Soft Drink Contains Carcinogens

In 1984 both the Coca-Cola Company , the makers of the soft drink Coke and PepsiCo, the makers of Pepsi decided to change the formulation of their beverages in an ongoing bitter rivalry for the number one spot. The change was to stop using table sugar(sucralose) as the primary sweetner for its taste and use what they thought was a more economically feasible and "healthier" choice with High Fructose Corn Syrup(HFCS). The taste was noted by Americans almost immediately and the reaction in Europe was that they didn't want HFCS in their beverages because of its health concerns. This small change launched a geo-political and nutritional "war" that affected the globalization of products in the international markets.Europeans began to either ban or boycott Pepsi and Coke because of HFCS for its cause of obesity. The result of this is that Coke and Pepsi do not sell their products with HFCS in Europe. Fast forward to the USA today. Environmental groups have held the beverage groups "feet to the fire" for similar reasons as in Europe. In the last two to three years the Mega- beverage companies promised to reduce artificial flavoring and artificial sweetners , particularly HFCS, to help reduce obesity in children who are large consumers of it. Finally, earlier just this year the Mega- beverage companies announced how it reduced even its advertisement near schoold and other places frequented by children and they also stated they would reduce advertisement during child viewing hours of television programming( Saturday morning and after school cartoons etc...). The companies went even further saying it would promote health and wellness programs or centers that would advocate exercise and nutrition along with obesity prevention in kids! Wow, how awesome. But, wait. Another environmental group conducting testing on the caramel flavoring of Pepsi has just released its findings that state that Pepsi contains also a carcinogen in it known as 4-Mel(Four methylimidazole). Now, there is the real likihood of users of Pepsi having consumed an unknown quantity of this carcinogen for and unknown length of time. What are it's long term effects, what should people do? Better yet what is PepsiCo going to do? Already PepsiCo has stated it will reduce the amount of 4-Mel in its beverages, but this has scientist, environmental groups and consumers scratching their heads. The solution was simpler when the "only" problem seemed to be obesity prevention. With this new matter the "next generation" of beverages will be available where we may continue to see a rise in obesity and cancer. What affects does this have on the health of the nation, the cost of healthcare and quality of living in the future longterm? Should the FDA create new guidelines that follow modern day nutrition experts at both major universities and nutritional clinics? Should the FDA require that soft drink manufacturers have monitors in place that check the organic and inorganic content of potential toxins and carcinogens per batch? Sure, labeling is good, but make it really noticeable for a society which doesn't read much of the contents to see what it's getting. By printing the potentially hazardous stuff along side the "good stuff" in the same type print will only make most people go along with it without a second thought. Many products carry a hazard warning with their product, shouldn't potentially carcinogenic beverages not do the same as cigarettes? In the Spring of 2012 Dr. Wells, MD. MPH presented his book Fit Family to both President Obama and to Mayor Bloomberg of New York City

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Going at It From a Different Angle

Healthcare has been approached in America as a means of treating a multiplicity of diseases that apparently have no common link in diagnosis or treatment. It has been the accepted standard of care for clinicians to treat a disease through multi-subspecialties. Managed care has promted this through the development of multiple codes that consists of a variety of attached prices fixed to a certain disease. Cosde match deisgnated diagnosis and therapies to the costs . This approach has seen the soaring cosst of medical treatment , devices , diagnostics , administrative waste and duplicity. It may have contributed to over-diagnosis, misdiagnosis , phanthom diagnosis as well as the defensive legal reflex of clinicians called CYA (cover your rear) in response to medial liability sanctions. But, what if the major medical diseases were all related to a key central disease that exists at epidemic proportions, not only that, but what if this central disease was treated or addressed as a first...
Read more

More Physicians Gravitate Towards "Boutique/Concierge Medicine

Have you noticed more and more medical doctors on television and radio and not just on talk shows, but with introducing their own privately labelled products ,wellness centers and spas? Doctors have taken a page out of commercial marketing that was once considered taboo amongst many elite circles. But, today physicians are grabbing at the opportunity and the opening possibilities to take their practices into another stratosphere. Since the early 80's physicians began to see their autonomy seep from their grips as more DRGs and HMOs began to take command and control of a multi-billion dollar industry(the medical industrial complex), once known as their profession. Overlooked by health policy, managed care and rising liability costs, physicians have had to "re-invent" themselves and perhaps even the art of medicine. Medical doctors with a business degree were once rarely seen, and much more so were those who were marketing their books, their own pharmaceutical products a...
Read more

The Affordable Care Act May not Be Affordable

A recent paper submitted to the Journal of American Public Health, the premier outlet for the The American Public Health Association looks at how the Affordable Care Act may not really be affordable to Americans. The rising premiums, deductibles and co-pays are just some of the problems mentioned. However there are more serious problems for small business people who have over 50 employees. They have to pay for the healthcare for their workers which comes at a very expensive price. The ACA(Affordable Care Act) mandates that all physicians have put in place EMR(electronic medical records). EMR has 3 real and potential problems. One, it is extremely expensive to doctors to purchase and maintain with up to date software annually. Secondly , there is the potential  threat for hacking into patient's records and thirdly, many feel that the electronic device aspect of mandating EMR is a segue for other electronic devices such as microchips. In essence, this system could very well bankrup...
Read more