How safe is a can of Coke?

How safe is a can of Coke?

The world is addicted to Coca-Cola. Each day, 1.6 billion cans and bottles of the sickly brown liquid are gulped down, making it the globe’s most recognized brand.

But ever since it was first concocted as a brain tonic in 1886 (designed to treat ‘sick headaches, neuralgia, hysteria and melancholy’), the makers of Coca-Cola have been secretive about what goes into their drink.

American pharmacist and Coke founder As a Chandler was so concerned that the recipe could fall into the wrong hands he reportedly never wrote it down. 

That secrecy lives on today. Coca-Cola insists only two people alive know the formula, that they never travel on the same plane in case it crashes and that the list of ingredients is locked in a bank vault.

But while the recipe for Coke is surrounded by the kind of mystique that marketing men dream of, the company found its formula under less welcome scrutiny this week. 

For it has emerged that Coca-Cola in the U.S. has reduced levels of one of its ingredients following fears that it could cause cancer.

The chemical — 4-methylimidazole (4-MI) — helps to give the drink its color, but is listed by Californian health officials as a potential carcinogen. 

While European regulators do not believe it poses any health risks, the company has also pledged to reduce its levels in Coke sold in Britain and the rest of the world, although it hasn’t given a timescale.

Pepsi, meanwhile, has reduced the chemical in its American formula, but refused to change it anywhere else — meaning if the Californian health officials are right, the Pepsi sold in Britain and most of the rest of the world is potentially more carcinogenic than the stuff swigged in America.

Coca-Cola and Pepsi this week insisted that all of their beverages are completely safe, with Coca-Cola claiming it made the change in the U.S. only in response to a ‘scientifically unfounded’ food law in California.

In a statement yesterday, Coca-Cola Great Britain said: ‘Coca-Cola has an uncompromising commitment to product safety and quality. All of the ingredients in our products are safe.’

But the changes to the recipes have raised the inevitable question: just how safe are the ingredients that go into every can of cola? And what does that brown stuff really do to our insides?

And just because you drink sugar-free, diet cola, don’t think you’re off the hook. For there is a  growing body of research which suggests that low-calorie and sugar-free drinks are bad for us, too.

Studies have shown that people who have at least one low-calorie fizzy drink a day are at greater risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

And some experts also believe that sugar-free drinks confuse the brain, leaving it unable to distinguish between sweeteners, such as aspartame and saccharine, and regular sugar.

In that case, a person may  be tricked into overeating,  as the brain can no longer calculate the body’s  calorific intake.

So while diet colas may make you feel virtuous, they could be doing you more harm than good.

COLOURING LINKED TO CANCER

 Cola’s color comes in part from 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), a chemical that forms in the production of caramel food coloring.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other manufacturers insist it is safe at the low doses found in drinks.

But in California they disagree. After studies showed that long-term exposure to the chemical causes lung cancer in rats, health officials ruled that products with more than 29mcg must carry a health warning.

And when research by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a campaign group, found cans contained nearly 140mcg, all cola companies across the U.S. were forced to cut levels.

Food campaigners say daily consumption of  4-MI at 30mcg would cause cancer (pictured) in one in 100,000 people over their lifetimes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that someone would need to drink more than 1,000 cans of cola every day to reach the levels that caused cancer in lab rats.

And the British Food Standards Agency agrees. It says the chemical is ‘not a food safety concern’.

 CAFFEINE

 A can of cola contains 40mg of caffeine — half the caffeine in a mug of tea and a third of the amount in a mug of filter coffee (pictured).

Caffeine is a stimulant that works on the central nervous system. It can trigger a dramatic, short-lived increase in blood pressure and increases the heart rate.

But there is little evidence that it causes long-term high blood pressure, or that it is bad for healthy hearts. Many regular coffee or cola drinkers simply develop a tolerance to the stimulant.

In the UK, pregnant women are advised to have less than 200mg a day. Those with high blood pressure are also warned  to steer away from coffee, tea and cola drinks.

Caffeine can also stop the body from absorbing iron from food — so people with a big cola habit may be at greater risk of iron deficiency.

SUGAR

Doctors are in no doubt — the biggest danger from cola doesn’t come from the hidden additives, flavourings  or colourings, but  from sugar.

Too much sugar leads to obesity, the major cause of cancer in the western world.

It also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, causes heart disease and increases the risk of stroke.

The over-consumption of sugar (pictured) has been linked to depression, poor memory formation and learning disorders in animal experiments. And it rots teeth.

Each regular can of  cola contains eight teaspoons of sugar. When you drink that much sugar so quickly, the body experiences an intense sugar rush. 

The cane and beet  sugar used in Coca-Cola is used up quickly by the body,  which soon experiences a  rapid drop  in energy, leading to cravings for more sugar.

PHOSPHORIC ACID

Phosphoric acid is a clear, odourless chemical that gives cola its tangy flavour and helps cut through the sickly sweetness of all that sugar.

It is also an effective rust remover — the reason that a glass of Coke can restore the lustre to coins and old metal.

But it can also disrupt our bodies.

Research  at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Maryland found that drinking two or more colas a day doubled the risk of kidney stones (pictured) and the phosphoric acid in it was blamed.

Another U.S. study found that women who regularly drink cola — three or

or more times a day had a four  per cent lower bone mineral density in their hips than women who didn’t drink cola.

Again, phosphoric acid is thought to be the cause. No one is entirely sure why it leads to weaker bones, although some researchers argue it prevents calcium from food being used to renew bones.

 GENDER-BENDING CHEMICAL

The ‘gender bending’ chemical BPA, or bisphenol A, has  been linked to heart disease, cancer and birth defects.

It is found in baby bottles, plastic forks, CD cases and in the lining of aluminium fizzy drinks cans, including those of Coca-Cola.

Because it mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen, and thus disrupts the natural balance of the body, some believe it could be dangerous — particularly to foetuses (pictured). 

Some animal studies have indicated it is safe. Others have linked BPA to breast cancer, liver damage, obesity, diabetes and fertility problems.

Despite the uncertainty, it has been banned in baby bottles across the European Union and in Canada in case it leaches from plastic into formula milk or juice drinks.

The Food Standards Agency in the UK says it is safe in food packaging and poses no risk in fizzy drinks.

CITRIC ACID

 Citric acid gives lemons (pictured), oranges and grapefruit their kick and cola its bite, helping to make the drink nearly as corrosive as battery acid when it comes to teeth.

Prolonged exposure to cola and other fizzy drinks strips tooth enamel causing pain, ugly smiles and — in extreme cases — turning teeth to stumps.

A study in the journal General Dentistry found that cola is ten times as corrosive as fruit juices in the first three minutes of drinking.

The researchers took slices of freshly extracted teeth and immersed them in 20 soft drinks. Teeth dunked for 48 hours in cola and lemonade lost more than five per cent of their weight.

A study in the British Dental Journal found that just one can of fizzy drink a day increased the risk of tooth erosion. While four cans increased the erosion risk by  252 per cent.

A handful of companies control the food industry

A handful of companies control the food industry

Hundreds of brands that we find on supermarket shelves give the impression that our money goes to as many different companies. But that's not the case: a large majority of these brands are owned by a handful of companies. The following chart provides an overview of where our money actually goes.

