скачать книгу бесплатно
It is not at all uncommon for the good effects of the medicine to be entirely negated by the adverse effects of the other ingredients being used. This is especially true of colours and preservatives. The Ministry of Health, some time ago, distributed a consultative paper to pharmaceutical manufacturers asking them if they would agree to list a limited range of additives which cause side-effects in sensitive people. It is thought that most manufacturers were happy to comply, but no legislation has so far resulted.
In the meantime, the Ministry has said that if you have a problem, all you have to do when buying a medicine is to ask the pharmacist if it has certain ingredients in it. Unfortunately, the pharmacist has no idea because he is not given the information either. He has to go back to the manufacturer who may be unwilling to give him the answer or even to find somebody who has the answer readily available. When the facts emerge they are often disturbing, as in the case of the chewable children’s vitamins which contain five different azo-dyes and ground sugar to make them pretty and palatable. There is no reason why pharmaceutical manufacturers should not volunteer to reveal the list of ingredients, and there is no reason why they should be exempted from so doing.
3. Golden Eggs and Pink-Fleshed Fish (#ulink_d68bca90-584b-5338-aebf-28da900e8c7b)
A happy free-range chicken, able to scratch around for its food and choosing many different pigment-containing and mineralrich items, will usually produce richly golden and strongly shelled eggs. The less fortunate battery hens have to rely upon what is in their feed to give their eggs colour. The most important of these colour-forming substances are, together with other oxygen-containing carotenoids, known by the collective name of xanthophylls (E161).
The xanthophyll content of these fresh feeds is not constant and rapidly degrades during storage periods, so poor colour is a particular problem during the winter months.
Because of the high prices of imported grains compared to those from home, even colour-containing alfafa and maize have been replaced by such cereals as wheat and barley which feed the hens just as well if various fats and soya meals are added, but have no pigments present. A typical laying chicken ration would be as follows:
The egg producer studies his market and knows that eggs for table use sell best if the yolks are a nice golden colour, while eggs used for the manufacture of bakery products, pasta and sauces are better yellow.
Egg yolk colours are measured on a scale from pale yellow to deep orange in shades of 1–15. Table eggs are generally at about No. 11 on the scale, although some producers prefer a very deep orange colour for which they demand higher prices. In practice, the feed supplier helps the egg producer choose the desired colour and then adds concentrated red or yellow pigments of synthetic or natural origin to produce the desired effect which is then checked on a regular basis.
It is known that certain free-range egg producers have added naturally occurring pigments to the ration, especially during the cold months, although the legal situation regarding this does not appear to have been established.
Maize-Fed Chickens
In both France and the United States maize-fed or, as the Americans say, corn-fed, chickens with attractive yellow skins are thought to look and taste better than the white birds preferred in Britain, and the colours can be achieved directly from the xanthophylls in the feed. It is possible to cheapen the diet by using a mixture of cereals and supplementing with pigments, or to add pigments to a maize feed to ensure a deep colour.
It is also possible to produce similarly coloured chickens when the feeds are not fresh, and for this purpose lutein (El6lb), which can be extracted from marigolds, is added to the feed.
Trout and Salmon
There is a long history of trout farming in Britain, certainly going back to the medieval monasteries where farmed trout brightened the Friday fast. Today the farming of salmon, trout and other fish is big business, but have you ever wondered about the great increase in the availability of delicious pink-fleshed trout and salmon? The pink flesh would, in natural waters, be from fresh foods such as crustaceans, shrimp, prawn, lobster (astaxanthin) and various algae.
It is too expensive to feed the farm fish the crustaceans of their usual environment, so a red pigment, canthaxanthin (El6lg), or astaxanthin (no E number), is added to the feed to produce pink flesh. El6lg and certain other pigments, including various forms of carotene and vitamin A, are also sold in tablet form so that we can look as if we have been on a Mediterranean holiday and developed a nice, if often rather yellowish, tan. Be warned though that such coloration gives no protection from sunburn and is there, as in the case of the fish, strictly for appearance’s sake. See additional note on page 374.
Other Uses of Pigments
Pigments are commonly found in pet feeds especially for captive birds so that their colourful plumage is maintained. Zoo flamingos are fed with canthaxanthin to ensure the pinkness of their legs, beaks and feathers. Such commonplace pet foods as dog biscuits and meats often appear to contain significant quantities of undeclared colours. It is doubtful whether these are truly appreciated by the animal, but they do attract the owner.
