Does this mean Coke and Pepsi were more interested in profits than giving people cancer?

[Paul Markham]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17308181

Obviously a bit of an over reaction on the title, still it shows that they were not that worried in having a food additive in their drinks that might cause cancer.

The new recipe for caramel colouring in the drinks has less 4-methylimidazole - a chemical which California has added to its list of carcinogens.

Maybe the Governments should start looking a lot harder at what are in some of the foods we stuff into ourselves and our children more closely. We clearly can't rely on Private Enterprise to watch out for us.

[Harmon]

California adds everything, and I mean everything to their list of known cancer causing agents. I am pretty sure oxygen and drinking water are on that list as well. Get with the program, you old, senile twat.

[epitome]

I think the problem is soda fountains. First they started with bottles and everybody was making more money. Then they switched to fountains and some people get a free refill. It has killed soda conversions and the industry is dying. Who knows if Coca Cola even makes what they say they do? I plugged some random numbers into excel and something is fishy. A good business man would...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Harmon

California adds everything, and I mean everything to their list of known cancer causing agents. I am pretty sure oxygen and drinking water are on that list as well. Get with the program, you old, senile twat.

Yes and the food properties of MacDonalds and loads of other processed foods are proven to be healthy, just look around and see all the beautiful people today.





Not eating enough of the healthy food they get from todays ultra great food industry.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

We clearly can't rely on Private Enterprise to watch out for us.

And the government bureaucrat has my best interest at heart?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Dvae

And the government bureaucrat has my best interest at heart?

Parents have to be in control. Don't feed kids on a diet that comes out of a packet, fast food restaurant, fizzy drink bottle. Cook from raw, make sure the drinks are not full of chemicals and make sure they eat healthy.

The excuses people come out with today to cover the truth are a joke. Obesity is because of an eating gene which is inherited. Which didn't exist 50 years ago.

The level of kids going wild, didn't happen 50 years ago. Now kids are being diagnosed with syndromes that never existed 50 years ago. What they suddenly sprung up from no where?

Test after test has revealed kids on a non processed food diet, are less hyper, more attentive and better behaved. But the Food and Drinks industry doesn't want that thinking adopted. It might hurt profits.

[L-Pink]

Hey Paul, have a Coke, make me smile.

.

[DamianJ]

This is brilliant, as well as solving what is wrong with porn, Paul can also do worldwide health issues.

What's next Markham? Are you going to explain how easy it is to cure cancer?

Good work, my man.

[wehateporn]

[Fletch XXX]

i try not to drink sodas, they put so much acids and salts in it, it its bad for your stomach...

[Freaky_Akula]

Another Paul Markham success story.

[uno]

Obviously the #1 objective of any multinational corp is to give people cancer.

[ottopottomouse]

Originally Posted by DamianJ

Are you going to explain how easy it is to cure cancer?

Cancer was easy to cure in the 80s but now so many people give it away for free curing cancer is a waste of time.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Cancer was easy to cure in the 80s but now so many people give it away for free curing cancer is a waste of time.

Fucking lol

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Parents have to be in control. Don't feed kids on a diet that comes out of a packet, fast food restaurant, fizzy drink bottle. Cook from raw, make sure the drinks are not full of chemicals and make sure they eat healthy.

The excuses people come out with today to cover the truth are a joke. Obesity is because of an eating gene which is inherited. Which didn't exist 50 years ago.

The level of kids going wild, didn't happen 50 years ago. Now kids are being diagnosed with syndromes that never existed 50 years ago. What they suddenly sprung up from no where?

Test after test has revealed kids on a non processed food diet, are less hyper, more attentive and better behaved. But the Food and Drinks industry doesn't want that thinking adopted. It might hurt profits.

Vaccinations..........

HA

[nico-t]

Originally Posted by ottopottomouse

Cancer was easy to cure in the 80s but now so many people give it away for free curing cancer is a waste of time.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Yes because we all know the government cares so much about you.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1322325.html

Yup McDonalds, coke and pepsi are the reasons our kids are so unhealthy, especially poor kids who get free lunches from the schools...

Pink slime -- that ammonia-treated meat in a bright Pepto-bismol shade -- may have been rejected by fast food joints like McDonald's, Taco Bell and Burger King, but is being brought in by the tons for the nation's school lunch program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is purchasing 7 million pounds of the "slime" for school lunches, The Daily reports. Officially termed "Lean Beef Trimmings," the product is a ground-up combination of beef scraps, cow connective tissues and other beef trimmings that are treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill pathogens like salmonella and E. coli. It's then blended into traditional meat products like ground beef and hamburger patties.

[PR_Glen]

for the dumdums that refuse to read a full article... you guys are embarrassing some times.. for real.

"A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents," FDA spokesman Doug Karas said in a statement.

The FDA's limit for 4-MEI in caramel colouring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm, according to Reuters calculations.

The ABA also notes that Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority deem the chemical safe.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../19478241.html

[IllTestYourGirls]

Coke and Pepsi change their recipes.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...328/story.html

Meanwhile US government still plans on poisoning children with meat so lowly graded that fast food chains reject it.

[seeandsee]

Its strange how some stuff come on list after all the damage is done, then they just replace it...

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

for the dumdums that refuse to read a full article... you guys are embarrassing some times.. for real.

"A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents," FDA spokesman Doug Karas said in a statement.

The FDA's limit for 4-MEI in caramel colouring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm, according to Reuters calculations.

The ABA also notes that Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority deem the chemical safe.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../19478241.html

Oooooo! Those guys are SO EVIL!



.

[Barefootsies]

This surprises you how?

[woj]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

for the dumdums that refuse to read a full article... you guys are embarrassing some times.. for real.

"A consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents," FDA spokesman Doug Karas said in a statement.

The FDA's limit for 4-MEI in caramel colouring is 250 parts per million (ppm). That caramel would then be diluted when it is put in soda. The highest levels of 4-MEI found by CSPI were about 0.4 ppm, according to Reuters calculations.

The ABA also notes that Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority deem the chemical safe.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../19478241.html

The studies they do on rats are usually pretty short term, 3 months perhaps. So 3 months of drinking 1000 cans/day = 90,000 cans = get cancer. So while 1000 per day is unrealistic, if you stretch it out over someones lifetime, it works out to perhaps 10 cans per day, which is actually pretty realistic number.

It's nothing to panic about, but avoiding substances that increase chance of getting cancer is probably a good idea.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Coke and Pepsi change their recipes.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/healt...328/story.html

Meanwhile US government still plans on poisoning children with meat so lowly graded that fast food chains reject it.

Yes you can't trust even them to get it right. Raise taxes to pay for better school dinners????

My stance is not to feed your kids on processed food, fizzy drinks or even school meals until you have checked them out.

No Barefootsies it doesn't surprise me at all.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

The studies they do on rats are usually pretty short term, 3 months perhaps. So 3 months of drinking 1000 cans/day = 90,000 cans = get cancer. So while 1000 per day is unrealistic, if you stretch it out over someones lifetime, it works out to perhaps 10 cans per day, which is actually pretty realistic number.

It's nothing to panic about, but avoiding substances that increase chance of getting cancer is probably a good idea.

This is just Coke and Pepsi. How many more foods with the same additives would count? Dr Peppers maybe.

Then with all the other food additives from other products added as well.

How many Americans stop eating Angus Beef when we had the scare about Jacobs Disease?

[GetSCORECash]

I wonder what the new formula will do to us...?

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by woj

The studies they do on rats are usually pretty short term, 3 months perhaps. So 3 months of drinking 1000 cans/day = 90,000 cans = get cancer. So while 1000 per day is unrealistic, if you stretch it out over someones lifetime, it works out to perhaps 10 cans per day, which is actually pretty realistic number.

It's nothing to panic about, but avoiding substances that increase chance of getting cancer is probably a good idea.

if you drink 10 cans of soda a day you are going to have issues regardless. fact.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by porno jew

if you drink 10 cans of soda a day you are going to have issues regardless. fact.

Though I'm not one to into the typical paranoia and the psuedo science hippy hype when it comes foods - I would definitely say from the perspective of someone that owns a gym and that helps people with weight loss, as well as having a competent understanding of anatomy and physiology and sports nutrition - that drinking soda , even 10 a day as you said is enough to send most people into a major death spiral health wise just because most people can't deal with the consequences of that volume of sugar entering their body each day.

It's also always the first thing on the list for "if you want to lose weight, you need to stop these things today"

So it's really a moot point what 20 or 30 cans a day might do to a lab rat

At the end of the day, your body is designed to consume natural whole foods and water - when you depart from that, for most people there is going to be negative health consequences in one form or another, at some point in their life. So people being shocked that they can't live on Pepsi, Pop Tarts and cheese sticks is retarded

[Choopa Phil]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Though I'm not one to into the typical paranoia and the psuedo science hippy hype when it comes foods - I would definitely say from the perspective of someone that owns a gym and that helps people with weight loss, as well as having a competent understanding of anatomy and physiology and sports nutrition - that drinking soda , even 10 a day as you said is enough to send most people into a major death spiral health wise just because most people can't deal with the consequences of that volume of sugar entering their body each day.

It's also always the first thing on the list for "if you want to lose weight, you need to stop these things today"

So it's really a moot point what 20 or 30 cans a day might do to a lab rat

At the end of the day, your body is designed to consume natural whole foods and water - when you depart from that, for most people there is going to be negative health consequences in one form or another, at some point in their life. So people being shocked that they can't live on Pepsi, Pop Tarts and cheese sticks is retarded

Quoted for truth! Very well said!

[Captain Kawaii]

I was working on a tv show a few years back when an AD came up and said check this out.
One of the producers had gotten a copy of a report the feds had done regarding the cost benefit analysis about warning people of the hazards of smoking cigs. Report determined it would benefit the gov if they kept quiet. Why? The reduced medicare and related expenses that would be paid out over the next 50 years due to the people not making it to retirement. Our gov like most govs if not all are insane in the membrane.

[Overload]

the abbrevation FDA says it all Fuck Dumb Americans ... you really think the FDA approves additives and shit to PROTECT consumers? no way ... i remember a case where a monsanto employee literally approved her OWN fucking studies after switching from monsanto to FDA and back ... consumer protection is the LAST in line when it comes to the FDA ... shit, they even PROHIBITED labelling milk as GE free! doesnt THAT say a lot? ... but hey, its the same shit in the EU as well

[Sly]

Originally Posted by woj

The studies they do on rats are usually pretty short term, 3 months perhaps. So 3 months of drinking 1000 cans/day = 90,000 cans = get cancer. So while 1000 per day is unrealistic, if you stretch it out over someones lifetime, it works out to perhaps 10 cans per day, which is actually pretty realistic number.

It's nothing to panic about, but avoiding substances that increase chance of getting cancer is probably a good idea.

10 cans of soda a day is a realistic number?

Good God.