Study finds elevated levels of toxic metals in some juices and soft drinks(news.tulane.edu)
news.tulane.edu
Study finds elevated levels of toxic metals in some juices and soft drinks
https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-elevated-levels-toxic-metals-some-mixed-fruit-juices-and-soft-drinks
137 comments
Just to clarify, they were measuring the juices and sodas against the standards for water, not food in general. It's still not great, but I believe the standards for water are much stricter than for food because it is consumed in such great quantities. So this isn't as big a deal as when rice is found to have too much arsenic, or chocolate has high levels of heavy metals — measured against food standards.
> I believe the standards for water are much stricter than for food because it is consumed in such great quantities.
No, that's not why you so often see reference to the defined safe level of toxins in water when talking about foods. FDA does not always have standards defined for levels of those toxins in food, but there might be a level defined by EPA for water. If you want an official, scientifically plausible number to fall back on, the level defined for water is at least something.
For example, FDA didn't have a defined safe level of arsenic in rice-based foods for infants until 2020, and there's still no defined safe level of for adults AFAIK. There's nothing mysterious about this: the ag industry lobbies against these standards, and lobbies to weaken them as much as possible when they exist. But babies are cute, so eventually FDA made a standard, at least for infants - after years of pressure from groups like Consumer Reports.
The paper referenced in the article says:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed an action level of 10 μg/L of inorganic arsenic in apple juice (USFDA, 2013).
which suggests that at the time of writing, there's isn't an official number defined by the FDA. Based on the language on the FDA's website [0] I assume "draft guidance" (which has been in existence as a "draft" for a decade) means producers won't be held accountable for exceeding the numbers there.
https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/ars...
No, that's not why you so often see reference to the defined safe level of toxins in water when talking about foods. FDA does not always have standards defined for levels of those toxins in food, but there might be a level defined by EPA for water. If you want an official, scientifically plausible number to fall back on, the level defined for water is at least something.
For example, FDA didn't have a defined safe level of arsenic in rice-based foods for infants until 2020, and there's still no defined safe level of for adults AFAIK. There's nothing mysterious about this: the ag industry lobbies against these standards, and lobbies to weaken them as much as possible when they exist. But babies are cute, so eventually FDA made a standard, at least for infants - after years of pressure from groups like Consumer Reports.
The paper referenced in the article says:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed an action level of 10 μg/L of inorganic arsenic in apple juice (USFDA, 2013).
which suggests that at the time of writing, there's isn't an official number defined by the FDA. Based on the language on the FDA's website [0] I assume "draft guidance" (which has been in existence as a "draft" for a decade) means producers won't be held accountable for exceeding the numbers there.
https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/ars...
Ah, the classic dance between regulatory agencies, lobbyists, and the cuteness of babies. It's fascinating how the lack of standards for certain toxins in food can lead us to lean on the water-based standards, even though it might not be the most accurate comparison.
I suppose it is a decent fallback -but it's a reminder that regulatory frameworks could use some refinement!
I suppose it is a decent fallback -but it's a reminder that regulatory frameworks could use some refinement!
Cute that your response to endless collusion is that it's "decent" but “needs some refinement”. Have fun advocating for that with your vote at the polling station.
Technically it's illegal in most jurisdictions to advocate for things while actually present at the polling station ;D
>Have fun advocating for that with your vote at the polling station
Well first show me a politician that wants to get rid of the lobbyist system. The last one I heard of was Ron Paul over a decade ago.
Well first show me a politician that wants to get rid of the lobbyist system. The last one I heard of was Ron Paul over a decade ago.
Did you mean Rand Paul? I don’t remember Ron taking much about lobbying. Rand talked about it, but then jumped on the money train once he was elected.
No politician. That's the point.
> rice is found to have too much arsenic
BTW, I read of a better way to cook brown rice that reduces arsenic. Instead of 1 part rice, 2 parts water, simmer for 45 minutes, one does this:
1. Cook brown 1 part brown rice in 6 parts water for 30 minutes. 2. Strain to remove the water. Put rice in a steamer basket. 3. Steam for 10 minutes.
Much of the arsenic is carried away in the water in step 2. The rice also comes out much fluffier.
BTW, I read of a better way to cook brown rice that reduces arsenic. Instead of 1 part rice, 2 parts water, simmer for 45 minutes, one does this:
1. Cook brown 1 part brown rice in 6 parts water for 30 minutes. 2. Strain to remove the water. Put rice in a steamer basket. 3. Steam for 10 minutes.
Much of the arsenic is carried away in the water in step 2. The rice also comes out much fluffier.
Sounds interesting, and plausible. It's unfortunate that brown rice has more arsenic than white, since much of it is in the husk (brown part). I wonder how much this cooking method equalizes things (and if it would also be helpful for white rice).
