ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

Sponsored By: Two Men and a Truck
heavy-rain-night
78°
Thunderstorms
H 86° L 74°
  • heavy-rain-night
    78°
    Current Conditions
    Thunderstorms. H 86° L 74°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day
    78°
    Evening
    Thunderstorms. H 86° L 74°
  • cloudy-day
    75°
    Morning
    Cloudy. H 84° L 76°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest top stories

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

National
Study: Sodas contain high levels of possible carcinogen
Close

Study: Sodas contain high levels of possible carcinogen

Study: Sodas contain high levels of possible carcinogen
Photo Credit: J. David Ake
A bottle of soda is photographed in Washington Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it is conducting new studies of the safety of caramel coloring in soft drinks and other foods, even though previous research has shown no identifiable health risk. The agency's announcement comes in response to a study by Consumer Reports that shows varying levels of 4-methylimidazole _ an impurity formed in some caramel coloring at low levels during the manufacturing process _ in 12 brands of soda from five manufacturers. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

Study: Sodas contain high levels of possible carcinogen

A new study from Consumer Reports shows some soda brands might contain high levels of 4-MeI, a chemical believed to be a carcinogen. 

The study tested different cans and bottles of soft drink brands such as Coke, Pepsi and Malta Goya. They compared the level of 4-MeI found in those drinks to a California regulation stating products with more than 29 micrograms must display a warning label.

"While our sample size is not big enough to recommend one brand over another, all the cans of Pepsi One we tested were above 29 micrograms. And 15 of the 16 bottles of Malta Goya had more than ten times that level."

The FDA currently does not regulate levels of 4-MeI in foods, despite a 2007 study linking the chemical to lung cancer in lab mice. The agency is currently reviewing the available data about 4-MeI, and may decide to regulate it in the future.

But California's decision to regulate the chemical has already had a serious impact on the soda industry. NPR notes Coca-Cola modified its original recipe in 2012 to comply with California's standard.

Pepsi is also in the process of changing its formula, which should be finalized in February. But Consumerist notes Pepsi has defended the level of 4-MeI in its sodas in the past — by claiming people don't finish a can of soda in one day.

"The company cites government consumption data that shows that the average amount of diet soda consumed by people who drink it is 100 milliliters per day, or less than a third of a 12-ounce can. For that reason, they say Pepsi One does not require cancer-risk warning labels—even if the amount of 4-MeI in a single can exceeds 29 micrograms."

But before you chuck that can of Pepsi in the trash, ABC's chief health and medical editor notes it's still unclear whether the 4-MeI levels in soda can significantly impact people who drink it.

"You would need to drink more than 1,000 cans of soda every day to take in as much of the chemical as the mice that got cancer. So I'm not concerned. But if you are, look at the labels for the words 'caramel color', and then you have a choice."

A Pepsi representative responded to the Consumer Reports study by saying all Pepsi products are in full compliance with California law.

