2 ms·
Point taken. They do seem to be using worst-case numbers. I'm curious, though, where you got the 1% number for Coke HFCS content? Elsewhere in the comments t
by jcl 18y ago
Point taken. They do seem to be using worst-case numbers.
I'm curious, though, where you got the 1% number for Coke HFCS content? Elsewhere in the comments there is a link to an About.com article that says that most soft drinks contain about 10% HFCS, and I'd be surprised to see Coke among the less-sweetened drinks. I can't find other references online beyond guesses, which seem to indicate around 40g per regular can. If your estimate is off by a factor of 10, your proposed all-Coke diet would give you 50% of your EPA reference dose, which is a little more worrying.
- jws 18y agoYou are right, I misread the label of the can, when I read 26g of sugars and the 9% of RDA next to it I interpreted it as 9% of the 26g, but it is 26g, 9% of the a 290g RDA. Your 50% of EPA dose is correct, but still shouldn't be too worrying because there is no evidence presented that the mercury is in an organic form. Just that if it were, it would still be safe. I'll go back and annotate the previous comment. Or maybe not, the 'edit' link is gone, perhaps since it has a reply. I'll just have to hope people read far enough to find the correction. And, just incase I sound as if I like mercury in my Coke, I don't. It seems reasonable to use mercury free alternatives (provided they don't have some other hazard). There was proposed legislation to that effect that didn't make it to law, perhaps it can make it this year. What I oppose here is terrifying the populace with puffed up science-sounding articles to achieve an ulterior motive.
- jcl 18y agoHeh, yeah, the edit link disappears after two hours, regardless of whether anyone has replied.