I read something along these lines in the past couple of years too. Seeing this comment here I've taken the liberty of finding something 'official' in this regard.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16876928/
tl;dr - rinse your rice with clean water and then cook it at a ratio of 1:6 rice:water followed by draining the excess water will more than halve the amount of arsenic in the finished product
edit - tl;dr updated for accuracy
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16876928/
tl;dr - rinse your rice with clean water and then cook it at a ratio of 1:6 rice:water followed by draining the excess water will more than halve the amount of arsenic in the finished product
edit - tl;dr updated for accuracy
Still not good for the people who chug several 64oz bottles of Diet Coke a day
> Man Who Drinks 5 Diet Cokes Per Day Hoping Doctors Working On Cure For Whatever He’s Getting
https://www.theonion.com/man-who-drinks-5-diet-cokes-per-day...
https://www.theonion.com/man-who-drinks-5-diet-cokes-per-day...
I feel seen. Diet Coke is my albatross, and it has all the hallmarks of a serious addiction. I'm currently going through another round to trying to stop, and I'm seriously always thirsty and craving it.
In my experience, caffeine addiction and "other stuff in diet cola" addiction are two separate things.
It might not be possible to kick both at once, but I feel like my life is better since switching mostly to coffee.
Good luck!
It might not be possible to kick both at once, but I feel like my life is better since switching mostly to coffee.
Good luck!
I think black coffee gives me the caffeine I need to get through the day without most of the harmful effects of Coke, diet or otherwise.
Green tea, lemon juice, bit of salt, chilled gets me that hit. Not diet coke, specifically just sodas in general.
Just drink plain water, we've been doing that for millions of years.
I suppose those people might have bigger problems.
That’s why I stick to cans of non-diet soda :D :D
Are cans still coated?
I was making a joke :D
But to answer the question I believe that they are -- I still see periodic demonstrations of dissolving a full can of soda with acid leaving the soda contained (first yt hit: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xIVONw9Pr4w)
But to answer the question I believe that they are -- I still see periodic demonstrations of dissolving a full can of soda with acid leaving the soda contained (first yt hit: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xIVONw9Pr4w)
Yeah, and so are e.g. canned veggies or beans or fruit. More food touching plastic, but somewhat less botulism and spoilage than before we did that.
I think they were making a joke which presumes that they are. (I also wish I could answer your question but I do not know.)
One more reason to stop consuming those. Freshly squeezed fruit juice is already not amazing, but ok in small amounts. It's better to just consume the fruits.
What they are selling in the supermarket can hardly be qualified as fruit juice, and are basically differently flavored soda. Some of them even manage to have more sugar than a Coke.
What they are selling in the supermarket can hardly be qualified as fruit juice, and are basically differently flavored soda. Some of them even manage to have more sugar than a Coke.
The weirdest part to me is that the flavor in many fruit juices is artificial (or "natural", but that can also mean what most people would call "artificial", because our labeling laws are designed to enable fraud). Pasteurization and such take so much of the flavor out, that they have to add it back in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_juice#Not_from_concentr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_juice#Not_from_concentr...
They’re also mostly apple and possibly pear juice because those are so cheap, with other flavors/colors added.
Grape juice is absolutely not normally grape juice plus possibly sugar. That would be too expensive.
Grape juice is absolutely not normally grape juice plus possibly sugar. That would be too expensive.
>Grape juice is absolutely not normally grape juice plus possibly sugar.
How sure are we on that? It has been a while, but I recall something like Welch's tasting like grape juice.
https://www.welchs.com/juices/100-percent/concord-grape
How sure are we on that? It has been a while, but I recall something like Welch's tasting like grape juice.
https://www.welchs.com/juices/100-percent/concord-grape
Seems like theirs actually is. But that’s also likely why it costs more.
Apparently even walmart's great value grape juice that's half the price is apparently 100% grape juice. Given how much Welsch's seems to be pushing the grown in America angle while a location isn't mentioned at all for great value, I think it's a fair bet that they've found some source of super cheap grapes somewhere to let them get that 100% grape claim
Welch's purple grape juice is concord grapes: "In the United States, 417,800 tons were produced in 2011.[3] The major growing areas are the Finger Lakes District of New York, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Southwestern Michigan, and the Yakima Valley in Washington.[4]"
You can use it to make wine just fine, if you're in to that sort of thing.
If i had to guess the white grape juice is whatever the green seedless variety in california was for decades from the late 70s on.
You can use it to make wine just fine, if you're in to that sort of thing.
If i had to guess the white grape juice is whatever the green seedless variety in california was for decades from the late 70s on.
Can you elaborate? I don't see your point.
If I read "no artificial colours or flavours", I don't presume nothing has been added, because that would be really naive. So if the ethyl butyrate they re-introduce to the juice came from fruit, I see that as natural, and a pretty reasonable thing to do. Is that what you're contending?
