cottees chemical cordials

Some say 'Green' or 'Sustainable' or 'Self Sufficient' how we try to ensure we live to put a smaller footprint on our earth.
fruitaholic
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:57 am
Location: dicky beach
Contact:

cottees chemical cordials

Postby fruitaholic » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:40 pm

this will come as a shock to anyone who grew up drinking the stuff by the bucket load

I wrote to the PM and the minister for kids peter garat -


I am sorry I am having to write to you, but the parliament web site doesnt have a search facility for the responsible minister, and with this query I really don't know who would be responsible, hopefully it will fall under your ministry.

Cottees cordial was once an Australian institution. Every kid in Australia grew up drinking Cottees cordial and making icey poles out of their cordials.

Schweppes, a British multi-national food conglomerate bought the Cottees brand and has set out to put at risk anyone who uses Cottees cordial.

Schweppes has decreed that the 2 litre bottle and the 750ml bottle of cordial will be replaced by a 1 litre bottle of concentrated cordial. With this change Schweppes/Cottees has got rid of the Australian sugar they used to make their cordial with and replaced it with a Singapore manufactured chemical, sucralose.

Sucralose is another of those massively sweet chemicals that replace sugars, saccharine is another, aspartame another. Saccharine is banned in parts of the world because it causes cancer and allowed in Australi. Ditto for aspartame, it is banned in parts of the world because it causes cancer yet it is available here.

Sucralose hasn't been found to cause cancer yet, but does cause thymus problems and is reported to have caused diabetes problems, exterme bloating of the limbs and gut. Some reports state a shrinking of the thymus by over 40%, the thymus is a gland responsible for part of our immune system.

Yet further scientifgic reports state that sucralose causes enlarged liver and kidneys, atrophy of lymph follicles int he spleen as well as the thymus, reduced growth rate, decreased red blood cell count, hyperplasia of the pelvis (enlargement of the tissuesin thepelvis including the urinary tract and birth canal), aborted pregnancies, diarhhea, decreased fetal weight. It is potentially a very dangerous chemical and the Australian testing was never designed fro the massive use of this chemical in just about every kid in Australia. We have a potential disaster on our hands.

Sucralose is authorised for use in Australia, but the authorisation for use did not contemplate that almost every Australian kid would be exposed to massive doses of the chemical throughout their growth years.

Can you guarantee that sucralose will be safe in the doses expected of Cottees cordial users?

Will you halt the use of sucralose in cordials until further testing is doen to ensure it is totally safe for our children.

Australia has a problem with allowing chemicals to be used, just recently up my way there have been macadamia farmers using legal chemicals which have cause massive genetic defects in fish breeding farms.

Will sucralose turn out to be safe or will we have caused massive damage to our children and grandchildren just so that a pommie multinational can make greater profits?

I urge you to stop the use of sucralose until tests can be done that reflect the massive use expected by children in Australia.

end the message to the politicians - to read about sucralose and what it does have a look at http://www.karlloren.com/Diabetes/p40e.htm
The universe is my eyes and ears. All else is hearsay.

Hayhay
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby Hayhay » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:53 pm

Oh Lord just when we think our knowledge is increasing and assume that knowledge = wisdom......someone goes and makes a dumb decision like this!

I never buy cordial as I've never come across one without preservatives, let alone other artificial additives. I make lemon cordial for the kids (and grown ups!!!), and have once or twice made raspberry and orange cordials too... In fact we're looking at moving to a farm and one of my ideas was to make artificial additive free cordials as there don't seem to be any around!

Heidi
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:12 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby Heidi » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:56 pm

I bottled up jars and jars of homemade cordial from a recipe on this site, when our neighbour kindly let me have free reign of their lemon trees!!! Its the recipe that calls for Epsom salts. I highly highly recommend that recipe... and no sucralose.... just sugar!

childoftheearth
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby childoftheearth » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:54 am

Hi All,

I know I say this every time something like this comes up, but PLEASE be critical of information circulated on the web, particularly 'scaremongering".

