Should soda/beverage companies be forced to reduce the amount of sugars in their prod

[MattyBlade]

-ucts?

I sit here drinking a bottle of coca-cola, something I find myself almost addicted to as of late and almost a life blood of my existence. However, recently, I've noticed that almost every day I'm jittery...anxious...high-strung, and in somecases I can lash out like a crazy man.

Anyways, I thought that my high sugar intake may have something to do with it...but I had no idea just how much sugars I was taking in.

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends no moe than 8 teaspoons per day of added sugar based on a 2,000 calories/day diet. That's 32 grams if you're reading labels, and about 6% of your total calories for the day. Sounds like a lot, but believe me... it's not.

damn right it's not! As I mentioned, I'm drinking a bottle of coca-cola right now which is 591mLs. On the side, there's a nifty little Nutrition facts which informs me that per 250mL's of my drink...I'm consuming roughly 30g's of sugar.

Now, considering that our daily intake of sugar is meant to be 32g per 2000 calories, the 63 or so grams of sugar that I get from one bottle of pop is just INSANE.

Now, I know people will say "Just control yourself" "Watch what you eat" and the like, but, it's NOT just coca-cola that is like this. If you look at "fruit juices" they can contain up to 32 or more grams of sugar per 250mL's ..... which is approx half a bottle of product(most bottles being 591mL's.) I know fruits contain naturally occuring sugars...and our body does need SOME sugars, but I think that these companies definitely need to tone down their drinks =/

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

No.

[MattyBlade]

And why do you think this is ?

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Because no one is forcing you to drink it.

[Left Shoe]

this seems pretty obvious

[MattyBlade]

Because no one is forcing you to drink it.

Oh, you're right!

I guess I'll only drink water from now on. ever.

Tropicana Twister® - Invigorating Refreshment!

Tropicana Twister® is the delicious, invigorating juice drink with B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins C and E, and a hit of real Tropicana fruit juice. Tropicana Twister® is available in large 1.75L Multi-Serve plastic bottles and convenient 20oz. Single-Serve plastic bottles!



when really it's just an over exaggerated bottle of sugar water. Sure it has some vitamin c in it, but the high amounts of sugar certainly do not help(because the sugar is not all from naturally occuring fructose, extra fructose/glucose/dextrose etc is added to make it sweeter =/

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

every store is filled with health drinks.

and next time, don't neg rep someone just because they told you something you didn't want to hear.

[MattyBlade]

I neg repped you because you replied with one word, fag.

[ok lateralus]

No. If you don't want to get unhealthy or fat, don't drink it.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I neg repped you because you replied with one word, fag.

your question only required a one word response, though

[MattyBlade]

Basically, My beef is that the majority of the beverage companies are using High Fructose Corn Syrup to sweeten their drinks instead of more natural resources

[MattyBlade]

your question only required a one word response, though

Well, it's a questions that's open for discussion. When you reply with a one word answer you just seem like an elitist dick who thinks he knows everything =)

[blackmilk]

Does high fructose corn syrup make you all hot and bothered?

[MattyBlade]

Does high fructose corn syrup make you all hot and bothered?

Actually yes, yes it does. After I've consumed one or two softdrinks I generally start to get all shakey with sweats and a high rate of irritability

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

Well, it's a questions that's open for discussion. When you reply with a one word answer you just seem like an elitist dick who thinks he knows everything =)

Seems more like I was just answering the question. :confused:

[MattyBlade]

Seems more like I was just answering the question. :confused:

I don't like one word answers... I wouldn't have negged you if you had of said: No, because you have the choice to drink it or not.

Even though I believe that to be one of the most pretentious things I've ever heard =/.

[PerpetualBurn]

What a retarded reason. "No." completely answered the question. Just because you somehow stretched an inane question into such a long post doesn't mean the answer needs to be as long and pointless.

People should be more aware of what they're drinking. If people then choose lower sugar drinks, you'll see a change in the market.

That's how things work.

[Danger Bird]

That's rediculous, of course they shouldn't, it's your fault for taking so much sugar. That's the most retarded thing I've every heard in my entire life.

If you want to drink something besides water and you can't be satisfied with any of the market products then make your own beverage.

[ok lateralus]

LOL, I need the government to monitor my eating habits. I need protection from evil sugary sodas!!! Tell me how to live my life!!

People are so stupid. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

[dei]

Yes, they should.

[Mr. Ron]

While I believe that people are ultimately responsible for what they put into their bodies, I think the government should look into foods/beverages that use harmful chemicals that in large enough doses will harm people, like soda.

[MattyBlade]

Yes, they should.

Why should they?

[MattyBlade]

While I believe that people are ultimately responsible for what they put into their bodies, I think the government should look into foods/beverages that use harmful chemicals that in large enough doses will harm people, like soda.

That's what I'm trying to say.

If 32 grams is a normal healthy ammount of sugar that you should consume per day(and not go over)

Why are companies allowed to put out a "single serving" drink that contains more then twice the recommended ammount of sugar intake in. Not only this, but ALOT of these people drink like 2-3 bottles a day which is 6 times the normal healthy ammounts of sugar.

I don't think it should be ALL personal responsibility to be educated on what the bodies SHOULD and SHOULD not have, however, I had to go about this route to find out how much sugar was healthy because up until last week...I had no idea...no one has EVER told me what ammount of sugar I should be having, but, they're always quick to tell me that I've had "too much".

Not thinking that I've ever had too much sugar I went and looked it up and got the numbers about last week. From what I saw, I'm well on the way to diabetes

[Mr. Ron]

That's what I'm trying to say.

If 32 grams is a normal healthy ammount of sugar that you should consume per day(and not go over)

Why are companies allowed to put out a "single serving" drink that contains more then twice the recommended ammount of sugar intake in. Not only this, but ALOT of these people drink like 2-3 bottles a day which is 6 times the normal healthy ammounts of sugar.

I don't think it should be ALL personal responsibility to be educated on what the bodies SHOULD and SHOULD not have, however, I had to go about this route to find out how much sugar was healthy because up until last week...I had no idea...no one has EVER told me what ammount of sugar I should be having, but, they're always quick to tell me that I've had "too much".

Not thinking that I've ever had too much sugar I went and looked it up and got the numbers about last week. From what I saw, I'm well on the way to diabetes

Well, it IS the consumer's responsibility to look at the nutrition label, but I don't see the harm in the government setting out a limit on how much grams per bottle there should be just by a little bit.

[MattyBlade]

Well, it IS the consumer's responsibility to look at the nutrition label, but I don't see the harm in the government setting out a limit on how much grams per bottle there should be just by a little bit.

I always look at the nutrition facts guide. I always see 30g per 250ml but it wasn't until last week that I realized that per day I should try and consume 32g at most per day of sugar.

[blackmilk]

why am i not dead

[Unreal]

no ppl should stop drinking so much of it (and drink beer)

[Unreal]

why am i not dead


because ur at your comp typing and not throwing urself off a building

[Mr. Ron]

no ppl should stop drinking so much of it (and drink beer)

I agree, but I don't see the harm in setting a certain range of sugar content.

[PerpetualBurn]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell high sugar products?

I could buy a whole bag of sugar if I wanted, but they can't put it in a drink?

I'm all for forcing transparency in information, but sugar is not a toxic substance. Going over your RDA of sugar now and again won't hurt you. And a bottle of coke might be how you fancy doing that.

People should be better informed, but it seems like a really stupid thing to legislate.

[MattyBlade]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell high sugar products?

I could buy a whole bag of sugar if I wanted, but they can't put it in a drink?

I'm all for forcing transparency in information, but sugar is not a toxic substance. Going over your RDA of sugar now and again won't hurt you. And a bottle of coke might be how you fancy doing that.

People should be better informed, but it seems like a really stupid thing to legislate.


Someone should be BETTER informing them.

[MattyBlade]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell high sugar products?

I could buy a whole bag of sugar if I wanted, but they can't put it in a drink?

I'm all for forcing transparency in information, but sugar is not a toxic substance. Going over your RDA of sugar now and again won't hurt you. And a bottle of coke might be how you fancy doing that.

People should be better informed, but it seems like a really stupid thing to legislate.


Someone should be BETTER informing them.


It's hard for me to get my point across, as I'm not entirely sure how to say it.

Basically, I'm using coke again as an example because I still have my bottle beside me. "carbohydrates/ Glucides 30g- %daily value- 10%"

Now, before I had read the whole article about the RDA of sugar... I assumed that I could drink like 3-4 bottles of this stuff and be ok since I was only consuming 40-50% of my daily carbos, and I was alright with that.

Now, I realize I have been grossly misinformed?

[peeted]

No.
123

[Mr. Ron]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell high sugar products?

I could buy a whole bag of sugar if I wanted, but they can't put it in a drink?

I'm all for forcing transparency in information, but sugar is not a toxic substance. Going over your RDA of sugar now and again won't hurt you. And a bottle of coke might be how you fancy doing that.

People should be better informed, but it seems like a really stupid thing to legislate.

Are you against the various restrictions on various foods/beverages that already exist?

I know that sugar isnt some sort of evil toxin, but it can be destructive in over moderate amounts, and thats a huge problem in our society. Better information won't stop people from drinking it in copious amounts imo.

[PerpetualBurn]

Someone should be BETTER informing them.


It's hard for me to get my point across, as I'm not entirely sure how to say it.

Basically, I'm using coke again as an example because I still have my bottle beside me. "carbohydrates/ Glucides 30g- %daily value- 10%"

Now, before I had read the whole article about the RDA of sugar... I assumed that I could drink like 3-4 bottles of this stuff and be ok since I was only consuming 40-50% of my daily carbos, and I was alright with that.

Now, I realize I have been grossly misinformed?

No you haven't been misinformed. You just don't understand nutrition.

Are you against the various restrictions on various foods/beverages that already exist?

Depends entirely on which ones you're referring to.

[Mr. Ron]

Unfortunately, the American public I think is too wrapped up in feeding their stomachs and wanting what feels good, to stop stuffing potentially harmful foods and beverages in their guts. You'll get a few people here and there to stop using the product since there is better information on it, but I think the majority will just keep pigging on.

[MattyBlade]

Unfortunately, the American public I think is too wrapped up in feeding their stomachs and wanting what feels good, to stop stuffing potentially harmful foods and beverages in their guts. You'll get a few people here and there to stop using the product since there is better information on it, but I think the majority will just keep pigging on.

Yeah, I think you may be right. Plus, you get dicks like perpetual burn who just automatically know EVERYTHING out of the womb and can look down on people who don't know everything.

I'm sorry for not knowing everything gaice, I'll try to learn EVERYTHING before I ever post here again so I can make some real contributions to this section of the forums like Yougottabecrazy and Perpetual Burn.

These 2 posters have got to be the smartest people on the planet.

[Smokey D]

Urgh, you don't feel good eating what the fat part of America eats.

This information should be publicised to a much higher degree, but an outright ban is probably too far.

[MattyBlade]

Urgh, you don't feel good eating what the fat part of America eats.

This information should be publicised to a much higher degree, but an outright ban is probably too far.

I never said that there should be a ban of anykind. I said they should be forced to reduce the amount of sugars in there products with healthier alternatives (IE going from HFCS to cane sugar).

A ban on anything would just be stupid.

[Smokey D]

Regulation is the same as a ban, really.

And cane sugar tastes different.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yeah, I think you may be right. Plus, you get dicks like perpetual burn who just automatically know EVERYTHING out of the womb and can look down on people who don't know everything.

I'm sorry for not knowing everything gaice, I'll try to learn EVERYTHING before I ever post here again so I can make some real contributions to this section of the forums like Yougottabecrazy and Perpetual Burn.

These 2 posters have got to be the smartest people on the planet.

The difference between you and me is that I post a response with my insults rather than just acting like a twat.

[drewhet]

Oh, you're right!

I guess I'll only drink water from now on. ever.



i pretty much only drink water, its not that hard.

[MattyBlade]

Regulation is the same as a ban, really.

And cane sugar tastes different.

Well it's sort of similar.

And cane sugar tastes better and is kosher (coca-cola apparetly uses cane sugar to make a kosher cola for passover) =)

I think that SOMEONE should be in charge of educating the general public on a basic health guide which contains recommended daily amounts of products, what is healthy, what is not..blahblahblah.

I know this information is EASILY available on the internet, but IMO it should be forced down our throats. They could easily be mailed out to people each year and would definitely open up more eyes.

Now, that being said. There's lots of fatties who don't care about the way they are the way they eat and this probably wouldn't make a difference. Myself, I don't count calories....I didn't use to check sugars or % of RDA...but ever since finding out that I'm at a highrisk of getting diabetes when I'm older has certainly made me check into this

[MattyBlade]

The difference between you and me is that I post a response with my insults rather than just acting like a twat.

No, no you still look like a twat in my eyes. I'm throwing you on ignore though because I don't think PWNI is the place for trolling/flaming. I bid you adieu, feel free to respond to this to "get the last word in" or whatever. I know you're just dying to =)

[PerpetualBurn]

I know this information is EASILY available on the internet, but IMO it should be forced down our throats. They could easily be mailed out to people each year and would definitely open up more eyes.

I agree that the information should be wider spread. And I agree that the government has a responsibility to serve the interests of the people, and this information is certainly in the interests of the people.

However, the government is not a baby-sitter. This information should be put forward, but it is still up to the individual to some degree to take responsibility.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, no you still look like a twat in my eyes. I'm throwing you on ignore though because I don't think PWNI is the place for trolling/flaming. I bid you adieu, feel free to respond to this to "get the last word in" or whatever. I know you're just dying to =)

The ignore list is for ****ing cowards.

[MattyBlade]

i pretty much only drink water, its not that hard.

I wish I could be this lucky =(. I'm quite addicted to sugar...and it's almost as hard to quit drinking "the good stuff" as it is to stop smoking ..."also the good stuff"

[drewhet]

you should quit for a month and only drink water. i guarantee you will feel different/better. do you feel sluggish and groggy and tired often? if so, i bet its the soda.

[Mr. Ron]

you should quit for a month and only drink water. i guarantee you will feel different/better. do you feel sluggish and groggy and tired often? if so, i bet its the soda.

yeah I tried that once and I do admit I felt overall better.

[PerpetualBurn]

This only means you should cut down on the sugary drinks. They're fine now and again. The self-control is a personal issue and not particularly one I think should be legislated.

And can someone tell this MattyBlade what a ****ing coward he is?

[Mr. Ron]

This only means you should cut down on the sugary drinks. They're fine now and again. The self-control is a personal issue and not particularly one I think should be legislated.

And can someone tell this MattyBlade what a ****ing coward he is?

I agree for the most part, but what if people just ignore the warning and continue getting fatter and more unhealthy? Where do you act, and where do you draw the line when informing the people isnt enough?

[PerpetualBurn]

Isn't enough for what?

When we start legislating what sugar content drinks can have, I think we've reached a real lack of control over our lives.

Unless you're going to regulate every food and in what proportion it can be bought, legislating drinks content is rather pointless. And if you did go so far, I think it would be ridiculously invasive.

[Mr. Ron]

Isn't enough for what?

When we start legislating what sugar content drinks can have, I think we've reached a real lack of control over our lives.

Unless you're going to regulate every food and in what proportion it can be bought, legislating drinks content is rather pointless. And if you did go so far, I think it would be ridiculously invasive.

Enough for getting it into people heads that "hey you stupid ****, drinking three 2 liter bottles of coke a day is stupid. STOP."

I agree that if we legislate something that controls a certain aspect of our lives it signals that we do not have total control of our lives, and thats the sad truth. A large sum of Americans can't control their lives. Well, I shouldn't say "can't" but won't.

I don't think we should ban soda or reduce sugar content to a ridiculous amount where it hinders sales....but I just don't think that people are willing enough to stop.

[Reaganista]

However, the government is not a baby-sitter. This information should be put forward, but it is still up to the individual to some degree to take responsibility.
why

[Knifeboy]

Currently in Denmark, there's a campaign going wich is trying to get people to only drink half a litre of soda a week (if you drink more than that, you're getting more sugar than what is healthy)....
I really doubt it's doing anything though, seeing as how your average teenager drinks atleast triple that, a day

I mostly drink water and beer... Used to drink insane amounts of coke every day when I was younger... It's funny how as soon as I started drinking only water, coke started tasting like utter ****

[Smokey D]

Half a litre? Are you serious?

That's nothing.

And yeah, all sweet and fatty foods taste pretty nasty after you don't eat them for a while.

[Knifeboy]

Yes I'm serious, and yes, it's an unbelievably low amount..

I think they'd probably get better results with the campaigns, if they had lied the number higher!.. I doubt anyone will bother only to drink soda once a week

[Smokey D]

That's like a single glass. Damn crazy Danes.

[dei]

Why should they?

People don't know what's good for them.

[Mr. Ron]

People don't know what's good for them.

The question is not whether people know what is good for them, the question is whether they act on what is good for them or not. A person can know what is good for them but be totally apathetic or powerless to try.

[dei]

So we take away their ability to choose. It's win-win.

[Krabsworth]

Oh, you're right!

I guess I'll only drink water from now on. ever.

Tropicana Twister® - Invigorating Refreshment!

Tropicana Twister® is the delicious, invigorating juice drink with B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins C and E, and a hit of real Tropicana fruit juice. Tropicana Twister® is available in large 1.75L Multi-Serve plastic bottles and convenient 20oz. Single-Serve plastic bottles!



when really it's just an over exaggerated bottle of sugar water. Sure it has some vitamin c in it, but the high amounts of sugar certainly do not help(because the sugar is not all from naturally occuring fructose, extra fructose/glucose/dextrose etc is added to make it sweeter =/

hey since you know what it really is you can not drink it congrats

[Akira]

This thread is pretty ridiculous. I am a strong believer in personal responsibility. Just drink water. If people are too stupid to control themselves, then too bad for them. If regulations were imposed on the sugar in drinks, why wouldn't they be imposed on other products?

Over-regulation is not a viable solution to a public of under-informed pigs.

[Reaganista]

If people are too stupid to control themselves, then too bad for them
why

[Mr_GoodPoster]

i love energy drinks they are too expense though it is like crack

[Det_Nosnip]

No.


Because no one is forcing you to drink it.

/thread

First page too, guys...why the hell is this 4 pages long?! :confused:

[Knifeboy]

/thread

First page too, guys...why the hell is this 4 pages long?! :confused:



Because it really isn't as simple as that?
There's regulations on alot of other unhealthy ingredients, what's so ****ing special about sugar?

[lfantwister]

There's regulations on alot of other unhealthy ingredients, what's so ****ing special about sugar?
sugar probably isnt as bad for you and your intake of it is much easier to control than something like MSG that is regulated

[Knifeboy]

I'm just pointing out, that it's not as clear cut, as he's making it seem..
And it isn't as easy to control as you'd think.. There's added sugar in almost everything you can buy in a supermarket, not counting fresh fruit/vegetables and meat

[MattyBlade]

hey since you know what it really is you can not drink it congrats

Yeah I guess I'll just drink water from now on, what was I thinking

[Danish]

Drink only water for life? Seems pretty boring to me...

Does anyone here know what "empathy" means?

[MattyBlade]

I was just being ignorant again.

Anyways, I wasn't calling for an outright ban on all sodas... but maybe a little something to make it clear that what you are drinking/eating is not healthy for you.

I mean, we KNOW smoking is bad(to go off on a tangent) but, they're forced to put warning labels on the packages anyways...why should items fit for consumption have to undergo any other option?

It wouldn't even have to be that big of a warning, right under the nutrition they could say something like Warning: This product contains a high amount of sugar, you may want to limit yourself.

[lfantwister]

I mean, we KNOW smoking is bad(to go off on a tangent) but, they're forced to put warning labels on the packages anyways...why should items fit for consumption have to undergo any other option?

But smoking is never necessary, unlike eating sugar

[MattyBlade]

But smoking is never necessary, unlike eating sugar

Man, smoking is TOTALLY necessary. It calms the nerves =)

[RIP Ian Curtis]

sugar probably isnt as bad for you and your intake of it is much easier to control than something like MSG that is regulated

MSG is now officially okay, according to the WHO. Apparently most all of the "reactions" to it were psycho-somatic, hysteria and bullsh'it "me-tooism".

[lfantwister]

MSG is now officially okay, according to the WHO. Apparently most all of the "reactions" to it were psycho-somatic, hysteria and bullsh'it "me-tooism".
first thing that came to mind. I'm sure other things in food that are horrifically bad for you are regulated, initial point still stands.

Man, smoking is TOTALLY necessary. It calms the nerves =) haha which you only need after eating all that sugar

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I agree with the example, I'm just spreading the word about MSG because it's the single most awesome food additive in the world and I hope it comes back big-time.

[MattyBlade]

Thanks to you Ian curtis and lfantwister I'm totally craving chinese buffet and massive quantities of MSG =o

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Man seriously, nothing is as wonderful as mono-sodium-glucomate. It's salty as fu'ck, but also makes everything you add it to meaty. So it's like meaty salt. I bought a 20 kilo sack of it from a catering joint and I add a bit to damn near everything I make.

[BridgeToSolace]

My parents brought me up on diet soda and I barely know the difference now.

So, if you're pissed about sugar, drink diet. Sugar FREE!

It's odd people seem to think the only way to not drink regular soda is to drink water.

[Reaganista]

dude diet soda is also a terrible thing to drink

[Akira]

But diet soda has other stuff that they say is bad for you.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

By my thinking, sugar causes diabtetes, heart disease and obesity. When you can tell me what that foul tasting sh'it in diet soft drinks causes, it'll be time to make a fair comparison.

[Unreal]

ppl dont have to drink soft drinks............ its not like they're the only thing to drink

[Mr. Ron]

By my thinking, sugar causes diabtetes, heart disease and obesity. When you can tell me what that foul tasting sh'it in diet soft drinks causes, it'll be time to make a fair comparison.

Aspartame in diet sodas can contribute to various cancers.

[Unreal]

i'm guessing only big quatities, aswell as sugar is to diabetes.

[MattyBlade]

Aspartame in diet sodas can contribute to various cancers.

^^^ this man speaks truths

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Plus the old neurotoxin story. My old man reckons that his muscles and that hurt if he drinks anything with aspartane. I reckon he's full of it but apparently the story goes that it releases a neurotoxin if it gets too hot. And 'cause all the stuff we get in Australia sits around South East Asia before it gets here, it get lovelly and warm and thus releases this poison. Sound a little bit too "internet" but might be something.

[beso negro]

Aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins that kill your braincells worse than weed, yet they are ok somehow.

diet soft drinks and campbells soup are probably worse for you than soda.

[Mr. Ron]

Fun fact: Aspartame can also be found in embalming fluid.

[Danish]

Man seriously, nothing is as wonderful as mono-sodium-glucomate. It's salty as fu'ck, but also makes everything you add it to meaty. So it's like meaty salt. I bought a 20 kilo sack of it from a catering joint and I add a bit to damn near everything I make.

That explains a lot!

[beso negro]

Fun fact: Aspartame can also be found in embalming fluid.

Aspartame is also made of 10% paint thinner.

[Mr. Ron]

Get thin! But die faster trying!

[BridgeToSolace]

Fun fact: Aspartame can also be found in embalming fluid.

So is ethanol, oh ****!

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2007/aspartame-activists-3-8-2007.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/265559_soda05.html

Aspartame isn't really a risk. It's an excuse for fat people to not drink diet soda (which I never thought tasted bad at all. **** me, I guess.)

[GreyHam]

a lot of people just arent aware of how high the sugar levels in a lot of soft drinks are.

its certainly a high amount of sugar, but going over the RDA every now and then isnt going to kill you (probably...)

[Mr. Ron]

So is ethanol, oh ****!

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2007/aspartame-activists-3-8-2007.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/265559_soda05.html

Aspartame isn't really a risk. It's an excuse for fat people to not drink diet soda (which I never thought tasted bad at all. **** me, I guess.)

um no, its an actual toxin that contributes to birth defects.

[Oriah]

How about you just don't drink sodas then? I'm a tea / water man myself.

[MattyBlade]

Jee thanks for that contribution Oriah, I haven't seen anything like that yet.

[BridgeToSolace]

um no, its an actual toxin that contributes to birth defects.

1. At least I posted some links. Birth defects were never mentioned in anything that I read while I was looking for those.

2. I doubt the thread starter is going to get pregnant any time soon, so no biggie, neh?

[Mr. Ron]

1. At least I posted some links. Birth defects were never mentioned in anything that I read while I was looking for those.

2. I doubt the thread starter is going to get pregnant any time soon, so no biggie, neh?

Hey look I can post random links too

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

[halfdeadhippo]

I say no to the original question. Not because I don't think that the amounts of sugars in most soft drinks reach unhealthy levels, but because I think people need to stop running to their governments to fix problems like that.

[BridgeToSolace]

Hey look I can post random links too

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

I actually read up on what the links said first.

The charges that it causes cancer and such were easily and quickly refuted by the peer review process. You can't say it does with any sort of conviction.

Since I never read anything about the birth defects, I'll feel free to say that pregnant women shouldn't drink diet sodas. I think that excludes about 1% of people on this forum, though.

[MattyBlade]

I say no to the original question. Not because I don't think that the amounts of sugars in most soft drinks reach unhealthy levels, but because I think people need to stop running to their governments to fix problems like that.

Um, but amounts of sugar in soft drinks DO reach unhealthy levels.

Maybe you've heard of a little agency called the "FDA".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Food_Safety_and_Applied_Nutrition

[halfdeadhippo]

Um, but amounts of sugar in soft drinks DO reach unhealthy levels.

Maybe you've heard of a little agency called the "FDA".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Food_Safety_and_Applied_Nutrition
Yes, they do. They also display that on the label on the bottle. Government intervention is not necessary just because people are too lazy to change their lifestyle to a healthier one.

[beso negro]

So is ethanol, oh ****!

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2007/aspartame-activists-3-8-2007.htm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/265559_soda05.html

Aspartame isn't really a risk. It's an excuse for fat people to not drink diet soda (which I never thought tasted bad at all. **** me, I guess.)

heh, pulling out the old NCI study eh? Never have I seen such a flawed study.

The questionnaire was nonsense. It asked if you smoke, do you exercise, do you eat crackers, cookies sausage, collards, what was your highest grade in school, have you had a hysterectomy, did you eat pancakes, oatmeal or strawberries in the past year, carrots, cheeseburgers, cornbread or brownies. But they had Aspartame named in only one of 56 questions.

"'Over the last 12 months when you drank coffee or tea, what kind of sweetener did you regularly add? Mark all that apply.'" (Sugar, honey, Equal, aspartame or saccharin)"

And though it asks what you drink: "orange juice, lemonade or soft drinks, soda, " it doesn't say whether to check diet or regular. Also they ask if you drank any sugar-free soft drinks, soda, or pop, lemonade, Kool-Aide or sweetened iced tea over last 12 months but do not ask which sweetener.

Aspartame is in at least 6,000 foods and drugs and even chewing gum. This exposure wasn't pursued. Now suppose you don't drink coffee or tea or pop, but you chew gum constantly and eat a plethora of 'diet' aspartame-containing foods. They'd tally you as non-user of aspartame although your prescriptions, yogurt, ice cream, cereal, and other foods you may consume are full of it.

And to top it all off, the study was only for five years and they didn't take into consideration prior aspartame consumption. Doing a study on smoking for only five years would conclude that cigarettes also do not cause cancer!

thats all for now. i can add more if you for some reason dare to disagree.

[beso negro]

The charges that it causes cancer and such were easily and quickly refuted by the peer review process.

what peer review process.

The Ramazzini study (that confirmed the cancer link) was peer reviewed by 7 world experts.

[MattyBlade]

Yes, they do. They also display that on the label on the bottle. Government intervention is not necessary just because people are too lazy to change their lifestyle to a healthier one.


what the hell are you smoking? they don't display anything on the label indicating that so I made this thread.

[beso negro]

well what do you want the labels to say? "This is NOT a healthy beverage"? Well no shi, we all know soda isn't healthy. But we still drink it, so no label is going to change that.

[IbanezArtist]

Hey look I can post random links too

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/hidden_dangers.htm

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/dangers.htm

1. Those tests were in rats.
2. I've actually become more mentally stable and had less emotional issues when I lost over 30 pounds after reduced consumption of sugary soda and converted to diet.
3. My brother drinks mass amounts of sugary sodas and is the epileptic of the family, while I drink diet and have never had a seizure of any type.

UR A LIAR LUL

[MattyBlade]

well what do you want the labels to say? "This is NOT a healthy beverage"? Well no shi, we all know soda isn't healthy. But we still drink it, so no label is going to change that.

No, how about something like "Warning: The ammount of sugar in this drink is more then twice the daily recommended ammount"

[mullets suk]

to the TS's original questions i say no. the government shouldnt regulate the amount of sugar in certain drinks. i was in your position a while back where i would drink sodas and when i did i would get all shaky and stuff. then i decided that it wasn't good for me so i quit drinking soda. i only have soda when i go to a friends house and he doesn't have juice. Its all in the person, dont have the gov tell you what to eat or drink. (unless if it can kill you in one sitting)

o yea just to add i drink about a 1.5 L carton of OJ about every day to every other day.

[Reaganista]

well what do you want the labels to say? "This is NOT a healthy beverage"? Well no shi, we all know soda isn't healthy. But we still drink it, so no label is going to change that.
the label should say 12g of sugar
cause that's all they should be allowed
it should also say no caffeine

[halfdeadhippo]

what the hell are you smoking? they don't display anything on the label indicating that so I made this thread."On the side, there's a nifty little Nutrition facts which informs me that per 250mL's of my drink...I'm consuming roughly 30g's of sugar." That nifty little Nutrition facts is the label that I'm talking about. If you could figure out how much sugar was in the drink from that label, then other people could too. That leads me to assume that the problem isn't how much sugar is in the coke, it's that people don't care enough about their health to do the math and stop drinking the stuff that's bad for them.

edit: My only point is that we don't need to rely on the government to micromanage our lives just because we're too lazy to.

[Reaganista]

It's an excuse for fat people to not drink diet soda (which I never thought tasted bad at all. **** me, I guess
diet soda drinkers are overwhelmingly more likely to be fat

[Akira]

No, how about something like "Warning: The ammount of sugar in this drink is more then twice the daily recommended ammount"

How about: "If you are enough of an idiot that you don't already know that soda is really, really bad for you, then go get help."

[beso negro]

1. Those tests were in rats.
2. I've actually become more mentally stable and had less emotional issues when I lost over 30 pounds after reduced consumption of sugary soda and converted to diet.
3. My brother drinks mass amounts of sugary sodas and is the epileptic of the family, while I drink diet and have never had a seizure of any type.

UR A LIAR LUL

whatever. im staying away from the stuff just in case because i like my brain.

[Reaganista]

How about: "If you are enough of an idiot that you don't already know that soda is really, really bad for you, then go get help.
how about: "you're too stupid to stop drinking this thing that is bad for you, so we made it less bad"

[Mr. Ron]

1. Those tests were in rats.
2. I've actually become more mentally stable and had less emotional issues when I lost over 30 pounds after reduced consumption of sugary soda and converted to diet.
3. My brother drinks mass amounts of sugary sodas and is the epileptic of the family, while I drink diet and have never had a seizure of any type.

UR A LIAR LUL
well if you had any reading comprehension and followed the conversation you'd see that I posted those links flippantly and non-seriously.

If you deny the effects of aspartame you don't know science, sorry.

[beso negro]

Those links were fine. The studies that find aspartame safe are horribly done. Here, check out the survey used for BridgeToSolace's link:

http://www.wnho.net/diet_questionnaire_baseline.pdf

[MattyBlade]

how about: "you're too stupid to stop drinking this thing that is bad for you, so we made it less bad"

I hate it

[BridgeToSolace]

thats all for now. i can add more if you for some reason dare to disagree.

You're obviously more well versed in this than I am, because I've never even cared before this thread. I've been drinking diet soda for as long as I've been drinking soda with no noticeable adverse effects.

But, about the Ramazzini:

* The slight increase in incidence of cancers known as lymphomas and leukemias in treated rats was considered to be unrelated to aspartame treatment and most likely attributed to the high background incidence of inflammatory changes in the lung. In addition, there was no dose-response relationship with respect to increasing doses of aspartame.
* The findings in the kidney, ureter and bladder, observed mainly in female rats, are not specific to aspartame and have been observed with a number of chemicals administered to rats at high dose levels. Such changes are normally the result of irritation or imbalances in calcium metabolism specific to rats and are of no relevance for humans.
* Concerning the malignant tumors of the peripheral nerves, the numbers of tumours were low with no clear dose- response relationship over a wide dose range. There is also uncertainty about the diagnosis of these tumours. The Panel indicated that this finding can only be fully evaluated by an independent peer-review of the relevant tissues.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620841131.htm

More stuff:

http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=75956-fda-ramazzini-aspartame

Okay, so the Italian dudes do a different study. And more experts say "no wayz!":

"In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the results is that aspartame appears to be safe because the studies showed that those rats fed it (even at very high doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats, despite consuming up to more than 100 times the ADI every day of their lives. If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data."

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2007/aspartame-activists-3-8-2007.htm

-

Does this mean definitively that aspartame is safe?

Nah, not really.

It just means that you have absolutely no reason to make ****ing retarded claims like "I don't drink diet soda because I like my brain too much."

Because you might not have quite as much to protect as you think.

(don't take offense to that, I just thought it was clever)

[Mr. Ron]

"I don't drink diet soda because I like my brain to much."

Except if you drink enough of it you COULD get brain damage, and thats a lot of Americans. :^/

[BridgeToSolace]

"I don't drink diet soda because I like my brain to much."

Except if you drink enough of it you COULD get brain damage, and thats a lot of Americans. :^/

And if you drink none of it you could get brain damage.

Too much of almost anything in bad for you, though.

For example, nutmeg can cause a miscarriage in large doses, and 15g of it has actually killed a child.

Hell, I drink soda with meals (which means two a day - I don't eat breakfast) and water between meals. Decent way to moderate yourself, I guess.

[Akira]

Two sodas a day isn't exactly moderation.

[Danger Bird]

how about: "you're too stupid to stop drinking this thing that is bad for you, so we made it less bad"

Great and after that the national bed time can be 9:30 pm

[Akira]

Great and after that the national bed time can be 9:30 pm

Ohshi I only have an hour left.

[BridgeToSolace]

Two sodas a day isn't exactly moderation.

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Pepsi_Cola_Sierra_Mist/Sierra_Mist_Free/item_details.html

for a total of 25mg each of sodium, I say it's not that bad.

I save unhealthier **** for special occasions.

[Danger Bird]

Ohshi I only have an hour left.
You'd better use it to finish your mandatory daily exercise before the Health Police have to re-educate you!

[Akira]

It's kay I had a ton of marching band yesterday so I got my daily exercise for the whole weekend.

[MattyBlade]

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Pepsi_Cola_Sierra_Mist/Sierra_Mist_Free/item_details.html

for a total of 25mg each of sodium, I say it's not that bad.

I save unhealthier **** for special occasions.

I'm going to recommend that for my cafeterias =)

[Danger Bird]

Yeah, not only do soda companies make the exact nutrition facts visible right there on the product, they produce a menagerie of healthier sodas.

[BridgeToSolace]

I'm going to recommend that for my cafeterias =)

Really, most diet sodas are like that.

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Pepsi_Cola_Mug_Root_Beer/Diet_Mug_Root_Beer/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Barqs/Diet_Barqs_Root_beer/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Coke/Diet_Coke/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Sprite/Diet_Sprite_Zero/item_details.html

I generally don't know the difference between diet and non-diet unless I drink them side by side.

But out of all the diet lemony drinks I've had, sierra mist free is the best.

[Danger Bird]

I know regular Sierra Mist is one of the few lemon lime sodas that doesn't taste like either urine or pure syrup.

[MattyBlade]

Yeah, not only do soda companies make the exact nutrition facts visible right there on the product, they produce a menagerie of healthier sodas.

It is a little different here in Canadanadia, as in it doesn't show nearly the same ammount of info as it did there.


Really, most diet sodas are like that.

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Pepsi_Cola_Mug_Root_Beer/Diet_Mug_Root_Beer/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Barqs/Diet_Barqs_Root_beer/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Coke/Diet_Coke/item_details.html

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Coca_Cola_Sprite/Diet_Sprite_Zero/item_details.html

I generally don't know the difference between diet and non-diet unless I drink them side by side.

But out of all the diet lemony drinks I've had, sierra mist free is the best.

diet-coke
coke-zero

and anything else diet pretty much tastes like *** though. you gotta admit there is a HUGE difference

[Danger Bird]

I don't believe that at all, post a pic of a Canadian drink label

Matty, you're saying that the sugarless sodas taste terrible. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH SUGAR. Are you an idiot or something?

[MattyBlade]

I don't believe that at all, post a pic of a Canadian drink label

Matty, you're saying that the sugarless sodas taste terrible. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH SUGAR. Are you an idiot or something?

ok gimme a sec

[Danger Bird]

But do you realize you're demanding a drink with less sugar that tastes exactly the same? And do you realize this is absurd?

[BridgeToSolace]

diet-coke
coke-zero



I don't like coke or pepsi in the first place, so I don't know.

If all you've ever drunk in your life was fill of sugar, then of course everything else is gunna taste like ****.

But drink only diet soda for a week and see how shitty it is in the end.

(oh, and canned will always taste better than bottled soda.)

[Mr. Ron]

And if you drink none of it you could get brain damage.

Too much of almost anything in bad for you, though.

For example, nutmeg can cause a miscarriage in large doses, and 15g of it has actually killed a child.