There are widespread abuses of the external colouring of seafood. For example, jumbo prawns and smoked cod’s roe are frequently on sale in the fish shop without any ingredient declaration, but they have quite often unquestionably been dipped in a heavy concentration of red dye.
Smoked fish is another loophole. Fish can be called ‘smoked’ when all that has happened is that they have been dipped in a liquid smoke flavour and then artificially coloured! Indeed, smoked and cured fish which is not packed ready for the consumer, like ham, just has to say ‘added permitted colour’, but if it is pre-packed the full declaration is required.
Consumer choice means the freedom to make an informed choice and although we think that the use of these artificial and natural additives in animal feeds presents no toxic hazard to the consumer, we do believe that we have a right, as is the case with eggs in the United States, to know what pigments have been added. In addition, acceptable and legally controlled levels of daily intake should be established and enforced. If the egg regulations are so changed, it would be a good opportunity to label egg boxes with the date the eggs were laid and not the less useful date of packing.
4. The Colour Problem (#ulink_5672c136-c601-533b-bd45-dc38ada508f5)
Food has been coloured since ancient times. The Romans coloured bread and wine both with ‘white earth’ and berries. When Britain first imported that rare luxury, sugar, in the twelfth century, the pink- and violet-coloured sugars of Alexandria were, according to John Wallford,
(#ulink_907628ab-e7a4-5bc5-a14b-ef31c9c22637) great favourites. Tyrian purple (from sea snails), madder (from the roots of a herb) and kermes (from a scale insect) are thought to have provided the varying shades of this part of the spectrum.
The red colour of cochineal (E120), was used at least as early as the tenth century by the Toltecs and then the Aztecs of Central America and, as with Egypt and the Mediterranean countries, where the same dyes were used for cloth and for food, it is most likely that cochineal was a food colour.
Many years ago at social meetings of food chemists and before we were in the least worried about the possibility that sweets could rot the teeth (or to be more precise feed the bacteria that do that dark deed), the manufacturers of Newberry Fruits, a range of sweets that were coloured, flavoured and shaped to represent miniature versions of the fruits of which they tasted, gave us a selection of this product in a specially prepared form where all the flavours were jumbled up. Only the most experienced palates could correctly identify a sweet that looked like a strawberry but tasted like a pineapple. So it is clear that colour has a very important role to play in our appreciation and enjoyment of food, affecting not only our eyes but also our taste and even, it is thought, our digestion.
By the same token, colour can influence us into thinking that inferior food that looks attractive also tastes good and is, no doubt, good for us.
Probably the most widely quoted and, in our view, illogical test of the response of the consumer to colour was undertaken by Dr Nathan Goldenberg of Marks & Spencer following certain complaints that their tinned peas were an artificial shade of green and the strawberry jam was an unnatural red. The colours were removed and the peas became grey/green and the strawberries red/brown. The customers stopped buying and it took a long time with the colours restored to bring back lost sales. The reason why this test was so pointless and inconclusive is that there was no clear explanation to the customers as to why the changes had happened and what they might expect when they took the product home. Today we have a completely different situation where very many manufacturers have taken the green colour out of peas and the red out of strawberry jam and have suffered no loss of sales. This seems to show that, with information and education, we can change our perception as to what looks good and tasty.
Added colour is like a cosmetic Like all cosmetics colours can improve the appearance delight the onlooker and deceive the senses. Added colours are not necessary, they are a matter of choice The author had a letter published in The Times on 23 January 1970 which pleaded that, as The World Health Organization had recommended, baby foods should be free from artificial colours, also that we all should be able to tell what is in the food we eat by reading the label. Neither request has yet been granted, but there is hope for babies, for the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) is recommending in its 1987 Report
(#ulink_8c7bfc44-88c9-5425-824c-65eeafa6173c) that baby foods should be without artificial colours. We do not know how long it will take to turn this recommendation into law but wish it every success. Only in 1986 did it become necessary to label at least most of the ingredients in the foods that we eat. So the battle to have the freedom to choose what we want to, or do not want to, eat is certainly not quick or easy.
The Functions of Colours
Colours have well defined food functions:
(a) to reinforce colours introduced into foods by their ingredients but where, without added colouring matter, the colour imparted to the final food by those ingredients would be weaker than the colour the consumer will associate with the food of that type of flavour (e.g. soft drinks, fruit yogurts, pickles and sauces);
(b) to ensure uniformity of colour from batch to batch where ingredients of varying colour intensity have been used (e.g. jams in transparent containers where the customer can compare like with like in the shop);
(c) to restore something of the food’s original appearance in those cases where the natural colours have been destroyed by heat processing and subsequent storage (e.g. peas, beans, strawberries and raspberries), or bleached out by the use of preservatives (e.g. fruit preservatives, sulphur dioxide for jammaking out of season), or are not light-stable during prolonged storage (e.g. soft drinks);
(d) to give colour to foods which otherwise would be virtually colourless (e.g. boiled sweets, instant desserts, ice lollies).
‘Need’ is an essential reason for deciding that a food additive be used. It could be argued that a reasonable response to at least most of the four categories above would be ‘needed by whom?’. It is clear that in many cases it is the manufacturer that needs the colour, but as we see the removal of many of the artificial colours from the shelves of our shops it is obvious that more colours are being permitted than are ‘needed’ by many responsible manufacturers and retailers, and that these are certainly not demanded by us when we have the choice.
Artificial Colours
In the middle of the last century almost anything that gave colour was used to make food products more attractive. Substances containing mercury, lead, cyanide and copper were frequently used. At about the same time in 1856 Sir William Henry Perkin discovered his first ‘coal tar dye’, which was aniline purple, when he was only nineteen years old. Perkin transformed the cloth industry, whilst at the same time a selection of his colours, which faded less, had a wide range of bright hues and was cheap to use, became available for the food producers.
It did not take long for the regulatory authorities around the world to wonder about some of the colours being used and, depending on where you were, they were either negatively listed, which is to say banned, or positively listed, which means that you could only use those which the government felt were both suitable and harmless according to the scientific standards of the age.
In Britain in 1925 a number of colours which were obviously harmful were banned from use. These included any compounds of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc, also one vegetable colour, gamboge (much used by painters), and five of the ‘coal tar’ colours—picric acid, Victoria yellow, aurine, Manchester yellow and aurantia.
It was not until 1954 that the Food Standards Committee proposed that there should be a list of acceptable colours instead of just a list of those that were not permitted. Accordingly, in both 1957 and 1973 lists of both natural and synthetic colours that were permitted were prepared. So what is the position today? Britain permits more artificial colours than almost any other western country. If Norway can manage without any artificial colours and the United States allows seven, we have to wonder why we permit sixteen.
It must be said that some of them seem to cause very few problems, even in those people who suffer from many allergies and intolerances. The toxicological questions and allergic reactions occur most frequently with E110, sunset yellow, and the yellow colour E102, tartrazine. This could be because they are used quite often. More research is needed, but that which is being undertaken at the moment seems to ignore the well-established fact that many people are allergic or badly affected by both foods and food additives, and that often the combination of the food and the food additive together is worse than either alone.
The 1987 FAC Report has certainly made one major step forward, and that is to give proposed average daily intake upper levels for a number of the colours under review. Very many problems with foods and food additives are related to dose and an effort to reduce the level is welcome. However, the FAC has not looked at the question of need from the consumer’s point of view and this could well be an area where the reader will wish to form a personal opinion.
Natural Colours
Professor Frank Curtis, Chairman of the FAC, said in a meeting at the House of Lords in 1987 that he was worried about the increased levels of daily intake of natural colour additives being used, because the tests that had been made on them did not take relatively high levels of consumption into account. This is a fair point. Safety is related to dose. But, having been told that an E-number means that an additive is safe, then it is strange that the natural food colours to do not seem to have been as well tested as we have been led to believe, even though they have received their E-numbers. Nonetheless, so many of them are in common use in a food form that it is difficult to feel really worried about them. For example, if a manufacturer wishes to brighten a strawberry yogurt with beetroot juice instead of E123, amaranth, then the argument goes that the beetroot red colour may also cause problems. On the other hand, beetroot is part of a normal diet whereas amaranth is not.
