We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Pepsi - sweetener warning.
Options
Comments
-
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,.
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.0 -
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,.
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.
They are merely incentivised or dis-incentivised by the financial aspects.
Doesn't seem like a very good policy to me.0 -
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,.
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.
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.0 -
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,.
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.
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.
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 consequencesWHO 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."1 -
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.0 -
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,.
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.
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.
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.0 -
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?
1 -
What about other sweeteners? It needn't be sugar or artificial they use. What about things like Stevia?I removed the shell from my racing snail, but now it's more sluggish than ever.0
-
YoungBlueEyes said:What about other sweeteners? It needn't be sugar or artificial they use. What about things like Stevia?0
-
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?I removed the shell from my racing snail, but now it's more sluggish than ever.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards