[HN Gopher] Study finds elevated levels of toxic metals in some ...
___________________________________________________________________
Study finds elevated levels of toxic metals in some juices and soft
drinks
Author : elorant
Score : 170 points
Date : 2023-05-09 16:10 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (news.tulane.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.tulane.edu)
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Kind of annoying that the study doesn't name the actual drinks,
| it just breaks them down by categories and lists results for the
| worst soft drink/sports drink/juice
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| I don't know the chemistry but it would be great to have cheap
| home tests for this stuff. The only available accurate cheap
| tests are for lead, for more comprehensive heavy metal tests
| you're looking at $200-400 and weeks of waiting.
| zo1 wrote:
| Sure, but isn't this the kind of thing we expect the government
| or "FDA" to monitor regularly? It's peanuts for them to
| regularly have each company that sells more than X million
| dollars per year to send them a representative sample of their
| products for testing.
| 83 wrote:
| Minor nit, but you really don't want to trust companies to
| send a sample. You would need to ensure samples are acquired
| through the consumer supply chain by the FDA.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| I agree, for food, though it would still be nice to be able
| to "trust but verify". But the more common use case is
| testing water from old sketchy pipes.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Not really possible. The simplest setup for analyzing metals in
| foods and juices (and supplements) is atomic absorption
| spectroscopy, which involves digesting the sample in strong
| nitric acid IIRC.
|
| AAC setups appear to range from $5,000 to $25,000 (depending on
| features like multi-sample processing automation etc.) at
| present. A lab capable of safely handling nitric acid digestion
| (fumes a bit) needs an effective chemical fume hood, which are
| at least $20,000 for a fairly basic small hood, and each metal
| you want to test for requires a separete protocol. See for
| example:
|
| https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/70...
|
| You can do a bunch of different metals at once with ICP-MS but
| those systems cost around 10X as much as AAC.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Fruit juices and soft drinks are acidic, and will tend to corrode
| and dissolve whatever metals they come in contact with - e.g. the
| pipes and valves and containers. This produces a bunch of metal
| ions, will end up dissolved in the liquid.
|
| Along similar lines, acidity (well, really not enough alkalinity)
| was a big factor in the municipal water problems at Flint,
| Michigan: the water in the pipes was allowed to become too
| acidic, causing it to react with the lead pipes - significantly
| increasing the amount of lead dissolved in the water. Whereas if
| the water had been more alkaline (higher pH), the lead in the
| pipes would not have ended up in the water to nearly the same
| extent.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| pH control is one method of stabilizing lead, orthophosphate is
| another (which Flint didn't bother with).
|
| > Most important, the treated Flint River water lacked one
| chemical that the treated Detroit water had: phosphate. "They
| essentially lost something that was protecting them against
| high lead concentrations," Giammar says. Cities such as Detroit
| add orthophosphate to their water as part of their corrosion
| control plans because the compound encourages the formation of
| lead phosphates, which are largely insoluble and can add to the
| pipes' passivation layer.
|
| ...
|
| > The treated Flint River water had a relatively low pH that
| decreased over time. According to monthly operating reports
| from the Flint treatment plant, the city's water had a pH of
| about 8 in December 2014, but then it slowly dropped to 7.3 by
| August 2015. Environmental engineers say that if water pH
| drifts too low in the absence of orthophosphate, the water can
| start to leach high levels of lead from pipes.
|
| > The pH drop over time seems to indicate that plant operators
| in Flint didn't even have a target pH as part of a corrosion
| plan, Edwards says. Water utilities usually find a pH that's
| optimal for preventing corrosion in their system. For example,
| in Boston, another city with old lead pipes, average water pH
| held steady around 9.6
|
| https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Wat...
| HPsquared wrote:
| pH is the fundamental thing, phosphate is the chemical patch
| that allows low pH water to be used. Basically they switched
| water source to something less alkaline than what they'd used
| previously - and didn't do anything to mitigate this. The
| phosphate is kind of a "patch" to the problem of low pH.