Why this convergence is harmful?
This is a legitimate question: how the fact that these marks are controlled by so few companies is it a bad thing? Is it not just the functional outcome of our economic system?
In fact, we believe that this convergence is bad for various reasons at various levels which are all more or less interrelated. Here are five:
1 - These companies are so big that they have a dangerous political power
This reason is that, somehow, encompasses all the others. Profits from these companies are gargantuan: alone, Nestlé has generated more than $ 37 billion profit in 2010. But that money is rapidly converted into political power. Indeed, in our political system, pressure groups are constantly making efforts to pass or block legislation. In general, most lobbyists are well funded and organized, the more they can afford to have a great influence on the decisions taken at the end. The food industry conducts lobbying activities at all levels: international, national and local. In addition, large amounts are invested by these companies in the referendum campaigns of several political candidates from all parties. It would be naive to believe that these companies invest all that money (in 2010, Kraft has spent half a million dollars in contributions to U.S. political candidates; Nestlé, alone, donated nearly $ 300,000 to Schwarzenegger's campaign California) without expecting anything in return: they wish to have their say on legislation that will or will not be adopted. When asked for and against which projects they will pressure the only criterion that seems to apply in their choice is that of profit. This makes sense and seems reasonable, since these are companies which, after all, have the task of making a profit. However, political pressure for profit is often in conflict with the interests of the population, for which politicians should be able to work without countervailing pressures. It is bad for all the interest of companies comes before that of the population, especially when it comes to important areas such as public health.
The record of the labeling of products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a good example to date, it is impossible to know if GMOs have a dangerous effect on health or not. Despite this, a majority of products on supermarket shelves already contain GMOs. The U.S. state of Oregon attempted in 2002 to introduce legislation to require companies to disclose which of their products contain GMOs. We do not mean to ban GMOs, or even reduce their use, but only to inform consumers of their presence in the products purchased, and giving them a choice to buy or not. A huge lobby representing the food giants was then formed; with each company contributing to dozens of blows thousands of dollars (PepsiCo has invested $ 127,000, Procter & Gamble, $ 80,000). Finally, the bill is not passed.
Elected officials, who would normally protect the population, are fast becoming powerless, especially if their election depends on funds advanced by these same companies. This becomes an indirect form and legal corruption, and it is easy to believe that if it were possible, these multinationals would use more direct means. Unilever has admitted to the New York Times for giving bribes, kickbacks, or "ease of payments" against members of governments in some developing countries. Unilever said they did not encourage such practices, but tolerate it when a "local custom". In other words: if politicians are corruptible in place and are already receiving bribes, kickbacks, as well enjoy it!
2 - Health Impacts
this makes sense: our health is largely by the food we comsommons; it is from them that eventually constituting our bodies. To the extent that a vast majority of foods we buy are provided by a very small number of companies, each of them has a huge part to play on our health, which is partly in their hands. Contrary to what they can say well through various advertisements, our health is not part of their genuine concern, quite the contrary.
In 2005, almost all the multinational food companies have come together to put pressure on the French government, which was preparing to pass a law banning vending sodas and snacks like "junk food" in schools, and to alter the kind of publicity surrounding the food unhealthy. Much of the project had to be abandoned due to pressure from the food industry.
Worse, despite studies of the World Health Organization and UNICEF show that the use of a substitute for breast milk to feed babies contributes to the deaths of 1.5 million children annually in developing countries underdeveloped. Nestlé, the largest manufacturer of breast milk substitutes in the world, openly promotes the choice of using substitutes even if the mother is able to breastfeed. They even fund medical clinics in underdeveloped countries who agree to promote their substitutes breast milk. These practices are directly responsible for the death or poor health of millions of children; an international boycott of Nestle has also been ongoing since the 80's because of this controversy.
3 - Impacts on the Economy
economically, the limited number of companies in the food market puts us in an oligopoly. Two major consequences follow from this:
First, a market controlled by a small number of companies provides "entry barriers", that is to say that any new company that tries to enter this market will life difficult if not impossible. For example, if a new producer is lucky enough that her local supermarket has agreed to sell its product, it is often on almost inaccessible shelves that its product will be placed, which encourages very few people buy it because of Indeed, in conspicuous places are reserved for multinationals, who pay dearly for the privilege. A small producer simply does not have the budget to compete with them. Moreover, people are used to mark the big companies, and have the reflex to immediately buy these brands (who also receive support massive advertising), which makes the competition much more difficult with them. And if a producer was able to finally break into the market with a product that interests people, it is highly likely to be quickly acquired by a multinational and its brand will become another of the hundreds that 'they already have. All this prevents healthy competition in the market.