If an article purports to quote the findings of reputable research, check the original research yourself. Research findings can easily be misinterpreted, either wilfully or due to lack of understanding. I did a quick check of the peer reviewed literature after reading this post and found nothing that I consider disturbing, the following abstract is an example:

Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Nov;48(11):3067-72. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
The absence of genotoxicity of sucralose.

Brusick D, Grotz VL, Slesinski R, Kruger CL, Hayes AW.

Toxicology Consultant, Bumpass, VA 23024, USA. Brusick41@aol.com
Abstract

Sucralose is a non-nutritive sweetener that is approximately 600 times sweeter than table sugar. It is currently approved for use in over 80 countries. Evidence from chronic studies demonstrates that this compound is not carcinogenic. This report summarizes the results of genotoxicity studies that were part of the original safety assessment of sucralose-conducted early in the safety investigation and shared with regulatory agencies around the world. Studies included the Ames (Salmonella typhimurium) reverse mutation test, the Escherichia coli pol A+/A- test, an in vitro chromosome damage assay in human lymphocytes, mutation in TK +/- mouse lymphoma cells, an in vivo chromosome aberration test in rats and two separate micronucleus tests in mice. All results were evaluated as negative. These results support the overall conclusion by regulatory and heath agencies that sucralose is safe for its intended use.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The fact that any substance has been found to cause health problems in lab animals does not necessarily mean that the substance is not safe for human consumption. The usual research paradigm is to feed the animals massive doses of the test substance (the equivalent of a human consuming kilograms per day) effectively forcing a negative reaction, and the results are used to determine a safe level of human consumption (usually way less than 1% of the level consumed by the test subjects).

Elaine

fruitaholic
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:57 am
Location: dicky beach
Contact:

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby fruitaholic » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:44 am

childoftheearth - sucralose was tested with the occassional use by adults in mind

it was never tested for massive doses kids will drink (if they can get over the taste)

apparently it was on the ABC local radio - sunshine coast - this AM

missed the show so dont know what was said

saccharine is available in many countries and banned in others because it causes cancer

aspartame is available in many countries but banned in others because it causes cancer

australia is one of the few countries that allows the sale of both saccharine and aspartame and then we have sucralose

any chemical we use must be treated with a great deal of care - there are macadamia farmers around Noosa (purportedly the green capital of australia) the farners use a legally available chemical - that chemical is banned in many parts of the world because it is a cancer agent and causes birth defects - recent two headed fish in a fish hatchery have been linked to that legal chemical

my concern is this sucralose hasn't been tested with massive ingestion by kids in mind
The universe is my eyes and ears. All else is hearsay.

Hayhay
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby Hayhay » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:53 pm

I guess these things too often have other effects; not just the physically observed ones like cancer or mutations or deformities etc..... Like the blue food colouring that causes kids to go hyper - probably wouldn't have the same effect in a mouse or on an adult!

childoftheearth
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby childoftheearth » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:22 am

Fruitaholic,

I am not prepared to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of any particular substance, I am only suggesting that people make INFORMED choices, and by that I mean informed by reputable research not by hearsay.

What is the source of your statement that saccharine and aspartame "cause" cancer? The two headed fish was linked to a legal chemical by whom? I am unsure of your definition of "massive doses" but I doubt if any child could consume kilograms of sucralose per day over a prolonged period, which as stated in my previous post is the usual research paradigm.

I do not claim to be an expert in any of these chemicals, and although my University studies (at Masters level) included Toxicology and Food Safety, I would not presume to attempt to influence anybody's opinion on these issues. I do not understand why you feel the need to do so.

And by the way, my name is Elaine. I would happily extend you the courtesy of using you name if if you include it in future.
Elaine

minnie
Posts: 2700
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:23 am
Location: Alice, West of Casino, NSW
Contact:

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby minnie » Sat Nov 20, 2010 8:11 am

Hi Elaine,

I totally agree that we can't just blindly believe everything we hear but sadly too much after digging proves correct these days.

I think fruitaholic may have been talking about the Endosulfan that is used on Macadamias and other crops. There was a 60 mins programme a while back showing places in the world where it was banned following terrible birth deformities and other nervous system (I think from memory but check this) complaints. A woman breeding fish in QLD had fish being born with two heads following her Macca neighbours spraying and many of her farm animals and pets died with problems, as well she was sick (can't remember what). They have found two headed fish in the QLD river system they think as a result from Endosulfan run off from farms using it.

