Coca-Cola and Pepsi Change Recipe To Avoid Cancer Warning 398
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."
California (Score:5, Funny)
Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
Do people in Nevada get some sort of horrible sickness?
Many people in Nevada seem to suffer from horrible sickness, but it seems to increase the closer you get to Las Vegas. I'm certainly not ruling out a California connection, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do people in Nevada get some sort of horrible sickness?
Many people in Nevada seem to suffer from horrible sickness, but it seems to increase the closer you get to Las Vegas. I'm certainly not ruling out a California connection, though.
Good chance they were already affected before they arrived. The southwest was a Mecca for people suffering Consumption (Tuberculosis) back in the day. While there is some dust, perhaps from mining, anything radioactive is probably in eastern Nevada or Utah. In dry air bacteria has a short lifespan. (This is why people may go years without suffering a cold out here.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bacteria don't cause colds.
Right, virii do
zing!
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is a "virii"?
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
"Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:California (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
"Virii" and "Priii" is what people like to type when they want to appear smart (using the Latin plural). The rest of us just type viruses and Priuses.
Bah, the -us/-i variation is used in plain ol' English, too:
asparagus, asparagi
broccolus, broccoli
spaghettus, spaghetti
us, I
Whoops, that last one is backwards...
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
I don't understand this. I can pick up a piece of asparagus.
However, when I buy broccoli, at no point is my broccoli a broccolus. When I remove the rubber band, slice it up to steam it, any piece I pick up is still broccoli. So what constitutes a broccolus? The little polypy things on the end? If i hold up one of those, is that a broccolus or just a small piece of broccoli?
I just don't understand.
Re:California (Score:4, Informative)
You are all incorrect. The plural for virus using classical latin is "vira". To wit:
"The plural of virus is viruses in English -- at least at the moment. Virus is a neuter noun in Latin. That means its plural, if there were an attested ancient usage of virus in the plural, would have ended in an "-a," because neuter nouns in (ancient Greek and) Latin end in an "-a," in the plural nominative and accusative cases. The example of the plural of datum is a case in point. Since datum is a neuter singular, its plural is data.
Since virus is neuter, vira is a possibility for the nominative/accusative plural. It could not be viri."
Thus, if a Prius is a gender neutral noun in latin, the plural form would be "Pria"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:California (Score:5, Informative)
If virus was Latin, the plural would be either viri or virua (for the nominative or accusative forms)...
Except that virus in Latin has no attested plural and viri is always the plural to vir, meaning "man", cognate to the English word "wer" as in "werewolf". There's also a chance of virus actually having been a 4th declension noun (no one knows for sure today), and in that case, the English plural would have been "viruses" anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Most, but not all. S. pyogenes, for one, depending on how you define the common cold.
Re: (Score:3)
Most, but not all. S. pyogenes, for one, depending on how you define the common cold.
Common definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of LA drives to vegas every friday. Of course there's going to be some contamination.
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
It can be shown that 100% of cancer incidents reported in California affected patients in California. We must therefore warn you that California may cause cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we know that California doesn't cause cancer? How can we be sure?
Perhaps you can get funding to conduct a study where you simply travel around CA with some lab mice while several other people do the same thing in other states?
What I don't really understand is how dismissive the 'group think' is about this. Did everyone who takes scientific evidence seriously go out drinking already? Sure there are a lot of things that have been shown to cause cancer, while some might call laughter 'the best medicine' it's certainly not a vaccination.
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
Because CA has gotten to the point where they label anything that might conceivably cause cancer in doses 1000s of times higher than anyone would normally be exposed to. Yes, we know, everything causes cancer in high doses.
Hell, fast food joints have Prop-65 warnings because cooking potatoes and coffee causes a trace amount of some chemical to form in certain circumstances, which causes cancer in high doses. Yes, they have reason to be dismissive and laugh because reason has left the building.
Re:California (Score:5, Insightful)
Except the TSA body scanners... those are very safe. Unlike the food coloring in cola that is cancer in a bottle.
