"Zero Coke" really harmful to health?

Sugar-free Cola harmful to health?

Http://www.thebeijingnews.com source: Beijing News

Recently, Venezuela to "adverse public health" as a ban on the sale of a carbonated drink without sugar.

The message also caused a gust of wind and waves, and even some unsuspecting readers complain in quality inspection departments "omission" and let the problem of food products into the market.

The problem is that Venezuela has not the drinks what "the negative public health".

However, compare the manufacturer's no sugar, sugar both carbonated beverage is not difficult to find, the "case" is a sweetener, aspartame. Use of sweeteners to replace sugar in beverages, aims to reduce the calorie beverages. Aspartame contains a little heat, but the content is very low, so the entire beverage calories can be ignored. Such beverages does not provide any nutrition, just to solve the problem of taste. Relative to the traditional high carbonated drinks, natural nutrient surplus by, in particular, excessive intake of calories for modern people.

Aspartame as early as 1965 was discovered, but because of the "artificial" label, has been subject to a variety of doubt — especially carcinogenic allegations.

Many research institutions have hand, after ten years of exploration, didn't find any evidence. Beauty and medicinal Agency (FDA) considers that all these test are not found, then in 1981, ratified in certain foods. Later, other countries, including China, and international agencies have recognized its security. By 1996, the FDA finally abolished restrictions on its use, allow it to be used for any food. However, the scientific community has not this stop clamoring, many are intended to identify its harm is still in progress. In 2007, published in the CriticalReviews inToxicology "review of notes that to date no evidence that aspartame have security problems. In animal experiments, daily intake per kg body weight 4000 mgaspartame has not been observed, but FDA requirements in human maximum intake per kg body weight per day is 50 mg. The amount of roughly equivalent to 10 more bottles a day drink sugar-free Cola. There are some sporadic cases of animal experiment shows the hazards of aspartame or even carcinogenic, however these studies have not been national authorities and relevant international organizations considered sufficient to reverse the safety of aspartame.

Visible, from the scientific evidence and the competent bodies of the sweetener in beverages in use is quite safe.

For bicarbonate type drinks, the impact of osteoporosis is often a challenge.

The carbonic acid, phosphoric acid, caffeine is suspected to be causing calcium loss and bone mineral density. This study has some, but different research results are not consistent with the results show, there is no impact of the display. For example, in 1997, published in the United States public health magazine in an article comparing a community within 1000 whites aged women of bone mineral density and carbonated beverage consumption and found that there is no relationship between the two. While 2006 was published in the journal of clinical nutrition in the United States on a paper then reported to drink Coke more female bone mineral density less than drink Coke's average lower a few percentage points, while for men it is not affected, drinking other carbonated beverages also has no effect. However, this study does not prove that the Cola would result in reducing the bone mineral density. Use the author's argument is, the observations need to be confirmed. On the one hand, this study is the results of the epidemiological inquiry, you may have other factors lead to this difference; on the other hand, the crowd of bone mineral density vary greatly, up to 10%, the percentage difference for the body's physiological function of the impact of kindness.

In General, carbonated b

everages in security problems. If the formula has problems, you should first have some reliable scientific papers, and national authorities to assess the reliability of the results of these studies, and then modify the previous provisions. Only problem comes from the production of accident, or have the acute toxicity of case, would have a direct prohibition of initiatives. Even so, it needs to explain why. Venezuela this conviction only, not "decide", persuasion rather poor, would not be in keeping with the practice.

Compared with sweet drinks, sugar-free drink a real advantage.

Is to select the benefits without the calories, or on those legendary harm "would rather believe", or simply do not have this type of drink, there is not much of a problem. Because the choice is yours.

□ Cloud Centerless (United States Food Engineering doctorate)