You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Woman Who Drank Over 2 Gallons of Coca-Cola Per Day Dies

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Saturday 21 April 2012
The Coca-Cola company made an emergency recipe change in March to remove an ingredient known as 4-methylimidazole (4-MI or 4-MEI) that would have required a cancer warning labeling to be slapped onto the soft drink.
Article image

A woman from New Zealand who reportedly drank as much as 2.6 gallons of Coca-Cola per day to fuel her ‘Coke addiction’ has died, and experts are saying that her serious craving for pop was a major contributor. The news could not come at a worse time for Coca-Cola, who has already been hit by both government bodies and consumers alike for their cancer-linked beverage. In fact, the Coca-Cola company made an emergency recipe change in March to remove an ingredient known as 4-methylimidazole (4-MI or 4-MEI) that would have required a cancer warning labeling to be slapped onto the soft drink.

As it was recently removed to avoid the label, this means that Natasha Harris’ Coca-Cola excessive consumption was accompanied by the carcinogenic ingredient. In addition to 4-methylimidazole, Harris also consumed gallons and gallons of a liquid containing aspartamehigh-fructose corn syrup, and 40 grams of sugar per can. When you perform some simple math, you can see that Harris actually consumed around 41 and one half 8-ounce cans of Coca-Cola on her heaviest binge drinking days. Further equations show that, at 39 grams per 8-ounce can, Harris was taking in around 1,618 grams of sugar per day. To put that into perspective, that’s 1,598 grams more than the recommended daily limit.

According to expert Dr. Dan Mornin, Harris probably suffered from hypokalemia, or low potassium. Mornin says that this was most likely a result of her excessive Coke consumption, which severely affected her bones. To answer the question as to how anyone could possibly consume such copious amounts of soda despite the serious health risks, it’s important to examine the research regarding sugar addiction. Not only has sugar addiction been labeled as the ‘new alcoholism‘ by health professionals, but a growing body of research also has found that it is actually as addictive as cocaine.

Another health professional expressed concerns over the consumption of Coca-Cola and other sugary beverages, stating:

“it is certainly well demonstrated that excessive long or short term cola ingestion can be dramatically symptomatic, and there are strong hypothetical grounds for this becoming fatal in individual cases.”

Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

Thank you dotheduedil for

Thank you dotheduedil for your well researched response to the article. I wish that more people would use proper logic processes when they write articles like you have in what you wrote. The original author obviously does not, in fact he uses deceptive techniques that too many readers readily accept. I am surprised that he continues to be considered a professinal. Of course we see that approach in current politics as well and it is just as damaging there as well. Jerry

Good Christ! If you drank

Good Christ! If you drank that much water every day you'd probably die. Coke is shit. Don't get me wrong. Totally bad for you. But this isn't news. And given how much it took to kill this undoubtedly mentally diminished woman, I'm inclined to think it's not as bad for us as we imagined.

I am a progressive who reads

I am a progressive who reads Nation of Change (NOC) religiously and finds many of the articles informative and a welcome antidote to the ultra-conservative views expressed in other print and electronic sources I monitor. I have been increasingly disturbed by the damage I see being done to the reliability, veracity, and integrity of NOC by Anthony Gucciardi’s columns. I have previously weighed in on his sloppy and misleading piece on Monsanto’s Bt corn, and the present article on Coca Cola’s ratchets his journalistic shallowness to a level worthy only of tabloid reporting.

What can one reasonably take away from Gucciardi’s article? First that a woman who drank far too much Coca Cola for a long time died. Her death was apparently due to a potassium deficiency caused by the excessive use of the cola product (other sources mention a second probable cause: caffeine toxicity). Second, Gucciardi points out that sugar can be addictive and implies that easily consumed products like Coke make it easier to become addicted and then satisfy the addicition. Finally, there is an implicit warning that too much sugar in the diet is associated with myriad health problems. None of this is new. We should all have known these things without reading Gucciardi’s article. Of course thousands of products have way too much sugar and one could substitute many of them for Coca Cola and the three points I’ve just covered would remain true.

But Gucciardi seems to be targeting Coca Cola here. Why else would he throw in misleading passages like “Harris also consumed gallons and gallons of a liquid containing aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, and 40 grams of sugar per can.” Notice that if the cans had contained aspartame, then she would have consumed no sugar at all! Aspartame is the artificial sweetener used in Diet Coke. Moreover, the wording of this sentence suggests that Ms. Harris consumed a lot of high-fructose corn syrup and 40 grams of sugar per can. The 39 grams of sugar in each can of regular Coke is the high-fructose corn syrup.

