Posted on 12/10/2007 10:32:06 PM PST by neverdem
Associated Press
A state advisory board on Monday called for a study to determine if sodas and energy drinks containing caffeine pose a risk to pregnant women.
The review could lead to warning labels on the drinks under Proposition 65, a 1986 ballot measure that requires the state to identify chemicals that could cause cancer or birth defects.
"If I were a pregnant woman or a woman thinking about being pregnant, I would want to know, should I be avoiding caffeine?" said Renee Sharp, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an environmental research organization that's based in Washington D.C. "It's a really important question, and I think people are looking for answers."
The advisory panel, the Science Advisory Board Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, also requested an immediate review of Bisphenol-A, which could lead to warning labels on plastic baby bottles, water bottles and reusable food containers. The chemical Bisphenol-A has been shown to affect hormonal levels.
It was unclear Monday whether the state would follow the board's advice.
"This is a nonbinding recommendation; however, we will give it heavy weight because this is a panel of scientific experts," said Sam Delson, spokesman at the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
If the office agrees to conduct the reviews, it would hold public hearings and do a more extensive review of existing research over the next year, Delson said. The board would then decide whether to require warning labels on caffeine and Bisphenol-A products similar to labels now used on potato chips and alcohol.
The board's 4-3 vote calling for the caffeine study was part of a two-year review of 286 chemicals that state officials said might warrant speedy review under proposition 65. Caffeine and Bisphenol-A were among eight chemicals selected for the board's consideration.
In arguing for the caffeine review, board member Hillary Klonoff-Cohen said dozens of scientific studies have linked the stimulant to miscarriages, premature births and low birth weight. The evidence is more prevalent in animal studies.
The label requirement would not cover coffee and tea, which have much higher caffeine levels, because the stimulant occurs naturally in those beverages. Proposition 65 only applies to chemicals that are added to foods or products.
The distinction drew criticism from the American Beverage Association, which said the coffee exemption would confuse consumers and unfairly penalize the soft drink industry.
"To provide a Proposition 65 warning on soft drinks would communicate to women that moderate amounts of caffeine is not safe," said Gary Roberts, a Los Angeles attorney representing the beverage association.
A University of Southern California study that was commissioned by the American Beverage Association concluded that warning labels on soft drinks led women to falsely believe there is more caffeine in soda than coffee.
The College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the March of Dimes, the Mayo Clinic and other health organizations have said that moderate amounts of caffeine - about two cups of coffee a day or seven soft drinks a day - are safe for pregnant women.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
And my coffee from my cold shakey hands.
Yet another reason why CA is in such a deficit hole.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Why don’t they just label whatever is safe. Wouldn’t that be a lot cheaper to implement?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Spewing coffee from nose.
I have been a hard coffee drinker since I was a kid, (coffeemilk). I get a serious headache in the morning without my coffee. However, both times when I was pregnant, the smell and taste of coffee made me throw up. I could not even take a sip without getting nauseated and not just in the early months. What’s even weirder, though, is I never got my usual caffiene headache when pregnant. As soon as the babies were born though, I had my coffee and they had coffeemilk.
Seriously, has anyone ever seen “Demolition Man”? (”Coming up, the People’s Republic of Kali-forn-eya wants to tell YOU how to tie your shoes properly.”)
Obviously kowtowing to the worshippers of Gaia, whose sacrament is "Natural good, manmade bad."
I could not drink caffeinated beverages when I was pregnant. It had nothing to do with bizarre food tastes that some pregnant women endure, but with the activation of the fetus within my womb. One little sip of Coke, and he would be turning somersaults in there (at 3 1/2 months, even!).
A cardiologist will tell you to avoid caffeine.I have defaulted to the old school Postum. Sigh . . .
But hey - if it eliminates the demoralizing achey chest, as seems to be the case, it's worth it. Without question.
Prop 65 is such a waste, EVERYTHING has a sign to the extent that you just ignore them after a while. Someone here said it would be cheaper to label what is safe. Well to the wack jobs here in Kalifornia, nothing is safe.
| Low Adrenal Function / Adrenal Insufficiency |
The Condition "The adrenal glands, located above the kidney, often become 'exhausted' as a result of the constant demands placed upon them..." Our Question about level of coffee consumption "Caffeine raises adrenaline levels and heavy coffee consumption can lead to a state of adrenal gland exhaustion, where the adrenal glands are no longer able to adequately respond to stress by releasing enough adrenaline..." |
Monday - bad for you.
Tuesday - good for you.
Wednesday - bad for you.
Thursday - good for you.
on and on and on....
Renee Sharp, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group
Another air waster struggling to justify their existance as a tapeworm in the gut of society...
And of course the “loving libs” will keep on telling their sheeple followers that they’ll decriminalize pot and cocaine (of course they’ll stiffen the penalties.....after all, libs are experts at lying).
Liberals are terrorists, plain and simple. The “food police” are terrorists (they helped poison the people in the first place, and then they turn around and punish YOU for their crimes against humanity). The animal rights activists are terrorists. Ship em all to Gitmo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.