7Up's Original Formula Contained A Substance That Really Put The 'Up' In The Drink
7Up's inventor -- Charles Leiper Grigg, who wasn't a pharmacist -- highlighted the use of lithium citrate, a naturally occurring alkali metal with psychotropic (or mood altering) effects, in his soda. He allegedly named it Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon Lime Soda, but it was more likely simply called 7Up from the beginning. The meaning of this mysterious moniker has been lost to time, but the "up" part may be related to lithium's enhancing effects. A the time Grigg created his new drink, lithium was a bit of a mystery and didn't come into use as a psychiatric drug until around 20 years later.
Read more: 11 Ginger Ale Brands, Ranked From Worst To Best
Charles Lieper Grigg, who had started the Howdy Corporation in 1920, began working on the formula for a new lemon-flavored soda. In a crowded field of around 600 competitors, he needed to find a way to stand out. By 1929, just weeks before the stock market crash that helped lead to the Great Depression, Grigg had perfected his new soda. There were a few key differences between his new concoction and the competition. It was a lemon-lime soda with a bit less sugar and more fizz. And, of course, there was the lithium.
Among the supposed curative effects of 7Up, Grigg successfully promoted it as a hangover cure, which is funny considering that a few decades later someone came up with the idea of combining Seagram's 7 and 7Up, a hugely popular highball in the 1970s and (likely) the cause of more than a few hangovers. Also like Coke, which had removed any cocaine from its soda by 1929, 7Up removed lithium in 1948, after studies determined the possibility of serious side effects from its overuse. Even without the lithium, 7Up continued to grow in popularity, knocking out the competition, such as the now-discontinued Sierra Mist. The days of drug-laden soft drinks are over, but their descendants live on.
Read the original article on Chowhound.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
38 minutes ago
- Washington Post
As the ADA turns 35, groups fighting for disability rights could see their federal dollars slashed
TOPEKA, Kan. — Nancy Jensen believes she'd still be living in an abusive group home if it wasn't shut down in 2004 with the help of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, which for decades has received federal money to look out for Americans with disabilities. But the flow of funding under the Trump administration is now in question, disability rights groups nationwide say, dampening their mood as Saturday marks the 35th anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal dollars pay for much of their work, including helping people who seek government-funded services and lawsuits now pushing Iowa and Texas toward better community services. Documents outlining President Donald Trump's budget proposals show they would zero out funds earmarked for three grants to disability rights centers and slash funding for a fourth. Congress' first discussion of them, by the Senate Appropriations Committee, is set for Thursday, but the centers fear losing more than 60% of their federal dollars. The threat of cuts comes as the groups expect more demand for help after Republicans' tax and budget law complicated Medicaid health coverage with a new work-reporting requirement. There's also the sting of the timing: this year is the 50th anniversary of another federal law that created the network of state groups to protect people with disabilities, and Trump's proposals represent the largest potential cuts in that half-century, advocates said. The groups are authorized to make unannounced visits to group homes and interview residents alone. 'You're going to have lots of people with disabilities lost,' said Jensen, now president of Colorado's advisory council for federal funding of efforts to protect people with mental illnesses. She worries people with disabilities will have 'no backstop' for fighting housing discrimination or seeking services at school or accommodations at work. The potential budget savings are a shaving of copper from each federal tax penny. The groups receive not quite $180 million a year — versus $1.8 trillion in discretionary spending. The president's Office of Management and Budget didn't respond to an email seeking a response to the disability rights groups' criticism. But in budget documents, the administration argued its proposals would give states needed flexibility. The U.S. Department of Education said earmarking funds for disability rights centers created an unnecessary administrative burden for states. Trump's top budget adviser, Russell Vought, told senators in a letter that a review of 2025 spending showed too much went to 'niche' groups outside government. 'We also considered, for each program, whether the governmental service provided could be provided better by State or local governments (if provided at all),' Vought wrote. Disability rights advocates doubt that state protection and advocacy groups — known as P&As — would see any dollar not specifically earmarked for them. They sue states, so the advocates don't want states deciding whether their work gets funded. The 1975 federal law setting up P&As declared them independent of the states, and newer laws reinforced that. 'We do need an independent system that can hold them and other wrongdoers accountable,' said Rocky Nichols, the Kansas center's executive director. Nichols' center has helped Matthew Hull for years with getting the state to cover services, and Hull hopes to find a job. He uses a wheelchair; a Medicaid-provided nurse helps him run errands. 'I need to be able to do that so I can keep my strength up,' he said, adding that activity preserves his health. Medicaid applicants often had a difficult time working through its rules even before the tax and budget law's recent changes, said Sean Jackson, Disability Rights Texas' executive director. With fewer dollars, he said, 'As cases are coming into us, we're going to have to take less cases.' The Texas group receives money from a legal aid foundation and other sources, but federal funds still are 68% of its dollars. The Kansas center and Disability Rights Iowa rely entirely on federal funds. 'For the majority it would probably be 85% or higher,' said Marlene Sallo, executive director of the National Disability Rights Network, which represents P&As. The Trump administration's proposals suggest it wants to shut down P&As, said Steven Schwartz, who founded the Center for Public Representation, a Massachusetts-based organization that works with them on lawsuits. Federal funding meant a call in 2009 to Disability Rights Iowa launched an immediate investigation of a program employing men with developmental disabilities in a turkey processing plant. Authorities said they lived in a dangerous, bug-infested bunkhouse and were financially exploited. Without the dollars, executive director Catherine Johnson said, 'That's maybe not something we could have done.' The Kansas center's private interview in 2004 with one of Jensen's fellow residents eventually led to long federal prison sentences for the couple operating the Kaufman House, a home for people with mental illnesses about 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of Wichita. And it wasn't until Disability Rights Iowa filed a federal lawsuit in 2023 that the state agreed to draft a plan to provide community services for children with severe mental and behavioral needs. For 15 years, Schwartz's group and Disability Rights Texas have pursued a federal lawsuit alleging Texas warehouses several thousand people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in nursing homes without adequate services. Texas put at least three men in homes after they'd worked in the Iowa turkey plant. Last month, a federal judge ordered work to start on a plan to end the 'severe and ongoing' problems. Schwartz said Disability Rights Texas did interviews and gathered documents crucial to the case. 'There are no better eyes or ears,' he said. ___ Hunter reported from Atlanta.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
United Therapeutics Corporation (UTHR) Launches First UKidney Human Trial
We recently compiled a list of United Therapeutics Corporation stands sixth on our list and has launched the first UKidney human trial. United Therapeutics Corporation (NASDAQ:UTHR) is a biotechnology company focused on treating rare, life-threatening diseases such as pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and advancing technologies to address the shortage of transplantable organs. As the first major biotech to become a Public Benefit Corporation, it combines innovation with social impact, especially in organ transplantation. In 2025, the company launched the first human clinical trial of UKidney, a gene-edited pig kidney, in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The FDA cleared the IND in February, and the first transplant is expected by mid-year. The UKidney features ten genetic modifications to improve human compatibility. The initial trial includes six patients, with plans to expand to 50. United Therapeutics Corporation (NASDAQ:UTHR), often cited among the most undervalued stocks in the biotech industry, is investing $100 million in expanding its Silver Spring, Maryland, organ production campus. This facility will drive large-scale manufacturing of bioengineered organs, leveraging work by its subsidiary, Revivicor, which has already achieved successful pig-to-human organ transplants. In parallel, the business continues advancing therapies for PAH and pulmonary hypertension. It completed enrollment in its TETON-2 trial (inhaled treprostinil for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis) with results expected later in 2025, and is progressing with other investigational drugs like rilaprag. A biotechnologist in a lab coat discussing a therapeutic antibody with a colleague. By pioneering xenotransplantation and expanding infrastructure, United Therapeutics Corporation (NASDAQ:UTHR) aims to revolutionize organ transplantation and significantly reduce the gap between organ supply and demand. While we acknowledge the potential of GOOGL as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
California doctor sued for ‘wrongful death' after shipping abortion drugs interstate in legal first
A Texas man is suing a doctor in California he claims mailed his girlfriend pills to end her pregnancy - in what may be a legal first - and a test of new state abortion laws. Jerry Rodriguez filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Remy Coeytaux, after the doctor sent the abortion-inducing drugs across state lines in order to 'murder his unborn son,' Rodriguez claimed. It appears to be the first time an interstate lawsuit for wrongful death over an abortion has been filed, according to The Washington Post. In Texas, a person who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion commits the crime of murder and can be sued for wrongful death, the lawsuit, filed in Texas federal court and obtained by The Independent, states. The woman herself cannot be prosecuted. The suit adds it is also a state jail felony for anyone other than a Texas-licensed physician to provide an abortion-inducing drug for the purpose of inducing an abortion. 'In violation of these and many other laws, defendant Remy Coeytaux mailed abortion-inducing drugs into Texas that were used to murder Jerry Rodriguez's unborn child,' the complaint reads. Rodriguez is suing Coeytaux for $75,000 over what he claims is wrongful death. He's also seeking an injunction to stop the doctor from distributing abortion-inducing drugs in violation of state or federal law. The injunction, the suit states, is being sought 'on behalf of a class of all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.' But such state legislation clashes with that of California, which retains a so-called 'Shield Law' to protect medical professionals such as Coeytaux. The law provides that 'California will not deliver a person accused or charged with committing a crime related to abortion/gender-affirming care over to law enforcement officials.' This includes situations where a California-licensed pharmacist dispenses an abortion-inducing drug mifepristone to a patient in a state with abortion-restrictive laws. According to Rodriguez's suit, he began dating his girlfriend in June 2024, while she was separated from her husband, but not yet divorced. The Independent has chosen not to name the woman, due to privacy reasons and because she is not a defendant in the lawsuit. The suit alleges that the woman's husband, Adam Garza, twice ordered the abortion medication from Coeytaux after she became pregnant by Rodriguez 'with the intent of using them to murder Mr. Rodriguez's unborn child,' and 'pressured her' to take the pills. A Venmo receipt confirming Garza's purchase of the drugs from Coeytaux was included in the lawsuit, with a reference of ''Aed axes' – allegedly a homonym for 'Aid Access,' an organization that ships abortion-inducing drugs into jurisdictions where abortion is not legal. 'Defendant Coeytaux caused the death of Mr. Rodriguez's unborn child through his wrongful acts,' the lawsuit states. 'Although [the woman] cannot be charged with murder for her role in killing her unborn child, her immunity does not shield Coeytaux from liability for aiding or abetting or directly participating in the murder.' 'Mr. Rodriguez seeks this injunction on behalf of a class of all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.' The Independent has reached out to Dr Remy Coeytaux for comment on the lawsuit.