It was banned worldwide except here and the US, now the US are looking at total ban and of course as we can't do anything without US approval we now, over the course of two years (again from memory) will be banning it.

There is a lot of literature, google has a huge amount of document medical papers stating the issues with Endosulfan which is way up there with DDT. Hideous that our farmers have been using it and I found it concerning that we had so many Macca farms where we were, I did wonder if our cat was effect with a small amount that could have been carried on the wind down to us... as he developed a funny Parkinson like twitch, but this we'll never know.

And again, yes we should all check information and get good referencing. A point that I always take up when talking about the benefits of A2 milk, which it seems the only science has about it has come via the A2 corporation.... hmmm. :roll:
:D
Vicki

Mojojo
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Perth and Donnybrook, WA

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby Mojojo » Sat Nov 20, 2010 12:29 pm

On the aspartame one - an prime example of something supposedly proven to be safe for human consumption....
There is something like 163 studies done on it. (Most of this is from memory, but the numbers are pretty close)
90 of these studies were done by independant research, ie not paid by the companies making them (Nutra sweet being one of them, owned by monsanto until 1999 - before which most of these studies were done)
Of the 90, 83 of them found the product to be unsafe for human consumption, ranged from "Grave concerns for the safety of aspartame for human consumption" to carcinogenic.
The rest of the 163 studies showed it to be safe - the industry conducted or sponsored research. Funny that.
The single study that was used to prove it safe to the USDA was refused 8 times; and then finally let through. It was later found to omit from its results the multitide of lumps and tumours that showed up in the study animal (rats) stating that they were "insignificant" even though almost all of the test animals had multiple tumours. They later blamed a computer database error for the results being omitted. There was a whole host of other issues with the srudy as well.
Nutrasweet was already in just about everything by the time this came to light.
And thats without even going into the politics of that study, very interesting read.
Oh and in one of the independant studies on aspartame, not only did all the rats die, but they died extremely fat!
The aspartame story to me is an illustration of 'just because its in our food doesn't mean its OK to eat'

In the EU, substances have to be proved safe by their own regulating authorities before being allowed for human consumption.
In Australia, its almost the reverse. Allowed until proven unsafe. Blindly follow the US guidelines,
I don't think of the USDA as a good guideline for what should or should not be allowed, after delving into all of the studies (and politics) surrounding aspartame.

I don't drink/eat artificial sweeteners. Plenty of people do though. I despise how they are in so much stuff that you have to read every label.

Unfortunately alot of the reputable sources are derived from studies done by the corporations trying to get a product released for consumption.
I like to find the independant research or info based on independant research - even though alot of it gets supressed by those same companies.
~ Jo
_________________
Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.
~ Robert Frost

childoftheearth
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:12 pm

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby childoftheearth » Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:30 am

Hi Jo,

Thanks for introducing a rational argument, and an excellent point, ie in considering any information it is important to know the motivation/funding behind it.
This is often (and not accidentally) obscured, but at least the reputable journals now require the authors to declare funding sources.

Yay for genuine research (yours, not those you cited).

Cheers
Elaine

fruitaholic
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:57 am
Location: dicky beach
Contact:

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby fruitaholic » Sun Nov 21, 2010 8:59 am

as an adendum Ive aske the ACCC to see if hte wording on the new cottees chemical cordial is right

it says no artifical flavours or colours - I would have thought the sweetness is a flavour and thats what Ive put to the ACCC

will see what happens
The universe is my eyes and ears. All else is hearsay.

Mojojo
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 8:01 pm
Location: Perth and Donnybrook, WA

Re: cottees chemical cordials

Postby Mojojo » Thu Nov 25, 2010 3:21 pm

Ah yeah, very good point, "no artificial flavours or colours" I'd also think that meant sweetener!
Maybe its only considered and "ingredient" not a flavour. :evil:
~ Jo
_________________
Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.
~ Robert Frost


Return to “Sustainable 'Green' Living working to self-sufficiency”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron