This week in "well that was obvious"....

[Tev]

So a lady died of a Coke overdose a few years back and ABC's picking that story up about three hours ago (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/moms-death-linked-coke-coroners-report-164723213--abc-news-health.html). Must have been a slow news day, what with the Pope retiring, the President having given the State of the Union address, and the ongoing issues with the supposedly finished man-hunt for one Mr. Dorner. This isn't news enough for the news forum, but still struck me as silly enough to share.

A New Zealand coroner has linked the death of a 31-year-old woman to her Coca-Cola addiction.

Natasha Harris died Feb. 25, 2010 from a cardiac arrhythmia, according to a 19-page coroner's report obtained by ABCNews.com. And while Harris, a mother of eight from Invercargill, New Zealand, was known to smoke heavily and skip multiple meals, coroner David Crerar concluded that the sugar and caffeine she got by drinking more than 2.6 gallons of Coca-Cola Classic per day was "a substantial factor" in her death.

"When all of the available evidence is considered, were it not for the consumption of very large quantities of Coke by Natasha Harris, it is unlikely that she would have died when she died and how she died," Crerar wrote in his report.

Harris's partner, Christopher Hodgkinson, said Harris would get headaches and act moody without her Coke fix, according to the coroner's report. Close friends said she would "get the shakes" and other withdrawal symptoms. Her heart would race, her liver was swollen, and her rotting teeth had to be removed. But, said the report, "the family did not consider that Coke was harmful due to the fact of it having no warning signs."

"Natasha Harris knew, or ought to have known and recognized, the health hazard of her chosen diet and lifestyle," Crerar wrote in his report, adding that fact that Harris had her teeth extracted several years before her death "should have been treated by her, and by her family, as a warning."

Dr. Christopher Holstege, chief of medical toxicology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said anything can be toxic in large enough quantities.

"In toxicology, everything comes down to dose. And it sounds as though she was certainly taking an excessive dose," he said, adding that drinking two gallons of soda per day with limited amounts of food can cause a dangerous imbalance in electrolytes. "You're also not getting essential nutrients when you're only drinking Coke. You're basically getting sugar, and you're going to be deficient in vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients."

Harris's reported Coke habit would have delivered more than 2.2 pounds of sugar daily, according to the coroner's report. She would have also ingested nearly a gram of caffeine, according to Coca-Cola's website.

"To me, it sounds like she was not a healthy woman in any way, shape or form," said Holstege.

A spokesman for Coca-Cola expressed sympathy for Harris's family and disappointment that the coroner chose "to focus on the combination of Ms. Harris' excessive consumption of Coca-Cola, together with other health and lifestyle factors, as the probable cause of her death."

"Excessive consumption of one food or beverage - even water - to the exclusion of all others will not provide the essential nutrients an adult needs and is not recommended under New Zealand Food and Nutrition Guidelines," he said. "The safety of our products is paramount, and our promise is to deliver safe, quality beverages. All of our products have a place in an active, healthy lifestyle that includes a sensible, balanced diet and regular physical activity."

While Crerar noted that the ingredients of Coke are "entirely legal" and "enjoyed by millions," he said the risks of high doses were not adequately communicated to consumers.

"The hazards to the health of the consumers of excessive quantities of sugar and caffeine contained in carbonated beverages could be more clearly emphasized," he wrote.
More emphasized you say? Do soda cans really need warning labels telling us not to drink gallons of them each day, every day?

[Azisien]

Surely there must be some limitation on warning labels, if only to screen out the truly moronic.

[pochercoaster]

nything can be toxic in large enough quantities.

...was what I immediately thought of when I started reading the article.

But, is there anything to lose by using warning labels? Like, what's the worst that can happen? Personally, I would like if they started indicating how much caffeine is in each can/bottle, because I'm very sensitive to it, and many other people are too.

Surely there must be some limitation on warning labels, if only to screen out the truly moronic.

You know, some people like to make fun of warning labels that seem redundant, like a bag of peanuts or pecans or whatever saying WARNING: CONTAINS NUTS, but then... what if you're a kid and you don't read well, or english is your second language, or any number of things? Warning labels aren't just for "morons." They're important to ensure people's safety. I see no problem with this.

