Then you SUSPEND!!!
  14. evil by nanosquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. romantic and calvinistic notions? by nietsch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:romantic and calvinistic notions? by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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....

  16. The US FDA DID look into it, kind of by MedicinalMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  17. Pffft by Mystery00 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pffffft, been drinking this stuff for years, completely harmless, I'm just fi- *urk*

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  18. No publication? by jenik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PubMed doesn't seem to have any papers on this, at least by this Piper guy... I'll wait for a peer reviewed publication.

  19. Genetic engineering of humans, etc. by saforrest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  20. Coca-Cola Zero by dysfunct · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    :/- spoon(_).
  21. Re:rots your brain as well by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  22. Simple vs complex dangers by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Simple vs complex dangers by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
  23. Re:toxic chemical in soda by Gryle · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  24. Benzene == causes cancer && illegal in EU by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 ?

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  25. Re:rots your brain as well by thelandp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    -- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
  26. Re:rots your brain as well by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  27. Re:rots your brain as well by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Interesting

    try some Open Source Cola?

  28. A (very) little common sense negates your post. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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