Is "Doing the Dew" Killing You?
What are BVOs, and why are they used?
BVOs are vegetable oils that had once been unsaturated fats, but their double bonds have been brominated. Normally, these fats have low densities, but the inclusion of bromine has increased its density. So, what does this have to do with soda? Citrus-flavored beverages, including Mountain Dew, which contain citrus oils often include BVOs in order to get the citrus oils to become more water soluble (i.e. be retained within the soda rather than have them float on top). It is interesting to note that chemical companies have also patented BVO as a flame retardant (however, this does not mean you should use your Mountain Dew to put out a campfire).
Have there been documented cases of detrimental effects of BVOs in the (reputable) scientific literature?
The short answer is...yes. Jih et al. has reported in the New England Journal of Medicine (see link below) of a case of bromoderma, resulting in ulcerated erythematous nodules, due to excessive drinking of Ruby Red Squirt (no joke!). The authors show a picture of the condition in their article. Of course, the person afflicted with the bromoderma had been drinking 8 liters of the soft drink per day (!!!) for months.
Bromoderma after Excessive Ingestion of Ruby Red Squirt
Another case of bromism due to excessive intake of soda containing BVOs has been reported in the literature. The patient here daily drank 2 - 4 liters of the BVO-containing soft drink per day until he exhibited symptoms, including headache, memory loss, ataxia, and fatigue among other symptoms, which were alleviated after he was hospitalized to undergo hemodialysis. The abstract for the article can be found at the link below:
Bromism from excessive cola consumption.
To my knowledge, no reported cases of bromoderma, bromism, or iodine deficiency due to the consumption of the recommended servings of BVO-containing soft drinks have been published in reputable scientific journals.
It should be noted, however, that the FDA of the United States has approved BVO (within limits) for use as a food additive whereas other countries such as Japan and the EU have prohibited its use. Alternatives to BVO do exist.
Earlier this year, PepsiCo has announced that it will stop using BVO in Gatorade although its use in other soft drinks continutes.
Gatorade Stops Using Brominated Vegetable Oil
Any comments, questions, concern???
Ohhhhhhh!!! Now it’s all beginning to make sense. For the longest time I have heard so many people talk about Mountain Dew and how it is really, really bad for you. I never knew why this was the case (and to be honest I don’t think my friends knew either). Nonetheless, after reading this post it makes logic sense. Who would have thought I’d get an extra helping of bromine every time I took a gulp of Mountain Dew… haha… weird. Well at this stage in the game I guess it is important to realize that we shouldn’t put anything pass the food industry. Anything to make a buck, I say. If it tastes good and it’s selling who cares what the health effects will be. The bromoderma pictures are gross! It’s hard to believe that soda could do that to a person. I wonder how the Ruby Red Squirt manufacturing company would have responded if the individual tried to sue? It reminds me of a past case when an individual tried to sue Mickey D’s for making him/her morbidly obese. I cannot remember what the outcome was. In either case I do not have much sympathy. As a grown adult it is up to you to regulate how much “crap” you take into your body. On the other hand, is it the manufactures’’ responsibility to inform consumers of the repercussions of consuming extraordinary amounts of their products?
ReplyDeleteI had a question for Dr. DS. How similar are brominated vegetable oils and bile salts in their abilities to be effective emulsifiers? Both increase the solubility of otherwise water insoluble substances; do you have an information regarding which one is better at doing such?
First of all, 8-liters of any liquid per day is detrimental to your health (assuming the person is not an ultramarathoner or something of that nature), even more so if that liquid it a sugary carbonated beverage. Therefore, I am not surprised that the consumption rate of these patients have led to their declined health. In fact, there is no logical reason that anyone should consume that amount of soda per day, for months on end. When first seeing the title to the article about Ruby Red Squirts, I thought it was a description of the side-effect, not the name of the drink. I thought to myself: “can they say this in the title of a journal article?”
ReplyDeleteLooking at this issue from a business perspective, I am upset with the inconsideration of potentially harmful ingredients that corporate level companies so willingly toss into their products. However, I am much less sympathetic to the idiocy that many consumers who so willingly assume that these monstrous companies corporately care for our individual health. The businesses are trying to make money, it’s really not as much of their fault to consider our health for us, if we are so willing to consume, regardless of the health altering possibilities. It’s about as silly as the FDA having to implement a middleman to tell me, the consumer, which fruit is ripe or rotten. Despite what common sense may tell me, I am never ceased to be amazed at the pure ignorance of many consumers.
Therefore, I do not think Pepsi, Coca-Cola, or any large beverage company should change anything about their production methods, or ingredients. Regardless, if bromine levels are lowered or completely taken away, the product will still not be a wise health decision. It will not be any better for you, especially if you consume 8-liters a day! If the consumer is ignorant enough to drink poison, do not ask the company to make the poison healthier.