If I read "no artificial colours or flavours", I don't presume nothing has been added, because that would be really naive. So if the ethyl butyrate they re-introduce to the juice came from fruit, I see that as natural, and a pretty reasonable thing to do. Is that what you're contending?
It depends where. In France a juice that is "100% juice" must be made from squeezed fruits (any concentrate is forbidden).
It is till a lot of sugar and eating the fruit is way, way better but at least there are no artificial whatever or added sugar.
It is till a lot of sugar and eating the fruit is way, way better but at least there are no artificial whatever or added sugar.
Does that prevent the juice maker from using their standard strategy to load stuff up with sugar: grape juice?
Yes. When you have "100% orange juice" it means that the juice is squeezed from oranges and that's all (you can have the with or without pulp version, that's all).
You could have grape juice in (obviously) 100% grape juice, or in mixtures where the percentage of each juice (again, squeezed from fruits) is listed on the standard components label.
We di have juices from concentrate, but it is then clearly labelled as such. Or juices that are only part fruit, and it is labelled as such too.
The main thing was to make sure that when the juice says 100% it has to be only this and from squeezed fruit.
You could have grape juice in (obviously) 100% grape juice, or in mixtures where the percentage of each juice (again, squeezed from fruits) is listed on the standard components label.
We di have juices from concentrate, but it is then clearly labelled as such. Or juices that are only part fruit, and it is labelled as such too.
The main thing was to make sure that when the juice says 100% it has to be only this and from squeezed fruit.
Ah, okay. In the US it's standard to call a product 100% juice, no matter what the fruit, by mixing with grape juice to provide the sugar.
> Freshly squeezed fruit juice is already not amazing,
Which fruit juice are you finding not amazing? To me orange, grapefruit juices are pretty amazing and quite a different experience from eating the raw fruit (which I like too).
Which fruit juice are you finding not amazing? To me orange, grapefruit juices are pretty amazing and quite a different experience from eating the raw fruit (which I like too).
I miss the Orange County, CA oranges. I had a tree in my yard as a kid, it was a dwarf, and it produced insane amounts of the best oranges i've ever had.
Oranges now are all navel oranges, which i find tougher, less sweet, and more tough fleshed.
As an aside, the oranges i am talking about are exactly tennis ball sized and can be fired out of a tennis ball cannon - to about 2 blocks away.
Oranges now are all navel oranges, which i find tougher, less sweet, and more tough fleshed.
As an aside, the oranges i am talking about are exactly tennis ball sized and can be fired out of a tennis ball cannon - to about 2 blocks away.
I’m guessing they mean not amazing as in “not very healthy”.
> It's better to just consume the fruits.
Allegedly orange juice in the grocery store was invented in the mid 20th century as a way to sell more oranges.
Allegedly orange juice in the grocery store was invented in the mid 20th century as a way to sell more oranges.
Also a side effect of creating industrial orange juice is the actual flavor is removed and has to be added back.
https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-is-arti...
https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-is-arti...
Sure but it is also about storage and density. Oranges have peels and don't stack that well and can be damaged. Extracting the value into a mostly rectangular container allows for the same product in an easier to distribute form factor. The old tubes of concentrated orange juice took that to an extreme by also removing most of the water and freezing them.
Also most OJ is concentrated during shipping and then diluted with water during bottling, allowing for low transportation costs.
They also homogenize the flavor of juice and concentrate by stripping the oxygen and then adding in brand-specific flavor packs at the end. This doesn't have to be reported as a separate ingredient because it all comes from oranges. [1]
1: https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-is-arti...
1: https://gizmodo.com/dirty-little-secret-orange-juice-is-arti...
[deleted]
And sold by that homophobic lady
> These soft drinks are often consumed in smaller quantities than water
Incorrect for lots of people.
Incorrect for lots of people.
Yikes, considering I consume 2 L of Coke Zero every day almost...
Not sure if you're serious or not, but in case you're unaware, there are a number of health problems[1] found from over-consumption of diet sodas (aside from anything this study has surfaced).
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/observational-studies-shed-l....
[1] https://www.uclahealth.org/news/observational-studies-shed-l....
That article makes clear these potential risks come from observational studies, not controlled experiments.
And if consumption of diet soda correlates with other things, for example an unhealthier diet in general that the person "compensates" for by only drinking diet soda, then it would show up in an observational study even though there's no cause-and-effect.
But remember, diet soda is 99+% water. Really the only hypothetical problems with diet soda could be 1) artificial sweetener chemicals in the body triggering cancer or other ailments, and 2) artificial sweeteners triggering a glucose-like response triggering weight gain. But studies with rats indicate 1) shouldn't be an issue at anywhere near the concentrations in diet soda, and 2) seems rather far-fetched.
And if consumption of diet soda correlates with other things, for example an unhealthier diet in general that the person "compensates" for by only drinking diet soda, then it would show up in an observational study even though there's no cause-and-effect.
