Talk:Benzene in soft drinks

message: This article states in the first paragraph the following: "The benzene results from decarboxylation of the preservative benzoic acid in the presence of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) especially under heat and light." While I do believe that Benzoic acid is a preservative naturally found in fruits, it is not water soluble like the lab produced form - Sodium Benzoate, which is why the latter is prefefered in soft drinks. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_benzoate 
Since this article is about soft drinks I assume that this sentence should therefore rather read as follows: "The benzene results from decarboxylation of the preservative Sodium benzoate in the presence of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) especially under heat and light." Please edit this to reflect the correct form in the article.--197.79.0.7 (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sodium Benzoate is not Benzoic acid

message: That whole page was in serious need of factual and chronological editing. The last edit was just outright wrong and linked to an old preliminary FDA page (not the new results page). Hopefully the following chronology is now clear:
# The entire problem began in the early 1990's, when soft drink industry reps approached FDA with concerns.
# It was cleared-up by the mid-1990s, and manufacturers voluntarily agreed to reformulate
# FDA tested for benzene, but did not follow up on these results from the late 1990's
# FDA was re-alerted to benzene in beverages in late 2005 by private lab results. Other international food agencies were alerted in Feb 2006 by a newspaper article.
# The media and EWG kept on the agencies' cases from Feb. through May to do something. 
# The UK and EU food agencies acted within 1.5 months.
# The FDA released preliminary results almost 7 months after receiving initial concerns.
Additionally, the following health impacts/results should be clear:
# The Total Diet Study results were erroneous because of a flawed analytical procedure
# The levels of benzene in the drinks do not pose an immediate risk to humans, but some beverages do pose a lifetime cancer risk that is higher than acceptable to most food and environmental regulatory agencies. Benzene is no-threshold toxicant that is known to cause leukemia (AML). 
# FDA and the manufacturers are not yet sure about the variability of benzene formation in soft drinks.
I've also taken a bit of time to fix references. The news inferno reference, for example, was back-dated to February 20th, when it was really published in mid-March. The Mercer article is the original one. 
Although I'm certainly not personally NPOV here, this is a much better framework with correct citations.
Kristan 04:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally wrote that section (and much of the rest of the article) and I'm no lobbyist. I think you'll find a drinks industry lobbyist wouldn't talk about benzene at all as it's a complete embarrassment to them. It's quite clear from the article that if drinking water limits are 1 ppb benzene (EU), then there's no excuse for producing a drink with, say, 87.9ppb. (I think I wrote something to that effect originally but it got deleted as 'POV'.) Where they've been found out, the drinks manufacturers have been forced to withdraw their products, as is clear from later in the article. However, as some Wikipedia readers might get overly worried because they've just drunk a can of some transgressing drink, it's important to reassure them that there's no imminent danger. What's more worrying is the levels of benzene in the environment generally. If we want to reduce people's exposure to benzene, then banning smoking from enclosed areas would be a good first step. Nunquam Dormio 08:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of lobbyist or no-lobbyist, wikipedia should be factual. Stating that any level of benzene is not harmful is non-factual and goes against other articles and publishings stating that there is no -safe- level of benzene. It is a hypernormalisation of a fact. Stating that there is a safe level leads to public belief in a 'safe' level even if one does not exist. Wishing for something doesn't make it true, and wikipedia does not have a responsibility for the mental health of the public. If it did, there would be no articles on climate change or the united states. 
It would be more pertinent to compare to the considered safe level of exposure for benzene and the representational increase in carcinogenic risk if this threshold is increased. Otherwise, these safe levels mean nothing to a layman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.121.155.220 (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: KOMOLPRASERT V, HARGRAVES WA, ARMSTRONG DJ DETERMINATION OF BENZENE RESIDUES IN RECYCLED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE (PETE) BY DYNAMIC HEADSPACE GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHY FOOD ADDITIVES AND CONTAMINANTS 11 (5): 605-614 SEP-OCT 1994
Suggests also a possible contamination by the PETE bottle itself!
Investigation into the benzene and toluene content of soft drinks
Fabietti F.1; Delise M.; Piccioli Bocca A.
Food Control, Volume 12, Number 8, December 2001, pp. 505-509(5)
DOI: 10.1016/S0956-7135(01)00041-X
Survey of benzene in foods by using headspace concentration techniques and capillary gas chromatography.
McNeal TP, Nyman PJ, Diachenko GW, Hollifield HC.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Division of Food and Chemical Technology, Washington, DC 20204.
J AOAC Int. 1993 Nov-Dec;76(6):1213-9.
1993 there was a search for benzene in soft drinks. 
--Stone 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bottles and benzene

