Why is it inappropriate to put "Antioxidants" in soda and on the label, is the question asked by the American Beverage Consortium. There are a number of things wrong with it!
1. People are likely to think that drinking a soda that has pictures of cherries on the label and contains a supplemental antioxidant (vitamin E acetate) is going to give them the same health benefits as eating a bowl of cherries. IT IS NOT!
- A can of diet soda has not one single nutrient in it other than a supplemental form of vitamin E
- A can of regular soda has the supplemental form of vitamin E + SUGAR (think calories), nothing else.
- Eating a bowl of cherries or berries will provide numerous vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients (antioxidants) and fiber, with minimal calories (nutrient dense).
- Instead eating a bag of high fat, calorie and sodium chips you are eating berries. You are getting health benefits just by NOT eating the chips!
Then there is the question about Mayor Bloomberg's limit on sugary drinks. In doing this he is not shifting New Yorkers to drinking diet soda. He is simply putting a limit on sugary drinks. So, there is no question, "why is fortifying diet #beverages inappropriate if NYC is shifting us to them?".
The debate over the ban of sugary drinks has opened up a great flow of information to the public, i.e http://www.therealbears.com/. Let the education process begin. Thanks Mayor Bloomberg.
@MAYOR BLOOMBERG, AMERICANS AND NEW YORKERS WILL NEED RESEARCH THAT LOOKS AT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SUGARY DRINKS LIMIT AND ITS EFFECT (IF ANY) ON OBESITY, DIABETES, MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY AS WELL AS HEALTHCARE COSTS. THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE.