Drinking Diet Coke Harmful to Health and the Environment - Essay Example

and Number of the Teacher’s Drinking Diet Coke is Harmful for Health and the Environment Introduction Around one-third of all carbonated beverages sold in the United States are of the Diet category. However, these drinks are not particularly healthier, states Michael Jacobson, PhD, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Although devoid of sugar, a can of Diet Coke contains the mildly addictive caffeine, acids that cause dental erosion, and harmful artificial sweeteners such as aspartame (Prevention 167). Further, Diet Coke and other diet sodas are not effective in preventing weight gain; on the other hand, research evidence indicates that there is increased risk of obesity with greater consumption of Diet Coke (Fowler, Williams, Resendez et al 1894). Similarly, there are other adverse effects of Diet Coke on health. The beverage also contributes to greenhouse gases, and environmental issues due to its non-recycleable packaging. The Coca-Cola company with the Carbon Trust has given details on “the carbon footprints of some of the company’s most popular drinks, including Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, and Coke Zero” (Mohan, 2009). This is the first time the Carbon Trust has certified the carbon footprint of any brand of carbonated drinks. Thesis Statement: This argument paper supports the view that Diet Coke is detrimental to weight loss, to maintaining good health and to the environment. The Adverse Health Outcomes of Consuming Diet Coke According to Pat Thomas, although Diet Coke is strongly associated with sports and health, it is composed of a “worrying mixture of neurotoxic and potentially carcinogenic high intensity sweeteners, tooth and bone destroying acids and DNA damaging colourings” (Thomas 31). Further, the beverage also contains psychoaddictive caffeine and other ‘flavorings’. The carcinogenic sweeteners in Diet Coke are aspartame and acesulfame K; the tooth and bone destroying acid is phosphoric acid, and the DNA damaging coloring is sulphite ammonia caramel. Diet Coke is known as Coca-Cola Zero and Coca-Cola Light in other countries. Diet Coke also contains sodium benzoate which can be broken down into the listed carcinogen benzene in the presence of strong acids such as citric acid found in this beverage. Soda manufacturers have continued to mix benzoates and acids due to a lack of pressure from regulatory authorities to change their formula to prevent the formation of benzene. “Ironically, the high fructose syrups used in regular drinks seem to slow this reaction down, and the formation of benzene appears to be most problematic in diet drinks” (Thomas 31). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved of the sweetener acesulfame potassium, or Sunett, for use in various instant beverages and other food products. The sweetener is manufactured by Hoechst Celanese Corporation. The company’s tests have not proved that the product is safe; on the other hand, research studies by some of the scientists at the company’s laboratory have indicated that the product may even cause cancer in laboratory animals. The FDA is “now reviewing Sunett for soft drinks, the biggest and most competitive market for artificial sweeteners” (BBN 7C). The annual sales of low calorie soft drinks such as Diet Coke at retail outlets in the United States reached $3.8 billion, according to Information Resources Inc. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has stated that if Sunnet is approved for use in Diet Coke, millions of Americans will be further exposed to large amounts of the additive. The Cocal Cola firm plans to use a blend of Sunett with NutraSweet (the brand name for the artificial sweetener Aspartame) in Diet Coke popular as “the nation’s leading diet soda and the third-largest selling soft drink” (BBN 7C), after Sunett’s approval by the FDA. The Hoechst Celanese disputes the CSPI’s opposition to the artificial sweetener, “arguing that Sunett is already in some 3,000 products in 80 nations” (BBN 7C). The manufacturer argues that there is no record of harmful effects from Sunett’s use in Europe for more than 10 years. However, the rising incidence of America’s obesity is found to correlate to the increasing use of noncaloric artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in Diet Coke and sucralose in Pepsi One. “While people often choose ‘diet’ or ‘light’ products to lose