As the saying goes, many Americans are digging their graves with a fork, or in this care, a 2-liter bottle. Conclusively, I blame the consumer, not the company. The information is free and available to be extensively informed and to scrutinize what you consume. It is not the responsibility of anyone, especially the company, to do that for you.
Personally, I enjoy a Coca-Cola on rare occasions but I know I must stick to the rule of consumption: moderation in all things. If bromine levels are lowered, I can guarantee that the replacement ingredient will have little effect on healthiness of the product. Who knows, it could be replaced with something much cheaper and much worse for you. This is what happened with “sugar-free drinks” when all the companies began implementing high-fructose corn syrup instead of sugar. It was a wonderful decision (read this sentence with sarcasm).
(I had to split this comment into two parts as the blog gave me an error saying that I had too many characters in my response.)
ReplyDelete[Part I]
I agree with how Mason began his response to this article. 8 liters a day is an absurd amount to be drinking of any liquid, even if it was just water. There is no way that the body was meant to handle that kind of intake unless it is undergoing a severe amount of stress, such as running for 12+ hours a day or something. The fact that this was a carbonated, sugar-containing beverage makes it no surprise that this man was having issues. Even in the other article where the man was drinking 2-4 liters a day of the cola, that is still a massive amount of soda to be drinking each day. Thus, when I hear things like this I am not surprised. Also, the calorie- and sugar-intake alone from consuming this amount of soda would make me think that bromoderma would be the least of this patient's concerns. These men would have to have developed some type of diabetic condition and other obesity-related health concerns, that would pose more detrimental threats to their health. It is also relatively safe to assume that their other eating habits would be just as worse, as no sane semi-health-conscious person would even consider drinking these amounts of soda each day.
However, I must defer form the previous comments in that I don't believe that the soda manufacturing companies could be held responsible for this kind of excessive behavior. As stated in the blog post, the FDA has approved BVO, within limits, to be used as a food additive. Thus, this has to mean that the manufacturers and FDA have both tested these chemicals to ensure that within reason, they will not pose significant harm to the consumer. I am quite sure that there are very few chemicals that can be consumed in this kind of irresponsible manner without causing negative effects on a person's health. Thus, the manufacturer can hardly be responsible for the reckless behavior of consumers that use their product. I recall from my high school economics class that we discussed a certain apple company that used to add a preservative to ensure that the apples did not go bad as they were transporting them to market. In limits, the chemical was safe and did not cause harmful effects on a person's health. However, one person decided to sue them because they found out that this preservative could be harmful and thus was not safe to add to the apples. Although I don't completely remember the outcome of the lawsuit, I think the company may have had to pay a sizable amount of money to this person and put labels on their product about the types of preservatives used. The absurd part of this story though is that the tests that the manufacturer had performed indicated that a person would have to be eating an amount equivalent to 3 to 4 bushels of apples each week for a period of several years to produce the kind of harmful effects that the person was suing the company for—an amount far greater than any average consumer's needs or habits.
[Part II]
DeleteMost nearly everything consumed in extreme excess can have harmful effects on the body, even the most essential compounds such as water. I think it is just as absurd for someone to hold a manufacturer responsible for their own clearly poor lifestyle choices as it is for them to drink 8 liters of anything a day. Now I am not saying that manufacturers shouldn't intensely investigate the potential side effects of the chemical they use in their products (which I am sure doesn't always happen), because they should. I am also not saying that manufacturers should not be held accountable for their use of cheaper and more harmful ingredients simply to achieve a higher profit margin (which again, I am sure happens more than it should). However, what I am saying is that there will always be a person who will recklessly abuse any type of substance and then blame someone else for their poor choices. I will confidently say that most decent people know that drinking 8 liters of soda a day is clearly a bad health choice. Thus, how can a company be held responsible for making a product that is supposed to be safe at every possible level of consumption, no matter how extreme? If that were the case, then Dasani, Evian, and every other bottled-water company in the world needs to hold on to their hats.
A really interesting study that I would like to see would be how average levels of consumption of BVOs from these citrus-flavored sodas would affect the overall health of the body. These effects of course would have to be tested in such a way that the effects of other compounds in the drink, such as sugar, could not be the main causing factors. This type of study, which according to the blog post none have been reported, would be much more informative to the average consumer who uses these products.
I have to agree with Mason, drinking 8 liters of anything everyday is a very poor decision. I’m actually surprised this man didn’t die or nearly die from the huge amounts of sodium, sugar, and caffeine he ingested every day. I looked on the Squirt soda website to see exactly what is in this soda. 8 Liters is about 22 cans (12oz each). This amounts to just under 1000g of sugar, 1.2g of sodium, and .85g of caffeine (1). According to the Mayo Clinic, more than 500-600mg of caffeine is likely to cause unwanted side effects (2). This man was drinking about 850mg, more than enough to make him a little jittery. The American Heart Association recommends no more than 6 teaspoons (25g) of sugar for women and 9 teaspoons (37-38g) for men each day. Too much sugar can lead to obesity and heart problems (3). There are numerous studies relating sugar intake to type 2 diabetes. According to the NIH, most people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are overweight, and diabetes leads to an increased risk of heart disease (4). Again, I’m really surprised this guy did not die of something else! However, I think it’s important to mention that drinking more than one can of soda each day actually puts you over the suggested limit for daily sugar intake.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the concern brought about by brominated vegetable oils in drinks. It is scary to think that something you don’t even know you’re ingesting can cause harm. However, the two cases reported here are both people that drink a huge excess of soda. I don’t mean to be harsh, but if you’re going to drink that much of something you know is bad for you, then you have no right to complain when you get sick.
Interestingly, bromine is also used in pools and hot tubs. Some kids, like me when I was younger, swallow pool water when they’re swimming. I wonder if it’s possible to develop bromoderma from ingesting pool water. If so, why has no one complained about finding a safer chemical to clean pools and hot tubs?
The article reporting Gatorade and BVO made an interesting generalization, “previously unnoticed ingredients are coming under scrutiny as health-conscious consumers demand more information about what they eat and drink.” This statement took me by surprise when I first read it. According to the CDC, obesity has increased dramatically since 1990 (5). However, in the last decade, more people have become “health conscious” to chemicals and additives in food. Sugar substitutes have become popular, but many people don’t realize that these are just as bad for you as sugar, if not worse. I work at a fast food restaurant, and our sales have definitely increased in the last year. A customer remarked to me the other day that we are always busy, and it’s true. I think we have taken the saying “strain at gnats and swallow camels” to an extreme. We revolt against the use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils but will still eat fried foods if they’re cooked in canola oil or some other kind of oil.
My point is that processed foods generally contain bad things in them. Whether causing health problems now or later, the unhealthy habits we have developed are going to cause problems. There will always be things in food that can hurt you, but moderation is definitely the key. How many people have enjoyed and still continue to enjoy a can of soda once in a while? Most of them probably never had high bromine levels or experienced detrimental effects from BVOs.
I am not saying that companies should be allowed to put anything in food. The FDA regulates them for a reason and should definitely continue to do so. However, we should regulate our own foods. Just because something is considered a safe food does not mean we should eat a lot of it. Suggested serving sizes were not just made up for fun.
1. http://www.squirtsoda.com/
2. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/NU00600
3. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyDietGoals/Sugars-and-Carbohydrates_UCM_303296_Article.jsp
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001356/
5. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
This was one of the most informative article so that I have been able to relate to. First off I will admit that I use to drink lots and lots of “The Dew” however I decided to switch to a combination of sprite and Gatorade due to playing sports. It was amazing to read about how BVOs are included in Mountain Dew and Gatorade. I have heard maybe once or twice that Mountain Dew was bad for you but I would never have thought that Gatorade would be included in something like this. These articles confirm the fact that BVOs are a detrimental brominated vegetable oils that is included in these drink products. It is crazy to hear about drink products causing ulcers and bromoderma. I understand that 8 liters is a lot and should have effects on the body but how many other people have been affected by these drink products? What if you drink about Mountain Dews a day? Does this add up and take a toll eventually on the body? Additionally, as an athlete I truly worry about the people who drink Gatorade. Many athletes are told so many times that it is best to drink lots of Gatorade so that you can stay hydrated. However this is one of the main products pointed out that is causing problems. It’s odd that the government knew all of this time that BVOs were included in drink products but are still making money. Also I thought that it was interesting that Gatorade narrows it down to the color orange. Why is orange the color that BVOs are in? However, this was an interesting article and also informative. I would definitely like to follow up on the progressing and manufacturing of these products that include BVOs.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to ask, "How can a person drink 8 liters of cola in a day?!" Crazy stuff. But it's not surprising for conditions like brominism to arise because our society doesn't seek to understand the natural as well as chemical ingredients inside the food products they consume. I'm more surprised that the patient didn't develop diabetes from all the sugar in the soft drinks. If there are safer alternatives to BVO, why don't companies use those additives instead? Granted it may be cheaper to BVO in their beverages, but shouldn't these companies seek the best interests for their consumers? I do agree at the end of the day that people are responsible for their health but companies should make sure that their healthy or non-healthy product is safe.