But remember, diet soda is 99+% water. Really the only hypothetical problems with diet soda could be 1) artificial sweetener chemicals in the body triggering cancer or other ailments, and 2) artificial sweeteners triggering a glucose-like response triggering weight gain. But studies with rats indicate 1) shouldn't be an issue at anywhere near the concentrations in diet soda, and 2) seems rather far-fetched.
My man… you are arguing FOR drinking a 2L of soda a day. Take a step back, your reasons for why studies aren’t conclusive might be good, and I may not be able to refute them… but look at the ridiculousness of your position.
Diet soda, not sugary soda.
It's not what I do personally but I also don't judge, because scientifically, it's basically just water.
Do you have a problem with somebody drinking 2 cans' worth of LaCroix in the morning, 1 at lunch, 2 in the afternoon, and 1 at dinner? Why should that suddenly become "ridiculous" because an eyedropper amount of caramel color, caffeine, and artificial sweetener get added?
It's not what I do personally but I also don't judge, because scientifically, it's basically just water.
Do you have a problem with somebody drinking 2 cans' worth of LaCroix in the morning, 1 at lunch, 2 in the afternoon, and 1 at dinner? Why should that suddenly become "ridiculous" because an eyedropper amount of caramel color, caffeine, and artificial sweetener get added?
It's increasingly becoming apparent that artificial sweeteners are not so biologically inert as might be desired: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156656/ . Do what you will with that information. I make no judgement.
Diet coke has a pH of 3.2-3.6. Something that is "basically just water" shouldn't dissolve enamel.
There's no evidence it does so meaningfully. All that stuff about "leave a tooth in Coke overnight and it'll dissolve" is 100% urban legend.
We're eating and drinking acidic things all day long, orange juice and grapefruits and the rest. And diet soda doesn't adhere in a layer to your teeth, the way things like orange juice and sugary Coke do.
Our enamel repairs itself through our saliva. Otherwise you'd never be able to drink a lemonade or eat a grapefruit. The acidity of Coke Zero is a nonissue in the context of a normal diet.
(Not to mention that flavored carbonated waters like La Croix and Bubly are also acidic. Bubly grapefruit flavor is pH 3.86, while Coke Zero is 3.18, from a quick Google.)
We're eating and drinking acidic things all day long, orange juice and grapefruits and the rest. And diet soda doesn't adhere in a layer to your teeth, the way things like orange juice and sugary Coke do.
Our enamel repairs itself through our saliva. Otherwise you'd never be able to drink a lemonade or eat a grapefruit. The acidity of Coke Zero is a nonissue in the context of a normal diet.
(Not to mention that flavored carbonated waters like La Croix and Bubly are also acidic. Bubly grapefruit flavor is pH 3.86, while Coke Zero is 3.18, from a quick Google.)
One item I believe that hasn't been mentioned are the effects of carbonated water/soda on ones oral health.
I've also been drinking 2.25l of coke zero every day for 5 years and it has been a game changer for both weight and oral health. Previously i required fillings quite frequently and none over that period. Obv nobody should drink any soda if they don't have to but if replacing consumption of sugary drinks it's extremely effective for health gains. And most of the anti sugar-free soda studies are bro science.
Even so, backing things up with data and proving things via the scientific method is one of our most powerful tools we have to get people to listen to an argument. Without controlled experiments, why should anyone take your position or the opposing position on the issue?
[deleted]
They're really not. They're saying it's probably ok to do so. Which is not the same as an endorsement. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
They his other comments. He really was, because it was he does.
Sugar, and the addition to things that taste like it is far worse than we understand. It seems to make people do crazy things.
Sugar, and the addition to things that taste like it is far worse than we understand. It seems to make people do crazy things.
Excuse me but what the fuck?
Coke Zero is literally 99+% water.
Some people like flavored/bubbly water over plain flat water. Some people do Perrier, some do LaCroix, some do Coke Zero. All of these are essentially nutritionally identical.
Really just a question of whether you think the artificial sweetener has an adverse effect on your health, which in these quantities it doesn't seem to. And if you want caffeine -- the caffeine in a liter of Coke Zero is the same as a single cup of coffee, so this is the same as a fairly normal 2 cups of coffee per day.
Some people like flavored/bubbly water over plain flat water. Some people do Perrier, some do LaCroix, some do Coke Zero. All of these are essentially nutritionally identical.
Really just a question of whether you think the artificial sweetener has an adverse effect on your health, which in these quantities it doesn't seem to. And if you want caffeine -- the caffeine in a liter of Coke Zero is the same as a single cup of coffee, so this is the same as a fairly normal 2 cups of coffee per day.
that much dark stuff going through your kidneys to become clear can't be good.
Don’t many people drink 2 or even 3 cups of coffee a day?
That's not how the body works. And it's just caramel color.
Not just caramel color. Phosporic acid, which is found in cola drinks and not sparkling water, creates kidney stones.