message: Hey guys. I read up a bit on this subject after a warning appeared in the local paper. 
While shopping recently, I discovered Sodium Benzoate and Citric Acid (Two reagents that under the right conditions could yeild Sodium Citrate and Benzene) in food items like Diet Coke and a bottle labeled as "Strawberry Sauce", "Grape Sauce", and others, in a local dollar store.
Has anyone ever heard of these Benzene tests being conducted on foods other than soft drinks? I would be interesting to know just how much of these chemicals are making it into the system without much notice...
Logical2u 21:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Benzene in other food products?

message: Is there a source for:
On average, people breathe in 220μg (micrograms) of benzene every day. For smokers, cigarette smoking is the main source of exposure at 7900μg per day. 
I've seen 180 μg for Americans with up to 1300 μg for smokers, while Canadians/Europeans have somewhat lower levels. See: Opinion on certain aromatic hydrocarbons present in food (expressed on 20/1/1999). Also by hand calculating different values using results from CONCAWE (www.concawe.org - EU oil company assocation) one obtains slightly lower numbers, too, though it depends on urban/rural settings. 
If there is no reference, it should probably 
Kristan 23:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: Nunquam Dormio 12:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: We give the air/smoking exposure in micrograms ingested but the soft drink contamination in ppb. In order to aid people's efforts to calculate their personal exposure we should explain how to calculate micrograms ingested by multiplying their daily consumption by the ppb figures. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an edit that should make things clearer. Nunquam Dormio 07:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That makes it much clearer. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: I removed the following:
:While healthier than its predecessor, critics charge that 7Up has no right to call the product "all-natural" as it still contains high fructose corn syrup.Theresa Howard Food, beverage marketers seek healthier images USA Today 19–20 April 2006
Whether or not 7Up Natural is all natural or not is irrelevant unless it has something to do with benzene in soft drinks. This might be useful in the 7Up article if it isn't there already but not here Nil Einne 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on consideration care should be taken if moving that to another article. Ut makes the claim the the 'all-natural' product is healthier then its predecessor. This is of course impossible to prove and should not be presented as fact Nil Einne 14:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7Up Natural 

message: http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2586652.ece
Should this be included?
:: No, he has nothing scientifically published yet, soit remains to vague and speculative that it does not(yet) justify inclusion. And if this turns out to be true and relevant it would probably have to go into the benzoic acid article. Cacycle 16:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cell Damage

message: The following references apear to be dead:
* "Chronology of Benzene Content"
* Soft Drink Companies Settle Benzene Case
* Benzene in Soft Drinks and other Beverage Products
Spectrus (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing these out Spectrus
* "Chronology of Benzene Content" - removed 
* Soft Drink Companies Settle Benzene Case - replaced
* Benzene in Soft Drinks and other Beverage Products - updated 
Nunquam Dormio (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "While there is no justification for a soft drink to contain high levels of benzene ("There is a difference here between a small and unavoidable risk, and a small but avoidable risk.”[5]), the casual consumption of such a drink is unlikely to pose a significant health hazard to a particular individual (see, for example, the EPA IRIS document on benzene[6])."
The part in bold is the author's interpretation of the quote; not what the quote says. Even if that was what the quote said, it's still just a quote from an ex-FDA employee. It doesn't prove anything. Fixing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.43.72 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: No justification

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Benzene in soft drinks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413152606/http://www.epa.gov:80/safewater/dwh/c-voc/benzene.html to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/c-voc/benzene.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070423173956/http://nzfsa.govt.nz:80/consumers/food-safety-topics/chemicals-in-food/benzene/index.htm to http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/chemicals-in-food/benzene/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009045332/http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/surveillance/food-surveys/fsisbranch2006/fsis0606 to http://www.food.gov.uk/science/research/surveillance/food-surveys/fsisbranch2006/fsis0606
*Added  tag to http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/pce/documentation/eur_reports/report_EUR21501en2005.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified