For one thing, lemon juice squirted onto cells in culture will likely kill them- and yet we’d all agree it’s a nice natural product we ought to use more of in the home, in place of nasties like chlorine. Bad for yeast doesn’t have to mean bad for us.

Secondly, there’s no mention of whether the concentrations of SB used in the lab are equivalent to what we would be exposed to if we drank a can of juice*. Or even if we drank ten cans a day, which I’d hope you’d agree is excessive.

Thirdly, science has shown over and over again that what happens in the lab in an isolated environment doesn’t necessarily translate to what happens in a living being. This is why research into any compound- medicinal, or a cleaning product or even a food- will combine in vitro (‘in glass’-i.e. in the lab) and in vivo(‘in life’ i.e. a living body) studies in forming its conclusions.

Perhaps most compellingly for me though, is that even Prof Peter Piper, the scientist cited in the article linked to, doesn’t seem to be all that fussed about the issue. Yes, the newspaper are screaming for blood, BUT! Take a look at Prof Piper’s academic home page. He mentions the effects of oxidative stress and cell aging (which is where SB would come in) as an area of interest, but makes no mention of SB The recent publications at the foot of the page, what you might consider to be his lab’s proudest recent moments, make no mention of sodium benzoate. Pop his name into Pubmed, and yes, there is one paper that makes a likely contender for research into the subject (‘Novel stress responses facilitate Saccharomyces cerevisiae growth in the presence of the monocarboxylate preservatives.’)

I’ve read the abstract-I can’t read the whole paper but that means the general public can’t either so we’ll not let that bother us. The abstract certainly says that SB makes yeast behave differently. But there is no warning – as you might expect, if there really was cause for concern- of a danger to human health.

This suggests that there simply isn’t any evidence for a problem. Perhaps the lab suggested it, but the idea wasn’t well enough argued to make it through peer review. Or perhaps it’s all nonsense. For a slightly more sceptical take on the thing (essentially ‘of course Piper says there’s a need for more research, he’s being paid by the government to research this’) check out Michael Prescott’s response to the story. Or follow response to the story as it unfolded, over at Rhetorically Speaking (including a nice quote where Piper stresses that he’s not saying SB is unsafe!)

I *highly* recommend you read Ben Goldacre’s book, Bad Science (hideously expensive from Amazon US, but if you reply by email, Susan, I’ll post you a copy from the UK, as a gift) as it will really open your eyes to some of the BS that passes as science journalism these days.

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid fizzy pop- silly amounts of sugar, as you say, or the fact that too much caffeine can leave you antsy or that the gas will make you belch. No need to tart it up with silly pseudoscience.

*I’m sorry, I’m scottish, only we would call coke and its ilk ‘juice’!

helen’s last blog post..Genius Doesn’t Just Happen You Know