Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Coca-Cola and Pepsi Change Recipe To Avoid Cancer Warning

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-to-avoid-cancer,-just-the-warning dept.

United States 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."

cancel ×

398 comments

California (4, Funny)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305703)

Everybody knows that everything causes cancer in California.

Re:California (5, Insightful)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305757)

How do we know that California doesn't cause cancer? How can we be sure? Is there a proximity? Do people in Nevada get some sort of horrible sickness?

Re:California (4, Funny)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305791)

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:California (2, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305911)

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:California (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305969)

Whoosh.

Re:California (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306017)

Bacteria don't cause colds.

Re:California (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306111)

Bacteria don't cause colds.

Right, virii do

zing!

Re:California (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306315)

What the fuck is a "virii"?

Re:California (2)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306341)

Most, but not all. S. pyogenes, for one, depending on how you define the common cold.

Re:California (1)

Adriax (746043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306287)

Half of LA drives to vegas every friday. Of course there's going to be some contamination.

Re:California (5, Funny)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305869)

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:California (1)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306273)

Mind.... BLOWN .

Re:California (5, Insightful)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305761)

Except the TSA body scanners... those are very safe. Unlike the food coloring in cola that is cancer in a bottle.

Re:California (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305771)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305821)

Moreover, everybody knows that nothing that is profitable causes cancer anywhere.

Re:California (4, Informative)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305857)

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:California (3, Interesting)

chrissigler (1930758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306103)

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:

  1. 1. People who can/will read a block of text that long and know what a particulate is.
  2. 2. People who are too dumb to know better than to chug motor oil.

I have a funny feeling these groups are mutually exclusive.

Re:California (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306283)

These labels are a total joke here - seems like every building and half the brands of cars have these stupid warning labels.

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 find any.

Clearly, Coke/Pepsi don't think it's a joke, or at least don't think the public at large will find it all that amusing... Hence the change in formula. I'd call that a real, positive effect, all around.

Admittedly, the labels on every building, everywhere, is a bit of a joke, at least because it's just a boilerplate message that doesn't require any specificity as to what the problem is.

Re:California (1)

V. P. Winterbuttocks (2246736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305979)

Simpler than that, actually. Everything causes cancer, everywhere. Some things just cause cancer faster than other things. And some states are more anal about labeling things.

Re:California (5, Funny)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306021)

Careful, there. Being pedantic is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

Re:California (2)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305995)

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:California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306101)

Could always be an insensitive yet insightful social commentating clod.

Re:California (1)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306167)

+1 Informative

Re:California (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306001)

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:California (2)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306135)

...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:California (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306207)

please provide evidence that 34mg of caffeine will harm me.

Re:California (1)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306259)

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:California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306227)

I know. From TFA:
""Consumers will notice no difference in our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns," the association said in a statement."

lolol

Re:California (2)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306245)

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 recent research efforts have ended rather POORLY.

Re:California (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306063)

I always thought those signs were a form of cancer. They're sprouting up all over the place!

Re:California (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306179)

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... (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306255)

It's also interesting that California, cancer-paranoid as they are, still approved medical cannabis legislation, and famously so.

Re:California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306289)

As a transplant, one of my first observations of this came at an extended-stay motel. There was a prop 65 warning on the motel itself. No specific cause was given, simply a warning that *something* in the motel could cause cancer. It gave me pause at first, but I noticed it other places. If somebody hasn't already done it, a good cartoon or photoshop would be somebody crossing the border and seeing a prop 65 warning for the whole state.

So. Yes, it does get a bit silly sometimes; but there's an upside. Things outside CA frequenty get labeled, so it provides a service to cautious people who don't live here. This happened to me with some caulking I bought in DC. Yes, I still bought it; but I was probably more careful about breathing the fumes then I would have been otherwise.

In a day when corporations can buy the FDA, it's nice to see *somebody* standing up to them in government even if they sometimes err on the side of caution. Soda is death in a can for a lot of other reasons anyway so it's not like people who buy it are health nuts. The HFCS and other sweeteners are probably worse for you than whatever is coming from this coloring.

There are, BTW, prop 65 warnings at coffee shops now too. Apparently some coffee beverages can increase your odds of the big C. I still drink coffee. My dad lived to 82 drinking several cups a day. It doesn't hurt me to see the warning though. It isn't killing the coffee industry. It's good to know.

Despite it looking a bit silly sometimes, I'm generally happy with prop 65, and have no desire to see it repealed.

Might as well go all the way (4, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305705)

California needs to just put out a warning saying that life has been linked to incidences of cancer.

Re:Might as well go all the way (1)

bjoast (1310293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305745)

Hey, there is no way you can prove that!

Re:Might as well go all the way (5, Informative)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305769)

In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.

Re:Might as well go all the way (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305801)

In California, correlation is sufficient to claim causation.

At least when it comes to cancer

Re:Might as well go all the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306291)

OMG, correlation causes cancer. It's been right there all along how did we miss it for so long?

Seriously though, that's always sounded like half a phrase to me. If correlation isn't enough what is, because at some point we stopped speculating and pretty much determined that smoking causes cancer.

Re:Might as well go all the way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306317)

In California, correlation is not even required to claim causation.

Re:Might as well go all the way (0)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306107)

100% of people who contract cancer are not only suffer from the condition known as "life", but also eventually die. That is a 100% fatality rate.

Man, I gotta go work for Fox News.

Re:Might as well go all the way (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306275)

The life-caused fatality rate is actually only something like 93.5% based on available evidence.

Re:Might as well go all the way (5, Funny)

blacklint (985235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305815)

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:Might as well go all the way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306071)

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.

Screw that, somebody needs to get that sucker up on Kickstarter...

Re:Might as well go all the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306109)

You clearly don't understand the proper way to write prop 65 warnings, because that's FAR too informative. The correct text would be something more like: "WARNING: THIS SKY CONTAINS RADIATION KNOWN TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER AND BIRTH DEFECTS OR OTHER REPRODUCTIVE HARM."

Re:Might as well go all the way (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306171)

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 (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305847)

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.

Becareful coke addicts.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305707)

"But he noted that a consumer would have to drink more than 1,000 cans a day to reach the doses administered that have shown links to cancer in rodents."

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305779)

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.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305803)

1 case of cancer over 1000 people = every person having 0.1% cancer, so not very harmful I guess

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305923)

stochastic just means random. it doesn't imply any particular type of distribution.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306229)

mod parent up

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (2, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305937)

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 is by coincidence or if the subject is pre-disposed to cancerous diseases in the first place.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306097)

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. See the difference?

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306099)

Your argument would make sense, if all things in the world were exactly the same. But "assuming everything is like everything else" is a somewhat weak opening argument. Has it occurred to you that the mechanism behind cancer and the mechanism behind drowning might, I dunno, have some differences?

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306251)

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:Becareful coke addicts.. (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306007)

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.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306139)

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.. (5, Informative)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306081)

Um, what? Stochastic means random, with calculable probability. An example would be metal fatigue, given a probability density function for load stress - it's definitely stochastic, but it isn't proportional to the load to the first power, rather, something like to the power of four, never mind that below certain values, you don't get fatigue in steels at all.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306089)

So 1 case of cancer per 12,000 ounces consumed? (1,000 cans * 12 ounces) . US consumers averaged 45 gallons (5,760 oz) per person in 2010. Say 50% of that uses this coloring, that's 2,880 ounces per person per year of Cancer Cola (tm). So we should have in the ballpark of one in every four persons getting cancer from cola alone? Seems on the high side.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (2)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306279)

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 tea (mashed leaves floating in lukewarm water.... mmmm), so it's mainly ice water for me these days.

Re:Becareful coke addicts.. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305977)

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.

It was a bad study (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305735)

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.

Re:It was a bad study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306033)

They also didn't mention how many times they had to do that test before they got a "statistically significant" result.

Re:It was a bad study (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306037)

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.

Screw California... (-1, Flamebait)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305739)

Man...I'm so tired of something changing in CA, and the rest of the country gets fscking stuck with it. New car emissions, coloring of coke...etc.

They come up with a new rule, and rest of the nation has to adapt to it?

Fuck CA.

Quit selling coke there, or just bottle it there for their needs. I'm tired of all the restrictions on car exhausts and all...that shouldn't not affect me.

Well, Ok, where I live I can get away with modding my car since there is no *sniff* test where I live for an inspection...but still, they make a rule and often it takes the fun out of it for the rest of the states because manufacturers don't want to make multiple versions.....grrrrrr

I'm sure there are other good examples, but those are the ones that hit me off the top of my head...

Re:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305775)

Yes, I too am in favor of having my food cause terminal diseases. Boo California for ensuring food safety.

Re:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305783)

Fuck CA.

Yeah! Fuck Canada!

Re:Screw California... (0)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305795)

and the rest of the country

Its not just the country:
Last month my new headphones came with a warning "California law requires us to inform you that this product has been found to cause cancer".
I live in Canada.

Re:Screw California... (1, Insightful)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305809)

Yeah, stupid California. If only more states allowed public smoking and DDT use.

Re:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305903)

ddt scare was frautlent and has been proven so. coca cola on the other hand should be outlawed. Soda cause more death and disease in this country every year than tobacco could ever hope to achieve.

Re:Screw California... (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306113)

If only more states allowed public smoking

Thankfully, most states still do....

And they should, it is a perfectly legal activity....

Re:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305827)

Yeah, fuck those hippies and their clean air.

Re:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305895)

Emission laws may be restrictive but they are good for the Earth. That kind of problem is scientific evidence. This Cola stuff is not.

Re:Screw California... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306215)

I don't have a problem with clean air. I like that cars need to run clean. I have a large problem with the way California enforces the emission laws. I should be free to modify my car any way I want so long as what come out of tailpipe falls withing the acceptable range. California believes that anything that doesn't have prior approval is illegal to put on your car, even if it couldn't have any effect on the emissions.

Re:Screw California... (2, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305989)

Fuck CA.

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:Screw California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306241)

So much more oppresive than the Tyranny of the Minority...

All risk is relative (5, Insightful)

VernorVinge (1420843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305789)

The same 1000 cans argument can be made for aspartame as a sweetner, tail pipe exhaust, and smoking crack. What if you're that one person with a a genetic predisposition to get cancer from this substance? We should be doing what the EU has done for years- make manufacturers prove substances are safe for consumption before including them as ingredients.

Re:All risk is relative (1)

idobi (820896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306059)

It's gonna be red M&Ms all over again...

Re:All risk is relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306339)

lol yeah, red dye causes hyperactivity... of course that has nothing to do with the fact it's coating a sugary candy that is consumed mindlessly by the handful usually by children often to the point of sickness.

Just wondering... (1)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305825)

Is there any chemical California has not added to their list of carcinogenic compounds?

Re:Just wondering... (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306013)

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... (1)

V. P. Winterbuttocks (2246736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306029)

Is there any chemical California has not added to their list of carcinogenic compounds?

I'm pretty certain santorum isn't on it. (yet)

Re:Just wondering... (4, Funny)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306053)

Money. Because they don't have any to test.

Re:Just wondering... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306077)

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.

Their supply of Gold-Pressed Latinum must be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305843)

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!

Re:Their supply of Gold-Pressed Latinum must be... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306173)

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!

That's a nice start... (3, Insightful)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305925)

Now all Coke/Pepsi has to do is remove the toxic sugar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com] and it'll be perfect. ;-)

Just used for coloring... why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305939)

The ingredient in question is only used for coloring the product and doesn't contribute anything at all to the taste. I can't see reduced levels as anything but a good thing if there is even a small risk that it is a carcinogen.

sponGe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39305941)

to stick something OpenBSD. How many volume of NetBSD population as well to ge`t some eye sanctions, and

Slurm (3, Funny)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39305999)

Will Slurm be affected in any way, shape, or form? If so, and the New Slurm tastes horrible, can I hold out for a return of Slurm Classic?

slashtard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306043)

a day late and a dollar short

The time is right for its big comeback... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306047)

...it's Crystal Pepsi!!

Re:The time is right for its big comeback... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306187)

...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.

While you're at it, Coke/Pepsi... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306157)

can we get some real sugar again? Your HFCS sodas taste like shit.

California's law is ridiculous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39306185)

I recently purchased a corded airbed pump. On the electrical cord is a label:
"This product contains lead, a substance known to the state of California to cause birth defects. Wash hands after handling."

Yep. There's lead-based solder ENCASED IN PLASTIC, but you should still wash your hands after touching the plastic.

4-methylimidazole (5, Informative)

JazzHarper (745403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306209)

...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).

extinction!! (0)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306239)

Polar bears... where art thou

Odds (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306257)

Have there ever been a study done to show how many people who have or had got cancer did so because this one compound? It seems every month another substance gets added to this list, in 10 years we wont be able to eat anything because everything will cause cancer. I would be surprised if this compound has caused over 0.00001% of all cancer.

My poor state is getting dumber (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39306313)

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 took the signs down? Then I'd be screwed, right?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...