Should the FDA ban carcinogenic colorings used in sodas?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rt&Dzine, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. Rt&Dzine, Feb 19, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011

    Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #1
    Recent research shows that the 'caramel' coloring used in Coke and Pepsi causes cancer in lab mice and rats. The beverage companies claim they are safe. The Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the FDA to ban 2 coloring agents used in the sodas and some foods.

    Should the FDA keep out of this? Let the public decide whether to risk it (and not necessarily know which foods use the colorings)?

    http://www.walletpop.com/2011/02/16/caramel-coloring-in-coca-cola-pepsi-and-more-causes-cancer-sho/

    This article is more in depth:

    http://www.cspinet.org/new/201102161.html
     
  2. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    I also heard that it would take 10,000 cans a day to even reach the effects.
     
  3. karsten macrumors 6502a

    karsten

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #3
    yeah i'd be way more worried about the hfcs, aspartame and sodium benzoates in them than anything else.
     
  4. Rt&Dzine thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #4
    Source?

    Do you think there should be a warning label? They claim that it's not a strong carcinogen, but it's also not a necessary ingredient.

    The ABA (American Beverage Association) says:

    http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/n...n-2-types-of-caramel-coloring-in-sodas?page=2

    Which leads me to ask,

    1. when did they begin using 4-MEI? They've been using it for more than a century?
      .
    2. have cancer rates stayed the same since the widespread use of 4-MEI?
     
  5. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #5
    They should definitely ban people from feeding coke and pepsi to rats and mice.
     
  6. Rt&Dzine thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #6
    You're against scientific and medical research?
     
  7. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #7
    It was a joke ;)

    Not against research using animals at all - but this snippet is meaningless without seeing the equivalent volumes of food involved.

    Caramels are generated in most sorts of cooking - they are the sweet taste of cooked onions, the meaty taste of BBQ food. Should these be banned too?

    There are lots of worse things the FDA does support that cause worse health effects (obesity) - the food pyramid is pretty much BS - and there's a lot more the FDA could be doing to dissuade folks from eating refined carbs.
     
  8. Rt&Dzine thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #8
    That's another issue. This isn't caramel. Beverage companies using that term are misleading consumers.

     
  9. kainjow Moderator emeritus

    kainjow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2000
  10. Rt&Dzine thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #10
    So we should only be concerned with diabetes and obesity, when unnecessary cancer-causing additives could eliminated or warned against?
     
  11. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #11
    I don't see why not... It's not like it contributes to anything besides the color.

    Maybe if it has a purpose like flavoring or preserving the food...
     
  12. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    Excesses in testing are a joke.

    Breathing air is a carcinogen. Chernobyl. Don't breath.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    I'm sure the Free Market™ will sort this out without any more Marxist Liberal Big Government interference [/fivepoint]

    Oops, sorry, must be channelling again...
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    This issue once again how the free market only cares about selling and not about public welfare. That is government's job, and one reason I'm happy it's written into our constitution.

    Government must regulate industry, because it's clear that industry has no interest in regulating itself.
     
  15. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #15
    The Magratheans (disguised as white mice) would not stand for that.
     
  16. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #16
    Technically, it did. We likes our carcinogen colorants. ;)
     
  17. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #17
    The carmelization process in cooking produces carcinogens be it sugar, onions, bbqing etc. Browning of any kind of food is creating a potential cancer risk, but to hell with the FDA I still like my Cajun food a little blackened and my steaks rare inside burnt crisp outside. We create more risk by removing those impurities that would give our immune systems a needed boost every once in a while. Too many germiphobes running things for my tastes.

    Clean living caused some of the greatest natural disasters in recorded history, just look at how fast the early Europeans managed to wipe out millions of Native Americans. It was not all raping and pillaging for gold, much of it was the introduction of diseases that the indigenous populations were not used to that really ****ed them up. These diseases from the old world even helped promote the African slave trade--at first colonists attempted to rely on the natives as forced labor but they were dying off pretty quick of diseases that in the old world were fairly common. And when there were not enough left the slave trade with Africa boomed.

    Hiding from disease creates a weak immune system, so maybe we are better off just drinking the tap water and sucking down that soda.

    You say its bad for me? AWESOME I'LL TAKE TWO!
     
  18. karsten macrumors 6502a

    karsten

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #18
    that was soo good
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    Okay... for one, native Americans weren't hiding from disease. They were exposed to strains that were new to them, hence their vulnerability.

    Two, clean living, especially for our sources of food and water have allowed us to take for granted the various diseases and parasites that would commonly plague us if it weren't for our clean and modern ways.


    Waterborne diseases

    Waterborne diseases are caused by pathogenic microorganisms which are directly transmitted when contaminated fresh water is consumed. Contaminated fresh water, used in the preparation of food, can be the source of foodborne disease through consumption of the same microorganisms. According to the World Health Organization, diarrheal disease accounts for an estimated 4.1% of the total daily global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year. It was estimated that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene, and is mostly concentrated in children in developing countries.

    Waterborne disease can be caused by protozoa, viruses, or bacteria, many of which are intestinal parasites.

    Even before the establishment of the germ theory of disease, traditional practices eschewed water in favor of beer, wine and tea. In the camel caravans that crossed Central Asia along the Silk Road, the explorer Owen Lattimore noted "The reason we drank so much tea was because of the bad water. Water alone, unboiled, is never drunk. There is a superstition that it causes blisters on the feet."


    Whenever I get a cut I like to joke that I'll just "rub a little dirt on it." But I do understand that it's a joke.

    When we were cooking food over a fire, caramelization was unavoidable. As an occasional addition to our diets it can be delicious. But what's the purpose to adding it to a drink that some consume numerous times a day... simply because it makes it look brown? Is that a good reason to add cancer-causing additives to you life?

    If it is, the free market may be the next great driver of evolutionary change in humans. It won't be the meek who inherit the Earth, it will be the smart shoppers. The rest of you can have another Coke... and I'll smile.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Yes, it should. Our bodies are overloaded with man-made chemicals and the cumulative effect is unknowable. We need to reduce the amount in our food or we'll simply pay for it in the future.
     
  21. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #21
    Man how can anyone write an article that serious and end it with

    If the agency who conducted the study says this about their results... I think it is relatively clear what sort of risk these "carcinogens" actually pose.

    It'd be different if this was a group opposed to labeling cans as unhealthy or what not - but this group makes the claim themselves?
     
  22. callmemike20 macrumors 6502a

    callmemike20

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    A list of foods the FDA should ban:

    1) Pop in general: Makes people fat.
    2) Hamburgers
    3) Cookies
    4) Carrots: Turns people orange!
    5) Cheese: too much calcium can cause kidney stones!!!
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    HEY!!!! That's why we have 2. :mad:
     
  24. Rt&Dzine thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #24
    The difference is that the real caramelization process adds flavor. This artificial concoction only adds color. It shouldn't be called 'caramel' coloring. It's a misnomer.

    At the least, they shouldn't be allowed to use the term 'caramel' coloring in their ingredients. They should list 2-MEI and 4-MEI so that consumers can make their own choice whether to risk ingesting these chemicals.
     
  25. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #25
    Since almost every brand of cola uses this coloring, what choice would there be? Not drink it? hmm....
     

Share This Page