Hell, I drink soda with meals (which means two a day - I don't eat breakfast) and water between meals. Decent way to moderate yourself, I guess.

Yeah but you're only increasing your chances.

[BridgeToSolace]

Yeah but you're only increasing your chances.

And Is shouldn't use cellphones because they're going to give me brain cancer, neh?

You're only maybe but probably not increasing your chances.

By your logic (and some hyperbole) we shouldn't try out anything new until long term studies prove definitively that they are healthy.

I'd rather not delay chemical and toxicological advancement for 60 years.

[Mr. Ron]

You're only maybe but probably not increasing your chances.

heh, nvm.

[MattyBlade]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v731/mattygenos/lastscan.jpg

as you can see it shows that the levels that i'm intaking are "10%" of my RDA...it's a little misleading considering it's actually all sugar for that 10% and it's actually 100% the normal amount for half the bottle

[beso negro]

It just means that you have absolutely no reason to make ****ing retarded claims like "I don't drink diet soda because I like my brain too much."

How is that retarded? All the evidence is there. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

http://www.coheso.com/nutridata/Pepsi_Cola_Sierra_Mist/Sierra_Mist_Free/item_details.html

what are the ingredients? The fact that there is only sodium in that screams to me MSG.

JUST DRINK WATER

[BridgeToSolace]

How is that retarded? All the evidence is there. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

The piece or two of evidence that it is unsafe is there, and everything that says that evidence is bullocks is there too.

That's cool, do what you want. But making outlandish statements like diet soda ****ing with your brain is intellectual irresponsible and dishonest.

You went from really charged up about to "Better safe than sorry".


what are the ingredients? The fact that there is only sodium in that screams to me MSG.

Do you have any idea what msg is for?

The purpose of MSG is to increase the "savoriness" of the food. That's why they use it in chinese food and ****, to cover up for the fact that they're using sub par ingredients. There's no reason ever to use MSG in a soft drink, which are always sweet.

I'll get a can and write the ingredients, though:

Carbonated water, citric acid, natural falvors, potassium citrate, aspartame, potassium benzoate (preserves freshness), acesulfame potassium, dead babies, ascorbic acid and calcium disodium edta (to protect flavor).

Guess which one I added! :D

JUST DRINK WATER

No. I do drink water, but only for hydration. Soda is for flavor.

It's like eating tofu when you could have a steak :(

[Akira]

Guess which one I added! :D

Natural flavors?

[BridgeToSolace]

Natural flavors?

Close.

[beso negro]

The piece or two of evidence that it is unsafe is there, and everything that says that evidence is bullocks is there too.

the people who say its bullocks are either not scientists or work for CCC, FDA, or some other organization that profits from aspartame. Remember, aspartame was banned for quite a while.

Do you have any idea what msg is for?

The purpose of MSG is to increase the "savoriness" of the food. That's why they use it in chinese food and ****, to cover up for the fact that they're using sub par ingredients. There's no reason ever to use MSG in a soft drink, which are always sweet.

I'll get a can and write the ingredients, though:

Carbonated water, citric acid, natural falvors, potassium citrate, aspartame, potassium benzoate (preserves freshness), acesulfame potassium, dead babies, ascorbic acid and calcium disodium edta (to protect flavor).

MSG can be in drinks (Japan has a ton of them). Of course it isn't in sugary sodas, but it can be in diet drinks.

Oh and natural flavors or hydrolyzed protein can contain up to 20% free glutamic acid - the active part of MSG


No. I do drink water, but only for hydration. Soda is for flavor.

It's like eating tofu when you could have a steak :(

i love the taste of water

[BridgeToSolace]

the people who say its bullocks are either not scientists or work for CCC, FDA, or some other organization that profits from aspartame. Remember, aspartame was banned for quite a while.

Profitability doesn't change facts. Or lack their of.

Or from the NZFSA or EFSA.

If the artificial sugar industry has half the world in their pockets as you so claim, why would Ramazzini even be allowed to release such a study?

Who says the Ramazzini isn't in league with the cane sugar industry?

MSG can be in drinks (Japan has a ton of them). Of course it isn't in sugary sodas, but it can be in diet drinks.

I never said it couldn't be in drink, but it would make no sense to put MSG in a drink, since pretty much all drink in the US are sweet.

And speaking of no sense, the Japanese have bat-**** crazy tastes and have things like dried-shrimp flavored soda. That's something you'd put MSG in, since it's not sweet.

Oh and natural flavors or hydrolyzed protein can contain up to 20% free glutamic acid - the active part of MSG

I've never gotten a headache from diet soda like I have from cheap chinese food with MSG, so I doubt it's that big a deal.

i love the taste of water

If the water you're drinking has flavor, stay the **** away from that water. Water is naturally flavorless unless you add **** to it.

[Danger Bird]

I don't like coke or pepsi in the first place, so I don't know.

If all you've ever drunk in your life was fill of sugar, then of course everything else is gunna taste like ****.

But drink only diet soda for a week and see how poopty it is in the end.

(oh, and canned will always taste better than bottled soda.)

actually glass bottles>aluminum cans>plastic bottles

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v731/mattygenos/lastscan.jpg

as you can see it shows that the levels that i'm intaking are "10%" of my RDA...it's a little misleading considering it's actually all sugar for that 10% and it's actually 100% the normal amount for half the bottle

It also tells you exactly how much sugar is in there.

[Reaganista]

Great and after that the national bed time can be 9:30 pm
no correlation whatsoever

And if you drink none of it you could get brain damage.

Too much of almost anything in bad for you, though.

too much is always bad for you
that's what makes it too much

Hell, I drink soda with meals (which means two a day - I don't eat breakfast) and water between meals. Decent way to moderate yourself, I guess.
um eat more meals
and stop drinking so much diet soda
If the water you're drinking has flavor, stay the **** away from that water. Water is naturally flavorless unless you add **** to it.
what

[Danger Bird]

no correlation whatsoever
Um actually the principle is exactly the same, the government should not legislate on such frivolous issues just because it would be somewhat better for you. It's up to the individual to make choices about his or her health.

[Reaganista]

Um actually the principle is exactly the same
no it isnt
It's up to the individual to make choices about his or her health.
why

[Danger Bird]

no it isnt
Yes it is.

why

Because it's none of the government's ****ing business so long as homeless people exist, and we live in a society founded on personal liberty, that's why.

[Reaganista]

Yes it is.
no it isnt
Because it's none of the government's ****ing business so long as homeless people exist, that's why.
you're awesome at coming up with things that have no relation to each other

[Danger Bird]

no it isnt
Yes it is

you're awesome at coming up with things that have no relation to each other

You're completely right, regulating the amount of sugar in soda is the most important thing the government could be doing.

[Reaganista]

Yes it is
no it isnt


You're completely right, regulating the amount of sugar in soda is the most important thing the government could be doing.
that has nothing to do with whether or not the amount of sugar should be regulated

[Danger Bird]

no it isnt
Yes it is.

that has nothing to do with whether or not the amount of sugar should be regulated

Why do you care if somebody wants to drink too much sugar? It's not really any of your business, is it?

[Reaganista]

Yes it is.
no it isnt

Why do you care if somebody wants to drink too much sugar? It's not really any of your business, is it?
well apart from potentially increased strain on healthcare services i dont think it would effect me but im not proposing this for my personal benefit

[shaqadelic]

Nope to the original thread question.

However, they should be clear about sugar quantity. 30g of sugar per 250ml is a blatant attempt to present a smaller number and capitalising on consumers tendency to not do calculation. They should be forced to be exact and explicit about the sugar quantity in each product, no further calculation needed.

[GoodPoster07]

more sugar less prices

[beso negro]

Profitability doesn't change facts. Or lack their of.

Facts? What facts! Did you even read the study I posted. That was the actually questionnaire used. No way can that link cancer with with aspartame. Even the researchers who designed the study agree: "...Furthermore, a single FFQ-based measurement in adulthood may not represent long-term intake without error and may not assess the diet accurately for times when exposure is most critical in determining disease outcome..."

Lim's prospective study does not qualify as epidemiological aspartame study. Epidemiology is the study of disease in human populations. For this to be an aspartame/cancer epidemiology study, its authors would be looking for cancer among those exposed to this toxin. So naturally they would ask if you consumed aspartame products. They would want to know how many aspartame-containing products were consumed and for how long. The form would list all the foods, beverages and medicines known to contain aspartame. They would list all of the known tabletop sweeteners by generic name and trade name.

There would also be questions like if you used aspartame in pregnancy and whether your children have cancer or birth defects.

And because aspartame is not labeled on restaurant food, nor is it common to ask if food prepared by others contains aspartame, the frequency with which participants eat out would also be considered in an epidemiological study.

Like Ron said, anyone who disagrees with the dangers of aspartame doesn't know science. aspartame is made of 10% methyl ester. That turns into formaldehyde once it hits 90degrees (in your body).

I don't think you want that stuff accumulating in your body.

Rule #1 with chemicals: Not a good idea to ingest them.


If the artificial sugar industry has half the world in their pockets as you so claim, why would Ramazzini even be allowed to release such a study?

Who says the Ramazzini isn't in league with the cane sugar industry?

http://www.ramazzini.it/

I never said it couldn't be in drink, but it would make no sense to put MSG in a drink, since pretty much all drink in the US are sweet.

So you think manufactures wave their little wand and magically make something sweet? It takes chemicals to artificially sweeten something. Excitotoxins are cheap and they work.

I've never gotten a headache from diet soda like I have from cheap chinese food with MSG, so I doubt it's that big a deal.

