Commifornia is really over stepping

[BigAl 10]

So here is the gist, because over regulation in California, Coke and Pepsi are changing their formula because a chemical in the caramel coloring may cause cancer. Let it be noted that a person would need to drink a some thousand cans of soda in order for it to lead to cancer. So due Commifornia over regulating and being the ultimate nanny state, the rest of the country has to suffer. Can we just give it back to Mexico, its practically there's already.

 

Ref:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112335/Coca-Cola-Pepsi-change-recipe-avoid-putting-cancer-warning-labels.html

[Shocker 151]

The same state that brought us 49-state motorcycles and neutered cars. Yaaay for overstepping your bounds!

[Soju 153]

Yes, the evil voluntary act of drinking soda that could maybe, potentially, in some form, lead to something, that could possibly increase the risk of cancer, is evil and must be stopped. No mind those happy healthy cigarettes or fun box airport body scanners. Those things are just bundles of joy and have no impact on cancer...

[Duppie 73]

So here is the gist, because over regulation in California, Coke and Pepsi are changing their formula because a chemical in the caramel coloring may cause cancer. Let it be noted that a person would need to drink a some thousand cans of soda in order for it to lead to cancer. So due Commifornia over regulating and being the ultimate nanny state, the rest of the country has to suffer. Can we just give it back to Mexico, its practically there's already.

 

Ref:

http://www.dailymail...ing-labels.html

So here is the gist, because over regulation in California, Coke and Pepsi are changing their formula because a chemical in the caramel coloring may cause cancer. Let it be noted that a person would need to drink a some thousand cans of soda in order for it to lead to cancer. So due Commifornia over regulating and being the ultimate nanny state, the rest of the country has to suffer. Can we just give it back to Mexico, its practically there's already.

 

Ref:

http://www.dailymail...ing-labels.html

The left coast has always been contrary,No more foie gras soon because they have a duck and goose lobby apparently and smoking anything, anywhere is next even though they have more Marijuana dispensary's than any state. Time for the big one.....

[Krdshrk 3,877]

The left coast has always been contrary,No more foie gras soon because they have a duck and goose lobby apparently and smoking anything, anywhere is next even though they have more Marijuana dispensary's than any state. Time for the big one.....

 

Yep..... slide off into the ocean.....

[WOLFIE4305 3]

Not just a thousand cans of soda.......a thousand cans of soda PER DAY!

[this_is_nascar 162]

For decades, I've been hoping that California would break-off (literally) from the county and float out further into the Pacific.

[Vlad G 345]

Not just a thousand cans of soda.......a thousand cans of soda PER DAY!

 

Oh, I was worried there for a bit, I know people who easily drink 1k soda cans per year.

 

For decades, I've been hoping that California would break-off (literally) from the county and float out further into the Pacific.

 

Doesn't work that way, the tectonics of it say that in the best case it will rush head first into Alaska.

[this_is_nascar 162]

Oh, I was worried there for a bit, I know people who easily drink 1k soda cans per year.

 

 

 

Doesn't work that way, the tectonics of it say that in the best case it will rush head first into Alaska.

 

 

 

I'd say let it happen, but I wouldn't wish that upon our Alaskan friends.

[BigAl 10]

Not just a thousand cans of soda.......a thousand cans of soda PER DAY!

 

Thanks for the correction, forgot to add that

[leahcim 680]

Personally I try to avoid any food products that contain any ingredient that I do not recognise or do not have in my own kitchen--something like 4-methylimidazole would not pass. I also try to avoid anything with added colors--it does not affect the taste so I do not need the extra color.

As long as the ingredients are clearly and accurately listed--so I can make an informed choice--the government should leave that choice (to consume it or not) to me. I take responsibility for what I eat and drink, the state has no business regulating it.

[Vlad G 345]

Personally I try to avoid any food products that contain any ingredient that I do not recognise or do not have in my own kitchen--something like 4-methylimidazole would not pass. I also try to avoid anything with added colors--it does not affect the taste so I do not need the extra color.

As long as the ingredients are clearly and accurately listed--so I can make an informed choice--the government should leave that choice (to consume it or not) to me. I take responsibility for what I eat and drink, the state has no business regulating it.

 

Well I'm not a fan of government regulations but I'm not sure it can work that way. Before we had the FDA we had snake oil, and cocaine sold as medicine. You may know that if the ingredient list says sodium chloride you don't need to worry about it but someone may wonder why there chlorine in my soup? For a lot of people if it on the shelf it must mean the government (via the FDA) must have said its safe to eat. Unfortunately with that comes the reverse, some times the government says that some chemical is not safe to eat, for better or for worse.

 

And I certainly not a fan of the FDA, they've been know to screw up spectacularly, but something like that might actually be necessary.

[MedicYeti 96]

I think coke and pepsi should make a "California Blend" of their products and sell it only in CA.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Does "Duppie" stand for duplicate - just wonderin'

[robot_hell 72]

You may know that if the ingredient list says sodium chloride you don't need to worry about it but someone may wonder why there chlorine in my soup?

 

Sort-of-related. Scientists say people aren't smart enough for democracy: http://news.yahoo.co...-185601411.html

[Duppie 73]

Does "Duppie" stand for duplicate - just wonderin'

Does "Duppie" stand for duplicate - just wonderin'

It does now!!!!! can't seem to fix this glitch...this glitch...

[SpecialK 193]

Well I'm not a fan of government regulations but I'm not sure it can work that way. Before we had the FDA we had snake oil, and cocaine sold as medicine. You may know that if the ingredient list says sodium chloride you don't need to worry about it but someone may wonder why there chlorine in my soup? For a lot of people if it on the shelf it must mean the government (via the FDA) must have said its safe to eat. Unfortunately with that comes the reverse, some times the government says that some chemical is not safe to eat, for better or for worse.

 

And I certainly not a fan of the FDA, they've been know to screw up spectacularly, but something like that might actually be necessary.

 

You seem to say that the average person only eats stuff off the shelf because they know its safe and would not know what is and isn't safe if we just had things labeled with what they are like it is a bad thing....

 

Remove all the warning labels off of products sold and let the stupidity problem work itself out.

[vladtepes 1,060]

the easiest solution to make a point to companies that buckle and alter things in the face of that nonsense..

 

just stop buying it.. don't buy coke or pepsi.. tell others not to.. make a facebook page.. tell them you are not buying their shit anymore because of that nonsense..

make a point with your wallet..

[Qel Hoth 33]

Personally I try to avoid any food products that contain any ingredient that I do not recognise or do not have in my own kitchen--something like 4-methylimidazole would not pass. I also try to avoid anything with added colors--it does not affect the taste so I do not need the extra color.

As long as the ingredients are clearly and accurately listed--so I can make an informed choice--the government should leave that choice (to consume it or not) to me. I take responsibility for what I eat and drink, the state has no business regulating it.

 

Just because something has a chemical-sounding name doesn't necessarily mean its bad for you.

 

Would you eat something if they listed pyridine-3-carboxylic acid on the label? How about 5'-deoxydenosyl?

 

Or are these suddenly ok when they are called Niacin and vitamin B12, respectively?

[302w 83]

The way I see it, Yes drinking soda is bad for me, but I am going to die anyway.

[vladtepes 1,060]

The way I see it, Yes drinking soda is bad for me, but I am going to die anyway.

 

I think that is only true to a point.. eating mcdonalds every day is bad for you.. drinking a bunch of soda every day is bad for you.. eating "unhealthy" snacks constantly is bad for you.. and so on.. to justify it by saying you are going to die anyway is fine.. but it is not like you will live this awesome active life and then just go in your sleep. . what will happen is your overall quality of life will slowly suffer.. I used to eat terrible.. I was well over 300 lbs.. and I justified it all by simply saying "oh well it is what I like" I have (by my own effort) lost over 100 lbs.. and stop eating almost all of the "crap" I used to eat... and it is not even an issue with longevity.. it is more an issue of quality.. I am still going to "die anyway" but the years leading up to that will be pact with far more quality because of the choices I make..

 

not jumping on you or anything.. your statement just reminds me of the mindset I once had..

[mipafox 438]

 

 

Well I'm not a fan of government regulations but I'm not sure it can work that way. Before we had the FDA we had snake oil, and cocaine sold as medicine. You may know that if the ingredient list says sodium chloride you don't need to worry about it but someone may wonder why there chlorine in my soup? For a lot of people if it on the shelf it must mean the government (via the FDA) must have said its safe to eat. Unfortunately with that comes the reverse, some times the government says that some chemical is not safe to eat, for better or for worse.

 

And I certainly not a fan of the FDA, they've been know to screw up spectacularly, but something like that might actually be necessary.

 

Other than the fact that I completely disagree with you, this story has nothing to do with anything you said. Sorry to single you out on this one, but it provided a chance to clear up what this actually means.

 

This is called Prop 65, AKA, "Known to California," and it's been around longer than most of the people on this message board have been alive. Here was my first search engine hit:

 

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.146/pub_detail.asp

 

Proposition 65, passed into law by the voters of California in 1986, was created with the intent of improving public health through reductions in the incidence of cancer and adverse reproductive outcomes that might result from exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. To carry out this mission, Proposition 65 relies on a growing list of chemicals and substances believed to have the potential to cause cancer or deleterious reproductive effects in humans. The law strives to reduce human exposure by restricting discharges of listed chemicals into known drinking water sources, although the major activity of the Act has been in the area of warnings. Under the Act, a clear and reasonable warning must be given prior to a known and intentional exposure to a listed substance.

 

The US has a few hundred listed carcinogens I would guess (didn't check lately). 15 years ago we had about 5. At the same time, 15 years ago, CA had about 10,000 I would guess. Most things sold in California say they cause cancer. And most things have said that for the past 20+ years. It's a very valuable warning when it's on half of what you buy. NOT. That makes it pretty worthless.

 

So goes CA, so goes the country? There is truth to that. I have studied the paths that regulatory framework moves through the states and is ultimately adopted by institutes and then becomes federal statute. That is not what this story is about.

 

Does soda contain carcinogens? I don’t know if it does contain carcinogens. I have a guess, and, unfortunately, my info is restricted. But I'm not primarily worried about 4-methylimidazole from that perspective. And, I would let my kids drink soda on occasion if I had kids in this country that I was aware of. I wouldn't let them drink it non-stop because it's unhealthy for many reasons. And, I'm not an industrial hygienist so don't put much weight on my opinion. Just trying to provide a little perspective. Don't freak out because CA did something they've done 10,000 times and don't think I drank 10,000 sodas but the next one will kill you because of Prop 65.

 

Soda is bad for you. Everybody survived. Enjoy in moderation.

 

[Red Solo Cup 11]

Anything that takes the paint off cars can't be good for you.

 

[PeteF 1,044]

Anything that takes the paint off cars can't be good for you.

 

Stomach acid will dissolve a penny. Want to try going without stomach acid?

[Red Solo Cup 11]

Stomach acid will dissolve a penny. Want to try going without stomach acid?

 

For health reasons I may soon have to!! Going in for pictures this week from both ends, not looking forward to it.

[PeteF 1,044]

For health reasons I may soon have to!! Going in for pictures this week from both ends, not looking forward to it.

 

Good Luck hope everything turns out ok.