TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Coke and Pepsi make recipe changes to avoid cancer warning

The companies are changing their recipes in reaction to a new law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens display a cancer warning label.

Image: MARK LENNIHAN/AP/Press Association Images

COCA-COLA AND and Pepsi are changing the way they make the caramel colouring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens come with a cancer warning label.

The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo account for almost 90 per cent of the soda market, according to industry tracker Beverage Digest. A representative for Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. said all its caramel colouring now meet the new California standard.

The American Beverage Association, which represents the broader industry, said its member companies will continue to use caramel colouring in certain products but that adjustments were made to meet California’s new standard.

“Consumers will notice no difference in our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns,” the association said in a statement.

A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza-Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and, as a result, may be found in trace amounts in many foods.

“While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Ciarlante said in an email.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, in February filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration to ban the use of ammonia-sulfite caramel coloring.

A spokesman for the Food and Drug Administration said the petition is being reviewed. But he noted that a consumer would have to drink more than 1,000 cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered that have shown links to cancer in rodents.

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.

‘Poisoned’ Coca-Cola product linked to death of 11-year-old boy in China>

Is this the real original recipe for Coca-Cola?>

Coca-Cola’s Vitamin Water advert banned for ‘misleading’ public>

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (21 Comments)

  • what about TK Red Lemonade? sure it’ll be grand right!?

    Reply
  • God, is there anything that doesn’t “cause cancer” these days?!
    Everyday there seems to be more about the latest “carcinogen”!

    Reply
  • Good news for all Pepsi and Coke drinkers….. They’ll still taste shite

    Reply
  • Siomha. It is very difficult to pin point what causes cancer and what doesn’t. You will see on the IARC monographs that much evidence is inconclusive. My point is that the rising level of pollutants inevitably has a role to play in increasing adverse toxic effects on health and the environment.

    Reply
    • Thanks Paddy,

      I would agree with you that pollutants do probably plan a part but like you said, pinpointing wat causes cancer is a difficult one which is why I think scaring people into believing that anything and everything causes cancer is a bit ridiculous. particularly when I’d imagine that you would need to have had major exposure to some”carcinogens” to be affected.

      Reply
  • Have a healthy diet, and you’ll not have to worry about getting cancer from coke… or many other bad foods.

    Reply
  • Siomha. Almost everything will cause ill effects or Cancer. It depends on the dose. Cancer is rising because the”dose” and mix of carcinogens we are subject to is ever increasing due to increased chemical use, radiation (mobile phones etc) industrialisation etc, all due to a significantly rising world population. Check out the IARC monographs and you will be surprised as to what causes cancer.

    Reply
  • David, check the stats. UK Cancer research is a good resource, they are age and population adjusted (so the, more of us and living longer thing doesnt stand) and they indicate rising levels of most cancer. In relation to mobile phones, this is an example of one of the elements of the cocktail of pollutants we are exposed to (which is a lot of things). Nothing is “off the hook”

    Reply
  • David. Without stooping to a condescending tonforte stats for example indicate testicular cancer in Europe has increased from about 3.5 per 100,000 in 1975 to about 8 per 100,000 in 2008 and these stats are age-standardised and on the cancer research website. I don’t think the increase in population and the increased life expectancy argument are major factors. More major factors are, lifestyle changes, increased diagnosis rates, increased pollutants etc. I never incinuated that cancer reseaech uk blamed mobile phones. If you have proof that the ever increasing cocktail o pollutants have nothing to do with cancer rates feel free to share

    Reply
  • David check the stats, uk cancer research is a good resource. They are age and population adjusted (so the living longer and more of us argument doesn’t stand). Mobile phone radiation is just one of the cocktail of pollutants we are exposed to. Nothing is “off the hook”

    Reply
  • Siomha. True what your saying, that scare mongering is a bad thing. Generally cancers are known to be caused by ongoing or prolonged exposure to something and it is often the case that people fear the large single one off exposures (which can’t be forgotten about either)

    Reply
  • It might be that but I also believe in karma can a person really be totally bad and not suffer for it down the line?? I was protesting outside the Allstop auction with ordinary decent people who had been dragged out of their homes can the buyer really have good luck with that it’s hard to believe.

    Reply

Add New Comment