ReplyDeleteThis article was quite hilarious! To think that someone could drink 8 liters of soda a day is just astounding. Now when someone ask why the dew is so bad I have an answer. The companies have huge responsibilities here and its good to know that they at least know the concerns about bromoderma, but the people consuming the product also have the bigger responsibility of not being so self indulgent. This is a huge reason why things like this happen. Some people just don't know when to stop. I guess the blame could go both ways, the companies not using alternatives to BVO and the consumers over indulging in the products.
ReplyDeleteWith this and many other things in life, moderation is key. Its been said that too much of a good thing can be bad, but even more obvious than this is that too much of a bad thing is… well… really bad. The perfect example of this is seen here.
ReplyDeleteHyponatremia is a word that when translated means “insufficient salt in the blood” (1). This is the term used when a person has an insufficient sodium concentration in their blood, and this can lead to death (2). How does a person get such a low blood sodium concentration? The answer is that they may have too much water intake. Water, which makes up a huge portion of the human body and is essential for life, can indeed kill a person when too much of it is ingested. Death has been seen when a person drinks as few as 6 liters of water in short period of time (1).
Given the daily soda intake of some of these patients (8 L?!?!) it is no surprise that they have side-effects. If it weren’t the brominated vegetable oils that were going to get them, it certainly would be something else contained in the soda. The problem here is not necessarily the BVOs (since no studies have shown this to effect people when taken in moderation), but rather the excessive intake of the beverage altogether. At this point I think its safe to say that the person is addicted and should seek help to wean them off of that amount of soda.
1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/
2. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyponatremia/basics/definition/con-20031445
understand that this article is a couple of years old, but it’s interesting to view in the light of recent movements in the area of food. For one thing, the health food movement is ever growing, to the point that ‘natural,’ ‘sustainable,’ and ‘organic’ and other catchphrases are plastered on all kinds of things nowadays, to the point that the concerned consumer really has to be careful to ensure that the product really is up to whatever standard they’re looking for. Foods like kefir, kombucha, kimchi, dragonfruit, kale, quinoa and other typically ethnic or otherwise-overlooked items are becoming more commonly known and eaten, to the point that one can find various brands on the shelves of ordinary supermarkets. Energy drinks and other foods that aren’t terribly healthy in any way illustrate this particularly well, in not only adding words like ‘natural’ and ‘gluten-free,’ but even promoting flavors like ‘acai-pomegranate’ and other phrases such as ‘made with real plant extracts,’ or ‘with 3 superfoods!’
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, governmental organizations have pushed against unhealthy foods, as evidenced in these incidents with New York’s infamous (if short-lived) big-soda ban (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodaban-lawsuit-idUSBRE96T0UT20130730) , McDonald’s advertising Happy Meals with apple slices and milk as opposed to its traditional fries and soda (http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/08/mcdonalds-happy-meals-healthier/), and, most recently, the FDA’s proposed trans fats ban (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24856146). At the same time, grassroots health ‘foodies’ decry the FDA’s failure to label GMO foods, the additive MSG (http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm328728.htm), and the FDA’s definition of ‘natural flavor’ (paragraph 3: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=501.22).
Regardless of one’s feelings about the right to eat unhealthy food, or the merits of kale and acai berries, it is very interesting how food healthiness has become such an important topic. Also interesting is the way it has done so despite many scientific studies- high fructose corn syrup is almost unilaterally regarded as ‘bad’ by the public, but the FDA argues that they’ve found no connection between the ingredient and worsened health (at least, no more so than with other sweeteners) (http://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodadditivesingredients/ucm324856.htm). One can read article after article on the heath horrors of butter, then read article after article on why it’s secretly good for you- and this too with foods like eggs, organ meats, coconut oil, yogurt, etc. Clearly the scientific consensus on such things is… not existent, despite great public interest. It makes me wonder why more scientists aren’t researching such things: it would seem that interest ought to be there, and with so much interest in the potential findings, one would imagine funding ought to be more simple than studying something like whether monkeys enjoy alcohol (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-shows-primates-prefer-little-booze-their-nectar-180959852/?no-ist)… or the place of glaciers in social science (http://maestrosci.blogspot.com/2016/03/are-glaciers-sexist-or-is-this-science.html).
Growing up, I was always told that soda was bad for one's health. The amount of sugar it contains, dyes, chemicals, etc., were the reasons why (though, it was always present during meal times and festivities). It's interesting to understand one of the reasons why it can be detrimental to the body. It is even more interesting, personally, that the effects of the bromine excess mainly affected the hands of the gentleman presented in the article. Why would the bromine intoxication narrow down specifically to the nodules of the hands? And why do neutrophils present themselves if their main function is associated to bacteria slaying?
ReplyDelete-Amanda RÃos