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
also hasnt the avg life expenctancy gone up dramatically in the past 100 years?
Therefore, I conclude that coke and pepsi have been keeping people alive longer!, thank you, where is my grant check?
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.
Says you.
Surgeon Generals Warning: Backtalk may lead to cancer of the patho... epid... nucleo... well, the wossname, so watchit, bub!
Dang!
Re:California (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.
True story! These labels are a total joke here - seems like every building and half the brands of cars have these stupid warning labels.
To those who are unfamiiar with this nonsense: if you buy a car in California, there's a good chance that a new car will come with a big sticker on the driver's side window - for your safety!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
I have a funny feeling these groups are mutuall
Re:California (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Its California.. if the government doesn't turn on your headlights, clearly its because headlights consume power and thus are not green. Also, if safety was an issue, the government would've turned them on for you.
Or.. they're broke and forgot to turn on the headlight management system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS. There's an effective law which requires everyone to have their lights on whenever it rains. But the 15 *is* socal so when it rains there, no one knows knows what to do. Are you sure it wasn't just a little drizzle? If it was, then you need to get your windshield cleaned and wipers replaced.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but not tail lights, which is what you really need to be seen when it's raining. Especially true if you're driving a grey car that blends in well with the drizzle.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the law was passed, I was amazed to find the most mundane things like PIECES OF WOOD are known to cause cancer. Of course this is because of the chemicals used to treat them.
Does that make it a joke? I certainly don't think so... I've taken steps to limit my exposure in response, and would be change my buying habits to prefer products without that label, if it was possible to
Re:California (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
There you go assuming that the labels are accurate in a practical sense. The joke is that California requires that warning on many so many chemicals with so tenuous a connection to cancer that it's basically impossible to use as an actual warning. That problem is exacerbated by the potential lawsuits when not issueing the warning, the fact that there's no exposure/penalty for warning unnecessarily, and the lack of specificity you noted. The net effect is that if you see such a notice you can rest assured that some chemical compound nearby that you may or may not actually be exposed to might possibly have some connection to cancer at some concentration that may or not actually be present... or someone just wants to cover his ass and not get sued. Not a lot of information content.
Re: (Score:2)
These labels are a total joke here - seems like every building and half the brands of cars have these stupid warning labels.
Yeah, including canisters of pure oxygen. True story.
Re: (Score:3)
My health-food eating, California-living relative got and died from cancer. Thus, I'm not sure whether to call you an insensitive clod or an insightful social commentator.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Informative
Re:California (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
...the 12t of sugar in a can of Coke...
It's actually a full LoC of high-fructose corn syrup, which is complimented by the caffeine to ensure a timely arrival to your death bed.
Re: (Score:2)
please provide evidence that 34mg of caffeine will harm me.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're already suffering from dangerously-high blood pressure as a result of years of Coca-Cola consumption, it won't help you.
Re: (Score:3)
Cane sugar is sucrose [greenlaker.com], which is basically a glucose molecule connected to a fructose molecule.
High fructose corn syrup is a 54-42 mix of fructose and, you guessed it, glucose.
They are basically the same, except that the two molecules are not connected in a gigantic sucrose molecule and the ratios are slightly different. Sucrose when metabolized becomes sucrose and fructose, so youre getting the same chemicals in the end regardless. To quote wikipedia,
Sucrose is broken down during digestion into a mixture of 50% fructose and 50% glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase.
Its telling that when you look at the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
This is the case in all of the states. The leading cause of death is heart disease, most people only care about cancer and aids though (leading cause of death in the world is heart disease, more than cancer and aids combined). Yet, I never see any stickers on the back of cars shaped like a heart. Needless to say, but cancer researchers have done a much better job of marketing than those working on heart disease.
At least all the pharma companies know where the money is at (heart medication). Too bad their re
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but California would rather you die of complications of diabetes or heart disease than cancer. No, really, that's the unavoidable conclusion.
I'm not sure about diabetes, but when my time comes up I'd much prefer a massive heart attack (hopefully with the majority of suffering for me and my family over in less than a day), than a slow, drawn-out battle with cancer. I've seen that a couple times, and used to work next to a cancer center. Cancer is an ugly way to go.
Unfortunately, my family history has many more cases of cancer and Alzheimer's than heart disease, though I've still got a few decades to decide on a strategy. Eating lots more burgers
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought those signs were a form of cancer. They're sprouting up all over the place!
Re: (Score:2)
I've long wanted to make a sign that says "Welcome to California - May Cause Cancer" and put it up under the California state line sign on I-80 West.
Totally off-topic, but... (Score:3)
It's also interesting that California, cancer-paranoid as they are, still approved medical cannabis legislation, and famously so.
watch your assumptions (Score:2)
It's an easy assumption to make. But wrong.
Look it up. Studies show either no increased cancer risk from cannabis use, or even a slightly protective (anti-cancer) effect.
Emphysema on the other hand...
Re: (Score:3)
Because you didn't read through the implications of your quoted material.
So, note that that article obliquely references the study [nih.gov] which is centered on the effects of acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde [wikimedia.org] is carcinogenic? Well, no shit.
Re:California (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California (Score:5, Funny)
Careful, there. Being pedantic is known to the State of California to cause cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out for the California sun. It too is cancerous (as is the sunblock which damages the skin).
And I bet California girls have a shorter lifespan due to their manmade chests. (ducking and running)
Might as well go all the way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might as well go all the way (Score:5, Funny)
If I ever become a billionaire, I'm going to hire a blimp with "PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: THE SUN IS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER" to float up and down the state. Stupid proposition system.
Re: (Score:2)
If I ever become a billionaire, I'm going to hire a blimp with "PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: THE SUN IS KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER" to float up and down the state. Stupid proposition system.
I'd go so far as to call that an indecent proposition.
Re:Might as well go all the way (Score:5, Funny)
That would be funny until you got tired of it and landed. Then they'd sue you for taking down a warning sign.
Re: (Score:2)
California needs to just put out a warning saying that life has been linked to incidences of cancer.
Considerint the number of memorials I see, the gravest cancer threat is melanoma, at least where theres a lot of time spent in the Sun. So, yeah, we have not a cloud for miles today and there are people out there having their DNA halved and quartered without so much as a parisol. That's what we get for not having week upon week of grey clouds.
Re:Might as well go all the way (Score:5, Informative)
In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.
Re: (Score:2)
In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.
At least when it comes to cancer
Re: (Score:2)
The life-caused fatality rate is actually only something like 93.5% based on available evidence.
All risk is relative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering... (Score:2)
Is there any chemical California has not added to their list of carcinogenic compounds?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes... but I can't tell you because if I do they'll be aware it hasn't been added yet and they'll add it.
Re:Just wondering... (Score:5, Funny)
Money. Because they don't have any to test.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any chemical California has not added to their list of carcinogenic compounds?
Apparently Monosodium Glutamate, which you can have by the shovel-full from almost any Chinese restaurant, bagged snack goods or canned soups.
That's a nice start... (Score:3, Insightful)
Slurm (Score:4, Funny)
4-methylimidazole (Score:5, Informative)
...is also present in dark beers and roasted foods. It is one of many substances, like acrylamide, formed during browning. So, even if they avoid it in cola drinks, we can expect California warning labels on more foods and beverages. (California OEHHA proposed slapping a warning label on everything containing acrylamide about five years ago, but they got a lot of pushback on that one).
Re: (Score:3)
...is also present in dark beers and roasted foods. It is one of many substances, like acrylamide, formed during browning. So, even if they avoid it in cola drinks, we can expect California warning labels on more foods and beverages.
And since it's created by roasting, they'll stick it on the product *after* you cook it.
"Waiter, what's this sticker on my steak?"
Re: (Score:3)
Dark beers contain 3 to 424 micrograms per liter [sciencedirect.com] of 4-methylimidazole, compared to soft drinks which have been found to have 37 to 613 micrograms per liter.
My poor state is getting dumber (Score:2)
I just got back from a trip to SF and noticed signs in the airport that said something totally vague, like "Some stuff here may cause cancer." Um, what stuff? How bad is the risk? Should I leave? Will I be exposed by breathing the air or touching surfaces? Would wearing shoes and gloves protect me? Should I be wearing Nomex, Kevlar, or a biohazard suit? Gas mask? Where else should I go? Should I assume that anywhere without those signs is 100% safe? What if I was in a cancer-causing area and some jackass to
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Gosh,l you almost have facts, but not quite. (Score:3)
That article is alarmist and misleading. .4ppm... Which is about what you would get from any browning process.
A) Coca-coal doesn't 'add it'. It is created when caramel is made. BTW, Coca-cola doesn't make caramel, they buy it from suppliers.
B) a serving has
FDA say 250ppm is where the issue might begin. However, the studies regarding 4-MI see an effect in rats over 1250 ppm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366200/?tool=pubmed [nih.gov]
And anyone who had a parody of the item they are allegedly looking into
Putting things in perspective (Score:3)
To put things in perspective, life style choices (poor diet, alcohol, smoking, overweight, lack of exercise, viruses etc.) & occupational exposures (e.g. hexavalent chromium, asbestos) cause 42% of cancers in the UK. However, the Center For Science In The Public Interest (CSPI) publication (that kicked all this off) claims 4-MeI might cause 0.008% of cancers (i.e. 8 times the Californian 1 in 100,000 action level) if everyone drank 12 fl oz of cola a day over 70 years.
If you take this seriously, you really should become an physically fit, teetotal, non-smoking, asexual vegetarian with an ideal BMI. Doing this could be as much as 5250 times more important that giving up cola.
Also, the predictions only work if the handful of very high dose animal experiments (that show carcinogenesis) are naively extrapolated to very low level human exposures... while assuming (without evidence) a strictly linear relationship between dose and cancer risk for 4-MeI i.e. a linear no-threshold response (LNT), ignoring other dose-risk relationships e.g. threshold (harmless) and hormesis (beneficial) responses at very low levels. Indeed, the CSPI admits that researchers are investigating if 4-MeI might reduce certain cancers by modifying hormones. Lastly, judging the toxicity of chemicals in humans from animal experiments is not straightforward, a massive dose of TCDD Dioxin kills lab rats stone dead but gives us humans a nasty case of acne (see Viktor Yushchenko). So all in all, just more evidence that people are rubbish at properly assessing risk when fear gets in the way.
Parkin et al., 2011. 16. The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. Br J Cancer 105(S2), S77–S81.
Kaiser, J. 2003. HORMESIS: Sipping From a Poisoned Chalice. Science 302(5644), 376–379.
Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Becareful coke addicts.. (Score:5, Informative)
stochastic just means random. it doesn't imply any particular type of distribution.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
As I said in the DUI story, quantity does actually have a valid position in all of this - the body can handle X as a safe dose, and that stands for pretty much everything going, its not a case of X is a safe probability...
If if takes 1000 doses to give a small creature such as a mouse cancer, then the only situation where 1/1000th of that dosage is going to give a human cancer
Re: (Score:3)
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
Yes, that's a very good illustration of just how unlike drowning carcinogenesis is. Drowning is deterministic, if you hold someone under water for 5 minutes they will die. If you expose someone to a carcinogenic treatment (say, gamma irradiation or inhalation of formaldehyde fumes) for a certain amount of time all you can predict is the probability that they will get cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
20 minutes.
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/02/16/world-record-127-the-record-for-holding-your-breath-is-shattered-and-now-stands-at-19-minutes/ [howstuffworks.com]
Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
This is irrelevant because carcinogenesis is completely unlike water intoxication. Let me say this again, carcinogenesis is a stochastic process. If that's too hard for you, I'll rephrase it. Carcinogenesis is a random process.
