Another happy customer served

David, in rebuking me for not being in on whatever it is that he’s pushing, made the following comments;

“I agree with Sally – you should work for their (soft drink giants) front line people. The fact of the matter is that there ARE alternate means of preservation that DO NOT have ANY negative side effects. The bottom line is that the cheaper product (sodium benzoate) is used to increase profit margins with little regard for human safety. I suppose your also convinced that flouride is GOOD for you? It’s because of ignorant people like you who believe the wrong and misleading ‘facts’ (not really facts at all, but cover stories) that allows this sort of thing to continue. I guess we’ll see who lives longer out of those who are smart enough to avoid such toxic waste and those who are dumb enough to think ‘trace’ quantities are acceptable. The human body is a delicate machine and ‘trace’ elements have a PROFOUND affect on the body.”

(David, 2008 )

So for pointing out that sodium benzoate is not benzene and that the reported potentially harmful effects of sodium benzoate in the story I critique aren’t related at all to benzene contamination as occuring in the Perrier or sodium benzoate + ascorbic or citric acid + heat scenarios, somehow I’m a candidate to work for the soft drink companies?

I’m sure that they would avoid employing me considering that I never actually denied that there are alternatives to sodium benzoate (which like sodium benzoate and most other preservatives are still subject to ongoing safety tests). Which begs the question of why David needs to point out that their alternatives.

Personally, I’d prefer no sodium benzoate, but I’m not going to have a conniption fit over it. It’s not a health epidemic. Now if David thinks that trace amounts aren’t accpetable, he may want to consider that you get trace amounts of benzene from breathing. If you think it is okay to breath, are you dumb?)

It’s an unavoidable, but very, very little evil. And speaking of small quantities, David needs to get his head around the concept of trace minerals. Neither sodium nor the benzoate of sodium, nor benzene are trace minerals. Chromium, molybdenum, selenium, manganese, these are trace minerals (and in the case of trivalent chromium* associated with a decreased risk of type II diabetes).

But it’s the fluoride in the water allusion that I love. No evidence at all, just an “if you disagree with me you are ignorant” line of poor reasoning. Kind of paranoid really (which reminds me that the new X-Files movie is out in June).

I’ve heard a bundle of conspiracy theories about additives in the water supply. My second favourite is the “fluoride and chloride were added to the water supply to lower sperm count” theory which one of my less reputable uncles subscribes to. My favourite, and perhaps related conspiracy theory is from Dr Strangelove.

Now keep it civil in the comments folks. Otherwise you’ll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

~ Bruce

* Hexavalent chromium is the toxic form found in some paints and on hubcaps and such. Trivalent chromium is a nutrient found in things like wheat germ.

Update: Hat tip to Jenny for pointing out my mildly embarrassing typo of “benzine” instead of “benzene”. Incidentally, I once had a economics teacher that would routinely catch himself spelling “unions” as “onions”. Given he was a Liberal voter, I used to suspect that he was having some kind of Freudian slip associating unions with things that made him cry.

Maybe with all this talk of industry propaganda and bad science, I’ve got the fossil fuels industry on my mind. Then again I’m not a Freudian.