PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues San Francisco bans sugary drinks on City property


petegz28
07-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Sugary-Drink Ban Affects San Francisco Sites

Coca-Cola is out, and soy milk is now part of San Francisco's official city policy.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s April directive, which banned calorically sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property, has begun its city-wide implementation, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The ban includes non-diet sodas, sports drinks and artificially sweetened waters. In fact, juices must be 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice with no added sweeteners, while diet sodas cannot exceed 25 percent of the offerings. And there should be “ample choices” of water, “soy milk, rice milk, and other similar dairy or non-dairy milk,” according to the directive, which also addresses fat and sugar content in vending machine snacks.

The move is part of the mayor’s effort to improve the health of San Franciscans and combat obesity.

"There's a direct link between what people eat and drink and the obesity and health care crises in this country," Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker said. "It's entirely appropriate and not at all intrusive for city government to take steps to discourage the sale of sugary sodas on city property."

Bob Achermann, executive director of the California/Nevada Soft Drink Association industry group, said that while he hasn't received complaints about San Francisco's strict vending machine rules, "it certainly sounds a bit proscriptive."

"This is all about choice. There is probably nothing more personal than what you drink and eat," Achermann said. "Singling out beverages in this whole equation of how to fight obesity is not going to be the answer."

As for vending machine offerings, the mayor’s order exempts machines that are part of already negotiated contracts, directing only new contracts to conform to the new standards.

For Chong Park, who has managed a cafe in the basement of City Hall and whose lease is up for renewal, her vending machines must adopt a revised beverage selection. She says she earns less than $100 a month on her take from the two Coke machines in her cafe, and fears that a revised lineup will cut into that already modest sum, especially as 100 percent juice is much more expensive than soda.

And vending machine selections may be just the start for Newsom as he aims to restrict soda consumption. Last year, he considered imposing a fee on retailers who sell soda.

http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND0708101.aspx

petegz28
07-08-2010, 12:50 PM
Does the dickehad know how much natural sugar is in juice??? In apple juice there is 28g of sugar per serving. I believe Coke is around 36g.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 12:51 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JizGkM6gbvQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JizGkM6gbvQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

dirk digler
07-08-2010, 12:55 PM
Does the dickehad know how much natural sugar is in juice??? In apple juice there is 28g of sugar per serving. I believe Coke is around 36g.

I would think the bigger concern is high fructose corn syrup. I don't think juices have that but pop does.

headsnap
07-08-2010, 12:56 PM
The fake sugar in diet drinks is one of the worst things you can put in your body!!!



Give that stuff to my son and he is an uncontrollable, bouncing off the walls terror!

headsnap
07-08-2010, 12:57 PM
I would think the bigger concern is high fructose corn syrup. I don't think juices have that but pop does.

that's why Mexican Coke tastes the best... it has sugar in it not corn syrup!

chiefsnorth
07-08-2010, 01:04 PM
I would think the bigger concern is high fructose corn syrup. I don't think juices have that but pop does.

Overconsumption of juice is no real improvement over overconsumption of soda. They aren't much different. Diet sodas are no better than regular, either.
Posted via Mobile Device

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 01:09 PM
i'm sure obama will file suit against california for this obvious violation of rights.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 01:10 PM
The fake sugar in diet drinks is one of the worst things you can put in your body!!!



Give that stuff to my son and he is an uncontrollable, bouncing off the walls terror!

Bingo! I buy the Mexican Coke, made with real sugar, every change I get.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 01:10 PM
No one loves a regulation like a leftie. Freedoms be damned, they know what is best for you and by the powers in middleearth you will obey.

Saulbadguy
07-08-2010, 01:11 PM
Diet sodas are no better than regular, either.
Posted via Mobile Device

BS.

DJ's left nut
07-08-2010, 01:13 PM
BS.

Seconded.

There may be some health hazards involved with artificial sweetners that we don't know about, but certainly no worse than the rest of the artificial perservatives in your food.

But when you're downing 250 calories per coke (and a 3 mile run only knocks off about 300 calories), whereas a Diet gives you 0, you'll have a pretty hard time convincing me that diet is no better than regular.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 01:14 PM
There was some gal just on Fox talking about this named Meme Roth from some anti-obesity organization. She said people cannot be allowed to abuse themselves and then expect the Fed Gov to pay for it. How much do you want to bet she supported Obamacare???

petegz28
07-08-2010, 01:16 PM
BS.

No it is not BS. I have read reports that these artificial sweeteners actually prevent your body from processing fat properly. So while you may not be taking in as many calories you are ingesting a substance that prevents your body from burning them. Net-Net you come out with the same problem.

Answer to it all? Drink water. (I don't drink near enough)

mlyonsd
07-08-2010, 01:18 PM
All of a sudden I'm hungry for a root beer float. I haven't had one of those in years.

blaise
07-08-2010, 01:22 PM
Will they be requiring people to use the stairs instead of the elevator?

Lzen
07-08-2010, 01:23 PM
BS.

Agreed. For the people making that claim, I would like some proof. Sure, Aspartame (Nutrasweet) breaks down in Phenylalanine. But that is only harmful to expectant mothers.

Lzen
07-08-2010, 01:23 PM
No it is not BS. I have read reports that these artificial sweeteners actually prevent your body from processing fat properly. So while you may not be taking in as many calories you are ingesting a substance that prevents your body from burning them. Net-Net you come out with the same problem.

Answer to it all? Drink water. (I don't drink near enough)

Legitimate reports or something you got in an email? Link?

Lzen
07-08-2010, 01:25 PM
Oh, and about the ban, big fuggin' deal. Its the city that is paying the vending companies. They have the right to limit what is in those machines. I have no problem with this.

blaise
07-08-2010, 01:26 PM
Who buys their pop from vending machines anyway. Maybe once a year I need to do that.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 01:31 PM
There are a number of examples where non nutritive artificial sweeteners actually decreased basal metabolism. Atkins diet people have documented this over and over in addition to possible liver and kidney issues.

Also:found this online among multiple other studies

In short-term tests, rats given saccharin solution to drink eat 10–15% more food than when given only water. This is due to the combination of a cephalic-phase neural reflex that influences liver metabolism, a favorable osmotic environment and learning. It is hypothesized that sweet taste increases food intake by producing biochemical changes in the liver that increase fuel storage and consequently decrease fuel oxidation.

chiefsnorth
07-08-2010, 01:32 PM
No it is not BS. I have read reports that these artificial sweeteners actually prevent your body from processing fat properly. So while you may not be taking in as many calories you are ingesting a substance that prevents your body from burning them. Net-Net you come out with the same problem.

Answer to it all? Drink water. (I don't drink near enough)

If you have a shortsighted concern simply about calories, then maybe they are better.

They are worse for you dentally, they still contain tons of stuff you shouldn't be ingesting in quantity.

Look at the average diet soda drinker's BMI for example. Not the end-all measure of health, but the point is that in the space of most diet soda drinkers' eating habits, there hasnt been a real impact made to live healthier overall. Diet soda drinking is still correlated stongly with obesity and diabetes, for example.

If you really cared about health you'd probably quit all the sweetened drinks. For most people it won't make any long term difference.
Posted via Mobile Device

petegz28
07-08-2010, 01:32 PM
Legitimate reports or something you got in an email? Link?

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/nutraswt.htm

DJ's left nut
07-08-2010, 01:38 PM
There are a number of examples where non nutritive artificial sweeteners actually decreased basal metabolism. Atkins diet people have documented this over and over in addition to possible liver and kidney issues.

Also:found this online among multiple other studies

In short-term tests, rats given saccharin solution to drink eat 10–15% more food than when given only water. This is due to the combination of a cephalic-phase neural reflex that influences liver metabolism, a favorable osmotic environment and learning. It is hypothesized that sweet taste increases food intake by producing biochemical changes in the liver that increase fuel storage and consequently decrease fuel oxidation.

Not sure anyone was debating if water was better than Diet soda, that's kindof a no shit discussion.

The question is diesel vs. diet (or in my case, Coke Zero).

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 01:43 PM
speaking of taxing sweets, if san fran ever made it a tax for being gay, they would sure make a killing.

NewChief
07-08-2010, 01:44 PM
Not sure anyone was debating if water was better than Diet soda, that's kindof a no shit discussion.

The question is diesel vs. diet (or in my case, Coke Zero).

I realize that this is correlation not causation... but still:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight

NewChief
07-08-2010, 01:46 PM
Here's another that actually does look at rats given artificials vs. rats given sucrose:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-sweetener-linked-weight-gain

petegz28
07-08-2010, 01:56 PM
Not sure anyone was debating if water was better than Diet soda, that's kindof a no shit discussion.

The question is diesel vs. diet (or in my case, Coke Zero).

I drink Coke Zero. And anymore I split between regular and Zero.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 02:02 PM
Legitimate reports or something you got in an email? Link?

"I drank diet soda for the obvious reason -- to avoid sugar and to avoid weight gain" claims a businesswoman in a case reported to Dr. Roberts (qtd. In Roberts 147). It's not unusual for people who are dieting to reach for an aspartame product verses a product containing sugar. Aspartame is "200 times sweeter" than ordinary sugar so fewer calories are consumed (Deskins G1). With a weight conscious society, fewer calories can be attractive. However, a closer look shows that aspartame may not help control weight gain.

Outlined in the following list are some reasons why aspartame might not be effective in controlling weight:

1. According to an article in Technology Review, "aspartame may actually stimulate appetite and bring on a craving for carbohydrates" (Farber 52). 2. An article in Utne Reader claims, "researchers believe that any kind of sweet taste signals body cells to store carbohydrates and fats, which in turn causes the body to crave more food" (Lamb 16). 3. From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jean Weininger states that "studies have shown that people who use artificial sweeteners don't necessarily reduce their consumption of sugar -- or their total calorie intake. . . . Having a diet soda makes it okay to eat a double cheeseburger and a chocolate mousse pie" (1/ZZ1). 4. "The American Cancer Society (1986) documented the fact that persons using artificial sweeteners gain more weight than those who avoid them" (Roberts 150)

Whether you are trying to lose pounds or maintain your weight, using an artificial sweetener such as aspartame does not seem to have any significant effect on weight control. Those extra calories you saved by drinking a diet pop won't make much of a difference if you still need to satisfy your hunger and indulge in several cookies later. If it is actually increasing your appetite, why use it? Common sense tells you that proper diet and exercise are more beneficial. Even if you believe that aspartame may aid in dieting, is this worth risking your health?

FDA approval and natural ingredients may signal safety at first, but the mounting evidence against aspartame reveals many hidden dangers and possible risks. If you are experiencing any of the adverse reactions, stop using aspartame and see if the symptoms disappear. Now that you are aware of the problems with aspartame, inform others of the symptoms of aspartame poisoning. Notify the FDA of any adverse reactions that you may experience and encourage others to do the same. Don't just stop using aspartame, but make a difference by returning any aspartame products you may now have. If sales go down, hopefully aspartame will be pulled off the market and put an end to the aspartame dilemma

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/symptoms.htm

Lzen
07-08-2010, 02:06 PM
3. Aspartame

What it is
Aspartame is an artificial sweetener known by various brand names, including Equal and NutraSweet.


Foods that have it
Aspartame is a commonly used additive for sweetening diet soft drinks.


Why it's controversial
Various health concerns have been raised about aspartame since it was introduced in 1981. Most recently, it has been suspected of causing cancer. There have been reports of aspartame causing seizures, headaches, mood disturbances, and reduced mental performance. A study published in 2005 suggested that aspartame could cause leukemia and lymphoma in rats. Another study, published in 1996, argued that an increase in the rate of brain tumors in the United States could be related to consumption of aspartame.


What the research shows
Dozens of studies in people and animals have tested for effects possibly related to aspartame. The majority of these studies show that things such as headaches, seizures, and mental and emotional problems didn't occur with aspartame more often than with placebo, even at doses many times higher than anyone would likely ever consume. Large epidemiological studies haven't found a link between aspartame and cancer. A study of about 500,000 people, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, compared those who drank beverages containing aspartame with those who didn't. It found that people who drank increasing amounts of beverages containing aspartame did not have a greater risk for lymphomas, leukemias, or brain cancer. Another study looked at data from a large survey done by the National Institutes of Health. The survey included detailed information on 1,888 cases of leukemia or lymphomas and 315 cases of brain cancer. The researchers found no link between aspartame consumption and those cancers.


"For more than three decades, research has found aspartame to be safe, and today it is approved for use in more than 100 countries," says Robert E. Brackett, PhD, spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. "In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has confirmed the safety of aspartame 26 times over a period of 23 years, with the most recent confirmation in April 2007."


How to find it on the label
Look for aspartame in the list of ingredients.


http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-seven-common-food-additives?page=2

The artificial sweetener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_sweetener) aspartame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame) has been the subject of several controversies and hoaxes since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration) (FDA) in 1974. Critics allege that conflicts of interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest) marred the FDA's approval of aspartame, question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety,<sup id="cite_ref-GAO87_0-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-GAO87-0)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-1)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-2)</sup> and postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame.


The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.<sup id="cite_ref-Hawaii_3-0" class="reference">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-Hawaii-3)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-urbanlegends_4-0" class="reference">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-urbanlegends-4)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-MAN_Markle_5-0" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-MAN_Markle-5)</sup> In 1987, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office) concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed properly for aspartame.<sup id="cite_ref-GAO87_0-1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-GAO87-0)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-GAO86_6-0" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-GAO86-6)</sup> Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide,<sup id="cite_ref-Health_Canada_7-0" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-Health_Canada-7)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-FSANZ_8-0" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-FSANZ-8)</sup> with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut".<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-9)</sup> The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.[/URL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#cite_note-CritReview-10)

[url]http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Lzen
07-08-2010, 02:09 PM
Also:found this online among multiple other studies

In short-term tests, rats given saccharin solution to drink eat 10–15% more food than when given only water. This is due to the combination of a cephalic-phase neural reflex that influences liver metabolism, a favorable osmotic environment and learning. It is hypothesized that sweet taste increases food intake by producing biochemical changes in the liver that increase fuel storage and consequently decrease fuel oxidation.

WTF drinks anything with saccharin anymore?

Donger
07-08-2010, 02:15 PM
So, they'll ban sugary drinks but bareback homosexual humping is okay?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 02:17 PM
Has anyone here tried Jones Soda?

Bob Dole
07-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Has anyone here tried Jones Soda?

Bob Dole bought every bottle of grape they had at Big Lots about a month ago at $.39 per bottle.

Lzen
07-08-2010, 02:20 PM
"I drank diet soda for the obvious reason -- to avoid sugar and to avoid weight gain" claims a businesswoman in a case reported to Dr. Roberts (qtd. In Roberts 147). It's not unusual for people who are dieting to reach for an aspartame product verses a product containing sugar. Aspartame is "200 times sweeter" than ordinary sugar so fewer calories are consumed (Deskins G1). With a weight conscious society, fewer calories can be attractive. However, a closer look shows that aspartame may not help control weight gain.

Outlined in the following list are some reasons why aspartame might not be effective in controlling weight:

1. According to an article in Technology Review, "aspartame may actually stimulate appetite and bring on a craving for carbohydrates" (Farber 52). 2. An article in Utne Reader claims, "researchers believe that any kind of sweet taste signals body cells to store carbohydrates and fats, which in turn causes the body to crave more food" (Lamb 16). 3. From the San Francisco Chronicle, Jean Weininger states that "studies have shown that people who use artificial sweeteners don't necessarily reduce their consumption of sugar -- or their total calorie intake. . . . Having a diet soda makes it okay to eat a double cheeseburger and a chocolate mousse pie" (1/ZZ1). 4. "The American Cancer Society (1986) documented the fact that persons using artificial sweeteners gain more weight than those who avoid them" (Roberts 150)

Whether you are trying to lose pounds or maintain your weight, using an artificial sweetener such as aspartame does not seem to have any significant effect on weight control. Those extra calories you saved by drinking a diet pop won't make much of a difference if you still need to satisfy your hunger and indulge in several cookies later. If it is actually increasing your appetite, why use it? Common sense tells you that proper diet and exercise are more beneficial. Even if you believe that aspartame may aid in dieting, is this worth risking your health?

FDA approval and natural ingredients may signal safety at first, but the mounting evidence against aspartame reveals many hidden dangers and possible risks. If you are experiencing any of the adverse reactions, stop using aspartame and see if the symptoms disappear. Now that you are aware of the problems with aspartame, inform others of the symptoms of aspartame poisoning. Notify the FDA of any adverse reactions that you may experience and encourage others to do the same. Don't just stop using aspartame, but make a difference by returning any aspartame products you may now have. If sales go down, hopefully aspartame will be pulled off the market and put an end to the aspartame dilemma

http://www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/symptoms.htm

Now these kinds of claims sound like they may be legitimate. I stopped drinking regular soda 13 years ago. Now I'm so used to the taste of diet soda that I don't like regular because it is too sweet. If this stuff is true, that sucks for me. Of course, I am down to about 1 can of Diet Pepsi a day. And I drink 1 20oz coffee with 2 Splendas in the morning.