If we are to be told that colours are necessary for a happy life and a good diet, then certainly a lot more work needs to be done on their safety and necessity, for it is certain that many producers of good food are finding that when they use fine ingredients and first-class methods of conservation the need for colours, artificial or natural, disappears. It is high time we became far less concerned with consistency in the colour of manufactured products, in the way that we do not mind variations of colour in the kitchen. We are already becoming used to a different palette of colours in the foods we eat and this trend will continue as we consume fewer and fewer of those most dispensable of all food additives, the colours.
For a note on some new EC proposals, please see page 374.
(#ulink_a1add663-c059-5c4c-ae7e-7d54ca6c73b9)Historical Development of Food Coloration, John Wallford. Developments in Food Colours, Elsevier 1984.
(#ulink_1162e236-6847-509c-8032-6759a5cd9fb5)‘Food Advisory Committee Final Report on the Review of the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973’, HMSO, 1987.
5. Flavourings (#ulink_b208a0b0-ab39-506f-9f81-e015c5eef440)
The Food Act prohibits the addition to food of any harmful substance. Is a flavour harmful or not?—we cannot be sure. The dividing lines between ground almonds, almond essence and synthetic almond flavouring could well illustrate the various stages between being an ingredient and an additive. So it would seem that what we really need to know is precisely what ingredient or additive is being used, so that we have the freedom to decide whether or not to eat it. At the moment there is no statutory declaration of the nature of food flavourings. We also need to have information on the toxicity of these flavours.
The European Community is attempting to produce a framework for controlling flavourings as part of the general harmonization of the Food Law within the community. Because some 4,000 substances are involved this will inevitably take a long time.
Many flavourings are difficult to analyse because they are chemically identical (nature-identical) to the substances which gave the product its character in the first place. This fact could produce bad law because, if you cannot analyse whether the substance is natural or artificial as an additive, then regulations controlling its use have little strength unless we also bring in—and this is envisaged—regular random factory inspections of food manufacturers to check precisely the nature of the ingredients that goes to make up their products. This is in addition to having the contents clearly defined on the label, so that we can make up our minds, too.
The European Community is working towards a positive list, which means giving approval for specified artificial and natural flavours. In spite of obvious difficulties this lack of information remains a substantial gap in our knowledge of what we are eating which should be remedied as soon as possible.
As to safety we have few doubts. Very few problems have been shown to be caused by food flavours and, so far as we can tell, none of these under normal circumstances. This is because the effectiveness of a food flavour depends on it being chemically similar to that found in nature and, if you happen to be allergic to strawberries, you would be unlikely to eat strawberry-flavoured products which could produce the same problems.
Watch out for ‘smoked’ fish. It is legally permissible to dip fish into ‘liquid smoke’, which is in truth a flavour, and then add colour as a replacement for the hues of the normal smoking process. Such fish can be described as ‘smoked’. Also, both smoked and cured fish, as with ham, when sold not ready-packed only have to carry the words ‘added permitted colour’, and so avoid the obligation to give a true list of ingredients.
6. P for Pesticides (#ulink_7b7fc5b2-6f97-50d7-8f7c-89ca2b7b4c63)
A report from the American National Academy of Sciences was stated, according to an article in The Independent of 28 May 1987, to have studied 28 of the 53 pesticides which the Environmental Protection Agency deemed to be carcinogenic.
There was a lack of data on a number of the other pesticides used, but it was found that a small number of the widely used pesticides posed the greatest hazard to health, and it was suggested that three petrochemical compounds—the herbicide linuron and the insecticides chlorodineform and permethrin—be banned.
Permethrin is sprayed on almost every fruit, nut and vegetable purchased in America, says the article, and linuron is extensively used on soya beans and potatoes.
The difficulty for the EPA, which is a government agency, is that if it bans a chemical as being harmful to the consumer then it has to pay the manufacturer the cost of all the unused chemical plus the anticipated margin of profit.
It has frequently been suggested that we write a book as informative about pesticides as we hope this is about additives. The difficulty is clear. You cannot tell if a product contains an excessive quantity of pesticides without a clear labelling obligation. Until this comes about all that can be done is to give general guidance.
The Americans came to the conclusion that, if the fruits and vegetables are sprayed with the worst possible selection of permitted pesticides, the rating list of danger from contracting cancer was:
Tomatoes, beef, potatoes, oranges, lettuce, apples, peaches, pork, soya beans, wheat, beans, carrots, chicken, grapes and corn.
