Slashdot Mirror


Coca-Cola and Pepsi Change Recipe To Avoid Cancer Warning

jones_supa writes "California has added 4-methylimidazole (a caramel coloring) to the list of carcinogenic compounds that require an explicit warning when added to foodstuffs. Incidentally, this has entailed the big two cola producers to modify their recipe to decrease the amount of the substance — just enough to avoid the warning. The change to the recipe has already been introduced in California but will be rolled out across the U.S. to streamline manufacturing. The American Beverage Association noted that there is not enough evidence to show the coloring to cause cancer in humans."

28 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. California by nman64 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.

    1. Re:California by A10Mechanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do we know that California doesn't cause cancer? How can we be sure? Is there a proximity? Do people in Nevada get some sort of horrible sickness?

    2. Re:California by oracleguy01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except the TSA body scanners... those are very safe. Unlike the food coloring in cola that is cancer in a bottle.

    3. Re:California by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do people in Nevada get some sort of horrible sickness?

      Many people in Nevada seem to suffer from horrible sickness, but it seems to increase the closer you get to Las Vegas. I'm certainly not ruling out a California connection, though.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    4. Re:California by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.

      True story! These labels are a total joke here - seems like every building and half the brands of cars have these stupid warning labels.

      To those who are unfamiiar with this nonsense: if you buy a car in California, there's a good chance that a new car will come with a big sticker on the driver's side window - for your safety!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:California by nman64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It can be shown that 100% of cancer incidents reported in California affected patients in California. We must therefore warn you that California may cause cancer.

    6. Re:California by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.

      I suspect that the 12t of sugar in a can of Coke will do far more health damage than the 4-methylimidazole. Possibly even cancer-related.

      Oh, but California would rather you die of complications of diabetes or heart disease than cancer. No, really, that's the unavoidable conclusion.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:California by nman64 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful, there. Being pedantic is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

    8. Re:California by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:California by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I moved to California 2 weeks ago for a temp job, and yes it's a strange place. My first indication: It was pouring-down rain, with almost no visiblity, and not a single Californian on the I-15 had their headlights turned on. I was literally driving blind (cause I couldn't see the other cars). I just slowed down & hoped I didn't hit anyone.

      Back home on the east coast everybody turns on their headlights when it rains so (1) they can see where they're going and (2) other drivers can see them. I guess Californians lack that basic common sense? So maybe Californians really DO need those labels on their cars to inform them of the obvious (cars pollute). LOL

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its California.. if the government doesn't turn on your headlights, clearly its because headlights consume power and thus are not green. Also, if safety was an issue, the government would've turned them on for you.

      Or.. they're broke and forgot to turn on the headlight management system.

    11. Re:California by Intropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There you go assuming that the labels are accurate in a practical sense. The joke is that California requires that warning on many so many chemicals with so tenuous a connection to cancer that it's basically impossible to use as an actual warning. That problem is exacerbated by the potential lawsuits when not issueing the warning, the fact that there's no exposure/penalty for warning unnecessarily, and the lack of specificity you noted. The net effect is that if you see such a notice you can rest assured that some chemical compound nearby that you may or may not actually be exposed to might possibly have some connection to cancer at some concentration that may or not actually be present... or someone just wants to cover his ass and not get sued. Not a lot of information content.

    12. Re:California by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Funny

      for argument sake, Hasnt coke and pepsi been around for about 100 years?

      also hasnt the avg life expenctancy gone up dramatically in the past 100 years?

      Therefore, I conclude that coke and pepsi have been keeping people alive longer!, thank you, where is my grant check?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:California by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does the land of fruits and nuts get to dictate what's in our Cokes? and what ever happened to personal responsibility? why must we baby proof the world? hell living causes cancer, we gonna stick warnings on babies next? Oh and before anybody says its because of the rising cost of healthcare (while ignoring the average 3000% profits the drug companies are making is what's causing the incredible explosion of cost) let me retort with this modest proposal: I'll be happy to sign an iron clad wavier that says if i get cancer the ONLY thing I'll get is plain old morphine (which is cheap) and in return you remove ALL TAXES and hand me a get out of jail free card which covers pretty much any sin law, so no more taxes on cigarettes and beer, no more throwing me in jail if I want to smoke a joint, deal? watch how quick your weaselly congress critters balk at that proposal, why? because all those taxes are going to pretty much anything BUT healthcare, its just another way they can raise taxes without the masses balking. Hell mine spent the cigarette taxes on a trauma center when there wasn't a damned thing wrong with the one we had, why? "Because the state next door had a nicer one that we did", yeah like smokers are constantly rushed to trauma centers and we are all four years old, God forbid someone has something nicer than us!

      basically the whole thing stinks. no matter how much you dumb down the planet all you are gonna get is bigger dipshits. if you give ANYTHING in massive doses to mice its gonna kill them, hell even water. Maybe we should put a warning label about water too, along with a giant arrow that shows the idiots which end of the bottle the liquid comes out of, geez.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:California by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      If virus was Latin, the plural would be either viri or virua (for the nominative or accusative forms)...