[Azisien]

If you can't read, I don't know what the warning labels will do. People with allergies tend to know about their allergies, and things are labelled for allergies already (Canada). Caffeine amounts are also printed on labels these days (Canada). And that's all well and good. Strive for that standard if your place of residence currently lacks that much.

Putting a warning label on a knife saying "Don't thrust me into your vital organs" is more of a waste of resources, even if I'm glad somebody's got my back.

At some point in your life, there's just a certain amount of survival instinct you need to have to survive. It's super easy to survive at this point for most of the people that warning labels could apply to. If you're that one gal that drinks Coke to death, or eats Kraft Dinner/burgers until their arteries explode, that's...that's unfortunate.

[POS Industries]

If you can't read, I don't know what the warning labels will do.
Well, if something is obviously a warning label and you can't read it, you could take the opportunity to find out from someone who can read what the warning label says. And, if nothing else, it absolves the maker from responsibility if someone disregards the warning and harms themselves anyway.

Like I get that it's totally a great idea to pull yourself up by your "not dying" bootstraps but there are a lot of people who might otherwise fail to for any number of reasons, and it's awfully shitty to just write them off as being "too stupid to live" or whatever.

[pochercoaster]

If you can't read, I don't know what the warning labels will do.

Because you might have enough vocabulary to recognize some words but not others?

Caffeine amounts are also printed on labels these days (Canada). And that's all well and good. Strive for that standard if your place of residence currently lacks that much.

You know, I lived in Ontario for 20 years and never saw caffeine labeled on most drinks. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. I don't see caffeine labeled on most drinks here in Las Vegas either.

At some point in your life, there's just a certain amount of survival instinct you need to have to survive.

Yeah fuck informing consumers.

If you're that one gal that drinks Coke to death, or eats Kraft Dinner/burgers until their arteries explode, that's...that's unfortunate.

Like, this lady pretty obviously didn't give a damn and would've drank that much coke anyways.

I just find this...

Surely there must be some limitation on warning labels, if only to screen out the truly moronic.

...really vindictive and crass.

Hey, remember when energy drinks were a thing and didn't have warning labels and people died from drinking them before exercising? They totally should've just known it was bad for them! What a laugh those morons were!

[Arcanum]

Just checked a can of Coke and Dr. Pepper, neither lists exactly how much caffeine is in each drink. There might be some drinks that list their caffeine amount, but it looks like Canadian pops are one of them.

[CABAL49]

The main issue here is that the FDA for the states, and equivalencies are becoming increasingly more impotent and what we are consuming is becoming less regulated. Labels are nice and all, but things are being released that just shouldn't be.

[Azisien]

You know, I lived in Ontario for 20 years and never saw caffeine labeled on most drinks. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. I don't see caffeine labeled on most drinks here in Las Vegas either.

Well, Las Vegas can go ahead and fix that.

Your hyperbolic backlash just makes me chuckle.

I'm cool with: nutritional information, list of significant mind-altering substances (prominently), list of allergens (prominently), list of all ingredients. Basic safety information (knife: sharp, stove: hot, electrical danger, etc).

All of which makes a good deal of sense, all of which, for the most part, exists on products available to me. As I said, if they don't where you live, then go ahead and lobby for it.

None of this (above) has to do with good sense. The OP is a person who had no sense. She took something normally, relatively, safe (we could have a whole other discussion about soda and corn syrup and metabolism but kay, one can of Coke per day will not make your heart explode) and brought it to extreme excess. 2.6 GALLONS per DAY? I don't even consume that much total fluid on an average day, and most of what I do is probably water.

My comment, taken to your own personal extreme, simply stated that yes, there is a limit on what a warning label should bother with. People can be and frequently are stupid.

Hey, remember when energy drinks were a thing and didn't have warning labels and people died from drinking them before exercising? They totally should've just known it was bad for them! What a laugh those morons were!

