Coke, Pepsi, Carcinogenic Colourant

"Right now, this is only for California because only California has this mandate. The intention is to expand the use of the modified caramel beyond California to allow us to streamline and simplify our supply chain, manufacturing and distribution systems. However, our timeline for this effort in North America is still being developed.
"There are no timelines for the Canadian Market.
"All of our products are safe and comply with regulations in every country where we operate. Regulators throughout the world, including Health Canada, have approved the use of the caramel colour found in our products."

Well, back to the drawing board. If Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are preparing to protect their California marketplace by adhering to the food safety regulations in that state they will have to alter their formula for coca-cola production. And since they're embarked on that market-saving process, why not simplify matters further by 'streamlining' and updating their entire production distributed everywhere?

If California's food safety codes are stringent in the area of food safety, good for them, good for all of us. In recognizing, as a marketing tool, the need to alter a formula containing too much of a certain colour-carcinogen requiring a health warning label for the California market, a complete alteration of product inclusion should logically ensue. What's unsafe in California is potentially unsafe anywhere.

Both companies, in fact, are preparing to roll out the new manufacturing process to exclude the offending colour-chemical throughout the United States. But not in Canada, not elsewhere in the world where their products are sold. Obviously, because they do not feel they are required to. For the further obvious reason that elsewhere no caveats have been raised with respect to the possibility of ill health resulting from the ingestion of their product.

Shouldn't we be concerned? The Center for Science in the Public Interest thinks we should be. The Washington-based organization, which has an office in Ottawa, feels an outright and universal ban of the ammonia-sulphite caramel colourings are due. They released test results indicating levels of 4-MEI in Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Pepsi and Diet Pepsi exceed the 18-microgram State of California benchmark under Proposition 65.

"It's an unnecessary colour additive. They don't need to add it [at] all. This product is an artificial colouring that's made by heating sugar along with ammonia and sulphites at a high temperature under high pressure. It's really an industrial chemical."

And there you have it. An industrial chemical. The average amount (128 micrograms) in a 12-ounce can of the drink represents a 4.8 times greater amount of the animal-tested carcinogen than what California's food safety law permits: a 29 microgram-per-day limit. And this is what people casually imbibe day in and day out, as the most popular soft drink manufactured, distributed and purchased world-wide.

And while the American Beverage Association claims "This is nothing more than CSPI scare tactics and their claims are outrageous", their self-interest is not the sound public-interest base that the Center for Science in the Public Interest represents. I'll take my chances any time, any day, with what the CSPI recommends, thank you very much.