Coke Zero - Is it better than normal fizzy drinks?

browneyedbazzi

stephen77 wrote: »

my point is that the average person working in the food industry will not know to much difference from the average person in general on finer points of addativies and there effects. They are not corrupt as you are suggested earlier, just lack of knowledge and to a degree you will have to let the scientist and the government advise / makes laws.

Do you think the 'average person working in the food industry' is the person who makes decisions about product development and marketing? I think not. The average person in most industries isn't very well informed but the average person isn't usually the one who makes key decisions - those decisions are made by people who have climbed to the top and are intelligent and well informed. And yes, they make decisions based on what is best for their business/shareholders (ie what will generate the most profit) not based on what is best for their consumers. That isn't corruption, it is business.

I don't think many people are saying that fizzy drinks/drinks containing aspartame/artificial sweeteners should be banned and the drinks companies shut down...we're saying that people should have access to proper scientific evidence about the products and be able to make an informed choice about what they are drinking.

Roger_Moore_007

stephen77 wrote: »

my point is that the average person working in the food industry will not know to much difference from the average person in general on finer points of addativies and there effects. They are not corrupt as you are suggested earlier, just lack of knowledge and to a degree you will have to let the scientist and the government advise / makes laws.

I agree newspaper have lots of articles that when you know the subject you realise the journalist and not clued up and after sales rather than the truth.

To add when the supermarkets went clean dec. This was about removing addatives that did gain the supermarkets more profit as it resulted in yeild loss etc

I'm not talking about the average worker at food and drinks companies, I'm talking about the people that formulate the chemicals that go into drinks, i.e. scientists. Unfortunately the scientists that the likes of Coca Cola employ are there purely to generate profits for the company they work for, rather than worry about the long term effects of the drinks they are making.

With regards to the supermarkets supposedly reducing/labeling the amount of additives in their products, they are just bowing to pressure from high profile figures like Jamie Oliver who have voiced concerns about the junk people are feeding their kids. Supermarkets are only acting in their own interests, if they thought it would reduce their profits they would fight it until they were forced to label products clearer.

stephen77

Roger_Moore_007 wrote: »

With regards to the supermarkets supposedly reducing/labeling the amount of additives in their products, they are just bowing to pressure from high profile figures like Jamie Oliver who have voiced concerns about the junk people are feeding their kids. Supermarkets are only acting in their own interests, if they thought it would reduce their profits they would fight it until they were forced to label products clearer.

It did effect profits when this happend and not in a postive way.

Name me a company who does not act in there own self interest?

But yes once retailer decides to change the others do not want to be left behind.

QUite a lot of branded products still have addatives left in them, so if pressure from the likes of Jamie Oliver was that great it would have effected more brands as well. Some advertised going clean dec relatively recently.

Roger_Moore_007

stephen77 wrote: »

It did effect profits when this happend and not in a postive way.

Name me a company who does not act in there own self interest?

But yes once retailer decides to change the others do not want to be left behind.

QUite a lot of branded products still have addatives left in them, so if pressure from the likes of Jamie Oliver was that great it would have effected more brands as well. Some advertised going clean dec relatively recently.

Again, that is the point I was making. You were somehow suggesting that companies were reducing the amount of chemicals they were inserting into products out of the goodness of their hearts? As long as it's legal and the public don't fully understand the harm they are doing to their bodies by consuming certain products, supermarkets and food companies will continue to produce questionable products.

The public are generally not very well informed which is why the pressure on food companies to reduce the amount of chemicals in many products is not that great.

stephen77

Roger_Moore_007 wrote: »

Again, that is the point I was making. You were somehow suggesting that companies were reducing the amount of chemicals they were inserting into products out of the goodness of their hearts? As long as it's legal and the public don't fully understand the harm they are doing to their bodies by consuming certain products, supermarkets and food companies will continue to produce questionable products.

The public are generally not very well informed which is why the pressure on food companies to reduce the amount of chemicals in many products is not that great.

But it is legal to put lots of addatives into foods and the public do not understand the implications of these addatives. But they still have been removed.