- See more at newsy.com

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest News Headlines

  • It had to be a shock for neighbors, living near the Northeast Florida Regional Airport.   A St. Augustine man is accused of firing a a handgun at least 6 times into a wooded area on Avenue B and Decoy Alley, just off US 1, on Monday afternoon, only a few hundred feet from where kids were playing.   The St. Johns County Sheriff's Office says Bruce Johnson, 22, initially fled the area, but when they caught up with him a short time later, he admitted to the crime.   Johnson is now charged with discharging a firearm from a vehicle, which is a felony.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the Unites States from certain countries to be reinstated has left many unanswered questions.  And while the administration can restrict certain groups of people from entering the country beginning as early as Thursday, the answer to what else Trump is legally allowed to do when it comes to immigration may not come until the fall when the justices will hear arguments about the case. Here’s what other media outlets are saying about the ruling. What the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling means The Washington Post “The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect is a win for the administration, but the impact will be far less severe than President Trump’s initial version of the measure. That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term. For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.” >> Read more trending news Court's travel ban ruling gives Trump a boost, changes media narrative Fox News “Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue. In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling. Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.” But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.” Supreme Court's compromise on travel ban raises big questions for US tourism industry Forbes “After battling through lower courts, a watered down version of the travel ban was re-instated Monday, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear appeals on the ban this October. In the meantime, a limited version will be in effect in as little as 72 hours. Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions. Restricting travel from six majority Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending the country’s refugee program for 120 days, the latest version only effects people without any connections to the US.” Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban The Washington Times “The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that much of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who blasted the president as anti-Muslim. In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the justices said the president has important national security powers that the courts must respect and ruled that he likely has the power to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants. But the justices said those who already have a connection to the U.S. — either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection — will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees. Minutes after the ruling, both sides were fighting over what that meant.” Supreme Court ruling on travel ban sparks fear, frustration — and joy — in Southern California OC Register “Muslim Americans in Southern California described the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow a temporary, partial version of the Trump administration’s travel ban as disappointing and “irrational,” but noted that until the issue gets a full hearing later this year it’s unclear how it will play out. The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t. Both sides are gearing up for what’s next.” SCOTUS splits the travel ban baby Slate “The Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s travel ban is like an optical illusion: Your perception of it changes depending on your vantage point. To Trump and his allies, the decision looks like total vindication for the administration, a move that allows its long-delayed executive order to take effect. To left-leaning analysts, it’s a clever political compromise that still protects many of the refugees and foreign nationals who would’ve been excluded by the ban. There’s a reason for these wildly differing takes: The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That’s because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president’s authority to pass it. The court’s baby-splitting shields the president and his opponents from an outright loss or a clear-cut victory. But it doesn’t make much sense as a matter of law. It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is—even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is.”
  • Updated at 1:52 p.m. ET: From The Associated Press: “Lacking votes, Senate GOP leaders abruptly delay vote on health care bill until after July 4th recess.” Original story: Early Tuesday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said he will oppose beginning debate on the Senate health care bill, voting no on a procedural vote that would put into motion the final vote for an overhaul of the country's health care system. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) have said they, too, will likely oppose the procedural motion that allows debate on the bill to start. All four senators have said they would need to see alterations to the GOP version of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare before they would vote to move forward. >> Read more trending news On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office “scored” -- or estimated the cost -- of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said he hoped to have a vote on the bill by Thursday before senators leave Washington D.C. for the Fourth of July holiday recess. So what will happen next with the bill? Will we see a vote? Here’s a look at how the bill would become a law. Since the CBO score is in, the Senate parliamentarian will meet with McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) to make sure that the bill as written is in line with the rules of reconciliation. Reconciliation allows legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote of 51-49. Reconciliation does not allow for a filibuster, so a senator could not delay a vote on the bill indefinitely. Once the bill is cleared for reconciliation, and if McConnell feels it can survive, he will take the bill to the Senate floor. There, the bill faces a procedural step called a “Motion to Proceed” that allows the Senate to begin debate on the legislation. If the vote for that procedure – a simple majority vote – fails, then the bill does not go to the Senate floor for debate or for passage. If it survives the Motion to Proceed, the bill heads to the floor. Once the bill is introduced, a 20-hour window for debate begins. The debate time is divided between Democrats and Republicans. The debate process allows for speeches about the bill and amendments and motions to the legislation. After the 20 hours of debate, there is a little more time for senators to offer amendments to the bill with no debate. Eventually, someone will call for a “Motion to End Debate,” otherwise known as a “cloture” vote. The cloture vote ends all discussion on the bill and moves the legislation to one final vote on the Senate floor. During that vote, McConnell can only afford to lose two GOP votes and still see the bill pass, since all of the Democratic senators have said they will vote no on the bill. He would do that with the help of Vice President Mike Pence, since the vice president has the power to break a tie vote in the Senate.
  • A Pennsylvania judge has upheld the sentence of a Bucks County man who pleaded guilty to an attempted rape charge in 2013. >> Read more trending news Frank Yeager, 33, was sentenced to prison for up to 20 years and later appealed, contending that his lawyer did not question whether his confession was legal. Yeager revealed he regarded his search for potential rape victims as “full time work,” police said. He wrote in a note, “I truly enjoy the hunt and cannot wait for my prize.” He compiled a list with more than 200 names, addresses and personal information about targets, according to Lehigh Valley Live, and was was fixated on raping real estate agents. Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. upheld Yeager’s sentence and portrayed him as a full-blown psychopath who was obsessed with rape, Penn Live reported. >> Related: Lawyer recorded telling rape victim Trump will deport her if she testified, indictment says Yeager plotted for five months to rape a real estate agent by luring her to a property, and even waited in the home for her with the lights off. Read more here.
  • Danish shipping conglomerate A.P. Moller-Maersk was one of multiple European companies to fall victim Tuesday to a cyberattack as Ukrainian government officials reported a “large-scale hacker attack” across the country. >> Read more trending news Attacks were also reported in several other countries, Russia cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab said in a statement, including the United States, Russia, Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.

The Latest News Videos