It's like playing the lottery. If you buy 1000 tickets, you have X chance of winning. If 1000 people each buy 1 ticket, that group of 1000 has the same chance of containing a winner.
Does that make sense to you now? I'll go a little further.
In order for a carcinogen to damage DNA, that carcinogen has to come in contact with your DNA. The probability of two molecular species interacting is directly proportional to their concentration. Lowering the concentration of that carcinogen lowers the probability of that interaction, but as long as the concentration is non-zero, the probability of DNA damage is also going to be non-zero.
Now, that doesn't mean that every carcinogen is going to behave this way. Some carcinogens are metabolized by the body, which will lead to non-linear results. But as a first approximation, the low dose linear model is the standard for risk assessment. If you propose that there is a threshold effect, then it's up to you to demonstrate that it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument.
The human body doesn't work like that.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument. The human body doesn't work like that.
Consider a liquid where each milliliter of liquid has a 1% chance of exploding per day. In other words, a 99% chance of not exploding per day. If you have 2 ml of liquid, it's a 99%*99% = 98.01% chance of safety per day, in other words a 2% chance of death. Tada, a doubling of d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I drink alot of soda and smoke I can sue Coke or Pepsi should I get cancer instead of big tobacco. Seeing how this is a recent change, it won't make up for the 30+ years prior to this I've been drinking it.
You can always try, good luck enjoying anything you eventually win.
Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Even if that's true, keep in mind the lifetime risk for a male developing cancer is on the order of 40% [cancer.org] already. 1/1000 is barely background noise.
I was quite the Diet Coke addict for a couple years before cutting way back earlier this year. Still, I wish there were some flavorful beverage that I could enjoy without worrying about whether it'll cause me diabetes or cancer or weight gain, as pretty much all soda/diet soda has been shown to do in high enough doses. I also can't stand coffee (too bitter) or te
Re: (Score:2)
When I visited a laboratory of Dow Chemical, the engineers had a great cartoon on the wall. I really wish I had a chance to get a copy of it. There's a rat with a big pipe going in its mouth and a big pipe coming out it's rear, with one lab technician examing a clipboard and stating to another, "Well, looks like drinking water causes cancer."
Considering how familiar these people were with the concept of ppm or ppb they could laugh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Screw California... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankfully, most states still do....
And they should, it is a perfectly legal activity....
Smoking in California (Score:3)
First off, lots of things that are "perfectly legal activities" when done in private where only consenting adults are exposed to them cease to be perfectly legal activities when they affect people other than adults voluntarily participating in the activity.
Secondly, California allows public smoking, it just prohibits most indoor workplaces (though there are some exceptions) from subjecting workers to tobacco smoke. In doing so, its rules are in line with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Man...I'm so tired of something changing in CA, and the rest of the country gets fscking stuck with it.
Could be a big contributing factor as to why CA was ranked as the most hated state in a recent survey I saw some where. Heck, surveys probably cause cancer too.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Beverage Association also noted that California added the coloring to its list of carcinogens with no studies showing that it causes cancer in humans. It noted that the listing was based on a single study in lab mice and rats.
California, again, is the trend-setter. Next thing you know, all the other states will have followed suit.
Re: (Score:2)
threatened.
Did anyone else ever notice how much Ferengis look, sound and act like members of a certain real country on planet earth that is overflowing with and run by psychopaths?
Oy!
Yes, but stiff upper lip! Mustn't grumble! Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
...it's Crystal Pepsi!!
I think there are people who wash their crystals in Pepsi, because they think it gives the vibrations a new generation.
Re: (Score:2)
no, no...
Clear Tab.
Clear Tab and Peeps.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
California's large Mexican population makes Mexican Coca-Cola [wikipedia.org] readily available. The bottles are Spanish, with English stickers stuck on after import. Read the sticker carefully, they do make some HFCS soda in Mexico too; but most are real sugar. Also, the Mexican Coke comes in green 355 mL bottles. I just wish it came in the little 8 oz. bottles; but you can't have everything.