Most product developers I have met are very passionate about wanting to sell the best product. They have pride in there work and want it to be better than the rest.
They have other drivers beside than purely profit margins.

Its not just aspartame that is the issue. There are many ingredients artificial and natural that can cause issues of which the scientific community do not all agree on. So what chance does the average developer have?
The basic food pryimad about healthy eating, many people are now saying is out date.

ALso the developers will often feed the products to there family and children. So while profit is important they will take into account other issues.

stephen77

Roger_Moore_007 wrote: »

The public are generally not very well informed which is why the pressure on food companies to reduce the amount of chemicals in many products is not that great.

I personally feel chemicals are much less of concern than people over eating / under exercising with excess alcohol and smoking. IF many people are not worried about the above, then aspartame is going to be a long way down the list and rightly so.

stephen77

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Do you think the 'average person working in the food industry' is the person who makes decisions about product development and marketing? I think not. The average person in most industries isn't very well informed but the average person isn't usually the one who makes key decisions - those decisions are made by people who have climbed to the top and are intelligent and well informed. And yes, they make decisions based on what is best for their business/shareholders (ie what will generate the most profit) not based on what is best for their consumers. That isn't corruption, it is business.
.

My average was including people who make decisions on product development.
If it was clear cut aspartame was that bad it would end up on the banned list of addatives.
Try and find MSG in a own label line. Find tartrazine. Plus many other own label lines when clean dec products came out.
These change did alter products eats and profit.

Can some one post a link to some information that saying aspartame is as bad as some of the claims are suggesting.

If enough people will buy diet drinks with no sweetners in, they will be sold.
If people create demand the gap will be filled. Its in there best interest to.

stephen77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame

summary of aspartame health concerns.
okay I know wikipedia is not 100% correct.
So any one got any peer review scientific articles that are proving the dangers?

Roger_Moore_007

stephen77 wrote: »

My average was including people who make decisions on product development.
If it was clear cut aspartame was that bad it would end up on the banned list of addatives.
Try and find MSG in a own label line. Find tartrazine. Plus many other own label lines when clean dec products came out.
These change did alter products eats and profit.

Can some one post a link to some information that saying aspartame is as bad as some of the claims are suggesting.

If enough people will buy diet drinks with no sweetners in, they will be sold.
If people create demand the gap will be filled. Its in there best interest to.

Here is one of many articles outlining the basic risks involved with aspartame.
http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/5-reasons-aspartame-is-bad-for-you.html#b

You can find plenty of other articles and studies that state the same things as this article too.

You've only got to look at the farming industry which is largely bankrupt because supermarkets are forcing them out of business by paying ridiculously low subsidies to independent farmers. Compared to thirty or forty years ago the products produced by farmers are very poor quality, I personally would love to buy everything organic but by finances to not allow this. I'm eating less meat than before because of the way it's produced and I only drink soya milk due to the crap that is in pasteurised milk (blood, pus etc).

99% of the food and drink industry are mass producing very poor quality, unhealthy products with chemicals inserted into them to prolong the shelf life and change the taste of foods. Food companies lobby governments to influence policy and unfortunately this means that governments are loathe to regulate to the point where it would reduce the profits of these companies.

Aspartame is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is wrong with the food and drink industries and I doubt if there will be any significant changes any time soon.

stephen77

Roger_Moore_007 wrote: »

99% of the food and drink industry are mass producing very poor quality, unhealthy products with chemicals inserted into them to prolong the shelf life and change the taste of foods. Food companies lobby governments to influence policy and unfortunately this means that governments are loathe to regulate to the point where it would reduce the profits of these companies.

Aspartame is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is wrong with the food and drink industries and I doubt if there will be any significant changes any time soon.

Quality - how are you defining quality?

As i have said earlier the supermarkets have cleaned up there label decs a few years ago. Thus 99% are not pumped with chemicals these days to prolong life.

Depends on who is right regarding dietary advice to wether products are healthy or not. My personally feeling is that low fat is not the best way to go. Lots of people may disagree with me on this.
There have been quite a few healthy ranges of products going into supermarkets over the last fews year. Super markets want them to sell, up the customer to purchase them.