      Except that virus in Latin has no attested plural and viri is always the plural to vir, meaning "man", cognate to the English word "wer" as in "werewolf". There's also a chance of virus actually having been a 4th declension noun (no one knows for sure today), and in that case, the English plural would have been "viruses" anyway.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:California by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.

      Bah, the -us/-i variation is used in plain ol' English, too:

      asparagus, asparagi
      broccolus, broccoli
      spaghettus, spaghetti
      us, I

      Whoops, that last one is backwards...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    16. Re:California by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because CA has gotten to the point where they label anything that might conceivably cause cancer in doses 1000s of times higher than anyone would normally be exposed to. Yes, we know, everything causes cancer in high doses.

      Hell, fast food joints have Prop-65 warnings because cooking potatoes and coffee causes a trace amount of some chemical to form in certain circumstances, which causes cancer in high doses. Yes, they have reason to be dismissive and laugh because reason has left the building.

    17. Re:California by xevioso · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't understand this. I can pick up a piece of asparagus.

      However, when I buy broccoli, at no point is my broccoli a broccolus. When I remove the rubber band, slice it up to steam it, any piece I pick up is still broccoli. So what constitutes a broccolus? The little polypy things on the end? If i hold up one of those, is that a broccolus or just a small piece of broccoli?

      I just don't understand.

  2. Might as well go all the way by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

    California needs to just put out a warning saying that life has been linked to incidences of cancer.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Might as well go all the way by nman64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.

    2. Re:Might as well go all the way by blacklint · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I ever become a billionaire, I'm going to hire a blimp with "PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: THE SUN IS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER" to float up and down the state. Stupid proposition system.

    3. Re:Might as well go all the way by magarity · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would be funny until you got tired of it and landed. Then they'd sue you for taking down a warning sign.

  3. All risk is relative by VernorVinge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same 1000 cans argument can be made for aspartame as a sweetner, tail pipe exhaust, and smoking crack. What if you're that one person with a a genetic predisposition to get cancer from this substance? We should be doing what the EU has done for years- make manufacturers prove substances are safe for consumption before including them as ingredients.

    --
    Stay skeptical, my friends.
  4. Re:Becareful coke addicts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    stochastic just means random. it doesn't imply any particular type of distribution.

  5. Re:Just wondering... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Funny

    Money. Because they don't have any to test.

  6. Re:Becareful coke addicts.. by VAElynx · · Score: 5, Informative

    Um, what? Stochastic means random, with calculable probability. An example would be metal fatigue, given a probability density function for load stress - it's definitely stochastic, but it isn't proportional to the load to the first power, rather, something like to the power of four, never mind that below certain values, you don't get fatigue in steels at all.

  7. 4-methylimidazole by JazzHarper · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...is also present in dark beers and roasted foods. It is one of many substances, like acrylamide, formed during browning. So, even if they avoid it in cola drinks, we can expect California warning labels on more foods and beverages. (California OEHHA proposed slapping a warning label on everything containing acrylamide about five years ago, but they got a lot of pushback on that one).

  8. fuck the ABA, for the record... by nimbius · · Score: 5, Informative

    the American Beverage Association is a trade organization that represents the beverage industry in the United States. Its members include producers and bottlers of soft drinks, bottled water, and other non-alcoholic beverages.

    the American Beverage Association frankly has no idea at all if this chemical is hazardous, at what levels and under what conditions. they have published no known study. they have 25 lobbyists across seven firms and their purpose is to limit warning labels on their products regardless of the actual science.

    to clarify, The Center For Science in the Public Interest (we like them. theyre good guys) concluded 4-methylimidazole is added as a caramel coloring in some dark beers and soy sauces. its bad. to further cut past the knee jerk spinjob article from OP, heres the release from CSPI:
    http://www.cspinet.org/new/201102161.html
    and a quote out of the article as to what precisely theyre targeting...
    "Federal regulations distinguish among four types of caramel coloring, two of which are produced with ammonia and two without it. CSPI wants the Food and Drug Administration to prohibit the two made with ammonia. The type used in colas and other dark soft drinks is known as Caramel IV, or ammonia sulfite process caramel. Caramel III, which is produced with ammonia but not sulfites, is sometimes used in beer, soy sauce, and other foods. "

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.