|
| Fruit juice and cola is of course much, much more acidic than
| the Flint water - orange juice for example is about pH 4
| (that is, 1000 times more H+ ions than pH 7)
| koalacola wrote:
| Well that's horrifying
| okamiueru wrote:
| This is beverage sold in the US. It might sound a bit arrogant,
| but food safety and standards in the US are much lower than
| certain places. I hope research like this helps improve the
| situation.
| vuln wrote:
| > but food safety and standards in the US are much lower than
| certain places.
|
| It is arrogant. You make a claim then do not show any
| evidence or data. You do not name those _certain places_.
|
| Which places and what data do you have to back up the claim?
| lioeters wrote:
| I neither support nor refute the claim, but one data point
| is the Global Food Security Index. In their 2022 report,
| the rating/ranking was: Finland
| Ireland Norway France Netherlands
| Japan Sweden Canada United Kingdom
| Portugal Switzerland Austria United
| States ...
|
| https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-
| sec...
|
| ---
|
| On the other hand:
|
| Why There is Nothing Wrong With American Food Standards -
| https://techround.co.uk/business/american-food-standards/
| guhcampos wrote:
| If you sort the index by "Quality and Safety", which
| sounds like the most appropriate for this context, the US
| comes in 3rd place, behind only Canada and Denmark, which
| I actually found to be quite surprising.
|
| On the other hand, what we perceive as the low quality of
| food in the US might be more geared towards the
| "healthiness" of that food and not its safety. For
| instance, I will often eat fast food for a couple days
| while recovering from food poisoning because I feel it's
| generally safer than fresh food. That thing is absent of
| any nutrition, but it's also almost sterile.
| morsch wrote:
| Interesting link! That seems to be the overall ranking,
| though, not the one for the category "Quality and
| Safety". Food safety is a subcategory of that, and
| "relevant food safety legislation" a sub-sub-category.
|
| The US scores a (perfect?) 100 in that sub-sub-category.
| It also scores 100 in nutrition labeling, which I found
| suprising, because my impression was that the nutrition
| and ingredient labels in the US are pretty subpar
| compared to the EU. But what do I know.
|
| https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-
| sec...
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| The headline or the data?
| koalacola wrote:
| Why not both?
| mrwnmonm wrote:
| Or your question?
| ipython wrote:
| Does anyone have access to the actual research to share the
| brands and other information? I tried searching sci-hub but came
| up empty. The paywalled link is
| https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105230
| Unbeliever69 wrote:
| The study included no mention of specific brands.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Maybe putting "some", as in the original headline, would have
| made it too long for HN? Certainly changes the meaning a bit.
|
| It was less than 10% of samples tested. Not great, most beverages
| did not pose a problem. I'd like to see a list of the ones that
| tested postitive.
| dang wrote:
| OK, we've squeezed out the mixed fruits and put 'some' juices
| in instead. Thanks!
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm curious -- are these just the levels of metals that are
| generally present in any natural soil? That has been in all of
| food through all of mankind, but are elevated in juices because
| plants concentrate it?
|
| Or is this all a relatively new problem, whether from industrial
| pollution or fertilizer contamination or farm equipment or
| whatnot?
| [deleted]
| simonsarris wrote:
| Many soils have contamination for various historical reasons.
| For example some cotton (and some tobacco?) fields in southern
| states formerly used arsenic as a pesticide, then later
| switched to rice production, and this rice has significantly
| more arsenic in it than rice grown in California, which had no
| such history.
|
| I assume some of the arsenic in these juice samples is from a
| similar pattern of usage.
| outworlder wrote:
| One more reason to stop consuming those. Freshly squeezed fruit
| juice is already not amazing, but ok in small amounts. It's
| better to just consume the fruits.
|
| What they are selling in the supermarket can hardly be qualified
| as fruit juice, and are basically differently flavored soda. Some
| of them even manage to have more sugar than a Coke.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| The weirdest part to me is that the _flavor_ in many fruit
| juices is artificial (or "natural", but that can also mean
| what most people would call "artificial", because our labeling
| laws are designed to enable fraud). Pasteurization and such
| take so much of the flavor out, that they have to add it back
| in.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_juice#Not_from_concentr...
| MBCook wrote:
| They're also mostly apple and possibly pear juice because
| those are so cheap, with other flavors/colors added.