This at least is an example worth discussing. The above is not. She was a moron and is dead because she was a moron. I might not be using the proper dictionary definition of moron, nor a high degree of tact, but hey, you're not using the proper definition of vindictive (since I don't know anyone involved, I hardly crave any kind of revenge. Nor need it! They are dead!)

Energy drinks are a great example because they probably weren't field tested enough, or whatever health bureau you fall under the umbrella of, should have stricter guidelines for product releases. I haven't researched every death linked to energy drinks, but some were probably legitimate tragedies.

Here again, others were not. Information about these drinks came out. Here and now, people aware of the caffeine and other chemical content in these energy drinks still toss back 5-6 a day like it was water. I have no sympathy for any heart arrhythmia they incur for themselves. It is still done, and often. They even HAVE WARNINGS now!

Anyway, I never took a 'no labels, no information' stance, at any point, but I'm happy you just made that up and had a good time.

INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH RESULTS:

- It appears cans of Coke don't have the caffeine amount listed, though it is in the ingredients list.
- Bottles of Coke do have the caffeine amount per serving.

Not sure why they did one and not the other.

[PyrosNine]

In my teens, I drank Sun Drop almost exclusively, which does list it's caffeine and sugar content on both can and bottle, as the high amount of caffeine was a selling point.

Sounds like she just never did things like, eat proper food and get proper health checks. I even assume after she lost her teeth, that the doctor said "Hey, you should probably stop consuming so many sweets." And she just said "yeah, yeah." and kept on doing it.

She had an addiction problem, and her family enabled it, as she was full grown woman capable of making her own decisions and who were they to tell her she should lay off drinking a children's beverage?

I don't think warning labels need to be on coke to tell you, yeah, IF YOU DRINK THIS EVERY DAY IN MASSIVE QUANTITIES IT CAN HURT YOUR HEALTH. More like, there should be more awareness about the fact that ANYTHING can be addictive if average consumption exceeds what is necessary, and to recognize the signs of addiction.

It does state that she suffered headaches and the like as a result of either withdrawal from caffeine or sugar high, or from being nigh-diabetic as a result of her constant sugar intake. That should have thrown up millions of warning bells. There were million of warning signs, but they were ignored because of either apathy, or a delusion that as long as there isn't a written word of god "this can be harmful if taken in x amounts" that the specific addiction was a harmless one.

Don't know if she was a moron, surrounded by morons, but there was carelessness all around, and it cost the life of a woman that should have been in her prime.

[Premmy]

The problem with the "well some people should use common sense, why should we have to put all these warning labels on everything?" is: What would the "worst case scenario" be in this argument? Soda cans become less attractive? Is that really something even worth discussing? It literally cost nothing to have more or proper labeling on things. Just take the empty space needed to make the things look "pretty" and instead of large amounts of red/blue coloring, put text. Noone get's hurt by adding "more" even "a ridiculous amount" more labeling. Somebody might get hurt if there is less or none. Writing off any human lives that might be harmed by such a small thing is just kinda dickish. "Well, fuck em" Because what, exactly? What is the argument for "fuck 'em"?

[Arcanum]

I can't enjoy my beverage of choice unless the can or bottle is sufficiently attractive. I might dehydrate if they add these warning labels.

[Premmy]

We'll add instruction labels for that.

[Satan's Onion]

Beautiful instruction labels!

[Nique]

Warning labels are good because there is no possible way that you can account for every contingency of what people will do with your product intentionally or by mistake. Yes there is some upper limit to that but consumer protection is like, a good thing.

It's not just for "stupid" people.

[Cloud Strife]

Bit of a tangent, here, but I have a (not so) hypothetical situation for all of you.

Say there are these five guys who make a burger who intake a substantial amount of alcohol on a regular basis. Well, it's common knowledge that alcohol is a poison that lowers inhibitions, releases dopamine, and can be addicting, right? So when these five guys get put in prison for crimes that they committed while intoxicated, do they get to rightfully sue, just because there was no warning label for the addictive and decision-impeding properties of alcohol? The bad effects of alcohol are commonly known. Why would you need a warning label for something that is common knowledge?

I will note that allergens are something completely different, and should DEFINITELY have warning labels for those.

[Premmy]

Bit of a tangent, here, but I have a (not so) hypothetical situation for all of you.

Say there are these five guys who make a burger who intake a substantial amount of alcohol on a regular basis. Well, it's common knowledge that alcohol is a poison that lowers inhibitions, releases dopamine, and can be addicting, right? So when these five guys get put in prison for crimes that they committed while intoxicated, do they get to rightfully sue, just because there was no warning label for the addictive and decision-impeding properties of alcohol? The bad effects of alcohol are commonly known. Why would you need a warning label for something that is common knowledge?

I will note that allergens are something completely different, and should DEFINITELY have warning labels for those.
If there is a warning label then they wouldn't have any grounds to sue, if there isn't they still would(most likely) not win because of pre-existing laws, Re: alchohol.

This is such a non-issue that is being discussed.

[Krylo]

I wouldn't say it's a non-issue, mostly because until the laws requiring labeling of cigarettes there was quite a bit of misinformation on how dangerous they were spread intentionally by cigarette companies.

I don't know that alcohol was ever the same, as, you know, the 1920s happened, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Krylo]

Like, in our world where labels are required, it's a non-issue due to current laws and clear labeling, but in some kind of dark labelless world where all people are expected to watch out for themselves, and such laws don't exist, it's not hard to imagine the dangers of alcohol no longer being common knowledge, given what corporate propaganda machines are capable of.

[Japan]

Gonna go off and do my own thing here and blame the healthcare industry.

Like, Coke is by no stretch of the imagination a "good" thing. It tastes good sure, but other than that is is pretty much carbonated demon's piss designed to get you hooked and turn you into a diabetic (well it was literally designed to get you addicted, the whole diabetes thing is probably unintended.)

But, this woman died from more than carbonated demon's piss. She died from ignorance. She probably would have benefited substantially from a little preventive care and information in healthy and unhealthy lifestyles from a professional.

That's pure conjecture on my part however as I am in no way familiar with the state of the New Zealand health care system, I am merely assuming that the first time this woman had been seen by a medical professional in the few years preceding or following her death was at her autopsy.

If by some chance New Zealand has a wonderful single provider health care system where all are cared for and loved then I rescind my comments and yeah, she pretty much committed slow suicide. Its not such an uncommon thing really, some people just give up.

But yeah, I'm all for warning labels on caffeinated and high sugar beverages. Not because I really think they'll affect many people's lives in any important aspect, just because it'd be pretty hilarious for these assholes to have to tell the truth to consumers after so many years of reaping untold profits through extended physical abuse. Hell they should do like many countries do with cigarettes and put pictures to go along with the warnings. Like an obese 6 year old with a sad look on his face and a caption that says "He probably won't make it past 30", if that doesn't cut your soda intake down then nothing will.

[Aldurin]

Gonna go off and do my own thing here and blame the healthcare industry.

Like, Coke is by no stretch of the imagination a "good" thing. It tastes good sure, but other than that is is pretty much carbonated demon's piss designed to get you hooked and turn you into a diabetic (well it was literally designed to get you addicted, the whole diabetes thing is probably unintended.)

But, this woman died from more than carbonated demon's piss. She died from ignorance. She probably would have benefited substantially from a little preventive care and information in healthy and unhealthy lifestyles from a professional.

That's pure conjecture on my part however as I am in no way familiar with the state of the New Zealand health care system, I am merely assuming that the first time this woman had been seen by a medical professional in the few years preceding or following her death was at her autopsy.

If by some chance New Zealand has a wonderful single provider health care system where all are cared for and loved then I rescind my comments and yeah, she pretty much committed slow suicide. Its not such an uncommon thing really, some people just give up.

But yeah, I'm all for warning labels on caffeinated and high sugar beverages. Not because I really think they'll affect many people's lives in any important aspect, just because it'd be pretty hilarious for these assholes to have to tell the truth to consumers after so many years of reaping untold profits through extended physical abuse. Hell they should do like many countries do with cigarettes and put pictures to go along with the warnings. Like an obese 6 year old with a sad look on his face and a caption that says "He probably won't make it past 30", if that doesn't cut your soda intake down then nothing will.

Warning labels won't stop those that don't care. It's very likely that even if Coke came with a big bolded list of illnesses caused by its consumption, the woman still would have happily drunk herself to death from it.

Cigarettes have warnings on them, and there's whole ad campaigns that make people aware that it does no good for you. Yet people still smoke because they don't have the willpower to care, or because they think they can regulate themselves and cheat death that way. Even if a doctor told them that their shit is fucked if they keep smoking, it's very likely that most people in that situation would keep doing it anyway.

You can't force people to make the right decision, you can only point them toward that as hard as humanly possible and hope they don't make a beeline for the ditch. So while it does help awareness, and thus saves those people who legitimately don't know the risks, it's not an ultimate solution to stop those who are casually self-destructive.

Also Pepsi is totally demon piss, at least Coke tastes good.

[Osterbaum]

At least Coke Zero tastes good, you mean.

[Japan]

Again, I don't really think warning labels on coke would save too many lives, I just think it'd be hilarious. Aldurin, you pretty much said everything I said in a different tone. (admittedly far more concisely and with a lot less snark.)

[pochercoaster]

Warning labels won't stop those that don't care. It's very likely that even if Coke came with a big bolded list of illnesses caused by its consumption, the woman still would have happily drunk herself to death from it.

Cigarettes have warnings on them, and there's whole ad campaigns that make people aware that it does no good for you. Yet people still smoke because they don't have the willpower to care, or because they think they can regulate themselves and cheat death that way. Even if a doctor told them that their shit is fucked if they keep smoking, it's very likely that most people in that situation would keep doing it anyway.

You can't force people to make the right decision, you can only point them toward that as hard as humanly possible and hope they don't make a beeline for the ditch. So while it does help awareness, and thus saves those people who legitimately don't know the risks, it's not an ultimate solution to stop those who are casually self-destructive.

Also Pepsi is totally demon piss, at least Coke tastes good.

Warning labels on cigarettes in Canada have actually resulted in a reduction in smoking. (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full) Not necessarily by preventing non-smokers from becoming smokers but by encouraging existing smokers to quit.

Now, I don't personally care about what little vices people indulge in. However, consumers should be informed about how harmful those things are, which is why graphic warning labels on cigarettes are alright IMO, especially since cigarettes used to be advertised as healthy.

To be clear, I'm not so sure Coke should come with warning labels on it (does anyone think drinking coke in large quantities isn't unhealthy?), but in general we should strive to provide as much information as possible to the consumer. (It'd be pretty funny to put warning labels on things with large amounts of HFCS, but that'll never happen.)

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

If I remember right, relatively recently Coke and Pepsi changed the way they produced the caramel coloring for their sodas specifically for the reason to avoid having to put a cancer warning label on their soda cans/bottles. Something about the process leaving the caramel somewhat carcinogenic.

If they'd go that far to avoid that it's no stretch of the imagination they'd fight tooth and nail to avoid putting warning labels of any sort on their shit swill.

[Magus]

Well the debate is probably what the warning label will say. Also a LOT of stuff would then require this warning label. And if it is "Warning: Ingesting more than the daily recommended amount of sugar is hazardous to your health" then something like 3/4 of the processed food industry is going to have the label, so it will seem pointless.

[Krylo]

I really don't think THIS particular thing should result in a warning label.

I'm pretty sure 2.5 gallons of water per day can kill you.

[Magus]

I'm more concerned about 12 year olds drinking like, four Monster energy drinks a day. Which some are apparently doing.

[Krylo]

Energy drinks should totally have warning labels, if they don't already. They're basically flavored NoDoze--no one should really be drinking them on a regular basis.

[Cloud Strife]

Sorry if this seems a bit thread-jacking-ish (gods, that was horrible wording), but I just checked back in today on this thread. Premmy, Krylo, as I said, not-so-hypothetical. Inmates in Idaho are suing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/idaho-inmates-sue-beer-alcohol-companies_n_2404851.html), claiming that alcohol led them to their crimes.