Coca-Cola and Pepsi Change Recipe To Avoid Cancer Warning

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

Re:Becareful coke addicts..

[Hatta]

Carcinogenesis is generally stochastic. That means the probability is directly proportional to the dose. When you lower the dose but increase the population you end up with the same risk. So if 1000 doses given to one mouse causes cancer, then it's likely that 1 dose given to each of 1000 people will cause one case of cancer.

Re:Screw California...

[techno-vampire]

Fuck CA.

I live in the People's Republic of California, and I couldn't possibly agree with you more. This state is run by liberals who get their rocks off by telling other people how to run their lives. Not only that, the only part of the state that's mostly Democrat is the Pacific Coast, with almost all of the inland parts strongly Republican. However, most of the population is on or near the coast, so the rest of us suffer under the Tyranny of the Majority.

Re:California

[bill_mcgonigle]

Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.

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

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

Re:California

[chrissigler]

Is this [greenlaker.com] what you're referring to?

Maybe it's because I live in Texas where we're apparently still not sure about the whole cigarettes-cause-cancer bit... but this seems a bit ridiculous.

Who is the target audience of warning labels like this? I would think that there are two demographics relevant to such a warning:

1. 1. People who can/will read a block of text that long and know what a particulate is.
2. 2. People who are too dumb to know better than to chug motor oil.

I have a funny feeling these groups are mutually exclusive.

Re:California

[MyLongNickName]

The problem I have is when warning labels go on items where we really haven't established that is a carcinogen. I remember the alar scare of '89(?). A lot of apple growers were hurt by the publicity. Then alar got cleared but not after a lot of economic damage to the industry.

Re:California

[cpu6502]

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

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

Re:California

[Grizzley9]

Time to bring back Crystal Pepsi and Tab Clear! It's the early 90's trend all over again! Perhaps 7up can be relevant again.