Hide Article Text (OCR)
hers to the church and baptised seven children. One of these members was a lady who died a week after she accepted Christ. What an admonition for those who are postponing their acceptation of Christ. *Ta this not a brand plucked out of the fire? We are making preparations for our customary annual camp meeting, which will commence the 22nd of July. We are expecting a visit from Dr. Homer McMillan and Dr. Prank Wright. We will welcome and appreciate the gifts of our friends to help with the ex-CONCERNING COCA-COLA.Coca-Cola is made according to a formula owned by the Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola being the trademark property of the Coca-Cola Company.The only constituent of the Coca-Cola that has ever been brought into consideration Is its ingredient, caffeine. and this was the ingredient of Coca-Cola under consideration In the case of United States vs. 40 barrels and 20 kegs of Coca-Cola.The charges against caffeine are: That is is a delerlous and poison oua ! substance, and that was particularly based upon the fact that caffeine is a ( habit-forming substance.It is well to consider the facta of the caffeine contents of Coca-Cola. A glass of Coca-Cola contains 1.21 ( grains of caffeine. An average of the caffeine contents of coffee was taken , in restaurants in Chattanooga, Atlanta and Washington, D. C., and the average caffeine contents was found to be 1.98 of caffeine.L As to whether a given substance is ^ habit-forming or not, depends upon the result. Professor Holiingworth, s of Columbia University, and Professor Wood, of Philadelphia, carried on a series of experiments and found that I caffeine Is not habit-forming. It Is an admitted fact that all substances that are habit-forming have the fol-| lowing effect: A stimulating effect,followed by a corresponding seeond-( ary or depressing effect; and this is t so because to make a substance habit-forming, there must be a call by the system that would make a repetition , necessary. The problem of Dr. Wood and Dr. Holiingworth was, to find out whether or not caffeine had a Btlmu-^ la ting effect followed by a depressing t defect. Both reported that In so far as both the mental faculties and the muscles were concerned, that while caffeine was Blightly stimulating, it was not followed by a corresponding depressing or secondary effect.I Now, In order for a substance to, be habit-forming, this depressing ef-l feet must follow, because when there . Is a depressing effect, the system calls I for more of the substance in order to r bring the system up to normal again.Doctors Wood and Holiingworth [ have both published their series of ex-. pertinents, and the authenticity of t same has never been doubted.I In the next place, history has shownthat in the question of habit-forming substances, the system calls for ever-increasing amounts of that substance, and although coffee contains caffeine] it Is a known fact that people take the same amount of coffee day In and day out.The Government at Chattanooga endeavored to get away from a comparison between coffee and tea on the one hand, and Coca-Cola on the other hand, on the ground that the caffeine in coffee was combined with tannic acid, to form what la known as caffe-tannic acid, and the digestive process had to separate the caffeine from the tannin before the caffeine got into the body, and that, therefore, the effect of caffeine In coffee was milder, and not so sudden as it would be in a free state. This theory of the government was entirely refuted by their own witnesses, and the record of the Chattanooga case bears this out.While it is true that in the coffee bean, caffeine is in combination with tannic acid, the minute an Infusion of coffee Is prepared for consumption, the caffeine becomes free, and, an above shown, there is decidedly more caffeine in the average cup of coffee than in a glass of Coca-Cola.But we do not depend entirely on a parallel with coffee, although the history of coffee-drinking should show that there Is nothing in coffee that is Injurious, for experiments of the scientists appearing in the trial of the Coca-Cola case at Chattanooga proved conclusively that caffeine does not affect in any way the human system's metabolism; that It creates force and energy by its own combustion, and that it simply acts as an oil acts on machinery. In fact, the experiments proved that a muscle acting under the effect of caffeine could do more work in the same length of time than could a muscle that was not under the Influence of caffeine, and this, without any corresponding secondary or depressing effect.We are, herewith, attaching a copy of an analysis of Coca-Cola, made by Dr, W. D, Bigelow, ex-chief of th«t Bureau of Foods, United States Department of Agriculture:Analysis Coca-Cola Syrup.Specific Gravity .........1.245Volatile Matter, WaterFlavorings, etc....... 43.68Ash ...... 0.06Alcohol, a trace........ 0,64Caffeine.............. 0.24Phosphoric Acid ........ 0.21Sugar Reducing ........51.117Glycerine, Caramel Color Extractives. ... ........ 4.74The chief ingredients of Coca-Cola are sugar, water, caffeine, phosphoric acid, caramel (color), and flavorings Further information regarding Co ca-Cola may be secured by writing for booklets bearing upon the subject. Address COCA-COLA COMPANY, Atlanta, Ga. —Adv.
Newspaper Details
Atlanta Presbyterian of the South
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Wed, Jul 05, 1916
Page 20
Full Page
Clipped by
Christopher E.
MA, USA 21 Feb 2025
Other Publications Near Atlanta, Georgia
Atlanta Weekly Intelligencer and Cherokee Advocate
Atlanta Presbyterian of the South
Atlanta University Center Light
Atlanta Crogman Cycle
Atlanta Daily Constitution