|
| Grape juice is absolutely not normally grape juice plus
| possibly sugar. That would be too expensive.
| floxy wrote:
| >Grape juice is absolutely not normally grape juice plus
| possibly sugar.
|
| How sure are we on that? It has been a while, but I recall
| something like Welch's tasting like grape juice.
|
| https://www.welchs.com/juices/100-percent/concord-grape
| MBCook wrote:
| Seems like theirs actually is. But that's also likely why
| it costs more.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| It depends where. In France a juice that is "100% juice" must
| be made from squeezed fruits (any concentrate is forbidden).
|
| It is till a lot of sugar and eating the fruit is way, way
| better but at least there are no artificial whatever or added
| sugar.
| gumby wrote:
| > It's better to just consume the fruits.
|
| Allegedly orange juice in the grocery store was invented in the
| mid 20th century as a way to sell more oranges.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| And sold by that homophobic lady
| wusher wrote:
| Also a side effect of creating industrial orange juice is the
| actual flavor is removed and has to be added back.
|
| https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-is-
| arti...
| snarf21 wrote:
| Sure but it is also about storage and density. Oranges have
| peels and don't stack that well and can be damaged.
| Extracting the value into a mostly rectangular container
| allows for the same product in an easier to distribute form
| factor. The old tubes of concentrated orange juice took that
| to an extreme by also removing most of the water and freezing
| them.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Also most OJ is concentrated during shipping and then
| diluted with water during bottling, allowing for low
| transportation costs.
| gnicholas wrote:
| They also homogenize the flavor of juice and concentrate
| by stripping the oxygen and then adding in brand-specific
| flavor packs at the end. This doesn't have to be reported
| as a separate ingredient because it all comes from
| oranges. [1]
|
| 1: https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-
| is-arti...
| [deleted]
| gniv wrote:
| > Freshly squeezed fruit juice is already not amazing,
|
| Which fruit juice are you finding not amazing? To me orange,
| grapefruit juices are pretty amazing and quite a different
| experience from eating the raw fruit (which I like too).
| xenospn wrote:
| I'm guessing they mean not amazing as in "not very healthy".
| gnicholas wrote:
| Just to clarify, they were measuring the juices and sodas against
| the standards for water, not food in general. It's still not
| great, but I believe the standards for water are much stricter
| than for food because it is consumed in such great quantities. So
| this isn't as big a deal as when rice is found to have too much
| arsenic, or chocolate has high levels of heavy metals -- measured
| against food standards.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Still not good for the people who chug several 64oz bottles of
| Diet Coke a day
| msluyter wrote:
| I feel seen. Diet Coke is my albatross, and it has all the
| hallmarks of a serious addiction. I'm currently going through
| another round to trying to stop, and I'm seriously always
| thirsty and craving it.
| kelipso wrote:
| Green tea, lemon juice, bit of salt, chilled gets me that
| hit. Not diet coke, specifically just sodas in general.
| loopdoend wrote:
| Bill Gates drinks it every day it can't possibly be bad for
| you. At least that's what I tell myself.
| nix0n wrote:
| In my experience, caffeine addiction and "other stuff in
| diet cola" addiction are two separate things.
|
| It might not be possible to kick both at once, but I feel
| like my life is better since switching mostly to coffee.
|
| Good luck!
| doubled112 wrote:
| I think black coffee gives me the caffeine I need to get
| through the day without most of the harmful effects of
| Coke, diet or otherwise.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| Just drink plain water, we've been doing that for millions
| of years.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I suppose those people might have bigger problems.
| olliej wrote:
| That's why I stick to cans of non-diet soda :D :D
| DANmode wrote:
| Are cans still coated?
| olliej wrote:
| I was making a joke :D
|
| But to answer the question I believe that they are -- I
| still see periodic demonstrations of dissolving a full
| can of soda with acid leaving the soda contained (first
| yt hit: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xIVONw9Pr4w)
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| I think they were making a joke which presumes that they
| are. (I also wish I could answer your question but I do
| not know.)
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Yeah, and so are e.g. canned veggies or beans or fruit.
| More food touching plastic, but somewhat less botulism
| and spoilage than before we did that.
| philshem wrote:
| > Man Who Drinks 5 Diet Cokes Per Day Hoping Doctors Working
| On Cure For Whatever He's Getting
|
| https://www.theonion.com/man-who-drinks-5-diet-cokes-per-
| day...
| pfdietz wrote:
| > rice is found to have too much arsenic
|
| BTW, I read of a better way to cook brown rice that reduces
| arsenic. Instead of 1 part rice, 2 parts water, simmer for 45
| minutes, one does this:
|
| 1. Cook brown 1 part brown rice in 6 parts water for 30
| minutes. 2. Strain to remove the water. Put rice in a steamer
| basket. 3. Steam for 10 minutes.
|
| Much of the arsenic is carried away in the water in step 2. The
| rice also comes out much fluffier.
| nicholasjarnold wrote:
| I read something along these lines in the past couple of
| years too. Seeing this comment here I've taken the liberty of
| finding something 'official' in this regard.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16876928/
|
| tl;dr - rinse your rice with clean water and then cook it at
| a ratio of 1:6 rice:water followed by draining the excess
| water will more than halve the amount of arsenic in the
| finished product
|
| edit - tl;dr updated for accuracy
| gnicholas wrote:
| Sounds interesting, and plausible. It's unfortunate that
| brown rice has more arsenic than white, since much of it is
| in the husk (brown part). I wonder how much this cooking
| method equalizes things (and if it would also be helpful for
| white rice).
| justin66 wrote:
| > I believe the standards for water are much stricter than for
| food because it is consumed in such great quantities.
|
| No, that's not why you so often see reference to the defined
| safe level of toxins in water when talking about foods. FDA
| does not always have standards defined for levels of those
| toxins in food, but there might be a level defined by EPA for
| water. If you want an official, scientifically plausible number
| to fall back on, the level defined for water is at least
| something.
|
| For example, FDA didn't have a defined safe level of arsenic in
| rice-based foods for infants until 2020, and there's still no
| defined safe level of for adults AFAIK. There's nothing
| mysterious about this: the ag industry lobbies against these
| standards, and lobbies to weaken them as much as possible when
| they exist. But babies are cute, so eventually FDA made a
| standard, at least for infants - after years of pressure from
| groups like Consumer Reports.
|
| The paper referenced in the article says:
|
| _The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed an
| action level of 10 mg /L of inorganic arsenic in apple juice
| (USFDA, 2013)._
|
| which suggests that at the time of writing, there's isn't an
| official number defined by the FDA. Based on the language on
| the FDA's website [0] I assume "draft guidance" (which has been
| in existence as a "draft" for a decade) means producers won't
| be held accountable for exceeding the numbers there.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/ars...
| ajd1988 wrote:
| Ah, the classic dance between regulatory agencies, lobbyists,
| and the cuteness of babies. It's fascinating how the lack of
| standards for certain toxins in food can lead us to lean on
| the water-based standards, even though it might not be the
| most accurate comparison.
|
| I suppose it is a decent fallback -but it's a reminder that
| regulatory frameworks could use some refinement!
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Cute that your response to endless collusion is that it's
| "decent" but "needs some refinement". Have fun advocating
| for that with your vote at the polling station.
| weberer wrote:
| >Have fun advocating for that with your vote at the
| polling station
|
| Well first show me a politician that wants to get rid of
| the lobbyist system. The last one I heard of was Ron Paul
| over a decade ago.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| No politician. That's the point.
| pedantismo wrote:
| Technically it's illegal in most jurisdictions to
| advocate for things while actually present at the polling
| station ;D
| blueyes wrote:
| Which are almost as harmful as the sugar that most of those
| drinks use to addict their consumers.
| gottebp wrote:
| Does the FDA not randomly sample and test for this sort of thing?
| Why does it take a university study to discover it?
| dylan604 wrote:
| $$$$$ whether the amount they don't have in a budget or the
| amount they receive from lobbyists to prevent it from happening
| justin66 wrote:
| FDA doesn't have defined safe levels for some of these toxins
| in food, hence the reliance by the paper's authors on EPA's
| defined safe levels in water.
|
| It's not an accident, and it's not like it never occurred to
| anyone that we might want to pay attention to heavy metal
| levels in food. Who do you think has more money to spend on
| lobbyists and campaign contributions, the people who want FDA
| to pay attention to this or the people who don't?
|
| https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-l...
| judge2020 wrote:
| The FDA likes to rely on well-supported, highly controlled
| studies before they put tons of resources into performing long
| term testing of products. Remember that the FDA not only does
| consumer food but also pharmaceutical drugs, medical implants,
| vaccines, etc. with only a $3.4 Billion yearly budget.
| aresant wrote:
| Same issues endemic in bottled water ->
|
| https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/whats-really-i...
|
| Anybody know of a beverages brand that prioritizes filtration /
| actual health of their consumers?
|
| I would LOVE to fund a startup that focused on that from a CPG
| perspective or alternatively some actual scientifically relevant
| and ongoing standards labeling for food, beverages, etc
| ben7799 wrote:
| Better to just drink tap water that's filtered. Even if you
| don't filter the water tap water is already held to a higher
| standard and it's easier to get your local test data.
|
| I get test data mailed to me quarterly about my tap water
| without having to ask for it or sign up. I've never seen any
| test data to speak of for any bottled water.
|
| And the tap water is not stored in plastic bottles.
| Unbeliever69 wrote:
| Purchased a Pristine Hydro https://pristinehydro.com/ system
| a few years back and absolutely love it. Pays for itself in
| convenience alone as we were accustomed to filling up
| containers at a local aquifer or grocery store (RO filtered).
| andrewl wrote:
| I've never heard of such a service, but I'd love to get data
| like that. Where do you live?
| gnicholas wrote:
| We get annual reports in the Bay Area (Bear Gulch
| reservoir). One time we had an issue and they came out and
| did testing on our specific taps. We tried again more
| recently and they seem to have retired the service.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| semiquaver wrote:
| Topo Chico? Say it ain't so!
| zackangelo wrote:
| They've since reduced PFAS levels by half but still not
| great: https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/topo-
| chico-cut...
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| There's this video on Zephyr Water but it's now owned by
| Nestle.
|
| https://youtu.be/3XA9hElPJNs
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| The study's infographic is here:
|
| https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S08891575230010...
| dataangel wrote:
| > These soft drinks are often consumed in smaller quantities than
| water
|
| Incorrect for lots of people.
| [deleted]
| 226_ebro_treaty wrote:
| Yikes, considering I consume 2 L of Coke Zero every day
| almost...
| jnwatson wrote:
| It took me some effort to limit to 2L a day.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Excuse me but what the fuck?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Coke Zero is literally 99+% water.
|
| Some people like flavored/bubbly water over plain flat
| water. Some people do Perrier, some do LaCroix, some do
| Coke Zero. All of these are essentially nutritionally
| identical.
|
| Really just a question of whether you think the artificial
| sweetener has an adverse effect on your health, which in
| these quantities it doesn't seem to. And if you want
| caffeine -- the caffeine in a liter of Coke Zero is the
| same as a single cup of coffee, so this is the same as a
| fairly normal 2 cups of coffee per day.
| lagniappe wrote:
| that much dark stuff going through your kidneys to become
| clear can't be good.
| crazygringo wrote:
| That's not how the body works. And it's just caramel
| color.
| copperx wrote:
| Not just caramel color. Phosporic acid, which is found in
| cola drinks and not sparkling water, creates kidney
| stones.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But the effect is mainly in sugary drinks, not diet. In
| fact, a study found that diet cola _decreased_ kidney
| stones, although not meaningfully, so it 's probably zero
| effect at all [1]:
|
| > "There was a 23% higher risk of developing kidney
| stones in the highest category of consumption of _sugar-
| sweetened cola_ compared with the lowest category "
|
| > " _Artificially sweetened_ sodas were marginally
| associated with kidney stones, with an _inverse relation
| for colas_ and a direct relation for noncolas. "
|
| So no worries about your Coke Zero giving you kidney
| stones. The culprit seems to be the fructose, rather,
| which Coke Zero doesn't contain:
|
| > "Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened soda was
| associated with a higher incidence of kidney stones,
| which may be because of the fructose content. Fructose
| has been shown to increase the urinary excretion of
| calcium, oxalate, and uric acid, thus increasing the risk
| of stones."
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3731916/
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Don't many people drink 2 or even 3 cups of coffee a day?
| acuozzo wrote:
| This is not unusual in many parts of the USA, even for
| full-sugar Coke.
|
| Google "Mountain Dew Mouth".
| yamtaddle wrote:
| The large drink size at a major gas station chain around
| here is about 1.8 liters. It's a popular size. Some people
| may drink one over multiple days, but that's not the norm.
| And that's not the largest size any gas stations around
| here have.
|
| Some "medium" sodas at fast food joints are over a liter,
| these days.
|
| People who drink a lot of soda, in the US, really DRINK A
| LOT OF SODA.
|
| Consider also that it's been the norm for years, in the US,
| to have free refills on soda at restaurants (with waiters
| eagerly topping them off constantly) and that many fast
| food places have self-serve soda that's either explicitly
| or _de facto_ unlimited refill, if you go inside to eat
| rather than using the drive-through.
| chrisbolt wrote:
| "Then there is a horrifying 512oz version that they call
| 'Child size'. How is this a child size soda?"
|
| "Well, it's roughly the size of a two year old child, if
| the child were liquefied."
| Semaphor wrote:
| I consume about 4-5L when I'm having it with alcohol, but I
| also consume 6L and more of tap water a day.
| chillbill wrote:
| This is seriously bad for your health and wallet.
| jader201 wrote:
| Not sure if you're serious or not, but in case you're
| unaware, there are a number of health problems[1] found from
| over-consumption of diet sodas (aside from anything this
| study has surfaced).
|
| [1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/observational-studies-
| shed-l....
| crazygringo wrote:
| That article makes clear these potential risks come from
| observational studies, not controlled experiments.
|
| And if consumption of diet soda correlates with other
| things, for example an unhealthier diet in general that the
| person "compensates" for by only drinking diet soda, then
| it would show up in an observational study even though
| there's no cause-and-effect.
|
| But remember, diet soda is 99+% water. Really the only
| hypothetical problems with diet soda could be 1) artificial
| sweetener chemicals in the body triggering cancer or other
| ailments, and 2) artificial sweeteners triggering a
| glucose-like response triggering weight gain. But studies
| with rats indicate 1) shouldn't be an issue at anywhere
| near the concentrations in diet soda, and 2) seems rather
| far-fetched.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| My man... you are arguing FOR drinking a 2L of soda a
| day. Take a step back, your reasons for why studies
| aren't conclusive might be good, and I may not be able to
| refute them... but look at the ridiculousness of your
| position.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Even so, backing things up with data and proving things
| via the scientific method is one of our most powerful
| tools we have to get people to listen to an argument.
| Without controlled experiments, why should anyone take
| your position or the opposing position on the issue?
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| _Diet_ soda, not sugary soda.
|
| It's not what I do personally but I also don't judge,
| because scientifically, it's basically just water.
|
| Do you have a problem with somebody drinking 2 cans'
| worth of LaCroix in the morning, 1 at lunch, 2 in the
| afternoon, and 1 at dinner? Why should that suddenly
| become "ridiculous" because an eyedropper amount of
| caramel color, caffeine, and artificial sweetener get
| added?
| Liquix wrote:
| Diet coke has a pH of 3.2-3.6. Something that is
| "basically just water" shouldn't dissolve enamel.
| crazygringo wrote:
| There's no evidence it does so meaningfully. All that
| stuff about "leave a tooth in Coke overnight and it'll
| dissolve" is 100% urban legend.
|
| We're eating and drinking acidic things all day long,
| orange juice and grapefruits and the rest. And diet soda
| doesn't adhere in a layer to your teeth, the way things
| like orange juice and sugary Coke do.
|
| Our enamel repairs itself through our saliva. Otherwise
| you'd never be able to drink a lemonade or eat a
| grapefruit. The acidity of Coke Zero is a nonissue in the
| context of a normal diet.
|
| (Not to mention that flavored carbonated waters like La
| Croix and Bubly are also acidic. Bubly grapefruit flavor
| is pH 3.86, while Coke Zero is 3.18, from a quick
| Google.)
| Mindstormy wrote:
| One item I believe that hasn't been mentioned are the
| effects of carbonated water/soda on ones oral health.
| wolongong942 wrote:
| I've also been drinking 2.25l of coke zero every day for
| 5 years and it has been a game changer for both weight
| and oral health. Previously i required fillings quite
| frequently and none over that period. Obv nobody should
| drink any soda if they don't have to but if replacing
| consumption of sugary drinks it's extremely effective for
| health gains. And most of the anti sugar-free soda
| studies are bro science.
| hgomersall wrote:
| It's increasingly becoming apparent that artificial
| sweeteners are not so biologically inert as might be
| desired:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156656/ .
| Do what you will with that information. I make no
| judgement.
| vlunkr wrote:
| They're really not. They're saying it's probably ok to do
| so. Which is not the same as an endorsement. I'm not sure
| why you have a problem with that.
| glyphy177 wrote:
| [dead]
| nortonham wrote:
| it's too bad they don't name the brands
| somethoughts wrote:
| Seems like this study was conducted primarily in Louisiana. "A
| total of 60 beverage samples purchased from local
| supermarkets/retail stores in New Orleans, Louisiana, were
| refrigerated and homogenized..."
|
| Louisiana is not quite known for its strict environmental
| standards (including water quality). [1] Presumably most soft
| drinks and juices are bottled at plants locally using local water
| supplies as carrying liquids long distances is not economically
| advantageous.
|
| Its unclear (to me at least) if any of these findings are
| applicable to soft drinks/juices in other states with stricter
| water quality standards.
|
| [Edit] Definitely not saying soft drinks/juices aren't toxic, I'm
| mostly pointing out this is a local/regional study and I feel
| therefore its implications are therefore local/regional.
|
| I'd prefer:
|
| - more local/regional studies for my location or
|
| - a randomly sampled nation wide study or
|
| - a control group against local/regional bottled water
|
| before I make broad conclusions/make a change in lifestyle.
|
| That said I mostly don't drink soft drinks/bottled water.
|
| [1] https://www.wwno.org/coastal-desk/2022-09-29/louisiana-
| ranks...
| ars wrote:
| You might not realize this, but it actually rains in Louisiana.
| pessimizer wrote:
| That doesn't mean that I won't feel slimy after a shower.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Not much of a comfort if you live in that stretch between
| baton rouge and New Orleans...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| They also have things like national grocery chains!
| InCityDreams wrote:
| As a Europeon, I'm not sure if your comment would be
| regarded as a positive, or negative.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I buy mostly from a local one personally and a little
| from Fresh Market but in this regard national chains
| wouldn't be affected by any putative local water quality
| problems
| local_crmdgeon wrote:
| As a reminder, Louisiana is a lot wealthier than you
| think it is: https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-
| a-lot-poorer-than...
| justin66 wrote:
| > Presumably most soft drinks and juices are bottled at plants
| locally using local water supplies as carrying liquids long
| distances is not economically advantageous.
|
| Moving freight in the continental US is _cheap._
|
| In the US there are nineteen Coca-Cola bottling plants in
| fourteen states. None of those bottling plants are in
| Louisiana. Not difficult information to find.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_buildings_an...
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > Moving freight in the continental US is cheap.
|
| 1) We have one of the best freight river systems in the
| world: the Mississippi/Missouri. River transport is
| _insanely_ cheap.
|
| 2) Our passenger rail system may be some combo of "worse than
| many developing-world nations" and "nonexistent", but our
| freight rail network's quite good. Rail's cheap.
|
| 3) We subsidize the everloving _shit_ out of truck
| transportation, making it really cheap, too.
| somethoughts wrote:
| Good point. That said, it's likely Louisiana distribution is
| sourced from a bottling plant that's regional and regionally
| water quality is not great. It's unclear to me that Arkansas
| and Missouri have superior tap water quality.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Barq's formerly had bottling in Louisiana (due to a
| franchising dispute with the MS originators)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-09 23:01 UTC)