But the effect is mainly in sugary drinks, not diet. In fact, a study found that diet cola decreased kidney stones, although not meaningfully, so it's probably zero effect at all [1]:
> "There was a 23% higher risk of developing kidney stones in the highest category of consumption of sugar-sweetened cola compared with the lowest category"
> "Artificially sweetened sodas were marginally associated with kidney stones, with an inverse relation for colas and a direct relation for noncolas."
So no worries about your Coke Zero giving you kidney stones. The culprit seems to be the fructose, rather, which Coke Zero doesn't contain:
> "Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened soda was associated with a higher incidence of kidney stones, which may be because of the fructose content. Fructose has been shown to increase the urinary excretion of calcium, oxalate, and uric acid, thus increasing the risk of stones."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3731916/
> "There was a 23% higher risk of developing kidney stones in the highest category of consumption of sugar-sweetened cola compared with the lowest category"
> "Artificially sweetened sodas were marginally associated with kidney stones, with an inverse relation for colas and a direct relation for noncolas."
So no worries about your Coke Zero giving you kidney stones. The culprit seems to be the fructose, rather, which Coke Zero doesn't contain:
> "Higher consumption of sugar-sweetened soda was associated with a higher incidence of kidney stones, which may be because of the fructose content. Fructose has been shown to increase the urinary excretion of calcium, oxalate, and uric acid, thus increasing the risk of stones."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3731916/
The large drink size at a major gas station chain around here is about 1.8 liters. It's a popular size. Some people may drink one over multiple days, but that's not the norm. And that's not the largest size any gas stations around here have.
Some "medium" sodas at fast food joints are over a liter, these days.
People who drink a lot of soda, in the US, really DRINK A LOT OF SODA.
Consider also that it's been the norm for years, in the US, to have free refills on soda at restaurants (with waiters eagerly topping them off constantly) and that many fast food places have self-serve soda that's either explicitly or de facto unlimited refill, if you go inside to eat rather than using the drive-through.
Some "medium" sodas at fast food joints are over a liter, these days.
People who drink a lot of soda, in the US, really DRINK A LOT OF SODA.
Consider also that it's been the norm for years, in the US, to have free refills on soda at restaurants (with waiters eagerly topping them off constantly) and that many fast food places have self-serve soda that's either explicitly or de facto unlimited refill, if you go inside to eat rather than using the drive-through.
"Then there is a horrifying 512oz version that they call 'Child size'. How is this a child size soda?"
"Well, it's roughly the size of a two year old child, if the child were liquefied."
"Well, it's roughly the size of a two year old child, if the child were liquefied."
I know someone who substituted water for diet coke. He had no water for 6 months or so.
I also drink like 1 liter of water daily at a minimum so... Whatever works best I guess?
This is not unusual in many parts of the USA, even for full-sugar Coke.
Google "Mountain Dew Mouth".
Google "Mountain Dew Mouth".
It took me some effort to limit to 2L a day.
I consume about 4-5L when I’m having it with alcohol, but I also consume 6L and more of tap water a day.
This is seriously bad for your health and wallet.
I was messed up before doing this to begin with, so, eh. I don't smoke or drink otherwise. Literally my only addiction.
I buy my 2Ls for $1 on sale. $30 a month for pop is very affordable. RE your health; the components of diet pop are some of the most studied and consumed chemicals and sweeteners on the planet. The worst thing it’ll do is possibly wear your tooth enamel. So, I’d say it’s fine for their health and wallet.
[deleted]
I'm curious -- are these just the levels of metals that are generally present in any natural soil? That has been in all of food through all of mankind, but are elevated in juices because plants concentrate it?
Or is this all a relatively new problem, whether from industrial pollution or fertilizer contamination or farm equipment or whatnot?
Or is this all a relatively new problem, whether from industrial pollution or fertilizer contamination or farm equipment or whatnot?
Many soils have contamination for various historical reasons. For example some cotton (and some tobacco?) fields in southern states formerly used arsenic as a pesticide, then later switched to rice production, and this rice has significantly more arsenic in it than rice grown in California, which had no such history.
I assume some of the arsenic in these juice samples is from a similar pattern of usage.
I assume some of the arsenic in these juice samples is from a similar pattern of usage.
[deleted]
Maybe putting "some", as in the original headline, would have made it too long for HN? Certainly changes the meaning a bit.
It was less than 10% of samples tested. Not great, most beverages did not pose a problem. I'd like to see a list of the ones that tested postitive.
It was less than 10% of samples tested. Not great, most beverages did not pose a problem. I'd like to see a list of the ones that tested postitive.
OK, we've squeezed out the mixed fruits and put 'some' juices in instead. Thanks!
Seems like this study was conducted primarily in Louisiana. "A total of 60 beverage samples purchased from local supermarkets/retail stores in New Orleans, Louisiana, were refrigerated and homogenized..."
