The principal of Venice High School in California said that "the economy should never take precedence over the health of students" (Soda Ban). The same goes for the health of the country. Soft drinks are a common household product normally considered safe, but lately there has been a lot of discussion about how safe they really are and how common they are. On September 16, 2003, the California State Assembly voted to ban the sale of soft drinks in all elementary schools and to restrict it in middle and high schools (Molony, 19). In 2005, an organization called the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the government agency responsible for ensuring that products marketed in the United States are safe for human consumption , to place a warning. labels on soft and carbonated beverages to raise awareness of dangerous FDA-approved ingredients in commonly consumed products. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Sodas are filled with sweeteners that are dangerous when consumed in moderation, and the companies that produce them are taking advantage of them. report, but still try to lobby for their products to buy and use all the time. Since they are able to generate billions in taxable income, they are able to influence the government and make money off each other, all while harming the health of the impressionable consumer. It is clear that warning consumers of potentially dangerous products with labels is warranted and that ingredient approval processes would benefit from longer-term research and endorsement from independent studies and sources. The problem with soft drinks is that they contain high amounts of refined sugars like high fructose corn syrup and some drinks contain high amounts of caffeine, which is a widely accepted stimulant medication. Some drinks might even contain benzene, a known carcinogen. Soft drinks, when first introduced, were meant to be an occasional treat, similar to candy or ice cream. The danger of soft drinks is insignificant when consumed this way. However, soft drinks are now consumed at a frequency comparable to water consumption, accounting for about a quarter of all beverages in America (Jacobson). The average American consumed 37 gallons of soda in 2004 (warning labels). Their prevalence makes it difficult for consumers to resist or exercise moderation. Some people may think that it is easier to open a can of Coke than to pour a glass of water or orange juice into it. Many are constantly reminded of their favorite soft drink through advertisements, whether on television or radio, in stores or restaurants. The soft drink industry is a lucrative market that takes advantage of the impulsive lifestyle of today's average American. However, this persuades people to consume more unhealthy products. On average, a can of soda contains 40 grams of refined sugars, and many contain more. 40 g of sugar (10 teaspoons) is also the daily maximum recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture (Jacobson). Sugar is high in calories (16 per teaspoon) and contributes to tooth decay (Salter). The director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Michael Jacobson, warned of the formidable threat thatrepresents the high sugar content of soft drinks by stating: “Studies have been done in recent years showing that soft drinks contribute to obesity, not obesity. the only cause, but important” (Warning labels). The most common and threatening of these refined sugars is high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a highly problematic and unhealthy sweetener used in soda and an alarming number of other food products, including but not limited to soft drinks, candy, juice not 100%, flavored yogurts, popsicles, ketchup, cereal, pasta sauce and canned soup. HFCS is made up of cornstarch and unhealthy amounts of fructose, found naturally as a component of sugar and in fruits in modest amounts. Carbohydrate intake releases insulin, which manages energy use and storage, produces leptin, and suppresses appetite. Fructose does not stimulate insulin production and therefore does not reduce appetite. The function of high calorie intake without appetite suppression and the consumption of other foods and sugars to suppress appetite results in the storage of excess energy as fat, hence the consumption of empty calories. To underscore the severity of this tiny fact, nine percent of all American calories come from soda, fruit drinks, and sports drinks, all empty calories, not counting other products loaded with HFCS. In 1970, this value was only about 3% (Jacobson). In the same year, the average consumption of HFCS per person was half a pound. In 1997, each American consumed an average of 62 and a half pounds (Kleiner). Since most of the HFCS consumed is contained in soft drinks, this statistic also reflects a significant increase in the consumption, addiction, and widespread popularity of high fructose corn syrup. At the same time, it has been proven that such immoderate consumption is harmful to health. However, high fructose corn syrup is not the only chemical used in soda that could be dangerous to consumers' health. Caffeine is a stimulant drug added to many regular and diet sodas. Six of the seven most popular sodas contain caffeine (Jacobson). Caffeine works by stimulating the central nervous system, respiratory and skeletal muscles, cardiac and smooth muscles, and dilating the coronary vessels. People generally enjoy caffeine for a quick energy boost in the morning. Interestingly, caffeine improves cognitive effects when used at breakfast time or close to waking up, but has been shown to have less effect or impede performance later in the day. The positive effects of caffeine include increased energy, imagination, efficiency, self-confidence, alertness, motivation, concentration and diuresis (Kennedy, 320) . However, caffeine has many harmful effects. These effects are active at very small and common doses, such as those contained in a single can of caffeinated soda. Caffeine causes or promotes insomnia, anxiety, osteoporosis, mental illness, depression, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and anemia (Finnegan). Caffeine is a mildly addictive drug. It is possible that the soft drink industry adds caffeine to make their drinks mildly addictive. They have always denied these suspicions, claiming that the caffeine is added for flavoring. Caffeine actually causes withdrawal symptoms when consumed regularly,even at low doses. Withdrawal symptoms include headache, irritability, drowsiness, mental confusion, insomnia, tremors in the hands or limbs, nausea, anxiety, restlessness, gastrointestinal upset, heart palpitations and increased blood pressure. Although it is not widely known information, caffeine can have extremely adverse reproductive effects. In 1981, the FDA stated, “Pregnant women should avoid foods and medications containing caffeine, if possible, or consume them sparingly” (Caffeine Label). Studies have shown that high caffeine consumption by pregnant women increases the risks of low birth weight or spontaneous abortion of their children (Finnegan). This information is little known because the FDA does not require a manufacturer to warn consumers of the dangers of caffeine and consumers in turn must do their own research to learn about statements such as its own 1981 warning. Although the FDA and the federal government are required to release important information like this, its proliferation for public access is no one's responsibility. This is not the first time the FDA has withheld or made it difficult to obtain important information from the public. In 1990, the FDA first discovered benzene, a dangerous carcinogen, in certain beverages. They tested more than sixty sodas, sports drinks, fruit juices and even bottled waters. Benzene has been found in quantities ranging from three to twenty parts per billion. The legal limit of benzene for drinking water or other consumption is five parts per billion, so FDA testing has shown some drinks to contain up to four times the legal limit, and clear violations of the law and of safety (FDA Finds). The FDA has not informed the public. They discreetly informed the manufacturers of their discovery, advising them to modify their formulas. The benzene found in soda can be formed by the combination of ascorbic acid, which is just vitamin C, and sodium or potassium benzoates, which are simply preservatives added to keep the drink fresh (Children ). FDA and beverage industry advocates say benzene formation is possible, but extremely unlikely. Advocates argue that a catalyst such as light or heat is needed to start the combination reaction, but if the drink is stored in warm conditions, probably in a garage or left in a car on a hot summer day , there may have been enough heat. for the reaction to occur. How rare these exact conditions are is unknown, as no testing of specific reactions in soft drink containers has been performed, although chemical properties show the possibility of this reaction. On February 24, 2006, an organization called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered a list of soft drinks and fruit juices that still contained the potentially dangerous combination of benzene-forming ingredients. Kevin Keane, a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association (ABA), tried to defend the FDA, saying, “People shouldn't overreact. These are a very small number of products and not major brands” (FDA Finds). However, the EWG investigation debunked this lie with its list of products containing the magic ingredients for the formation of benzene. The most notable big brand products on the list were: Fanta Orange and Pineapple, produced by the Coca Cola company worldwide, Hawaiian Punch and all its othersflavors and products, Hi-C Blast Orange Supernova, which appears on the menu of certain chains. fast food giants such as McDonalds and Subway, Monster Energy, including Lo-Carb products and other flavors, Rockstar Energy, including Diet products, also produced by Coca Cola Company, Sierra Mist produced by Pepsi Co ., Sunkist and Sunny Delight, including all of its other flavors and products (Kids). For 16 years, the FDA has failed to enforce a health risk it itself declared dangerous, and currently has no plans to create regulations. Some are aware of these risks and consume diet sodas as an alternative. Adult consumption of diet soda is increasing as they realize how unhealthy regular soda can be. Reports criticizing the unhealthy nature of regular soda often advocate diet soda as an alternative. However, diet soda has its own drawbacks and questionable ingredients to consider. The difference between diet soda and regular soda is that diet soda replaces refined sugars with artificial sweeteners that contain no calories or real sugar, yet are several times sweeter than real sugars. Artificial sweeteners come at a cost and have had a difficult past and present. More than 69 million Americans ages 18 and older consume beverages or other products containing the artificial sweeteners aspartame or saccharin (Sweetness). Because of the sweetening power of artificial sweeteners, they are also needed in lower quantities, which reduces costs for soda manufacturers. However, most of them turned out to be dangerous. Scientific studies revealing the presence of dangerous substances have been approved by the FDA in exchange for political lobbying, such as the artificial sweetener aspartame. Some sweeteners have even been banned after being found to be unsafe, and then later banned again. An example of an artificial sweetener that has taken a questionable path is saccharin. Saccharin is an artificial sweetener discovered in 1879, but did not come into widespread use until after World Wars I and II, when sugar was rationed. Subsequently, the use of saccharin exploded due to its 300 times higher concentration than sugar and its lack of calorie content (sweetness). As a result, production and sales of diet soda have also exploded. In 1958, the Delaney Clause was added to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The clause stated: “No new food additive may be used if animal feeding studies or other appropriate tests show that it causes cancer” (Sweetness). Eligible additives have been added to the GRAS, or List of Food Additives Generally Recognized as Safe. After adverse effects such as mild digestive upset and allergic-type reactions such as skin reactions were associated with saccharin, additional research was conducted on suspicion that saccharin may be carcinogenic. In 1977, after the conclusion of several studies involving laboratory rats, the chances of saccharin being carcinogenic were greater, but still uncertain (NRCNS). own, which also flagged saccharin as potentially dangerous, but was also considered inconclusive. As a result, saccharin was banned on April 15, 1977. Although the chemical was found to be inherently dangerous, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act was passed in November 1977. This law imposed a moratorium on the ban on saccharin untilfurther studies can conclude. the safety of the sweetener. The moratorium is still in effect today, despite evidence that saccharin is carcinogenic (Sweetness). The FDA has done nothing in the last 29 years other than stating that it does not recommend saccharin for regular use, while allowing its commercial sale. Fortunately, saccharin is now only used in a small variety of products. Since saccharin and cyclamate, a high-potency, no-calorie sweetener used since the early 1950s, were both banned, another artificial sweetener has been called for to replace them, due to the booming diet soda market and other sugar-free or low-calorie products. (Salter). However, history was doomed to repeat itself and more questionable products are used today. The modern example of this type of questionable product is aspartame. Aspartame was discovered by accident and patented by GD Searle and Co in 1965 (History). It is a low-calorie sweetener, 200 times more powerful than sugar (Salter). Aspartame was not approved for use in beverages until 1983 due to extremely questionable research by Searle, and was only approved thanks to bribes paid to the FDA and ties with the government. In 1976, Searle paid the FDA $500,000 to have his studies validated by a private organization called University Associated for Education in Pathology (UAREP), although the studies showed shortened lifespan and other serious effects. such as seizures in various laboratory animals. This paid validation would increase the chances of approval of the sweetener. At the time, Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense and known Republican Party supporter, was president of GD Searle. The day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, January 21, 1981, Rumsfeld promised that aspartame would be approved by the end of the year. In April, Reagan appointed a new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes, who was more easily influenced to approve aspartame for commercial use than the previous FDA commissioner. The same month Hayes was appointed commissioner, aspartame was approved for commercial use. At the time of approval, there were no independent, controlled studies in humans, nor long-term studies in humans, but between 1973 and 1986, GD Searle and Co. had paid nearly of $200,000 in Republican Party campaign contributions (History). Aspartame is composed of 40% aspartic acid, 50% phenylalanine and 10% methanol (Roberts). Phenylalanine, which is labeled on cans of diet soda with warnings, is not dangerous, rather it is an important amino acid found in protein. It is labeled on the box to warn people with phenylketonuric acid, that is, people with a disorder in which they cannot metabolize phenylalanine. The law requires that phenylketonuria be tested for at birth and cannot develop with age (Beck). The controversy surrounding aspartame most likely stems from its methanol content, also known as methyl alcohol or wood alcohol. Methanol is a known poison, incapable of being detoxified by the body. This can have harmful effects on the brain, optic nerves or retina. In large quantities it can cause blindness, but this drastic effect cannot occur with the amount used in soda (Roberts). Methanol metabolizes to formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. It can build up in the brain and cause other problems there (softness). In 1985, aspartame was the subject of 80% of FDA complaints, or 4,800 out of 6,000 (Roberts). Symptoms reported directly after consumption ofAspartame products or after long-term consumption included headaches, some severe, seizures or seizures, visual impairment, dizziness, rash, fatigue, depression or personality change, and memory loss. The FDA sent the first 592 complaints, which had already accumulated between mid-1983 and late 1984, to the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC (Sweetness). They were considered rare sensitivities and the CDC recommended to the FDA that this did not merit widespread risk. A concerned doctor, Dr. HJ Roberts, noticed that he was able to help some of his patients by advising them to stop taking aspartame. Many patients have reported complete resolution of symptoms commonly associated with aspartame, including seizures after stopping use. He then surveyed 397 self-proclaimed heavy aspartame users to determine how detrimental aspartame was to overall quality of life. 47 percent of patients surveyed said the impact was slightly detrimental, related to minor inconveniences normally associated with aspartame symptoms. Seventeen percent said the impact was severe, to the point that symptoms became severe enough for consumers to lose their jobs or decrease their overall well-being. Ten percent said they were “incapacitated” by aspartame, suffered serious health problems, and found it to have an extremely negative effect on life in general. Only twenty-six percent said their lives were not affected by aspartame (Roberts). The FDA has made the same mistake repeatedly in approving unsafe sweeteners. First aspartame, and now an upcoming sweetener sucralose (patented under the name Splenda), the successor to the burgeoning aspartame, have both been approved despite questionable results in pre-release research. 'approval. The FDA is negligent in post-approval due to their lack of independent controlled human studies (instead, they simply studied lab rats under the jurisdiction of the FDA and the manufacturer, rather than to use a variety of credited associations with controlled human tests), of the lack of long-term results. studies (even for periods of 1-2 years) and lack of follow-up after approval, until complaints were received, and even then, lackluster and non-independent follow-up was administered. Effective monitoring could have included additional testing and independent studies of complaints rather than simply evaluating statistics. Sucralose was found to cause severe shrinkage of the thymus glands and partial swelling of the kidneys and liver in laboratory rats. It contains chlorine in pure form, which is dangerous, unlike the chlorine in table salt, which has the chemical formula “NaCl” (Sucralose Toxicity). This means the need for very long-term research by multiple parties and long-term human use. The long-term effects won't be known until people start feeling them. Although aspartame appears to be somewhat random in the intensity with which it affects people, it is obviously dangerous for some users, and it is so widely used that people experiencing these symptoms may not even suspect that the Aspartame is the cause. Once again, the FDA allowed approval of a potentially dangerous substance, after proving that the government was working with corporations in exchange for campaign support. Since these artificial sweeteners are dangerous, it does not mean that itthere are no safe alternatives. However, the FDA also excludes safe alternatives, perhaps to retain the support of its corporate sponsors. Fed up with questionable artificial sweeteners, some health advocates discovered Stevia. Stevia is a plant native to Brazil and Paraguay that can be made into an all-natural, zero-calorie sweetener up to 400 times more potent than sugar called steviocide. The natives of these countries have used it for over 400 years. Stevia has enjoyed more than 20 years of commercial use without complaints in Japan (stevia is even used in Diet Coke in place of aspartame), China, North and South Korea, Brazil and the Paraguay (stevia leaf). Currently, stevia is only approved for sale as a "dietary supplement" in the United States or for personal use. The FDA refuses to approve the commercial use of steviocide in the United States, contrary to its own laws. Stevia advocate Rob McCaleb of the Herb Research Foundation blasts the FDA for its illegal refusal to approve Stevia despite its hundreds of years of demonstrated safe use before 1958 as a natural herb, saying, "Stevia is a food that is already recognized as safe due to its long history of food use. Foods that have been used for a long time are exempt by law from the extensive laboratory testing required for new food chemicals” (Stevia Leaf). This is where economics comes in. Stevia is a plant, so it cannot be patented. Most artificial sweeteners are patented, such as aspartame (patented as Nutrasweet) and sucralose (patented as Splenda). By the way, since steviocide can be grown and has the potency of an artificial sweetener, it is actually cheaper than any artificial sweetener. The FDA required and received more evidence for approval of Stevia than for any other sweetener it has approved. Once Stevia is phased out, patent holders of other sweeteners like Splenda and Nutrasweet, endorsed by big companies, can continue to make a profit. Either way, soda companies can't complain about their success. In 2004, the Coca Cola company alone had a turnover of 22 billion dollars (Jacobson). Soda companies like Coca Cola Company advocate the use of the controversial ingredients discussed above in order to minimize costs and maximize profits, and to maintain their operations for the benefit of all their supporters. The soft drink industry's profits, like all others, are taxed, so the government can expect to receive a lot of money from these companies, encouraging them to side with the corporations when they do. can. It's obvious that soft drink companies don't care about the health of the consumer when they advocate drinking soda instead of water, as when a Coca Cola marketing spokesperson said, "You're killing your beverage sales opportunity when you quench your customer's thirst with free water. Providing water on demand only increases revenue-generating beverage sales” (Jacobson). As previously stated, soft drinks were originally intended to be an occasional treat when they were designed, but have been adapted to our society as if they were water. Using inexpensive, FDA-approved sweeteners reduces the cost to lower prices than healthier drinks. Coke from a 2 liter bottle costs about 28 cents per liter. Pepsi from a 2 liter bottle costs about 37 cents per liter. Milk from a gallon bottle costs about 75 cents..