Second, an oligopoly often leads to a cartel, i.e. a small group of companies fixed prices at a higher amount than the market, to increase their profits at the expense of consumers. This practice is generally illegal and falls under the collusion, but that does not prevent companies from entering prostitution. In April 2011, Procter & Gamble had to pay 211 million euro fine after being convicted of a cartel to fix prices in Europe with Unilever and Henkel. Henkel, the smallest company of the three (and one that took advantage of the least), was not penalized, for it is she who has denounced the cartel authorities.
4 - Environmental Impacts
Companies that control the food industry have, in general, not an environmental issue rosy. In 2001, Kraft decided to invest heavily in the business of lobbying the Bush administration to campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. In China, PepsiCo and Nestle have been convicted for pollution of waterways. Unilever, meanwhile, 7.4 tons of illegally dumped waste contaminated with mercury at the entrance to the forest Pambar Shola in India, right next to a city with high population density. Unilever was forced to close this plant mercury for this reason. It's also no surprise that Procter & Gamble has lobbied to weaken environmental laws European projects in the area of ​​chemicals. Because of pressure from P & G, the final legislation passed in 2003 by the European Parliament protects only very few citizens and the environment of toxic substances in household products. This "militant" anti-environmentalist whose proofs are these companies have one goal: to ensure that production is the cheapest possible in the short term. Damage in the longer term to the overall population of our planet, including that of animals, has no weight, but he look good.
But the most significant impact that these companies have on the environment may be connected to the massive use of palm oil in their food. Indeed, the devastating impacts (large-scale deforestation, relocation of local communities leading to violent situations, extinction of animal species, emission of greenhouse gases) industry of palm oil have been revealed in recent years, but palm oil is still used extensively in a variety of processed products, mainly because of its cheapness and the fact that it represents an alternative (equally unhealthy) to trans fats.
5 - Human Impacts
The reputation of several multinationals about the working conditions they impose abroad is well established. Over the years, companies operating in various fields have been in the spotlight, the center of several scandals. The fact that the food industry also behaves in this way will therefore probably not surprising. Despite this, the severity of the actions of some of these companies may surprise many.
In 2005, Nestlé has been pursued by the ILRF (International Labor Right Fund) for child trafficking. These children are brought into Ivory Coast from surrounding countries to work on cocoa plantations used by the company. Despite several warnings at the point of Nestlé to inform them of these practices, Nestlé has never really reacted on the issue before continuing. Another lawsuit was launched in the U.S., where Nestlé is accused of complicity in slavery, abduction and torture of children in several countries in West Africa. Not to mention the murder of a union leader in Colombia. He had publicly denounced a sneaky strategy that allowed Nestlé to change the labeling of imported milk powder to it seems to be a local product. The powder, often past due, was imported from neighboring countries at a discount. The complaint led to a police investigation which confirmed the facts and reflects Nestlé to court to have undermined public health. Several other murders have mysteriously struck workers who filed complaints against Nestle. But this kind of practice is not the monopoly of Nestlé: the case of Coca-Cola is not any better.
How to react?
Hard not to feel helpless in the face of multinationals have budgets too immense, a great political influence and who can consistently afford the best lawyers to fight any further. But the exorbitant revenues of these companies, which maintain these practices, does not grow on trees ... they come from our pockets! It is we who give them when every week we buy hundreds of products that we offer at the supermarket. Food is a huge market: each of us must eat to stay alive, and at rehearsal! Our visits to the supermarket are regular and represent the sum, much of our budgets. It would be wrong to believe that the impact that each of us has on this industry is minimal. Do the exercise, and calculate how much money you spend on groceries per year. Better yet, try out at your next visit, what percentage of the products you buy are sold by a few multinationals: you can calculate approximately how much money you give them. The result may be surprisingly high. So even if we cut one of his contributions, the impact will be several thousand dollars!
Two obstacles arise, however:
- It is difficult to avoid products sold by the handful of companies. They are everywhere, and sometimes it may seem that no alternative is offered: if you do not buy the product from Nestle, then you buy one Kraft or PepsiCo. But there are alternatives, just search for them. They sometimes require extra effort, especially the effort to do a little research on the origin of the products we choose to buy (and the company that manufactures them). This effort is seen at the individual level, however, rewarded by the consciousness of being a good choice, and collectively with money invested elsewhere in this oligopolistic system.
- The brands owned by these companies are part of our lives long, they are everywhere. We're used to, sometimes attached. Advertising encourages us to constantly buy them. Very often, it is very difficult to imagine the ban all of our lives, suddenly and completely change our habits in a jiffy, it just is not realistic.
But these obstacles should not stop us! First, it may be convenient to print our great graphic and drag it to the store to make the diagnosis of our habits, but also to look at the products available that do not belong to these companies: one becomes aware possible alternatives. Then you can try the products available to us as an alternative, perhaps more than we will appeal, and our habits will be more easily changed. It can also be profitable to try to change our habits one by one: over time, our impact will grow more and more and we will not also destabilized. This approach is at least more realistic than a sudden boycott and inflexible, even if it is ideally desirable.