Lzen
07-08-2010, 02:22 PM
So, they'll ban sugary drinks but bareback homosexual humping is okay?
.

speaking of taxing sweets, if san fran ever made it a tax for being gay, they would sure make a killing.

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:23 PM
If they tax good pie, someone will be very pissed.

Dont mess with gooseberry, blueberry, pecan, apple or lemon pie.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Bob Dole bought every bottle of grape they had at Big Lots about a month ago at $.39 per bottle.

So it's good stuff according to Bob Dole?

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 02:40 PM
So it's good stuff according to Bob Dole?

Bob Dole knows pie. If Bob Dole says that Jones sody is good. Go get some.

ForeverChiefs58
07-08-2010, 02:56 PM
.

great minds think alike

HonestChieffan
07-08-2010, 03:03 PM
Used to be a kickass breakfast place right downtown SF. Had to get past about 30 bums over steam grates on cold days to get there and they had the most incredible cinnamon rolls.

Bet they get banned too

kstater
07-08-2010, 07:57 PM
Well that isn't a misleading title or anything.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 08:56 PM
Well that isn't a misleading title or anything.

So write the author and tell them you disagree.

Saul Good
07-08-2010, 08:59 PM
So write the author and tell them you disagree.

Mark your envelope "author receives letter from kstater containing $50 bill".

notorious
07-08-2010, 09:28 PM
It's official. San Fran. can go fuck themselves.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:34 PM
It's official. San Fran. can go **** themselves.

For as much as the nutjobs in SF scream about being liberal, they sure need the government for fucking everything.


Jus tmore proof that liberalism is actually progressivism. You don't think, say, act and in this case eat what they want you too then they will force you by law.

blaise
07-09-2010, 12:02 AM
For as much as the nutjobs in SF scream about being liberal, they sure need the government for ****ing everything.


Jus tmore proof that liberalism is actually progressivism. You don't think, say, act and in this case eat what they want you too then they will force you by law.

"People should like be free to do what they want and stuff. Now lets go ban soda."

petegz28
07-09-2010, 10:01 AM
The funny part of all this is as they are banning soda they are sending out instructions on how to make pot brownies!!! LMAO

Don't drink a soda, but here, have some pot brownies!!!

kstater
07-09-2010, 10:48 AM
So write the author and tell them you disagree.

Where in the headline does it say SF banned sugary drinks on city property?

petegz28
07-09-2010, 10:55 AM
Sugary-Drink Ban Affects San Francisco Sites

+

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s April directive, which banned calorically sweetened beverages from vending machines on city property




Read much?

kstater
07-09-2010, 11:02 AM
You may want to bold the vending machines part. In no way are sugary drinks banned from being on city property as your title suggests.

RJ
07-09-2010, 11:05 AM
San Francisco is often made fun of and usually held up as an example of everything the Midwest hates. But in fairness I know quite a few people from there (my wife's employer's headquarters) and they all love the place. I'll be damned if I can understand why, but they do. And almost everyone I've met who moves here from there wants to go back.

petegz28
07-09-2010, 11:06 AM
You may want to bold the vending machines part. In no way are sugary drinks banned from being on city property as your title suggests.

You may want to just try reading. And then write the author for not putting vending machines in the headline. K?

Iowanian
07-09-2010, 02:36 PM
Sodomizing a dude while smoking skunk weed in SF....Legal.

Drinking Koolaid....5 finger Death Punch!

KC Dan
07-09-2010, 02:50 PM
San Francisco is often made fun of and usually held up as an example of everything the Midwest hates. But in fairness I know quite a few people from there (my wife's employer's headquarters) and they all love the place. I'll be damned if I can understand why, but they do. And almost everyone I've met who moves here from there wants to go back.from personal experience, one word describes why. Weather

RJ
07-09-2010, 03:28 PM
from personal experience, one word describes why. Weather


I live in New Mexico. The weather ain't bad here and we get about 300 sunny days a year. But you're right, NoCal it's not. And then there's the culture and the food and the entertainment and the pro sports teams. So I guess I do understand it. But your dollar sure goes a lot further in Albuquerque than in San Francisco.