I decided to email eMed Expert and ask them about the nature of some omissions and errors in the article that I wrote about earlier:
I recently read your article entitled 8 Reasons People Drink Soda and while informative, you played pretty loose with the facts. For one, in item 4, nobody chooses pop in lieu of water because of marketing. The marketing is used to get people to switch or remain with the same brand and we all know this. Anyone who would drink a Coke because they liked a commercial has bigger problems than actually drinking soda. The old “it’s those evil corporations and their marketing that are to blame” canard is, put simply, stupid and says more about those who use it than the poor idiots who (if at all even possible) succumb to it.
Also, in your reasons to avoid sodas, number 12 is dehydration. This is where you’re getting loose with facts. Studies show a whole 3-4% difference when caffeinated drinks are compared with water. To label caffeine a diuretic based on a few percentage points seems obtuse.
In addition, you do list quite a few side effects that could possibly be related to drinking soda… Even when I was drinking four to five two liters a week I never experienced one (that’s over a period of decades by the way) – and that was in addition to a half a pot of coffee every day. You might want to lay off of the “caffeine is bad for you” argument, because there are a lot of positive benefits in caffeine as well – or at least when it’s found in coffee. The point, not to muddy the waters, is that people really do pay attention to silly things like what you’ve written – you’re literally creating a bunch of ignoramuses by only giving half of the story on caffeine.
Then in item 15, you wrote: “A new health scare erupted over soft drinks recently amid evidence that they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative E211, known as sodium benzoate, found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.” Now I can smell a lot of BS emanating from what you’ve written. New Health Scare = Something ignorant bigots indulge in. “amid evidence” = unusually little evidence. “Research from a British university” = so the university is either a quack factory or the evidence is so flimsy that you don’t want to name the university for fear it comes back on you. My translation actually holds water, as much of the article has the pertinent backup referenced, but not this one. Then for the last “linking”statement: “Sodium benzoate occurs in small amounts naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks.” Well, at least you were decent enough to mention that it was found naturally in berries, but in regards to those “large quantities”, are the quantities large because the manufacturer is making a 500 gallon vat of soda? Then all of a sudden, when you consider how much makes it into one bottle of soda it’s the equivalent of what’s naturally in a single strawberry? That’s usually how the math works on shifty things like this – OR when the “British university” conducted the study, they forced the results by using an insanely high amount of the chemical in question, much the same way the MSG health scare reached fever pitch.
Finally, in your healthy alternatives you list fruit juice. It’s been reported for some time that fruit juice is just as bad as soda on the sugar front – and most of your reasons to quit have to do with sugar, not caffeine or chemicals. Or is that science bad too?