But what should alert us that Gucciardi is preparing another of his corporate smears is his inclusion of the wholly irrelevant fact that Coke had earlier removed “an ingredient known as 4-methylimidazole (4-MI or 4-MEI) that would have required a cancer warning labeling to be slapped onto the soft drink.” The suppliers of Coke’s caramel coloring had agreed to produce the coloring using a different method because California had passed a law requiring that any product ingredient linked to cancer in lab animals must be labeled. 4-MI is produced any time sugars are heated to a certain temperature. It occurs naturally in roasted vegetables and meats, coffee, and a huge number of products that use caramel coloring. Food safety organizations across the world have judged this chemical safe in the amounts found in Coke (before the change) and one study found that 4-MI had an anti-carcinogenic effect in rats. So the carcinogenic association with regular Coca Cola is tenuous at best and has nothing to do with Ms. Harris’ death or addiction. Yet Gucciardi cannot resist adding that “Natasha Harris’ Coca-Cola excessive consumption was accompanied by the carcinogenic ingredient,” in a transparent effort to link her woes with that ingredient. That Mr. Gucciardi was attempting to create this link between Harris’ death and Coke’s alleged carcinogenic content is apparent from the top of the article: the Coke headline is followed immediately by the carcinogen side-bar.

I want corporations guilty of offenses against humans, animals, and our planet to have their feet held to the fires of truth. The guilty need to be prosecuted with huge fines and jail time for their executives. Good journalism brought the sins of cigarette manufacturers to light (although little justice was squeezed out of that debacle). Fighting corporate coal or asbestos interests, automotive or pharmaceutical interests, required hard journalistic work over months and years. The progressive fight needs journalists willing to do that work, not writers whose idea of investigation is to scan Fox or CNN, change a few words they wrote in another article for different online journals (e.g. Natural Society) and then call themselves “accomplished investigative journalists.” This response took me about three hours to research and write. Among my sources: and Answers about 4 MEI

Thank-you. A thorough run

Thank-you. A thorough run down with what I was formulating was wrong with this article. Haven't read any of his others.

I'm all for freedom. People

I'm all for freedom. People should be free to do whatever they choose to their body, as long as it doesn't hurt another's rights and well-being. That said, what this is about is warning people of the dangers of even one or two Cokes a day. As I recall, a recent study showed one regular Coke or other soft drink per day raised a person's chance of developing diabetes by 85%. A top official for the American Diabetes Association predicted that diabetes along could bankrupt the U.S. health care system by 2017. So, if someone wants to keep drinking Coke, they better be ready to pay top dollar for their own dialysis when the time comes. That's all.

I'm sorry to bring this up.

I'm sorry to bring this up. However as a Coke drinker, only Coca Cola as in forever, where did you see 'sugar' on the ingredients list?

Use to be, but thanks to Regan’s corn connection, sugar was dropped a long time ago, a coke did taste better back then.

If you’re talking about the evils of corn & frucrose syrup, I’ve been onboard since then too. Oh, but you aren’t. Oh well.

Sad ending, bummer way for one’s passing to be chronicled & globalized. I sure she deserved better than this.

RIP and may all your sins be forgiven Natasha Harris.

If your talking about the evils of corn surup

Excellent, MDFOURU! A++

Excellent, MDFOURU! A++

No Rex, I'm pretty sure it's

No Rex, I'm pretty sure it's you with the issues. Here, let me outline a few for you. Firstly, paranoia, a form of insanity. No one proposes outlawing Coca-Cola. No one indicated that people aren't responsible for their lifestyle choices. No one proposed dictating every nuance of your life. Yet your paranoia leads you to arm yourself in preparation, as if some mythical "eco-fascists" (whatever that is) are out to get you. Your complex fantasies about peanuts and alcohol and ovens and vegans indicate extremely incoherent thought processes and highly paranoid delusional thinking.