Louisiana is not quite known for its strict environmental standards (including water quality). [1] Presumably most soft drinks and juices are bottled at plants locally using local water supplies as carrying liquids long distances is not economically advantageous.
Its unclear (to me at least) if any of these findings are applicable to soft drinks/juices in other states with stricter water quality standards.
[Edit] Definitely not saying soft drinks/juices aren't toxic, I'm mostly pointing out this is a local/regional study and I feel therefore its implications are therefore local/regional.
I'd prefer:
- more local/regional studies for my location or
- a randomly sampled nation wide study or
- a control group against local/regional bottled water
before I make broad conclusions/make a change in lifestyle.
That said I mostly don't drink soft drinks/bottled water.
[1] https://www.wwno.org/coastal-desk/2022-09-29/louisiana-ranks...
Louisiana is not quite known for its strict environmental standards (including water quality). [1] Presumably most soft drinks and juices are bottled at plants locally using local water supplies as carrying liquids long distances is not economically advantageous.
Its unclear (to me at least) if any of these findings are applicable to soft drinks/juices in other states with stricter water quality standards.
[Edit] Definitely not saying soft drinks/juices aren't toxic, I'm mostly pointing out this is a local/regional study and I feel therefore its implications are therefore local/regional.
I'd prefer:
- more local/regional studies for my location or
- a randomly sampled nation wide study or
- a control group against local/regional bottled water
before I make broad conclusions/make a change in lifestyle.
That said I mostly don't drink soft drinks/bottled water.
[1] https://www.wwno.org/coastal-desk/2022-09-29/louisiana-ranks...
> Presumably most soft drinks and juices are bottled at plants locally using local water supplies as carrying liquids long distances is not economically advantageous.
Moving freight in the continental US is cheap.
In the US there are nineteen Coca-Cola bottling plants in fourteen states. None of those bottling plants are in Louisiana. Not difficult information to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_buildings_an...
Moving freight in the continental US is cheap.
In the US there are nineteen Coca-Cola bottling plants in fourteen states. None of those bottling plants are in Louisiana. Not difficult information to find.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_buildings_an...
> Moving freight in the continental US is cheap.
1) We have one of the best freight river systems in the world: the Mississippi/Missouri. River transport is insanely cheap.
2) Our passenger rail system may be some combo of "worse than many developing-world nations" and "nonexistent", but our freight rail network's quite good. Rail's cheap.
3) We subsidize the everloving shit out of truck transportation, making it really cheap, too.
1) We have one of the best freight river systems in the world: the Mississippi/Missouri. River transport is insanely cheap.
2) Our passenger rail system may be some combo of "worse than many developing-world nations" and "nonexistent", but our freight rail network's quite good. Rail's cheap.
3) We subsidize the everloving shit out of truck transportation, making it really cheap, too.
Good point. That said, it's likely Louisiana distribution is sourced from a bottling plant that's regional and regionally water quality is not great. It's unclear to me that Arkansas and Missouri have superior tap water quality.
Barq’s formerly had bottling in Louisiana (due to a franchising dispute with the MS originators)
You might not realize this, but it actually rains in Louisiana.
Not much of a comfort if you live in that stretch between baton rouge and New Orleans...
They also have things like national grocery chains!
As a Europeon, I'm not sure if your comment would be regarded as a positive, or negative.
As a reminder, Louisiana is a lot wealthier than you think it is: https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe-is-a-lot-poorer-than...
I buy mostly from a local one personally and a little from Fresh Market but in this regard national chains wouldn’t be affected by any putative local water quality problems
That doesn't mean that I won't feel slimy after a shower.
Kind of annoying that the study doesn't name the actual drinks, it just breaks them down by categories and lists results for the worst soft drink/sports drink/juice
Fruit juices and soft drinks are acidic, and will tend to corrode and dissolve whatever metals they come in contact with - e.g. the pipes and valves and containers. This produces a bunch of metal ions, will end up dissolved in the liquid.
Along similar lines, acidity (well, really not enough alkalinity) was a big factor in the municipal water problems at Flint, Michigan: the water in the pipes was allowed to become too acidic, causing it to react with the lead pipes - significantly increasing the amount of lead dissolved in the water. Whereas if the water had been more alkaline (higher pH), the lead in the pipes would not have ended up in the water to nearly the same extent.
Along similar lines, acidity (well, really not enough alkalinity) was a big factor in the municipal water problems at Flint, Michigan: the water in the pipes was allowed to become too acidic, causing it to react with the lead pipes - significantly increasing the amount of lead dissolved in the water. Whereas if the water had been more alkaline (higher pH), the lead in the pipes would not have ended up in the water to nearly the same extent.
pH control is one method of stabilizing lead, orthophosphate is another (which Flint didn’t bother with).