Heh, there is much more you have to worry about than headaches. I hope you don't have asthma.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbk5O_Hkf8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Farticles%2Emercola%2Ecom%2Fsites %2Farticles%2Farchive%2F2007%2F08%2F28%2Fdangers%2 Dof%2Dmsg%2Easpx

[Amit]

Oh, you're right!

I guess I'll only drink water from now on. ever.

what exactly is wrong with water???

[Kurrpt]

those new dasani's w/ vitamins are pretty darn good

[Amit]

umm or you could just drink normal water from the tap (or through a filter if the need exists whatever)

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah thats what I drink most of the day while on campus.

[Kurrpt]

umm or you could just drink normal water from the tap (or through a filter if the need exists whatever)

you could, but depending on your area, that may or may not be a good idea

[Amit]

fair enough

but soft drinks and beverages are stupid stupid stupid if you care about nutrition at all

[Kurrpt]

yea, i think there was just a case study published on how bad drinking even one coke product a day really is.

i think it was on the regular kind though. Not any diet or caffeine free products

[ringworm]

Not any diet or caffeine free products
those are supposed to be even worse arent they?

i only drink tea & water, soft drinks are horrible, not that sweet tea has any less sugar or is any better

[beso negro]

those new dasani's w/ vitamins are pretty darn good

um yea those vitamins and minerals are just synthetic and pass through you body without being absorbed. You are just paying for expensive urine pretty much.

[Oriah]

Jee thanks for that contribution Oriah, I haven't seen anything like that yet.

It's just that you're talking about sodas and politics... how in depth did you plan to get?

[spitfirejunky]

um yea those vitamins and minerals are just synthetic and pass through you body without being absorbed. You are just paying for expensive urine pretty much.

Synthetic vanilla and extracted vanilla are exactly the same.

[IbanezArtist]

well if you had any reading comprehension and followed the conversation you'd see that I posted those links flippantly and non-seriously.

If you deny the effects of aspartame you don't know science, sorry.


In case it weren't obvious enough, I was poking fun at all the points raised because none of them make any sense and we should all drink diet soda because it is less harmful than filling yourself full of complex carbs, processed sugars, and all that crap.

[Danger Bird]

no it isnt


well apart from potentially increased strain on healthcare services i dont think it would effect me but im not proposing this for my personal benefit

So you're doing it to protect the people who would ordinarily consume too much sugar, which would mean they would strongly resent your protection. It's not your responsibility to baby sit other adults, it's their choice to make.

[Mr. Ron]

In case it weren't obvious enough, I was poking fun at all the points raised because none of them make any sense and we should all drink diet soda because it is less harmful than filling yourself full of complex carbs, processed sugars, and all that crap.

no no see mine did make sense

[beso negro]

Synthetic vanilla and extracted vanilla are exactly the same.

im sorry i didn't realize vanilla was a mineral.


In case it weren't obvious enough, I was poking fun at all the points raised because none of them make any sense and we should all drink diet soda because it is less harmful than filling yourself full of complex carbs, processed sugars, and all that crap.

complex carbs are found in vegetables, simple carbs are found in soda.

i would rather drink sugar than formaldehyde.

[Akira]

But what if it's diet formaldehyde?

[MattyBlade]

But what if it's diet formaldehyde?

Formaldehyde RDA: 10%

[reyherks]

akira=nympho of his slutty mom

[Reaganista]

those are supposed to be even worse arent they?
caffeine free is not worse no
diet idk

So you're doing it to protect the people who would ordinarily consume too much sugar, which would mean they would strongly resent your protection.
i dont care it's for their own good
theyll just have to learn to deal with it

It's not your responsibility to baby sit other adults, it's their choice to make.
why

[MattyBlade]

actually glass bottles>aluminum cans>plastic bottles



It also tells you exactly how much sugar is in there.

yeah, it sure does. Although that's not what I'm saying. I thought you could eat like a cup of sugar and be fine, i mean it's what the bottle tells me!

[Danger Bird]

i dont care it's for their own good
theyll just have to learn to deal with it

why

Because you wouldn't want people making ridiculously strict rules about your life.

[spitfirejunky]

im sorry i didn't realize vanilla was a mineral.

The fact that the vitamins and minerals are synthetic have nothing to do with the reason as to why the body doesn't absorb them.

Learn to correlate.

[Det_Nosnip]

Real sugar actually isn't horrible for you in moderation (like most things). Alot of the problems with sugar come from over-processing and over-consumption.

Artificial sugar causes cancer in lab rats...granted, the study involved a SHITload of the stuff, but still...that can't be good...

[Reaganista]

Because you wouldn't want people making ridiculously strict rules about your life.
i agree good thing this isn't a ridiculously strict rule

[beso negro]

The fact that the vitamins and minerals are synthetic have nothing to do with the reason as to why the body doesn't absorb them.

Learn to correlate.

Vitamins do not exist as single components that act on their own. Vitamins are made up of several different components – enzymes, co-enzymes, and co-factors– that must work together to produce their intended biologic effects.

vitamins found in whole foods contain all their components. Synthetic vitamins contain only isolated portions of the vitamins that occur naturally in food.

For example, look at vitamin C. The "Vitamin C" that is added to drinks is ascorbic acid (read label it will tell you). Ascorbic acid is not vitamin C. Rather it is the outer ring that serves as a protective shell for the entire vitamin C complex. The real vitamin C found in whole foods like fruits and vegetables contain the following components:

Rutin
Bioflavonoids
Factor K
Factor J
Factor P
Tyrosinase
Ascorbinogen
Ascorbic Acid


Your body needs all the components to get the full effect of vitamin c. If you only get the ascorbic acid, your body has little use for it and it ends up in the toilet. And even worse, synthetic vitamins can deplete your body of other nutrients and overwork your kidneys.

[spitfirejunky]

vitamins found in whole foods contain all their components. Synthetic vitamins contain only isolated portions of the vitamins that occur naturally in food.

If they didn't they'd still be synthetic.

[beso negro]

If they didn't they'd still be synthetic.

I suppose, but no manufacturer makes synthetic Factor P,K,J as far as i know. Plus there may be more to vitamin C than what i listed. Scientists are still finding more B vitamins that are in the B complex.

Maybe i don't get your point, but if the manufacturer used acerola cherry powder as vitamin C than it wouldn't be synthetic.

[Iscariot]

Going over your RDA of sugar now and again won't hurt you.

unless you count diabetes, the possible amputation of limbs as a result of the diabetes, the years that it will take off of your life and the constant physically painful effects of the disease

then it could really hurt you

more than 21 million americans have diabetes and consuming your favorite soft drink several times a week for about thirty years is a good way to land in that group of people

while the consumer has the responsibility of managing their diet the manufacturer's of these addicting soft drinks should be required by law to regulate the amount of unhealthy chemicals and substances they add to their products

the caffeine alone is bad enough

[BridgeToSolace]

Facts? What facts! Did you even read the study I posted. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Did you even read what you just quoted?

"Profitability does not change facts. Or lack there of."

Meaning that the Ramazzini study did not conclusively prove anything, as explained by the ESFA, NZFA and the FDA. (I might have gotten those abbreviations wrong. This is the second time I've had to write this out do to computer problems, so I'm a bit lazy.)

There would also be questions like if you used aspartame in pregnancy and whether your children have cancer or birth defects.

I already said I'd be fine with telling pregnant women not to drink diet sodas.

Like Ron said, anyone who disagrees with the dangers of aspartame doesn't know science. aspartame is made of 10% methyl ester. That turns into formaldehyde once it hits 90degrees (in your body).

That's awfully weak science, sir. Lets see what I can do with this. I'm learning this as I go along, so bear with me:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html

"Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult."

So, 11.7 mL of formaldehyde will kill you.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/65678/Science-and-Safety-of-Artificial-Sweeteners-Aspartame-Splenda-Sucralose-FDA-Role

"Teaspoon for teaspoon, aspartame has the same number of calories as sugar, but with one big difference: Since aspartame is 200 times sweeter, most amounts of it consumed are virtually calorie free."

Aspartame is 200 times as concentrated as sugar. I'll assume that they're going for the same amount of sweetness in both drinks, because it makes my life easier.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question370.htm

12.5 teaspoons of sugar per soda. A teaspoon is about 5 milliliters. So, 62.5 ml of sugar per soda.

I suck at math, but I think is how it works:

If aspartame is 200 times as concentrated than sugar, if you divide 62.5 by 200, then you know how much aspartame they need to get the same amount of sweetness.

It comes out to .3125 ml of aspartame per soda.

Now, assuming that what you said about aspartame being 10% formaldehyde is correct, then ten percent of that will be toxic. So, multiply by .1.

.03125 ml of formaldehyde per soda.

Now remember, 11.7 mL will kill you. That means that it will take 374.4 sodas to kill you. Honestly, that much liquid would kill you anyway.

Assuming that even 1 ml of ingested formaldehyde will harm you, it will still take 32 sodas....which would be harmful as water anyway.

Conclusion: You will never consume enough formaldehyde through drinking diet soda with aspartame to warrant your silly accusations.

But that leads to this:

I don't think you want that stuff accumulating in your body.

How long does formaldehyde stay in the body?

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/formaldehyde.pdf

"Blood or urine tests. Formaldehyde does not
stay in your body. No medical or laboratory test
can accurately measure the amount of formaldehyde
to which you have previously been exposed.
There is no medical reason to do blood or urine
tests for formaldehyde."

Honestly, I couldn't find anything specifically about ingestion. Things were about formaldehyde vapor exposure, which is different.

The carcinogenic effects of formaldehyde is based on inhaling, not ingesting, btw.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html

"In humans, formaldehyde exposure has been weakly associated with increased risk of nasal cancer and nasal tumors were observed in rats chronically inhaling formaldehyde."


So you think manufactures wave their little wand and magically make something sweet? It takes chemicals to artificially sweeten something. Excitotoxins are cheap and they work.

Except MSG does not make things sweet.

C'mon mate, we've been through this.

It makes things more savory.


Heh, there is much more you have to worry about than headaches. I hope you don't have asthma.

I don't have asthma. Thanks for your concern, though.

[beso negro]

Did you even read what you just quoted?

"Profitability does not change facts. Or lack there of."

Meaning that the Ramazzini study did not conclusively prove anything, as explained by the ESFA, NZFA and the FDA. (I might have gotten those abbreviations wrong. This is the second time I've had to write this out do to computer problems, so I'm a bit lazy.)

I was actually talking about the actual questionnaire used to make conduct the aspartame/cancer study you showed. Sorry for the confusion. The questionnaire cannot in any way link cancer with aspartame because its not in depth enough.

And people who don't agree with the Ramazzini study cite the fact that it was on rats and not humans. There is a reason why they use rats. Mice and Humans share more than 95% of their genes. And why should you trust what the FDA has to say about safety? A new story just came out today about the safety of medications.

That's awfully weak science, sir. Lets see what I can do with this. I'm learning this as I go along, so bear with me:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html

"Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult."

So, 11.7 mL of formaldehyde will kill you.

"Teaspoon for teaspoon, aspartame has the same number of calories as sugar, but with one big difference: Since aspartame is 200 times sweeter, most amounts of it consumed are virtually calorie free."

Aspartame is 200 times as concentrated as sugar. I'll assume that they're going for the same amount of sweetness in both drinks, because it makes my life easier.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question370.htm

12.5 teaspoons of sugar per soda. A teaspoon is about 5 milliliters. So, 62.5 ml of sugar per soda.

I suck at math, but I think is how it works:

If aspartame is 200 times as concentrated than sugar, if you divide 62.5 by 200, then you know how much aspartame they need to get the same amount of sweetness.

It comes out to .3125 ml of aspartame per soda.

Now, assuming that what you said about aspartame being 10% formaldehyde is correct, then ten percent of that will be toxic. So, multiply by .1.

.03125 ml of formaldehyde per soda.

Now remember, 11.7 mL will kill you. That means that it will take 374.4 sodas to kill you. Honestly, that much liquid would kill you anyway.

Assuming that even 1 ml of ingested formaldehyde will harm you, it will still take 32 sodas....which would be harmful as water anyway.

Conclusion: You will never consume enough formaldehyde through drinking diet soda with aspartame to warrant your silly accusations.

But that leads to this:

How long does formaldehyde stay in the body?

http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ohb/HESIS/formaldehyde.pdf

"Blood or urine tests. Formaldehyde does not
stay in your body. No medical or laboratory test
can accurately measure the amount of formaldehyde
to which you have previously been exposed.
There is no medical reason to do blood or urine
tests for formaldehyde."

Honestly, I couldn't find anything specifically about ingestion. Things were about formaldehyde vapor exposure, which is different.

The carcinogenic effects of formaldehyde is based on inhaling, not ingesting, btw.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg111.html

"In humans, formaldehyde exposure has been weakly associated with increased risk of nasal cancer and nasal tumors were observed in rats chronically inhaling formaldehyde."

I liked the math. But I think things got a little fuzzy with the 200 times estimation. That may have thrown things off. More aspartame is used in beverages than that. Read on.

Anyways, limited data suggests the average intake of methanol should be considerably less than 10 mg/day (EPA).

Woodrow Monte, R.D., Ph.D., director of the Arizona State University Food Sciences and Nutrition Laboratory, believes “aspartame...releases into the human bloodstream one molecule of methanol for each molecule of aspartame consumed.. When diet sodas and soft drinks sweetened with aspartame are used to replace fluids lost during exercise...the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/kg/day or 32 times the (EPA’) recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative toxin."

http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_methanol_and_public_health.pdf

Also, one packet of the sweetener contains 37 mg of aspartame and 12 ounces of diet soda contains about 200 mg of aspartame. So thats 20 mg of methanol per 12 ounce. Ouch. more than twice the recommended limit. No wonder the European Common Market banned aspartame for all children's products

http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p40b.htm

http://www.i-see.org/nutra.html

Also after more research, even some eye doctors agree that aspartame is toxic
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=7263

Except MSG does not make things sweet.

C'mon mate, we've been through this.

It makes things more savory.

I know it doesn't make things sweet. But tell me why they put natural flavors in soft drink then? Ask someone who is very sensitive to MSG, they will tell you.

[PerpetualBurn]

unless you count diabetes, the possible amputation of limbs as a result of the diabetes, the years that it will take off of your life and the constant physically painful effects of the disease

then it could really hurt you

more than 21 million americans have diabetes and consuming your favorite soft drink several times a week for about thirty years is a good way to land in that group of people

while the consumer has the responsibility of managing their diet the manufacturer's of these addicting soft drinks should be required by law to regulate the amount of unhealthy chemicals and substances they add to their products

the caffeine alone is bad enough

Well that's why I said "now and again" implying infrequency.

Where as you some how took that to mean "several times a week".

[beso negro]

Aspartame is 200 times as concentrated as sugar. I'll assume that they're going for the same amount of sweetness in both drinks, because it makes my life easier.

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question370.htm

12.5 teaspoons of sugar per soda. A teaspoon is about 5 milliliters. So, 62.5 ml of sugar per soda.

So i went over your math and saw the very first problem was here. First off, 12.5 teaspoons sounds right, but that is way more than 62.5 mg (not ml). Think this way: 12.5 teaspoons = 50grams. 50 grams = 50000 mg.

If aspartame is 200 times as concentrated than sugar, if you divide 62.5 by 200, then you know how much aspartame they need to get the same amount of sweetness.

It comes out to .3125 ml of aspartame per soda.

more like 250 mg per soda. (probably 12 ounce, seems too much to be 8 ounce)

Now, assuming that what you said about aspartame being 10% formaldehyde is correct, then ten percent of that will be toxic. So, multiply by .1.

.03125 ml of formaldehyde per soda.

more like 25mg

Now remember, 11.7 mL will kill you. That means that it will take 374.4 sodas to kill you. Honestly, that much liquid would kill you anyway.

Assuming that even 1 ml of ingested formaldehyde will harm you, it will still take 32 sodas....which would be harmful as water anyway.

Conclusion: You will never consume enough formaldehyde through drinking diet soda with aspartame to warrant your silly accusations.


So one soda will kill you :p. Actually i've seen most people say 100mg of formaldehyde is the lowest amount that can kill you. Its more like 500mg.

So yes, dieing from formaldehyde by ingesting aspartame is unlikely, but going over the recommend amount by the EPA everyday or even every other day can't be good.

You had the right idea, but you messed up with the conversion from teaspoons to mg. Just look at a mountain dew. Per 8oz serving it has 25-30 grams of sugar. maybe more. idk i don't drink the stuff.

Well that's why I said "now and again" implying infrequency.

Where as you some how took that to mean "several times a week".

Its never a good idea. Most sodas include over 100% of the RDA of sugar

[Danger Bird]

i agree good thing this isn't a ridiculously strict rule

Um actually telling people how much sugar they can ingest like some kind of national nanny is pretty ridiculous, especially since different people and can take different amounts.

[Knifeboy]

It's not telling people how much they can intake, it's telling corporations how much **** they are allowed to put in their products

[Reaganista]

Um actually telling people how much sugar they can ingest like some kind of national nanny is pretty ridiculous, especially since different people and can take different amounts.
the consumer could add sugar if they wanted to
just the drink companies wouldnt be allowed to

[PerpetualBurn]

Its never a good idea. Most sodas include over 100% of the RDA of sugar

Only if you're talking about an unspecified quantity of soda.

And no.

It doesn't really matter if you go over your RDA on the odd occasion.

[Reaganista]

that information might actually have use if soda was the type of thing people drank on the odd occasion

[PerpetualBurn]

No because it means that you can drink soda without impacting upon your health.

So if you over indulge you're a moron.

[Jharaski]

So i went over your math and saw the very first problem was here. First off, 12.5 teaspoons sounds right, but that is way more than 62.5 mg (not ml). Think this way: 12.5 teaspoons = 50grams. 50 grams = 50000 mg.


No. 12.5 teaspoons IS 62.5 milliliters. Of course it's not 62.5 milligrams.


more like 250 mg per soda. (probably 12 ounce, seems too much to be 8 ounce)


Ok


more like 25mg


Ok that is still only 1/1000 of that in ml


So one soda will kill you :p. Actually i've seen most people say 100mg of formaldehyde is the lowest amount that can kill you. Its more like 500mg.

So yes, dieing from formaldehyde by ingesting aspartame is unlikely, but going over the recommend amount by the EPA everyday or even every other day can't be good.

You had the right idea, but you messed up with the conversion from teaspoons to mg. Just look at a mountain dew. Per 8oz serving it has 25-30 grams of sugar. maybe more. idk i don't drink the stuff.


except he was going to milliLITERS


YOU messed up going between mg and ml :) which is like 1/1000, assuming a density of 1... I dunno what it is in aspartame or fermaldehyde.

[MattyBlade]

Real sugar actually isn't horrible for you in moderation (like most things). Alot of the problems with sugar come from over-processing and over-consumption.

Artificial sugar causes cancer in lab rats...granted, the study involved a SHITload of the stuff, but still...that can't be good...

That's why I'm suggesting a change from the HFCS to say a cane sugar or something that doesn't have to go through a whole series of chemical changes before reaching the product

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I think all that's needed is a little more transparancy. Just let people know what's good and bad without all these annoying diversions and sub-categories (trans fats, refinied VS unrefined sugar blah blah blah). Just have a little tag on food & drink with a GREEN - healthy pretty much all the time YELLOW have one a day kinda RED probably shouldn't have it more than once a week. Easy. Not that it will change anything, just means people lose the right to bitch about being fatas'ses.

[Akira]

I think we should change ingredient lists to just say "Bad things" or "Good things."

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Yeah, could work. Basically whatever you do won't count for shi't, people will keep eating fat, salt and sugar because they taste good. Just make your classification system idiot proof so no-one can say they weren't warned and fu'ck 'em all.

[Reaganista]

No because it means that you can drink soda without impacting upon your health.

So if you over indulge you're a moron.
ok so they're morons
i dont see how this matters or changes anything at all

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't want a bunch of morons ruining my coke.

[Reaganista]

o well
that's hardly a reason to not do anything about it

[Danger Bird]

Yes it is, because that would be punishing people for being smart, while the soda-caused diabetes we have now is punishment for stupidity. Do you not agree that a society should strive for intelligence rather than stupidity?

[Reaganista]

Yes it is, because that would be punishing people for being smart
no it wouldnt
while the soda-caused diabetes we have now is punishment for stupidity. Do you not agree that a society should strive for intelligence rather than stupidity?
yeah
it would be smart to stop putting so much sugar and caffeine in soda

[:amaze:]

you know they do make diet sodas, right?

and "light" versions of almost all other soft drinks out there.




:amaze:

[Mr. Ron]

congrats, you just missed the entire thread.

[:amaze:]

yeah, i figured.




:amaze:

[Reaganista]

you know they do make diet sodas, right?
people have to chose to drink diet soda or reduced sugar soda
we should take that choice away

[dei]

Aren't some diet sodas unhealthy? I think it's aspartame that makes it ****ed.

[Reaganista]

well taking away the choice to drink diet soda would be another matter entirely
which i wouldnt be particularly opposed to

[Orange Piggy]

I think all that's needed is a little more transparancy. Just let people know what's good and bad without all these annoying diversions and sub-categories (trans fats, refinied VS unrefined sugar blah blah blah). Just have a little tag on food & drink with a GREEN - healthy pretty much all the time YELLOW have one a day kinda RED probably shouldn't have it more than once a week. Easy. Not that it will change anything, just means people lose the right to bitch about being fatas'ses.

You mean like a pyramid food chart, but on the product?

I thought we had this stuff drilled into us in primary school. Then again, so were McDonalds ads.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Most people are too retarded for a pyramid food chart, and by having new discoveries every day (trans fats being the biggest and most recent), it just confuses them more. Keep it basic, drill it in. Like I said, won't change a thing but it gives everyone plausible deniability and the right to laugh at people with diabeetus.

[Reaganista]

better yet
stop acting like 'i like the way slowly killing myself tastes' is a valid reason to eat anything and stop people from doing it

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Well it all depends on if you care or not. I don't, so my way works. You do, so your way is the only way it will work.

So basically you have the only valid idea in here to effect any kind of change, I take my hat of to you sir.

[Lupus]

better yet
stop acting like 'i like the way slowly killing myself tastes' is a valid reason to eat anything and stop people from doing it

Are you saying that happiness doesn't factor in at all?

[Reaganista]

yeah you shouldnt turn to food to give you happiness

[MattyBlade]

yeah you shouldnt turn to food to give you happiness

TBQH I'm just mad that I'm eating all this sugary foods/bad foods and not putting on any pounds =/ My metabolism is being a stickler

[pulseczar]

TBQH I'm just mad that I'm eating all this sugary foods/bad foods and not putting on any pounds =/ My metabolism is being a stickler

same here, i eat a lot of food but I rarely go over 140-145 lbs. I'm going to starting working out, though, try and bulk up some protein instead.

[Dave de Sylvia]

TBQH I'm just mad that I'm eating all this sugary foods/bad foods and not putting on any pounds =/ My metabolism is being a stickler
You need to vary your diet to put on weight. If you consume the same amount of any food your weight will not change any considerable amount.

Just start with one banana per day and graduate up to 200 bananas over the course of a couple years.

[MattyBlade]

I know thissssss I eat a regular diet THEN all this junk on top to try and fatten up what's the problem? Anyways, I don't want to turn this into another discussion about how I'm a twiggy twig boy :lol: I'm over it.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Eat rocks and stones and ****.

[Lupus]

yeah you shouldnt turn to food to give you happiness

Why not?

[Jaded]

Actually yes, yes it does. After I've consumed one or two softdrinks I generally start to get all shakey with sweats and a high rate of irritability

Oh yeah, you know, those sodas really f*ck you up.

lulz

[MattyBlade]

Oh yeah, you know, those sodas really f*ck you up.

lulz

um, they do.


Go do me a favour, buy 3-4 591ml Regular coca-cola classics. Then drink them one after another with maybe 30 minute breaks inbetween. After you finish the third one, you should be as "wired" up as I get =p

[MattyBlade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia would be awesome if it was allowable as a food additive in N.A. like it is in parts of asia. 250-300 times sweeter then sugar with seemingly less health effects[although it's not fda approved as a food additive due to some ridunkulous tests they did way back]

[Danger Bird]

Well of course you shouldn't drink that much. That doesn't mean you can't have one occasionally and be fine. It's up to you to moderate your own activity, not the company's to make sure you can have as much of anything as you want without experiencing any negative effects.

[beso negro]

Why not?

Because then you over-eat

That's why I'm suggesting a change from the HFCS to say a cane sugar or something that doesn't have to go through a whole series of chemical changes before reaching the product

sugar is sugar. i mean HFCS is worse than unrefined sugar but if you think you are drinking healthy because you buy jones cola, you're kidding yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia would be awesome if it was allowable as a food additive in N.A. like it is in parts of asia. 250-300 times sweeter then sugar with seemingly less health effects[although it's not fda approved as a food additive due to some ridunkulous tests they did way back]

stevia is ok, so is xylitol. But too much gives me a tummy ache.

[MattyBlade]

Well of course you shouldn't drink that much. That doesn't mean you can't have one occasionally and be fine. It's up to you to moderate your own activity, not the company's to make sure you can have as much of anything as you want without experiencing any negative effects.

But, what about that RDA% bs.

10% rda , therefore drinking "4" bottles, wouldn't be unhealthy (per day) if you go by the label

[beso negro]

But, what about that RDA% bs.

10% rda , therefore drinking "4" bottles, wouldn't be unhealthy (per day) if you go by the label

that's the carbohydrate %RDA. Those carbs should be fiber and natural sugars from vegetables and fruits.

the RDA of regular sugar is like 30g at most(should be considerably less). One soda takes you over that

[MattyBlade]

that's the carbohydrate %RDA. Those carbs should be fiber and natural sugars from vegetables and fruits.

the RDA of regular sugar is like 30g at most(should be considerably less). One soda takes you over that

Yes, but it can be seen as confusing to people who DONT KNOW THESE TECHNICAL DETAILS.

"OMG 10% OF RDA, THAT MEANS I CAN DRINK LIKE 4 OF THESE AND BE FINE!"

[Danger Bird]

If people care about it that much, or can't use enough common sense to know you shouldn't drink 4 sodas a day, it's easy to find out.

[MattyBlade]

If people care about it that much, or can't use enough common sense to know you shouldn't drink 4 sodas a day, it's easy to find out.

dude, you're pretty ignorant to think that everyone has common sense or know lots of things.

You have to understand, there are ALOT more dumb/lacking in these practical skills people then you would think.

[Danger Bird]

dude, you're pretty ignorant to think that everyone has common sense or know lots of things.

You have to understand, there are ALOT more dumb/lacking in these practical skills people then you would think.

That's their fault for being stupid, not the drink companies'.

[MattyBlade]

That's their fault for being stupid, not the drink companies'.

More ignorance. YAY!

[Danger Bird]

Wtf if people are going to be idiots it seems really unfair that the government should babysit them and force private companies to change their products, and stop intelligent people from enjoying the occasional sugary drink.

[MattyBlade]

Wtf if people are going to be idiots it seems really unfair that the government should babysit them and force private companies to change their products, and stop intelligent people from enjoying the occasional sugary drink.

I believe this will sum up my response:

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15288138&postcount=239

[Dave de Sylvia]

We shouldn't let a few fatties spoil the party.

[Lupus]

Because then you over-eat
Actually many people enjoy eating food that tastes good but still don't overeat.

[Reaganista]

Why not?
because it's not healthy
Wtf if people are going to be idiots it seems really unfair that the government should babysit them and force private companies to change their products, and stop intelligent people from enjoying the occasional sugary drink.
why

[Lupus]

because it's not healthy

Getting happiness from food is not unhealthy.

[Unreal]

maybe, but its ****ing sad

[beso negro]

Getting happiness from food is not unhealthy.

well it is pretty much the reason for the obesity epidemic.

[Dave de Sylvia]

That's probably an over-simplification.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Almost everyone derives some kind of pleasure from food, otherwise just live off rice and vitamin pills. We actively seek out pleasing flavours, regardless of our being fat bas'tards or not.

[MattyBlade]

Almost everyone derives some kind of pleasure from food, otherwise just live off rice and vitamin pills. We actively seek out pleasing flavours, regardless of our being fat bas'tards or not.

unless you're some weird hippy vegan to the 4th power of pi or something