Donate today and get a free, signed copy of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > March 28, 2006

Cancer in a Can

By Terry J. Allen

Fifteen years ago the Food and Drug Administration said, “Trust us.” Its scientists had found benzene, a known carcinogen, in some sodas and fruit drinks. The same levels in drinking water would have triggered mandatory action and public notification through newspaper, radio and TV ads. Yet the FDA neither sounded the alarm nor required the beverage industry to fix the problem.

Instead, it cut a private deal. FDA chemist Greg Diachenko told beveragedaily.com that “Soft drinks manufacturers told us that they would get the word out and they were reformulating.”

It wouldn’t have been hard. Benzene, linked to leukemia and other cancers of the blood, is created by the reaction of two common additives: sodium benzoate, a preservative, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Ignoring basic chemistry, major brands left the avoidable combo in many drinks, especially those featuring fruit juice or fortified with vitamin C to lure health-conscious parents.

According to a 1990 internal FDA memo, the National Soft Drinks Association clarified industry priorities, expressing “concern about the presence of benzene traces in their products and the potential for adverse publicity associated with this problem.”

Fifteen years later, the benzene is hitting the fan. Recently, Germany and the United Kingdom announced investigations and the FDA admits it is taking another look. But Washington’s drink of choice remains a heady cocktail of campaign contributions and secrecy, impairing its ability and will to regulate the safety of everything from mines to meat, from skyscrapers to soda.

Some states have circumvented Washington’s lax standards and weak enforcement. California’s Proposition 65, which requires companies to alert the public of potentially dangerous toxins in food, has sparked lawsuits over mercury in canned tuna and lead in Mexican candy.

The Republican-dominated House has countered with a circumvention of its own. On March 8, as lawmakers pledged allegiance to industry, and FDA officials chanted another dreary chorus of “Trust us,” the House passed the National Uniformity for Food Act. If the Senate follows suit, the FDA would control almost all food labeling, and states would be barred from posting stricter warnings on carcinogens, genetic engineering, carbon monoxide-treated meat or growth hormones.

“This bill is going to overturn 200 state laws that protect our food supply,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). “Why are we doing that? What’s wrong with our system of federalism?”

President Bush’s answer to that question lies in the ways he has undercut states’ rights and tilted the constitutionally defined balance of powers by expanding executive authority. His sentiment, if not his language, echoes Dick Cheney’s suggestion to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). With go-fuck-yourself verve, his administration has launched a stealth campaign to centralize regulatory power in Washington, while cronies, lackeys and co-conspirators work to disable safeguards and to hide outrages that range from abusive detention camps to poison in your kid’s drink.

The FDA bill that cuts states out of the food labeling business is but one part of a broad strategy leaving the country’s regulatory system increasingly vulnerable to political and financial pressure. Changes quietly imposed by the administration include limiting an individual’s right to sue in state court over defective or injurious products, undermining state laws on discriminatory lending, and barring states from requiring tougher vehicle emission and safety standards. The New York Times referred to the practice as “silent tort reform” and noted that, “Using a variety of largely unheralded regulations, officials appointed by President Bush have moved in recent months to neuter the states.”

The administration’s most gung-ho allies are the lobbyists and interest groups that profit from less regulation. All insist that the industry they represent has the public’s interest at heart and that it can and will police itself without government “interference.”

The backers of the FDA labeling bill, led by the corporations and trade groups in the National Uniformity for Food Coalition (NUFC), say their key goal is preventing consumer “confusion.” Meanwhile, legislators are indeed getting an unambiguous message—in the language of cash. NUFC members contributed more than $3 million in the 2005-06 election cycle and $31 million since 1998, according to data the San Francisco Chronicle crunched using Center for Responsive Politics data.

Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kool-Aid (Kraft), Tropicana and Cadbury Schweppes all produce drinks that contain the potentially dangerous benzene-producing combo according to research by the Environmental Working Group. And a look at the NUFC Web site confirms that all of these companies are members of the trade group that pushed for the bill.

The average American consumes almost 70 gallons of fruit drink and soda a year, while males 12-29 swill more than double that in soda alone. The American Beverage Association (also an NUFC member) declares on its Web site that the public craves a choice. It neglects to note that if consumers choose a benzene-contaminated drink, that choice may result in cancer.

Contact Terry J. Allen at .

More information about Terry J. Allen
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Several questions spring to mind on the benzene issue.  First why haven’t public activist groups picked up the ball and informed the public?  Next, why have not these same activist groups filed class action suits?  Finally, what is wrong with the American public that upon learning they are being poisoned that they do not boycott the products?

    Seems to me there is a lot that we the people can do regardless of what piece of legislation is or is not made into law.  We do NOT have to buy poison, and if we do we assume responsibility for our own and our childrens health.

    I do not consume soft drinks or fruit drinks of any kind and my life is not in a state of stark deprivation, we the people, have incredible consumer power that we are either too weak, or too lazy to invoke.

    Thanks for speaking out on this issue.

    Posted by rvrman on Mar 29, 2006 at 3:01 AM

    A lot of information here that I was not aware of.  I’ve been suspicious of soft drinks for a while and now I see there is good reason for such thoughts.

    Excellent article, thank you for bringing this out to the public eye.

    Posted by tangent on Mar 29, 2006 at 9:11 AM

    This is a follow up to my earlier comments.  I went out and did a quick survey of soft drinks including fruit drinks.  Better than 80 percent of those I checked contained the additives, sodium benzoate and ascorbic acid.

    I immediately drafted email to the head of the policy unit of the Consumers Union detailing this information and making reference to this article and several other sources about the dangers of benzene in our soft drinks.

    I also found that there is a possibility that benzene in these drinks contributes to symptons similar to those of ADHD and ADD in both children and adults.

    I would say we are are in serious trouble.

    Posted by rvrman on Mar 29, 2006 at 9:26 AM

    http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060329-095254-4737r

    Posted by spayced on Mar 29, 2006 at 11:38 PM

    Very interesting article. I guess I haven’t really been keeping up to speed on important issues. This is one I was not aware of… which brings up a good point, “Public Awareness”! This magazine is not widely circulated among the public (at least not the people I know). It seems that people like to ignore issues like this, don’t see them as important in comparison to their materialistic values and busy careers, or don’t want to face information that will interfere with their beliefs, habits, and complacency. I, on the other hand, am not one of those people (in general) but I will admit that I am guilty of being ingorant at times for different reasons. It’s important to stay aware of what is affecting the world aroung us, our health, and our choices.

    Currently, I am enrolled in college full-time and work a full-time job from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. I am caught up in the hustle and bustle of trying to become successful. In my college experience, I happen to be taking a nutrition course. It’s making me more aware of of my lifestyle choices and eating habits. That’s why this article jumped out at me and I decided to read it.

    Caner has been on my mind lately because it seems that I’m hearing of more and more people who are dying from it on a regular basis. Recently, a long-time friend and neighbor was diagnosed with lung cancer. It baffles me to think of a man who never smoked in his life, worked in a clean environment, lives in the country, and frequents health food stores has lung cancer. The last time I ran into him, it was in an Organic foods store.

    This is not the only case of unexplained cancer that I’ve heard of recently. In fact, it’s just one of many.

    Posted by Jamieleigh514 on Mar 30, 2006 at 10:42 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 8 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues


Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

Popular Discussions