> Most important, the treated Flint River water lacked one chemical that the treated Detroit water had: phosphate. “They essentially lost something that was protecting them against high lead concentrations,” Giammar says. Cities such as Detroit add orthophosphate to their water as part of their corrosion control plans because the compound encourages the formation of lead phosphates, which are largely insoluble and can add to the pipes’ passivation layer.
…
> The treated Flint River water had a relatively low pH that decreased over time. According to monthly operating reports from the Flint treatment plant, the city’s water had a pH of about 8 in December 2014, but then it slowly dropped to 7.3 by August 2015. Environmental engineers say that if water pH drifts too low in the absence of orthophosphate, the water can start to leach high levels of lead from pipes.
> The pH drop over time seems to indicate that plant operators in Flint didn’t even have a target pH as part of a corrosion plan, Edwards says. Water utilities usually find a pH that’s optimal for preventing corrosion in their system. For example, in Boston, another city with old lead pipes, average water pH held steady around 9.6
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Wat...
> Most important, the treated Flint River water lacked one chemical that the treated Detroit water had: phosphate. “They essentially lost something that was protecting them against high lead concentrations,” Giammar says. Cities such as Detroit add orthophosphate to their water as part of their corrosion control plans because the compound encourages the formation of lead phosphates, which are largely insoluble and can add to the pipes’ passivation layer.
…
> The treated Flint River water had a relatively low pH that decreased over time. According to monthly operating reports from the Flint treatment plant, the city’s water had a pH of about 8 in December 2014, but then it slowly dropped to 7.3 by August 2015. Environmental engineers say that if water pH drifts too low in the absence of orthophosphate, the water can start to leach high levels of lead from pipes.
> The pH drop over time seems to indicate that plant operators in Flint didn’t even have a target pH as part of a corrosion plan, Edwards says. Water utilities usually find a pH that’s optimal for preventing corrosion in their system. For example, in Boston, another city with old lead pipes, average water pH held steady around 9.6
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i7/Lead-Ended-Flints-Tap-Wat...
pH is the fundamental thing, phosphate is the chemical patch that allows low pH water to be used. Basically they switched water source to something less alkaline than what they'd used previously - and didn't do anything to mitigate this. The phosphate is kind of a "patch" to the problem of low pH.
Fruit juice and cola is of course much, much more acidic than the Flint water - orange juice for example is about pH 4 (that is, 1000 times more H+ ions than pH 7)
Fruit juice and cola is of course much, much more acidic than the Flint water - orange juice for example is about pH 4 (that is, 1000 times more H+ ions than pH 7)
Does the FDA not randomly sample and test for this sort of thing? Why does it take a university study to discover it?
FDA doesn't have defined safe levels for some of these toxins in food, hence the reliance by the paper's authors on EPA's defined safe levels in water.
It's not an accident, and it's not like it never occurred to anyone that we might want to pay attention to heavy metal levels in food. Who do you think has more money to spend on lobbyists and campaign contributions, the people who want FDA to pay attention to this or the people who don't?
https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-l...
It's not an accident, and it's not like it never occurred to anyone that we might want to pay attention to heavy metal levels in food. Who do you think has more money to spend on lobbyists and campaign contributions, the people who want FDA to pay attention to this or the people who don't?
https://www.theonion.com/american-people-hire-high-powered-l...
$$$$$ whether the amount they don't have in a budget or the amount they receive from lobbyists to prevent it from happening
The FDA likes to rely on well-supported, highly controlled studies before they put tons of resources into performing long term testing of products. Remember that the FDA not only does consumer food but also pharmaceutical drugs, medical implants, vaccines, etc. with only a $3.4 Billion yearly budget.
I don't know the chemistry but it would be great to have cheap home tests for this stuff. The only available accurate cheap tests are for lead, for more comprehensive heavy metal tests you're looking at $200-400 and weeks of waiting.
Not really possible. The simplest setup for analyzing metals in foods and juices (and supplements) is atomic absorption spectroscopy, which involves digesting the sample in strong nitric acid IIRC.
AAC setups appear to range from $5,000 to $25,000 (depending on features like multi-sample processing automation etc.) at present. A lab capable of safely handling nitric acid digestion (fumes a bit) needs an effective chemical fume hood, which are at least $20,000 for a fairly basic small hood, and each metal you want to test for requires a separete protocol. See for example:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/70...
You can do a bunch of different metals at once with ICP-MS but those systems cost around 10X as much as AAC.
AAC setups appear to range from $5,000 to $25,000 (depending on features like multi-sample processing automation etc.) at present. A lab capable of safely handling nitric acid digestion (fumes a bit) needs an effective chemical fume hood, which are at least $20,000 for a fairly basic small hood, and each metal you want to test for requires a separete protocol. See for example:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/70...
You can do a bunch of different metals at once with ICP-MS but those systems cost around 10X as much as AAC.
Sure, but isn't this the kind of thing we expect the government or "FDA" to monitor regularly? It's peanuts for them to regularly have each company that sells more than X million dollars per year to send them a representative sample of their products for testing.
