I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.

Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas

http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/index.html

Americans consume gargantuan quantities of carbonated soft drinks and
suffer untoward health consequences. Companies annually produce
enough soda pop to provide 557 12-ounce cans - 52.4 gallons - to
every man, woman, and child.

Adding in noncarbonated soft drinks (including fruit drinks, ades,
iced teas, and the like) adds thousands of more empty calories to the
diet each year.

Carbonated soft drinks are the single biggest source of calories in
the American diet, providing about 7 percent of calories; adding in
noncarbonated drinks brings the figure to 9 percent. Teenagers get 13
percent of their calories from carbonated and noncarbonated soft
drinks.

Consumption of carbonated soft drinks peaked in 1998, when
consumption was 56.1 gallons per person. In a historic turnaround,
consumption was 7 percent lower in 2004. And because some people have
switched to diet sodas, the consumption of caloric soft drinks
declined by 12 percent.

Soft drinks provide large amounts of sugars (mostly high-fructose
corn syrup) to many individuals' diets. Soda pop provides the average
12- to 19-year-old boy with about 15 teaspoons of refined sugars a
day and the average girl with about 10 teaspoons a day. Those amounts
roughly equal the government's recommended limits for teens' sugar
consumption from all foods.

Soft drinks are a problem not only for what they contain, but for
what they push out of the diet. In 1977–78, boys consumed more than
twice as much milk as soft drinks, and girls consumed 50 percent more
milk than soft drinks. By 1994–96, both boys and girls consumed twice
as much soda pop as milk. Heavy soft drink consumption is associated
with lower intake of numerous vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber.

The empty calories of soft drinks are likely contributing to health
problems, particularly overweight and obesity. Those conditions have
become far more prevalent during the period in which soft drink
consumption has soared. Several scientific studies have provided
experimental evidence that soft drinks are directly related to weight
gain. That weight gain, in turn, is a prime risk factor for type 2
diabetes, which, for the first time, is becoming a problem for teens
as well as adults. As people get older, excess weight also
contributes to heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

Frequent consumption of soft drinks may also increase the risk of
osteoporosis—especially in people who drink soft drinks instead of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

calcium-rich milk. Dental experts continue to urge that people drink
less soda pop, especially between meals, to prevent tooth decay (due
to the sugars) and dental erosion (due to the acids).

Frequent consumers of soft drinks may also be at a higher risk of
kidney stones and a slightly higher risk of heart disease. More
research is needed in both of those areas.

Besides the sugars and acids, other soft drink ingredients are of
concern. Caffeine, which is added to many of the most popular soft
drinks, is a mildly addictive, stimulant drug. It also increases
slightly the excretion of calcium. Artificial colorings, especially
Yellow No. 5, promote attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in
some children. Yellow No. 5 also causes hives, asthma, and other
allergic reactions in a small number of individuals.

Soft drinks are heavily consumed in part because companies promote
them vigorously and market them everywhere—in stores, restaurants,
gas stations, museums, vending machines, and even schools. Companies
spend roughly $700 million on media advertising each year, and
hundreds of millions more on other promotional activities, which may
involve musicians, actors, contracts with schools, and price
discounting.

A number of parents and educators have—in response to the obesity
epidemic among youths—begun successful efforts to curb the sale of
soft drinks in schools. Currently, many middle schools and most high
schools sell soda, with many schools having exclusive marketing
contracts with companies. California, Tennessee, Arizona,
Philadelphia, New York City, and other jurisdictions have barred
non-diet soft drinks from some or all schools.

To help reduce the consumption of soft drinks, especially non-diet
varieties, the Center for Science in the Public Interest makes these
and other recommendations:

* National and local governments should require chain restaurants
to declare the calorie content of soft drinks and all other items on
menus and menu boards.
* The Food and Drug Administration should require labels on
non-diet soft drinks to state that frequent consumption of those
drinks promotes obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, osteoporosis,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and
other health problems.
* Local, state, and federal governments should provide water
fountains in schools, government buildings, parks, and other public
spaces.
* School systems and other organizations catering to children
should stop selling soft drinks (as well as candy and other junk
foods) in hallways, shops, and cafeterias.
* State and local governments should consider levying small taxes
on soft drinks, with the revenues earmarked for promoting health and
fitness. A national 2-cent tax on a can of soda pop would raise $3
billion annually.


I guess scientists were 2 steps behind my recommendation/

Beach Runner wrote:
> I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
>
> Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
> Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas

You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.

usual suspect wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>> I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
>>
>> Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
>> Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas
>
>
> You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.

I'll make an exception. Republican Right Wing idiots are activists.
It's what their agenda is.

Beach Runner lied about killfiling me (hahaha):
>>> I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
>>>
>>> Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
>>> Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas
>>
>> You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.
>
> I'll make an exception.

You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Beach Runner wrote:
>> I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
>>
>> Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
>> Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas
>
> You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.
Your vulgarity, lack of respect for all humans (clearly including
yourself), and total ignorance of science itself does not qualify YOU to
determine who are scientists. It requires education, glaringly lacking in
your writing and behavior, to get a degree in a given science.
What is the level of your "education"? By your writing, it seems to be
emotionally-disturbed 8-year old.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Beach Runner wrote:
> >> I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
> >>
> >> Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
> >> Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas
> >
> > You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.

To be perfectly accurate, the organization is an advocacy group, but
they do real science, and are respected by the overwhelming majority of
the scientific community. The exceptions probably overlap heavily with
those knucklehead "scientists" who deny both evolution and global
warming.

> Your vulgarity, lack of respect for all humans (clearly including
> yourself), and total ignorance of science itself does not qualify YOU to
> determine who are scientists. It requires education, glaringly lacking in
> your writing and behavior, to get a degree in a given science.

What it really requires is an attempt to over-and-over try to prove the
null hypothesis, in other words, try to prove one's own hypothesis to
be false. Non-scientists are far less accurate because they try to
prove themselves correct.

> What is the level of your "education"? By your writing, it seems to be
> emotionally-disturbed 8-year old.

People with Right-wing ideologies don't have mature senses of right and
wrong.
They can't help it.
>
> Laurie

--Bryan http://myspace.com/TheBonobos

wrote:
>>>>I was castigated for suggested that children should not be given soda.
>>>>
>>>>Liquid Candy: How Softdrinks Are Harming America's Health
>>>>Press Release: CSPI Calls on FDA to Require Health Warnings on Sodas
>>>
>>>You stupid ****. CSPI are *activists*, not scientists.
>
> To be perfectly accurate, the organization is an advocacy group,

They're activists. They have an agenda.

> but they do real science,

Name one study they've published in a peer-review journal.

> and are respected by the overwhelming majority of
> the scientific community.

Ipse dixit and dispense with the psychobabble about "community."
Scientists are in a *profession*, not in a community (especially the way
you wild-eyes leftists are with all your peculiar fetishes and such).
Name a poll in which an overwhelming consensus of scientists esteem CSPI
or admit you're making up this shit to vouch for an activist group.

http://www.cspiscam.com/background.cfm

<...>