Standard headline reads
Coke, Pepsi make changes to avoid cancer warning
www.reuters.com...
4V20120309
That is a cop out BS answer for 99% of the consumer masses to buy into
what is really going on (as the title says) is simple Cost cutting maneuvers to help slumping sales and stagnating stock prices
by simply removing an ingredient from the recipe
through regulatory processes over a health concerns from cancer risks
which as a doctor on Good morning America put it "you would have to drink 1000 cans a day to hit the risk for cancer" your more likely to die from
diabetes, obesity or the other health risks from drinking soda
Coke and Pepsi said on Friday that they had asked their suppliers of the caramel coloring in their colas to alter their manufacturing process to
meet the requirements of a California ballot initiative aiming to limit people's exposure to toxic chemicals. "Consumers will notice no difference in
our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns," said PepsiCo spokeswoman Gina Anderson in a statement. The change is meant to reduce
the amount of a chemical called 4-methylimidazole, or 4-MI, which in January was added to the list of chemicals covered by California's Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65. High levels of that chemical have been linked to cancer in animals. The
California statute says that "no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to
the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving a clear and reasonable warning ..."
pepsi or coke who say they have never had a problem with it
but will make the change to avoid putting the cancer label on their product
(which ranks somewhere below cigarettes but for sure above beer since beer at least has some nutritional value and wont clean the corrosion off a car
battery like Pepsi or Coke both do extremely well)
gma.yahoo.com...
/coke-pepsi-change-recipe-to-remove-carcinogen-28561131.html
this show their putting on is in order to save face with the consumer
Since their cutting a major cost and reducing overhead
- thus increasing profits
-helping stock option and share prices in the long term
while not only giving people a reason for this change but a reassuring reason that makes them look good so they dont effect sales
Some executive is getting a fat Xmas Bonus
like the guy who figure out if you make a Airliners center of gravity tail heavy it save jet fuel
he retired the next day
This is what the Automotive industry has had to do to survive
forcing more and more safety regulation on to automobiles driving up cost making a car Cost $25-30,000 instead of $5-10,000 shoot people jack airbags
and catalytic converters Cop make loot of seat belt tickets
the only thing that should be required on a new car is the greatest safety devise that has ever been put on a car
and that's Anti-Lock Breaks
I could make cheap affordable cars that people would have to get a Loan for a $30,000 car
that after you pay off the principle and intrest plus insurance, repairs perhaps traffic tickets will cost +$50-60,000 over 5 to 10 year who can
afford that its like Home Loans Student Loans or
any other for of indentured servitude
Tell me if im wrong please or go buy some coke and pepsi stock its already on effecting trading value
[removed bad format tag]
edit on 3/10/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit-_Removed bad format tag.