As to risk, the committee thought that 5.8 cases of cancer per thousand people consuming this list of foods when treated with the pesticides specified was a realistic forecast. There can be no better argument for selecting organically grown fruit and vegetables with some seal of approval—the most reliable being that of the Soil Association—and also dairy products and meat with similar quality controls. Fortunately, this branch of farming which was pioneered by the health food suppliers has now spread into a wider market and you should look out for ‘organic’ signs on foods which will not only have very low levels of pesticides but also very superior flavour.
Foods, herbs and spices, imported from overseas are rarely checked for pesticide residues. Those tests that have been undertaken show very grave cause for concern.
For example, lettuces from certain Mediterranean growers are produced in polythene tunnels under a continual mist of insecticides, fungicides and water until the moment of picking. The laboratory equipment at our ports is so out-dated that 10–14 days are required for analyses by which time the food would be bad. Finland has achieved the highest standards for import quality control, possibly the best in the world, with the result that growers produce special low pesticide residue produce for that country. We must demand equal standards throughout the EEC.
7. Is It Kosher? (#ulink_f613a026-b922-5d1e-b2bb-19ac34dd0776)
Certain religious disciplines, such as those of the Jews, the Muslims and the Sikhs, as well as those who have an ethical objection to certain foods or additives, have written us many letters asking distinctions to be made between additives that are animal, dairy, vegetable and synthetic. In addition, synthetic additives can be made from natural materials. Wherever possible this information is included in this edition, but there are a number of cases where the additive can be derived in different ways, some of which would be acceptable to particular groups and some of which would not.
This gives rise to the apparent paradox that some foods are approved by the Rabbinical authorities but contain additives which are on the banned list. In all cases this means that the food has been checked back to source, additives and all, and it has been prepared in accordance with Jewish principles.
List of non-kosher food additives:
Additives, or ingredients, which have not been allocated EEC
numbers, and may also be derived from non-kosher sources, are:
Edible fat or oil; gelatin, enzymes of catalase, lipase, pepsin, trypsin and rennin (or rennet); modified starch with glycerol; glyceryl tribenzoate, glyceryl tributyrate and glyceryl tripropionate; glycine; oxystearin; stearic acid and stearates; monoacetin, diacetin and triacetin; spermacetti; sperm oil; casein and caseinates; wine vinegar; wine or brandy as flavouring agents; proteins.
Note that whey and lactose are milk derivatives. Please note also that the additives and processing aids used in wine making, and therefore also in the preparation of fortified wines such as sherry and in brandies, are frequently of animal or dairy origin. These would normally be removed before the wines are bottled. In both this case and for the additives listed above, where there is any doubt it would be a simple matter for the regulations to be changed so that, for example, an (A) was used as a suffix for additives which were derived from animal material and the suffix (D) for those from dairy material.
It would unquestionably be fruitful for there to be a coming together of the leaders of the many groups involved, including vegetarians, vegans, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Seventh Day Adventists, who would certainly together form a sufficiently persuasive and numerically strong grouping to convince both the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and also the EEC Commission in Brussels that such additive identification is both necessary and possible. As things stand, the problem is hardly recognized as existing.
8. Do Additives Affect Ability? (#ulink_89a24065-b667-522b-9162-7bca8d1a614b)
New York City State schools have some of the highest paid and best qualified teachers in the USA yet in the late 1970s they had some of the worst records of academic success and criticism of both pupils and teachers was reaching a desperately high level. What could be done?
Dr Elizabeth Cagan, a distinguished and charismatic educationalist, was routed out from her academic environment and given the challenge of reforming the school catering service, because it was felt instinctively that this could be part of the problem.
Liz Cagan looked at the food served to the children and said to herself that this was far removed from the plain, sensible, nourishing food which she had served to her own family. Aircraft-type meals were warmed up and most of them finished up in the rubbish bin. She called the cooks together and told them that, if they were to stay in work, they had to become real cooks and not just re-heaters.
Not long after, through one of her assistants, she heard of the pioneering experiments of Alexander G. Schauss, a brilliant penologist, who had turned to biosocial research and nutrition. He had experimented with prison populations by giving them food low in additives and sugar. There had been substantial improvements in work records and less aggression. In Alabama, for example, after a control period of 18 months without diet modifications, a revised diet was introduced. Within 4
/
months of changing the diet policy behaviour problems fell and then levelled off for the next 14 months of the trial at a figure 61 per cent lower than before.
These results were validated by a number of other controlled trials where the data confirmed that diet and behavioural problems have many cause-and-effect links, and these included problems with sugar, food colours and, indeed, flavours.
The Feingold Diet, which was on the same basic lines with also the removal of the antioxidants BHA and BHT (E320 and E321), had produced successful results with both hyperactivity and juvenile delinquency.
So, Dr Cagan’s colleague went to see Alexander Schauss and between them they decided to set up a food system for the New York City schools which, incidentally, have the second biggest buying power for food products after the US Army, in a first-phase Feingold Diet. This involved a gradual elimination of artificial colours, artificial flavours and the preservatives BHA and BHT while, simultaneously, foods high in sugar were either eliminated or the sugar reduced to a maximum figure of around 11 per cent.
It was ensured that, when each revision was implemented, changes took place simultaneously in all the schools, but the revisions were carried out over three academic years: 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1982–83, with no changes being made in the 1981–82 academic year so that there was a basis for evaluating the effects of change.
All the selected schools gave their children the California Achievement Test (CAT), which is given to many schools across the United States and from which the percentage ranking of the school was calculated.
They had already checked back for the four years preceding the changes so that they knew the average figures involved: these did not fluctuate by more than a mere percentage point. The mean academic CAT score for each school was calculated and then it was converted to a national ranking by comparing this mean with that of the other schools who used the same test in the same year. Then the previous year’s ranking was subtracted from the current year’s to show the gain or loss in national terms. The figures for all 803 schools averaged together show a mean gain or decline in the years between 1977 and 1983.
This exceptionally complex trial on almost a million children who ate both breakfast and lunch at school was undertaken by three doctors, Stephen J. Schoenthaler, Walter E. Doraz and James A. Wakefield Jr. It was published in the International Journal of Biosocial Research, Volume 8, Number 2, 1986, pp.138–148.
The results were astounding. There was a 15.7 per cent increase in mean academic ranking over and above the rest of the nation’s schools who used the same standardized tests. (Before the changes the variations had been less than 1 per cent.) Prior to dietary changes, the school children who ate the most school meals had the worst results. After the changes, the children who ate the most school meals had the best results. Never before had there been a trial of such a size and with such scientific support on so many children to determine the effect of diet upon ability.
The schools formed committees including pupils to set up their own menus, along Dr Cagan’s guidelines, with their cooks and dieticians. There were supportive posters everywhere such as ‘Have you hugged your dietician today?’ (which in some areas was altered by changing the h to m!). When Dr Cagan went to a school in the roughest part of New York City and was introduced at meal time by the head teacher as being the lady who had changed the food, she received a standing ovation from the pupils. Only a few years before, visitors would have required a police escort.
So, do certain additives damage the brain? We do not know. What does look certain from this gigantic and extraordinary trial is that there has to be a reconsideration of those additives which deny children the nutrients normally present in real food.
What is the purpose of excessive quantities of sugar, colours, flavours and preservatives? They are there to disguise nutritionally unimportant food substances, including highly calorific fats, as real, wholesome, satisfying food. Just go round your supermarket and look at the foods still being sold that appeal to the senses of the young. Without checking the labels carefully you can easily buy non-nutritive rubbish. But it tastes and looks just like real food. So additives can dilute nutrition. The test of ‘need’ is applied without a true understanding of the consequences to our children, upon whom all our future hopes must be founded.
Remember, many additives help to provide us with good and safe food, but beware—additives that in themselves might be harmless deceive us and, worse still, our children, into consuming empty calories.
A centre for severely disturbed children—the state-run Aycliffe School in Co. Durham—is undertaking a trial to find whether the Schauss/Schoenthaler Diet, which they will be adapting, can help these children.
The diet being used observes the following guidelines:
(a) sweetened breakfast cereals to be replaced with non-sweetened varieties;
(b) canned fruits, if packed in syrup, to be rinsed with cold water before serving;
(c) soft drinks to be replaced with a wide selection of fruit and vegetable juices;
