Pepsi - sweetener warning.

A._Badger

Anyone avoiding artificial sweeteners (Aspartame etc) should now steer clear of Pepsi Cola. The sneaky devils have switched to adding artificial sweeteners with no warning of the change on the main packaging. Read the small print and it's there on the ingredients list.  . 

sarah1972

They have been using aspartame in Diet Pepsi since 1983 which was then ditched in 2015 but reintroduced again in 2016 https://www.fooddive.com/news/diet-pepsi-is-bringing-aspartame-back-again/517618/

A._Badger

sarah1972 said:

They have been using aspartame in Diet Pepsi since 1983 which was then ditched in 2015 but reintroduced again in 2016 https://www.fooddive.com/news/diet-pepsi-is-bringing-aspartame-back-again/517618/

That may well be true of *Diet* Pepsi but the product I was writing about is ordinary plain Pepsi Cola which was, until this unannounced change, one of the few products of this type without this synthetic sweetener. Hence the alert for anyone else who avoids it.

sarah1972

A._Badger said:

sarah1972 said:

They have been using aspartame in Diet Pepsi since 1983 which was then ditched in 2015 but reintroduced again in 2016 https://www.fooddive.com/news/diet-pepsi-is-bringing-aspartame-back-again/517618/

That may well be true of *Diet* Pepsi but the product I was writing about is ordinary plain Pepsi Cola which was, until this unannounced change, one of the few products of this type without this synthetic sweetener. Hence the alert for anyone else who avoids it.

Sorry, my point was I’m not surprised if they use it in diet then I guess they would use it in full fat versions. 

Personally I steer well clear of carbonated drinks but that’s very naughty that they haven’t announced it but then again, I’ve never seen an announcement of any change in ingredients in foods and drinks that we buy. In fact their own website says Acesulfame K, Sucralose so that’s very naughty of them if it’s on uk cans but not on the website.

A._Badger

To be fair, I was less than precise when I said 'Aspartame etc' as shorthand for artificial sweeteners. The ones Pepsi is using are Acesulfame K and Sucralose, as per their web site,  but the change was made without notice other than the small print on cans and anyone who has been avoiding artificial sweeteners and had assumed that, (as was and maybe still is with Coca Cola) the original formula used only natural sweeteners, would be misled. 

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

pumpkin89

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

Yes, artificial sweeteners may have adverse health implications.  It is very well established that sugar, in the quantities used in soft drinks, does have adverse health implications.  It is highly unlikely that a tiny amount of artificial sweeteners is even more damaging to health than a huge amount of sugar.

I agree with your broader point on this thread that companies should be transparent if they are changing the formulation of products, so that consumers can make an informed choice of what they want to buy.

Bradden

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

My view would be that the Government is trying to encourage people to make healthier choices in their diet by introducing the sugar tax. 

I recall seeing in the news this week about the heaviest patients require spending of £1,400 a year, twice the total for those of healthy weight.

A._Badger

Bradden said:

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

My view would be that the Government is trying to encourage people to make healthier choices in their diet by introducing the sugar tax. 

I recall seeing in the news this week about the heaviest patients require spending of £1,400 a year, twice the total for those of healthy weight.

There is little good to be said about artificial sweeteners and the government's decision runs counter to the latest advice from the WHO which, for all its faults, is regarded as an authority on medical matters. So in what sense is this a healthier choice?' ' 

A._Badger

pumpkin89 said:

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

Yes, artificial sweeteners may have adverse health implications.  It is very well established that sugar, in the quantities used in soft drinks, does have adverse health implications.  It is highly unlikely that a tiny amount of artificial sweeteners is even more damaging to health than a huge amount of sugar.

I agree with your broader point on this thread that companies should be transparent if they are changing the formulation of products, so that consumers can make an informed choice of what they want to buy.

I'm not sure I can agree with your use of 'highly unlikely'. The evidence base (which is always countered by the huge spending power of the manufacturers of these chemicals) is growing all the time. If, as has now been established, artificial sweeteners don't help people lose weight, why use them? 

lisyloo

A._Badger said:

pumpkin89 said:

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

Yes, artificial sweeteners may have adverse health implications.  It is very well established that sugar, in the quantities used in soft drinks, does have adverse health implications.  It is highly unlikely that a tiny amount of artificial sweeteners is even more damaging to health than a huge amount of sugar.

I agree with your broader point on this thread that companies should be transparent if they are changing the formulation of products, so that consumers can make an informed choice of what they want to buy.

I'm not sure I can agree with your use of 'highly unlikely'. The evidence base (which is always countered by the huge spending power of the manufacturers of these chemicals) is growing all the time. If, as has now been established, artificial sweeteners don't help people lose weight, why use them? 

Because the food/drinks industry aren't actually trying to help people lose weight?
They are merely incentivised or dis-incentivised by the financial aspects.
Doesn't seem like a very good policy to me.

Bradden

A._Badger said:

Bradden said:

A._Badger said:

It's not hard to see why they've done this. The idiotic tax on sugar has nudged people into consuming artificial sweeteners which the WHO has recently warned do not help weight loss and as is increasingly recognised can have adverse health implications. Thanks, government,. 

My view would be that the Government is trying to encourage people to make healthier choices in their diet by introducing the sugar tax. 

I recall seeing in the news this week about the heaviest patients require spending of £1,400 a year, twice the total for those of healthy weight.

There is little good to be said about artificial sweeteners and the government's decision runs counter to the latest advice from the WHO which, for all its faults, is regarded as an authority on medical matters. So in what sense is this a healthier choice?' ' 

I don't believe the Government did anything to force companies to use sweetener. They could have used less sugar.. many did... or pay the tax and support the increased cost burden on the NHS. The fact that Pepsi have decided to do this isn't the fault of the policy IMHO.