weight, research studies suggest that artificial sweeteners may contribute to weight gain” (Yang 101). Various large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. For example, the San Antonio Heart Study investigated 3,682 adults over duration of 7-8 years (Fowler et al 1894). When a comparison was undertaken between the initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity and diet, it was found that consumers of artificially sweetened beverages such as Diet Coke showed consistently higher BMI at the follow-up sessions, along with dose dependence on the quantity of consumption. The control sample indicated an average BMI gain of +1.01 kg/m2, while people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption revealed a gain of 1.78 kg/m2 (Yang 104). Part of the reasons for linking Diet Coke with increasing obesity relates to the fact that it serves as a guilt-reducing mechanism in dietary self-control. Results from the study conducted by Khan, Dhar and Wertenbroch (144) verified their concept that a Diet Coke is considered by consumers as a guilt-reducing justification that permits an increased indulgence in other high calorie foods, particularly when the motivation to avoid guilt is strong. Similarly, Khan and Dhar (259) reiterate that initial virtuous choices such as selecting Diet Coke lead to guilt-reduction through justifications, and result in indulgence in subsequent decisions regarding choice of high calorie foods. Moreover, Prevention (167) observes that “artificial sweeteners can interfere with the body’s natural ability to regulate calorie intake”. This may cause greater likelihood of over-indulgence among people who consume artificially sweetened items. Besides causing higher risk for obesity, research evidence indicates that Diet Coke is detrimental to health in various ways. Dental erosion results from the low pH in soft drinks. Thus, tooth decay is not directly caused by the artificial sweeteners in Diet Coke because caries-producing bacteria cannot ferment the artificial sweetener aspartame to produce acid (ADA 5). This is supported by Kitchens and Owens (153) who concluded from their research study that both carbonated and non-carbonated beverages caused significant dental caries; and that fluoride treatments did not have a protective influence on dental enamel surfaces. Further, a comparative research study was conducted by Ehlen, Marshall, Qian et al (299) on tooth erosion and its relationship with the pH of 100% juices, regular sodas, diet sodas and sports drinks upon opening, and the titratable acidity both upon opening and after 60 minutes of stirring. The evidence from the study reiterates the view that acidic beverages increase the risk of in vitro tooth erosion. Tooth enamel lesion as well as root lesion depths consequent to beverage exposure were as follows, starting with that which had the greatest impact. Thus, the extent of destruction to the teeth was as follows, in decreasing order: Gatorade, Red Bull, Coke, Diet Coke and 100% apple juice (Ehlen et al, 2009). Roos and Donly (350) undertook research on in vivo dental plaque variation with regular and Diet soft drinks. Their findings support the detrimental effects of carbonated drinks on teeth. The results indicate that “regular Coke possesses a greater acid challenge potential on enamel than Diet Coke” (Roos and Donly 350). However, in this clinical trial, the pH of both soft drinks was lower than the critical pH which demineralizes and dissolves dental enamel. Significantly, Diet Coke causes a higher risk for heart disease, incident metabolic syndrome, calcium deficiency and Type 2 Diabetes (Natu, 2012). Consumption of diet soda every day caused 36% higher relative risk of incident metabolic syndrome, and a 67% increased relative risk of type 2 diabetes, as compared with nonconsumption of diet soda. Among metabolic syndrome elements, greater waist circumference and high fasting glucose level were prospectively associated with diet soda consumption. Additionally, links between diet soda consumption and type 2 diabetes were independent of baseline measures or changes in adiposity while links between diet soda and metabolic syndrome were dependent on these factors, state Nettleton, Lutsey, Wang, et al (688). Further, Diet Coke has an adverse effect on bone health due to calcium deficiency mainly caused by substituting milk with Diet Coke. Diet Coke’s Carbon Footprint The focus on carbon footprint is a part of the environmental sustainability and conservation of natural resources’ drive in contemporary times. Carbon footprint is the residue left behind when using carbon-based fuels. Carbon accounting and labeling for products are new instruments of supply chain management. These instruments are used for analysis and presentation of information on a product’s carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emissions “in an attempt to identify major sources of emissions in supply chains” (Brenton, Edward-Jones and Jensen viii). Subsequently, prompt and cost-effective actions have to be taken to reduce emissions. Simeon Goldstein reports on the disclosures of the Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and Coca-Cola Britain, in alliance with the Carbon Trust. It is evident that the “packaging of four of its soft drinks in Great Britain has the largest impact on the carbon footprint” (Goldstein 5). Besides Diet Coke, these include Coke Zero, Coke, and Oasis. However, research on overcoming the impacts of coke, reveals that an empty coke-can reduces the carbon footprint by 41% to 100 grams by the use of recycled content, and by promoting recycling. According to Russell Parsons, the company “has already launched a campaign encouraging the recycling of its plastic bottles” (Parsons 44). Moreover, the Coca-Cola company asserts that this is the first time that a brand of carbonated drinks has been certified by the Carbon Trust; and that the company is committed to working towards environmentalism (Parsons 44). The project undertaken by the Coca-Cola company and the Carbon Trust measured greenhouse gas emissions across the full lifecycle of 14 Coca-Cola stock keeping units (SKUs), in aluminum cans and in PET and glass bottles. To evaluate the entire lifecycle of the products, the project took into consideration “the ingredients used to make the drink, the manufacture of the drink and its packaging, the impact of distribution and retailing” (Mohan, 2009), besides the use of the product by individual consumers, followed by the disposal of the empty can or bottle. The research evidence indicates that while a 330 ml. can of Diet Coke or Coke Zero has a footprint of 150 grams, the same-sized can of Coca-Cola sold in Great Britain has a carbon footprint of 170 grams, and a same-sized bottle of Coca-Cola has a footprint of 360 grams. “The research also reveals that packaging accounts for the largest portion of the drink’s carbon footprint, between 30% and 70%, depending on the type of container used” (Mohan, 2009). At the same time the research project emphasizes both the requirement for using recycled containers and promoting recycling after use; this combination helps to reduce the overall carbon footprint of a product by up to 60%. An example for reducing the product’s carbon footprint through recycling is that if a consumer were to recycle the Coke can with a carbon footprint of 170 grams, this would reduce the footprint by 70 grams, thereby lowering it to 100 grams. In the case of Diet Coke or Coke Zero, recycling would reduce the carbon footprint from 150 grams to 85 grams. Thus, working closely with the Carbon Trust, the company aims to fully understand the footprint of the product, towards improving the impact of the business on the environment (Mohan, 2009). In the pursuit of reducing carbon footprints of Diet Coke and other carbonated beverages, companies are also able make significant cost savings (GoGreen, 2012). By using 5% less aluminium in the drinks can, there will be a reduction in the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. Thus, the Coca-Cola company aims to save 15,000 tons of aluminium annually; and thereby “cut the carbon footprint of the drinks industry by 78,000 tons every year” (GoGreen, 2012), equivalent to taking 20,000 cars off the road. This plan is already being implemented. Also, a 330 ml. can of Coca-Cola is responsible for only 170 grams of carbon dioxide emissions, while 250 grams of fruit ethical Innocent smoothie cause carbon emissions of 209 grams (GoGreen, 2012). Conclusion This argument paper has asserted that the consumption of Diet Coke does not aid weight loss, it only serves to increase obesity, and has several deleterious effects on health. The artificial sweetener in Diet Coke is Aspartame (brand name: NutraSweet). The argument is supported with evidence from research studies asserting that Diet Coke does not help in achieving weight loss, on the other hand it