Pepsi - sweetener warning.

A._Badger

Bradden said:

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.

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. Pepsi can only have chosen to use artificial sweetener to lower its price as a direct result of the government's sugar tax. Other soft drinks manufacturers have done the same. How can that not be a response to government policy? And, assuming the WHO knows what it is talking about (debatable, at times I'd accept) and these  products do not help people lose weight, in what way was the government's policy not at best misguided?  

A._Badger

lisyloo said:

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.

I would have to agree with you. I think it was at best a very ill-advised policy. It would be interesting to know the full facts about who was lobbying for it and how they were financed.

Bradden

A._Badger said:

Bradden said:

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.

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. Pepsi can only have chosen to use artificial sweetener to lower its price as a direct result of the government's sugar tax. Other soft drinks manufacturers have done the same. How can that not be a response to government policy? And, assuming the WHO knows what it is talking about (debatable, at times I'd accept) and these  products do not help people lose weight, in what way was the government's policy not at best misguided?  

Pepsi had a choice... the aim of the policy was to reduce sugar.

The changes mean a 330ml can will have contain 15g of sugar, when previously it was 36g. The didn't need to reformulate or put sweetener in.. they made a business decision. The could have left the sugar in and passed the cost on to consumers.

I assume you are aware that the WHO is heavily lobbied as well as our own government.

A._Badger

Bradden said:

A._Badger said:

Bradden said:

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.

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. Pepsi can only have chosen to use artificial sweetener to lower its price as a direct result of the government's sugar tax. Other soft drinks manufacturers have done the same. How can that not be a response to government policy? And, assuming the WHO knows what it is talking about (debatable, at times I'd accept) and these  products do not help people lose weight, in what way was the government's policy not at best misguided?  

Pepsi had a choice... the aim of the policy was to reduce sugar.

The changes mean a 330ml can will have contain 15g of sugar, when previously it was 36g. The didn't need to reformulate or put sweetener in.. they made a business decision. The could have left the sugar in and passed the cost on to consumers.

I assume you are aware that the WHO is heavily lobbied as well as our own government.

They made a business decision in response to government policy. 

As for the WHO, I'm not their greatest fan but for those who prefer not to be inconvenienced by going to the source, here is what the UN says:

"New guidelines from the UN health agency released on Monday have advised against using non-sugar sweeteners (NSS).

The recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO) is based on a review of available evidence which suggests that artificial sweeteners do not help control body mass or reduce the risk of weight-related illnesses.

Common NSS include acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin, sucralose, stevia, and other stevia derivatives.

"Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” says Francesco Branca, WHO Director for Nutrition and Food Safety.

"NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health."

Deadly long-term consequences

WHO also noted that “potential undesirable effects from long-term use” of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The results of the review also suggest that there may be other dangerous consequences such as the increased risk of premature death among adults.

The recommendation against the use of NSS applies to all people except individuals with pre-existing diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified non-nutritive sweeteners that are not classified as sugars found in manufactured foods and beverages, or sold on their own to be added to foods and beverages by consumers."

zaxdog

Artificial sweeteners make me physically sick. 

Thank goodness for original Coke!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I buy Rock cordials now too as all of the others seem to contain nasty ingredients.

lisyloo

A._Badger said:

Bradden said:

A._Badger said:

Bradden said:

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.

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. Pepsi can only have chosen to use artificial sweetener to lower its price as a direct result of the government's sugar tax. Other soft drinks manufacturers have done the same. How can that not be a response to government policy? And, assuming the WHO knows what it is talking about (debatable, at times I'd accept) and these  products do not help people lose weight, in what way was the government's policy not at best misguided?  

Pepsi had a choice... the aim of the policy was to reduce sugar.

The changes mean a 330ml can will have contain 15g of sugar, when previously it was 36g. The didn't need to reformulate or put sweetener in.. they made a business decision. The could have left the sugar in and passed the cost on to consumers.

I assume you are aware that the WHO is heavily lobbied as well as our own government.

They made a business decision in response to government policy. 

100% agree.
What do they care about health?
They can even promote is as a "diet" product.

A government policy with a single aim to reduce sugar without looking at what it's going to be replaced with is short sighted.

I wonder if it would make more sense if we looked at which vested interests there were in all of this. I suspect just like PPE we'd find a trail of evidence that has nothing to do with public health and everything to do with financial interests.

pumpkin89

A._Badger said:

I don't see how you have reached that conclusion. Pepsi can only have chosen to use artificial sweetener to lower its price as a direct result of the government's sugar tax. Other soft drinks manufacturers have done the same. How can that not be a response to government policy?

Because the price of sugar has gone up very significantly in the last year (far more than general inflation) and artificial sweeteners are much, much cheaper.  The government policy is just a convenient excuse.

YoungBlueEyes

What about other sweeteners? It needn't be sugar or artificial they use. What about things like Stevia?

A._Badger

YoungBlueEyes said:

What about other sweeteners? It needn't be sugar or artificial they use. What about things like Stevia?

That's a good question. I have been told by a supposed expert that Stevia is 'safe' and yet it is specifically mentioned in that WHO statement - not that I necessarily trust the WHO in the light of past events. 

YoungBlueEyes

I can't remember what I was watching now. It had some woman on it anyway tasting a tiny tiny wee bit of Stevia on the end of a teaspoon and declared it a thousand times sweeter than sugar. It comes from a plant so is a natural sweetener, and there are others like it. 

I'm guessing it'd be dear though or why aren't the pop companies using it?