Next, we have the issue of your reading comprehension. Perhaps you should focus on that. Nowhere in the article was there anything even remotely resembling any of the straw men concocted in your fantasies . You have allowed your paranoid delusions to influence your comprehension of the article. This is not a good sign and I fear such thought processes may well lead to your actually acting out on these paranoid delusions in the future. For safety's sake, I would suggest you lock your firearms up in a safe place and give the key to one of your more rational friends. Perhaps a clergyman or trusted adult. There is no telling what your paranoid fantasies may lead you to do should someone write an article that actually advocates one or more of the actions your delusions have led you to believe this article advocates. Please seek professional help. There are medications that may prove useful to you. Also, remedial reading courses are available at a local community college near you. You would do well to incorporate these as part of your rehabilitative therapy regimen.

In the future, you'd be well served to abandon all those silly stereotypes and pre-conceptions stuffed into your head by the likes of Faux Noise, Limbaugh, Beck, et. al.. They are clouding your thought processes and causing you to write in the manner of an uninformed, imbecilic, paranoid teabagger. Your mental health will improve if you just concentrate on the things you can understand. So, at least for the immediate future, just stick to American Idol, football, Dancing with the Stars and similar entertainment. Until you have addressed your mental health issues, leave issues of public policy and science to the mentally balanced grown ups. You'll be happier that way and, in time, your head may begin to clear a bit.

Good luck and if you can't afford therapy, you may be able to find some liberal mental health professional willing to treat you on a sliding scale. So don't give up. And remember, lock up those guns. I'd hate to read about you in the paper.

Hello. Anybody recall how

Hello. Anybody recall how much Pepsi Hugh Hefner drank? And his durability?

@ ATLATLASREX1 Why are you

@ ATLATLASREX1 Why are you here??? You obviously don't understand the argument about the cancer causing ingredient in Coke's signature product. And as far as Vegans go I can tell you from personal experience we aren't lacking in necessary vitamins. Of course people should exercise personal responsibility, but so should the Coca-Cola corporation. Alas, I am sure the nuances of this argument are falling on your deaf ears.

As to the overblown comment

As to the overblown comment above, no one said she WASN'T insane, did they? That's not what this article is about. Rather, it is about how ADDICTIVE Coca Cola is, which fact (yes it is) is not countered by YOUR EXTRAPOLATIONS on what you THINK the article is saying.

SOMEONE has to say SOMETHING when a company puts out products that can addict people like this (and I'm a WITNESS that it CAN do that, in multiple ways). But even given that, we PROGRESSIVES at least know enough to be able to tell what an article DOESN'T SAY.

For instance, it DOESN'T SAY any of the things you seem to accuse it of saying. It never says what any "solution" might be. It never proposes "outlawing" Coke. It never says that the woman's rate of consumption was all Coke's fault.

I myself interpret that SOME of it was, by my own knowledge of Coke's addictive potential, but the article NEVER says that, it just points out what actually has HAPPENED in this story.

PROGRESSIVES can track what a story like this actually MEANS. If you Conservatives CAN'T do that ... then really, you should just quit reading at all, and go back to FAUX Noise for your "news."

Two gallons of Coke per day?

Two gallons of Coke per day? And she died? Well, duh! How much did she weigh? How was her overall health?

Two gallons of Coke per day?

Two gallons of Coke per day? And she died? Well, duh! How much did she weigh? How was her overall health?

You people are truly insane.

You people are truly insane. You believe Coca-cola is responsible for a crazy women who drank massive amounts of coca- cola? I suppose if someone ate massive amounts of peanuts the the peanut farmers are at fault? Or your solution is to outlaw coca -cola for the billions of humans who drink a can or two each week?What about alcohol ? Shouldn't you make that illegal first? Oh wait- that was tried in the 20's and worked put really well. Don't you nuts ever think people are responsible for and must live with their own decisions and life style choices???I have read that Vegans who never eat meat have severe shortages of necessary vitamins so perhaps we need to force people to eat a steak once a month for their own good and next we might force people to exercise one hour every day or tax them on their tax return because they might be more unhealthy costing the medical system more money.This nutty lady was obviously insane and likely suicidal and chose Coke as her way of suicide instead of putting her head in an oven or tying a rope around her neck-- wait we need to tax rope and ovens!!! They can cause death.Worry about yourselves goofballs - I suspect you have lots of issues yourselves that need immediate attention. And you wonder why Ar-15's are selling like well coca-cola ? Because rational Americans realize they may need to protect themselves from eco-fascists like yourselves when you decide to dictate every nuance of our lives.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...