Incredible Chutneys and Raitas

Raita

Ingredients

-250g yogurt
- 1/4 cup fresh milk 
-1 cucmber, peeled  fine chopped
-1 tomato, fine diced
-1/4 bell pepper,cut in thin stripes
-1/4 ts ground black pepper
-salt to taste
-1/4 ts Zeera
- few fresh mint leaves roughly chopped. 
- 1 hot green chilli fine chopped.

Nothing easier than preparing this excellent Raita. Pour milk into yogurt and stir with spoon to make thick creamy paste. Now add all other ingredients and yummy Raita is ready. Serve with grilled meats or why not to try simply with oven hot Nan.

Cucumber Raita

Ingredients

·         1 clove garlic

·         ½ teaspoon salt

·         250 ml (8 fl oz/1 cup) natural yoghurt

·         125 ml (4 fl oz/½ cup) light sour cream

·         1 teaspoon finely grated fresh ginger

·         2 teaspoons finely shredded mint leaves

·         1 seedless cucumber, finely sliced

Crush the garlic with the salt using the flat of a knife on a wooden board, until a smooth paste forms. In a bowl mix together the yoghurt, sour cream, ginger, garlic and mint leaves. Finally stir in the cucumber. Serve chilled, as an accompaniment to a hot curry.

Banana Raita

Ingredients

·         2 tablespoons lemon juice

·         2 teaspoons sugar

·         ½ teaspoon salt

·         a good pinch of chilli powder

·         1 teaspoon ghee or oil

·         1 teaspoon cumin seeds

·         1 teaspoon black mustard seeds

·         375 ml (12 fl oz/1½ cups) natural yoghurt

·         2 cups sliced bananas (about 3 large ripe bananas)

Stir together the lemon juice, sugar, salt and chilli powder. Heat the ghee or oil and fry the cumin and black mustard seeds. When the mustard seeds pop, pour over the yoghurt and mix. Fold in the bananas and the lemon juice mixture. If liked, 3 tablespoons freshly grated coconut or desiccated coconut may be added to the Raita. Serve with rice and curries.

Mint or Coriander Chutney

Ingredients

·         A great dip for Samosas

·         1 cup firmly packed mint or coriander leaves

·         6 spring onions, chopped

·         2 fresh green chillies, sliced

·         1 teaspoon salt

·         2 teaspoons sugar

·         1 teaspoon Garam Masala (see page 168)

·         4 tablespoons lemon juice

·         2 tablespoons water

Blend all ingredients to a pure. Serve as is, or mix with a little natural yoghurt if a lighter dip is preferred.

·         Coconut and Herb Chutney

·         1 cup desiccated or freshly grated coconut

·         4 spring onions or 1 medium onion, chopped

·         ½ cup lime or lemon juice

·         ½ cup mint or coriander leaves

·         1 teaspoon salt

·         1 teaspoon ghee or oil

·         2 teaspoons black mustard seeds

·         2 teaspoons cumin seeds

If using desiccated coconut put into a bowl and sprinkle with 3 tablespoons water or sufficient to moisten all the coconut. Put the onions, lime or lemon juice and fresh herbs into the blender and liquidize. Add salt and coconut and blend again to make a thick puree. Heat ghee or oil in a small pan and fry the mustard and cumin seeds, stirring, until mustard seeds pop. Pour over the coconut mixture and mix with a spoon. Serve in a small dish as an accompaniment

Aaloo Bukharay Ki Chutney

Ingredients

-1/4 kg Dried plums (aaloo bukharay)
-2 cups Water
-1/2 cup Sugar or to taste
-Salt To taste
-peppers (ground) To taste
-Red chili powder To taste
-1/2 cup Vinegar
-Red food color (optional) One pinch

1.  Add water, salt, red chili powder, and peppers to dried plums and boil till they get soft.
2. Add sugar to them and cook on medium heat, until it melts and the mixture becomes a bit thick (for about 2 minutes).
3. Add food color, vinegar and boil for another minute. It is now ready to be served with Nan.

Imli Ki Meethi Chutney

Sweet tamarind chutney

Ingredients

- 150 gm soft tamarind (pitted) 
- 300 ml water
-300 gm fine sugar
-1\2 tsp. red chili powder
-2 tsp cumin (zeera)
-1\4 tsp. salt

1. Place tamarind and water in a food processor or blender and

 blend to a puree.

2. Put all of the ingredients in a heavy based saucepanand cook

 over low heat until sugar is dissolved. Increase heat to high and 

stirring constantly, cook for 12-15 minutes or until chutney is thick.

3. Store in an airtight container, in refrigerator. This chutney stay

 fresh for two weeks in the refrigerator. 

Note: This sweet chutney can be used in various dishes as a topping

 e.g. Dahi Bare, fruit chat.

Tomato Chutney

Ingredients

-tomatoes 1/2 kg
-white zeera 1-1/2 tsp
-garlic 1 tsp
-karhi pata 2-3
-oil 2-3 tsp
-sugar 1 tsp
-coconut 1 tsp
-whole red chillies 6-8
-black pepper 1/2 tsp
-lemon juice 4 tsp
-methi 1/4 tsp
-rai 1/4 tsp
-salt 1/2 tsp

Boil water and put the kari patta,rai and tomatoes in boilingwater for 5-10 minutes,so that the skin comes out easily.Now blend the tomatoes with all the above ingredients except oil and methi.After blending put in the pan and boil again.Heat oil and add in methi,karhi patta,rai and give bhigar on top of the tomato chutney.