Minor nit, but you really don't want to trust companies to send a sample. You would need to ensure samples are acquired through the consumer supply chain by the FDA.
I agree, for food, though it would still be nice to be able to "trust but verify". But the more common use case is testing water from old sketchy pipes.
Same issues endemic in bottled water ->
https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/whats-really-i...
Anybody know of a beverages brand that prioritizes filtration / actual health of their consumers?
I would LOVE to fund a startup that focused on that from a CPG perspective or alternatively some actual scientifically relevant and ongoing standards labeling for food, beverages, etc
https://www.consumerreports.org/water-quality/whats-really-i...
Anybody know of a beverages brand that prioritizes filtration / actual health of their consumers?
I would LOVE to fund a startup that focused on that from a CPG perspective or alternatively some actual scientifically relevant and ongoing standards labeling for food, beverages, etc
Better to just drink tap water that's filtered. Even if you don't filter the water tap water is already held to a higher standard and it's easier to get your local test data.
I get test data mailed to me quarterly about my tap water without having to ask for it or sign up. I've never seen any test data to speak of for any bottled water.
And the tap water is not stored in plastic bottles.
I get test data mailed to me quarterly about my tap water without having to ask for it or sign up. I've never seen any test data to speak of for any bottled water.
And the tap water is not stored in plastic bottles.
[deleted]
Purchased a Pristine Hydro https://pristinehydro.com/ system a few years back and absolutely love it. Pays for itself in convenience alone as we were accustomed to filling up containers at a local aquifer or grocery store (RO filtered).
I’ve never heard of such a service, but I’d love to get data like that. Where do you live?
We get annual reports in the Bay Area (Bear Gulch reservoir). One time we had an issue and they came out and did testing on our specific taps. We tried again more recently and they seem to have retired the service.
There’s this video on Zephyr Water but it’s now owned by Nestle.
https://youtu.be/3XA9hElPJNs
https://youtu.be/3XA9hElPJNs
Topo Chico? Say it ain’t so!
They’ve since reduced PFAS levels by half but still not great: https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/topo-chico-cut...
[deleted]
The study's infographic is here:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S08891575230010...
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S08891575230010...
Which are almost as harmful as the sugar that most of those drinks use to addict their consumers.
Well that's horrifying
This is beverage sold in the US. It might sound a bit arrogant, but food safety and standards in the US are much lower than certain places. I hope research like this helps improve the situation.
> but food safety and standards in the US are much lower than certain places.
It is arrogant. You make a claim then do not show any evidence or data. You do not name those _certain places_.
Which places and what data do you have to back up the claim?
It is arrogant. You make a claim then do not show any evidence or data. You do not name those _certain places_.
Which places and what data do you have to back up the claim?
I neither support nor refute the claim, but one data point is the Global Food Security Index. In their 2022 report, the rating/ranking was:
---
On the other hand:
Why There is Nothing Wrong With American Food Standards - https://techround.co.uk/business/american-food-standards/
Finland
Ireland
Norway
France
Netherlands
Japan
Sweden
Canada
United Kingdom
Portugal
Switzerland
Austria
United States
...
---
On the other hand:
Why There is Nothing Wrong With American Food Standards - https://techround.co.uk/business/american-food-standards/
If you sort the index by "Quality and Safety", which sounds like the most appropriate for this context, the US comes in 3rd place, behind only Canada and Denmark, which I actually found to be quite surprising.
On the other hand, what we perceive as the low quality of food in the US might be more geared towards the "healthiness" of that food and not its safety. For instance, I will often eat fast food for a couple days while recovering from food poisoning because I feel it's generally safer than fresh food. That thing is absent of any nutrition, but it's also almost sterile.
On the other hand, what we perceive as the low quality of food in the US might be more geared towards the "healthiness" of that food and not its safety. For instance, I will often eat fast food for a couple days while recovering from food poisoning because I feel it's generally safer than fresh food. That thing is absent of any nutrition, but it's also almost sterile.
Interesting link! That seems to be the overall ranking, though, not the one for the category "Quality and Safety". Food safety is a subcategory of that, and "relevant food safety legislation" a sub-sub-category.
The US scores a (perfect?) 100 in that sub-sub-category. It also scores 100 in nutrition labeling, which I found suprising, because my impression was that the nutrition and ingredient labels in the US are pretty subpar compared to the EU. But what do I know.
https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-sec...
The US scores a (perfect?) 100 in that sub-sub-category. It also scores 100 in nutrition labeling, which I found suprising, because my impression was that the nutrition and ingredient labels in the US are pretty subpar compared to the EU. But what do I know.
https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/project/food-sec...
Does anyone have access to the actual research to share the brands and other information? I tried searching sci-hub but came up empty. The paywalled link is https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105230
The study included no mention of specific brands.
it's too bad they don't name the brands
[deleted]