increases obesity due to the artificial sweetener interfering with the body’s regulation of calorie intake, and due to the alleviation of guilt resulting in over-indulgence in high calorie foods. Additionally, adverse health outcomes include dental decay due to low pH content in soft drinks, calcium deficiency, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and incident metabolic syndrome. The Coca-Cola company has taken measures to cut their water and energy use in the United Kingdom, and are planning further actions to reduce the carbon footprint of their products including that of Diet Coke. Their aim is to implement responsible and sustainable business practices (Mohan, 2009). Thus, carbon footprint information is required to be integrated with other environmental impacts such as depletion of water resources created by the plants manufacturing the beverage. Several million gallons of water from underground aquifers are utilized everyday, and sustainable solutions to counteract potential water shortage have to be examined. This argument paper is concluded with the reiteration that Diet Coke is detrimental to weight loss, to healthy teeth, to maintaining good health, and to environmental sustainability. --------------------------------------------- Works Cited ADA (American Dental Association). Joint Report of the American Association Council on Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations and Council on Scientific Affairs to the House of Delegates. Response to Resolution 73H-2000, 2001 October. Retrieved from: http://www.ada.org/sections/advocacy/pdfs/topics_softdrinks.pdf BBN (Bloomberg Business News). New Sweetener Draws Fire: Product May Cause Cancer in Animals. Bloomberg Business News. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO). 1 August 1996, 7C. Ehlen, Leslie A., Teresa A. Marshall, Fang Qian, James S. Wefel and John J. Warren. ‘Acidic Beverages Increase the Risk of In Vitro Tooth Erosion’. Nutrition Research, 28.5 (2008), 299-303. Fowler, Sharon, Ken Williams, Roy G. Resendez., Kelly J. Hunt, Helen P. Hazuda, and Michael P. Stern. ‘Fueling the Obesity Epidemic? Artificially Sweetened Beverage Use and Long-term Weight Gain’. Obesity 16.8 (2008), 1894-1900. GoGreen. Coca-Cola Goes Eco-Friendly. GoGreen, an Ekotribe Initiative. 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.go-green.ae/greenstory_view.php?storyid=495 Goldstein, Simeon. ‘Coke Counts on Carbon Cut after it Cracks Can Impact’. Packaging News (2009 April), 5-9. Khan, Uzma, Ravi Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch. ‘Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption’. Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires. Eds. S. Ratneshwar and David G. Mick. New York: Routledge, 2005. 144-165. Khan, Uzma and Ravi Dhar. ‘Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice’. Journal of Marketing Research 43 (2006 May), 259-266. Kitchens, Michael, and Barry M. Owens. ‘Effect of Carbonated Beverages, Coffee, Sports and High Energy Drinks, and Bottled Water on the in vitro Erosion Characteristics of Dental Enamel’. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentristry 31.3 (2007 Spring), 153-159. Mohan, A.M. Coke’s Carbon Footprints are Revealed. Greener Package. 13 March 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.greenerpackage.com/metrics_standards/coke%E2%80%99s_carbon_footprints_are_revealed Natu, Rujuta. ‘A Closer Look at the Health Hazards of Artificial Sweeteners’. The Journal of Global Health. 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.ghjournal.org/jgh-online/a-closer-look-at-the-health-hazards-of-artificial-sweeteners/ Nettleton, Jennifer A., Pamela L. Lutsey, Youfa Wang, Joao A. Lima, Erin D. Michos, and David R. Jacobs, Jr. ‘Diet Soda Intake and Risk of Incident Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)’. Diabetes Care 32.4 (2009 April), 688-694. Parsons, Russell. ‘Coke Reveals Brands Carbon Footprints’. Marketing Week, 32.10 (2009), 4-7. Prevention. ‘The Diet Dilemma’. Prevention 58.10 (2006 October), 167. Roos, Erik H. and Kevin J. Donly. ‘In Vivo Dental Plaque pH Variation with Regular and Diet Soft Drinks’. Pediatric Dentristry, 24.4 (2002), 350-353. Thomas, Pat. ‘Behind the Label: Diet Coke’. Ecologist, 36.6 (2006 Jul/Aug), 30-31. Yang, Qing. ‘Gain weight by “Going Diet?” Artificial Sweeteners and the Neurobiology of Sugar Cravings’. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 83 (2010), 101-108. Read More