The principal of Venice High School in California said that "economics should never take precedence over student health" (Soda Ban). The same goes for the health of the country. Soft drinks are a common household product normally accepted as safe, but there has been a lot of discussion lately about how safe they actually are and how common a product they should be. On September 16, 2003, the California State Assembly decided to ban the sale of soft drinks in all elementary schools and to limit it in middle and high schools (Molony, 19). In 2005, an organization called the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the government organization responsible for ensuring that products marketed in the United States are safe for human consumption , to place warning labels on sodas and carbonated beverages to raise public awareness of FDA-approved dangerous ingredients in common consumer products. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Soda is full of sweeteners that are dangerous if consumed without moderation, and the companies that produce them realize this, but still try to push for their products to be purchased and used consistently. Because they are able to generate billions in taxable revenue, they are able to influence the government and make each other money, while simultaneously harming the health of the impressionable consumer. It is clear that warning consumers about potentially dangerous products via labels is justified and that ingredient approval processes would benefit from long-term research and endorsement from independent studies and sources. The problem with pop is that it contains large amounts of refined sugars such as high fructose corn syrup, and some drinks contain large amounts of caffeine, which is a widely accepted stimulant drug. Some drinks may even contain benzene, a known carcinogen. Soft drinks, when first introduced, were intended to be an occasional treat, similar to candy or ice cream. The danger of soft drinks is trivial when consumed in this way. However, soft drinks are now consumed with a frequency comparable to water consumption, accounting for approximately a quarter of all beverages in America (Jacobson). The average American consumed 37 gallons of carbonated beverages in 2004 (warning labels). Their prevalence makes it difficult for consumers to resist or exercise restraint. Some may think that it is easier to open a can of Coca-Cola than to pour a glass of water or orange juice. Many are constantly reminded of their favorite soft drink through advertising, whether on television, radio, or in shops or restaurants. The soft drink industry is a lucrative market that benefits from the impulsive lifestyle of today's average American. However, it is convincing people to consume unhealthy products more commonly. The average can of soda contains 40 grams of refined sugars, many of which contain more. 40 g of sugar (10 teaspoons) appears to be the maximum daily amount 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 posed by the high sugar content of soft drinks, saying:“Studies have been conducted in recent years showing that soft drinks contribute to obesity, not the only cause, but a significant one” (Warning labels). The most common and threatening of these refined sugars is high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a very problematic and unhealthy sweetener used in soda and an alarming number of other food products, including, but not limited to, soft drinks, candy, non-100% juices, yogurt flavored drinks, popsicles, ketchup, cereals, pasta sauce and canned soup. HFCS is made from corn starch and unhealthy amounts of fructose, which occurs 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 consuming other foods and sugars to suppress appetite causes excess energy to be stored in the form of fat, hence the consumption of empty calories. To underline the gravity of this tiny fact, 9% of all American calories come from sodas, fruit drinks and sports drinks, all empty calories, not including other HFCS-laden products. In 1970 this value was only about 3% (Jacobson). In the same year, the average consumption of HFCS per capita was half a kilo. In 1997 each American consumed an average of 62 1/2 pounds (Kleiner). Since the majority of HFCS consumed is contained in soft drinks, this statistic also reflects a notable increase in the consumption, addiction, and widespread popularity of high fructose corn syrup. At the same time, it is proven that such excessive consumption is harmful to health. High fructose corn syrup, however, is not the only chemical used in carbonated soft drinks that could be dangerous to consumers' health. Caffeine is a stimulant drug added to many regular and diet soft drinks. Six of the seven most popular soft drinks contain caffeine (Jacobson). Caffeine works by stimulating the central nervous system, respiratory and skeletal muscles, cardiac and smooth muscles and by dilating the coronary vessels. People commonly enjoy caffeine for a quick energy boost in the morning. Oddly enough, caffeine improves cognitive effects when taken at breakfast or near the time of waking up, but has been shown to have fewer effects or hinder performance later in the day. The positive effects of caffeine include increased energy, imagination, efficiency, self-confidence, alertness, motivation, concentration, and urine output (Kennedy, 320). However, caffeine has many harmful side effects. These effects are active at very low, 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 create a mild addiction in their drinks. They have always refuted this suspicion, claiming that caffeine is added for flavor. Caffeine actually causes withdrawal symptoms with regular use, 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 notAs it is commonly known information, caffeine can have extremely harmful effects on reproduction. In 1981 the FDA stated, "Pregnant women should avoid foods and medications containing caffeine, if possible, or consume them only sparingly" (Caffeine label). Studies have shown that high caffeine intake by pregnant women has shown an increased chance of low birth weight or miscarriage of their children (Finnegan). This information is little known because the FDA does not require any manufacturer to warn consumers of the dangers of caffeine, and in turn, consumers must do their own research to learn about statements like its own 1981 warning. Although the FDA and the federal government are required to declare important information like this, its proliferation for public access is no one's responsibility. This isn't the first time the FDA has hidden or made it difficult to get important information from the public. In 1990, the FDA first discovered benzene, a dangerous carcinogen, in some beverages. They tested over sixty sodas, sports drinks, 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 tests showed that some drinks contained up to four times the legal limit and were clear. violations of law and safety (FDA findings). The FDA did not inform the public. They silently informed the manufacturers of their discovery, advising them to change their formulas. Benzene in soft drinks can be formed from the combination of ascorbic acid, which is nothing more than vitamin C, and sodium or potassium benzoates, which are simply preservatives added to keep the drink fresh (for children). FDA and beverage industry advocates argue that benzene formation is possible, but extremely unlikely. Defenders argue that a catalyst such as light or heat is needed to start the combining reaction, but if the drink is stored in warm conditions, most likely in a garage or left in the car on a hot summer day, there may have been enough heat. for the reaction to occur. The rarity of these exact conditions is not known, as no tests have been conducted for specific reactions in soft drink containers, although chemical properties show the possibility of the reaction. On February 24, 2006, an organization called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered a list of soft drinks and juices that still contained the potentially dangerous combination of benzene-forming ingredients. Kevin Keane, spokesperson for the American Beverage Association (ABA), attempted to defend the FDA by commenting: “People should not overreact. These are a very limited number of products and not important brands” (FDA findings). However, EWG's reconnaissance debunked this lie with its list of products that contain the magic ingredients for benzene formation. The top branded products on the list were: Fanta Orange and Pineapple, produced by the Coca Cola Company worldwide, Hawaiian Punch and all its other flavors and products, Hi-C Blast Orange Supernova which is on the menu of some chains . of 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 the 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 that ithad declared it dangerous and currently has no intention of creating any regulation. Some are aware of these risks and consume diet soda as an alternative. Diet soda consumption by adults is on the rise, as they are realizing how unhealthy regular soda can be. Reports criticizing the unhealthyness of regular soda often advocate diet soda as an alternative. However, diet soda has its 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, but have many times the sweetening power of real sugars. Artificial sweeteners come at a cost and have had a difficult past and present. Over 69 million Americans age 18 and older consume beverages or other products containing the artificial sweeteners aspartame or saccharin (Sweetness). Due to the sweetening power of artificial sweeteners, it is also required in lower quantities, reducing costs for soda producers. However, most of them turned out to be dangerous. Scientific studies that have revealed dangerous substances have been approved by the FDA in exchange for political pressure, such as the artificial sweetener aspartame. Some sweeteners have even been banned after being found to be dangerous and then banned again. An example of an artificial sweetener that has followed a questionable path is saccharin. Saccharin is an artificial sweetener discovered in 1879, but did not see widespread use until World War I and World War II, when sugar was rationed. Subsequently the use of saccharin grew due to its 300 times higher strength than sugar and lack of calorie content (sweetness). As a result, the production and sales of diet soda have also increased. 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). Qualifying additives have been added to GRAS, which is the list of food additives generally recognized as safe. After adverse effects such as mild digestive upset and allergic-type responses such as skin reactions were linked to saccharin, further research was conducted suspecting that saccharin may be carcinogenic. By 1977, after numerous studies on laboratory mice had been concluded, the possibility that saccharin was carcinogenic was greater, but still uncertain (NRCNS). The National Research Council (NRC) harshly criticized the weak studies of some organizations, including and especially the FDA, and conducted its own, which also flagged saccharin as potentially dangerous, but was also deemed inconclusive. As a result, saccharin was banned on April 15, 1977. Despite the fact that the chemical was essentially proven to be dangerous, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act was passed in November 1977. This act placed a moratorium on the ban on saccharin until further studies could not conclude the safety of the sweetener. The moratorium is still in effect today, despite evidence indicating that saccharin is carcinogenic (Sweetness). The FDA has done nothing in the last 29 years beyond commenting that it does not recommend saccharin for regular use, while allowing it to be sold commercially. Fortunately saccharin is now used in only a small variety of products. Since saccharin and cyclamate, a high-potency, zero-calorie sweetener in use since the early 1950s, wereboth banned, another artificial sweetener was required to replace them, due to the booming market for diet sodas and other sugar-free or low-calorie products. (Salter). However, history was destined 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). The use of aspartame in beverages was not approved until 1983 due to extremely questionable research conducted by Searle, and was only approved thanks to kickbacks to the FDA and government connections. 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 reduced lifespan and other serious effects such as seizures in various livestock animals. laboratory. This paid validation would increase the sweetener's chances of approval. At the time Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense and a well-known supporter of the Republican Party, was president of GD Searle. The day after Ronald Reagan took office, January 21, 1981, Rumsfeld promised that aspartame would be approved by the end of the year. In April, Reagan had 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 that Hayes was appointed Commissioner, aspartame was approved for commercial use. At the time of approval, there were no independent, controlled human studies, or long-term human studies, but in the period between 1973 and 1986, G.D. Searle and Co. had earned nearly $200,000 in campaign contributions Republican Party (History). Aspartame is made up of 40% aspartic acid, 50% phenylalanine, and 10% methanol (Roberts). Phenylalanine, which is labeled cans of diet soda with warnings is not dangerous, rather it is an important amino acid found in proteins. It is labeled on the can to warn people who are phenylketonurics, people with a disorder in which they cannot metabolize phenylalanine. The law requires that phenylketonuria be tested at birth and cannot develop with age (Beck). The controversy over aspartame most likely stems from its methanol content, also known as methyl alcohol or methyl alcohol. Methanol is a known poison, which cannot be detoxified by the body. It may have adverse effects on the brain, optic nerves, or retina. In large quantities it can cause blindness, but such a 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 further problems there (sweetie). In 1985, aspartame was the subject of 80% of FDA complaints, or 4,800 out of 6,000 (Roberts). Symptoms reported directly after consuming aspartame products or after long-term use included headaches, some severe, seizures or convulsions, vision changes, dizziness, rashes, fatigue, depression or personality changes, and loss of memory. The FDA sent the first 592 complaints, which had already accumulated in mid-1983 by late 1984, to the Centers for Disease Control, or CDC (Sweetness). They were dismissed as rare sensitivities, and the CDC recommended to the FDA that it was not worthy of widespread risk. One concerned physician, Dr. H. J. Roberts, noted that he was able to help some of his patients by advising them to stop using aspartame. Many patientsreported complete disappearance of symptoms commonly associated with aspartame, including seizures after cessation of use. He then questioned 397 self-proclaimed heavy users of aspartame to see how harmful aspartame was to one's overall quality of life. 47% of patients interviewed said the impact was slightly harmful, relating to minor inconveniences normally associated with aspartame symptoms. Seventeen percent said the impact was severe, to the point that symptoms became severe enough to cause consumers to lose their jobs or decrease the overall well-being of their lives. 10% said they had been “incapacitated” by aspartame, suffered from serious health problems and had an extremely negative effect on life in general. Only 26% said their lives were not affected by aspartame (Roberts). The FDA has repeatedly made the same mistake of approving dangerous sweeteners. First aspartame, and now an upcoming sweetener, sucralose (patented as Splenda), the fast-rising successor to aspartame, have both been approved despite questionable results in pre-approval research. The FDA shows negligence in the post-approval phase due to the lack of independent controlled human studies (they instead only studied laboratory rats within the jurisdiction of the FDA and the manufacturer, rather than using a variety of accredited associations with controlled human tests ), lack of long-term studies (even for periods of 1-2 years), and lack of monitoring after approval, until complaints were received, and even then lackluster and non-independent monitoring was carried out. Effective monitoring could have included further tests and independent studies related to complaints rather than a simple statistical evaluation. Sucralose has been 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 having them. Although aspartame appears to have a somewhat random intensity with which it affects people, it is obviously dangerous for some users and is so widely used that people experiencing these symptoms may not even suspect aspartame as the cause. Once again, the FDA has allowed a potentially dangerous substance to be approved after it was demonstrated that the government collaborates with companies in exchange for campaign support. Because these artificial sweeteners are dangerous, that doesn't mean there aren't safe alternatives. However, the FDA is also keeping safe alternatives out of the picture, perhaps to maintain support from its corporate sponsors. Fed up with dubious artificial sweeteners, some health advocates have discovered Stevia. Stevia is a plant native to Brazil and Paraguay that can be transformed into a completely natural zero-calorie sweetener, up to 400 times more powerful than sugar called steviocide. The natives of these countries have been using it for over 400 years. Stevia has been used for over 20 years without complaints in Japan (Stevia is also used in Diet Coke instead of aspartame), China, North and South Korea, Brazil and Paraguay (Stevia Leaf). Currently, Stevia is only permitted to be sold as a “dietary supplement” in the United States or for personal use. The FDA refuses to approve steviocide for use.