PepsiCo to Drop Aspartame From Diet Pepsi

[icyfroth]

PepsiCo said it would switch to sucralose, a less controversial but still artificial sweetener. The beverage giant said the change—the boldest soda reformulation since Coca-Cola's New Coke fiasco—was in response to consumer surveys showing aspartame as the No. 1 reason Americans are shunning diet colas.

The new sweetener is a blend of sucralose and acesulfame potassium that will be used in Diet Pepsi, Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi and Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi in the U.S. beginning in August. The new sweetener formulation “was developed after extensive research and testing with U.S. diet cola drinkers,” the company said.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a public health group and soft drink critic, said Friday that, while consumers should still avoid acesulfame potassium, more commonly known as Ace K, sucralose is “likely’’ a safer sweetener than aspartame. It cited past studies suggesting aspartame had caused tumors in rats, and said tests in the 1970s flagged Ace K as a potential cancer risk.

Coke and Pepsi have both been trying to solve the diet sweetener problem for years. Pepsi tweaked Diet Pepsi a couple of years ago to a blend that retained aspartame but mixed it with acesulfame potassium.

They have both spent heavily in recent years trying to develop zero-calorie sweeteners that can be marketed as natural, not artificial. Each has placed bets on stevia, which is derived from a plant but can leave a bitter aftertaste.

Coke and Pepsi rolled out cola variations sweetened with stevia in the U.S. last year, but mixed in sugar, turning them into mid-calorie colas instead of diet colas.

Entire Article Here

Again the aluminium connection:

Artificial Chemical Sweeteners - Grocery Warning

Making matters worse, soft drink companies put their liquid products containing aspartame in containers made of aluminum.

When this aluminum - a known neurotoxin - is combined with aspartame, the results are multiplied:

In the case of diet drinks in aluminum cans, the very brain-toxic aluminum fluoride compound co-exists with multiple toxins found in aspartame, thus creating the most powerful government-approved toxic soup imaginable. With the strong association between aluminum, excitotoxins, aluminum fluoride complexes and Alzheimer’s disease, it would be completely irresponsible to encourage people to consume this toxic mixture.

Yet, this is done literally billions of times every year in advertising. It is important to remember that the aluminum can has been around for only about three decades, and most toxin-related diseases take years of accumulation to produce the full clinical expression of the disorder.
-Russell Blaylock, M.D., Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

You specifically said: despite all the peer reviewed studies showing that smoking, drinking alcohol and doing drugs is harmful, even deadly, it is still being marketed and increasingly accessible to the public. With government approval.

which part of that did you not mean?

---

There's no part of it I did not mean. fgs!

I actually meant drugs are harmful and increasingly accessible. I didn't specifically say they were marketed under government approval. I specifically meant smoking and exessive drinking of alcohol.

Perhaps read my post again. I don't intend to contribute to your seemingly increasing hysteria.

[the_great_she_elephant]

I actually meant drugs are harmful and increasingly accessible. I didn't specifically say they were marketed under government approval. I specificallymeant smoking and exessive drinking of alcohol.

But you specifically mentioned smoking, excessive drinking and drugs and then said it was marketted with government apporoval. If you don't say what you mean, people will assume you mean what you say.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

I actually meant drugs are harmful and increasingly accessible. I didn't specifically say they were marketed under government approval. I specificallymeant smoking and exessive drinking of alcohol.

But you specifically mentioned smoking, excessive drinking and drugs and then said it was marketted with government apporoval. If you don't say what you mean, people will assume you mean what you say.

---

She-el. Calm down.

I did not specifically say drugs were marketted (sic) with government approval. I said smoking and and drinking and doing drugs were marketed, with government approval. 

You seized on drugs and made the assumption. And you know what they say about "assume".

[the_great_she_elephant]

I did not specifically say drugs were marketted (sic) with government approval. I said smoking and and drinking and doing drugs were marketed, with government approval. 

You seized on drugs and made the assumption. And you know what they say about "assume".

I didn't 'seize on' the drugs. In reply to your post in which you mentioned 3 items - 1)  smoking, 2) drinking and 3) drugs - being marketeed with government approval I raised 3 points.

1) I pointed out  that prohibition (of alcohol) had been tried in America and was a failure,

2) I pointed out  that the government was actively trying to decrease sales of tobacco.

3) I asked which drugs you were referring to when you said they were being marketed with government approval.

Cold, hard logic, Icy - and not a whiff of hysteria.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

I did not specifically say drugs were marketted (sic) with government approval. I said smoking and and drinking and doing drugs were marketed, with government approval. 

You seized on drugs and made the assumption. And you know what they say about "assume".

I didn't 'seize on' the drugs. In reply to your post in which you mentioned 3 items - 1)  smoking, 2) drinking and 3) drugs - being marketeed with government approval I raised 3 points.

1) I pointed out  that prohibition (of alcohol) had been tried in America and was a failure,

2) I pointed out  that the government was actively trying to decrease sales of tobacco.

3) I asked which drugs you were referring to when you said they were being marketed with government approval.

Cold, hard logic, Icy - and not a whiff of hysteria.

---

And were you not answered every single time?

Your'e right , it was'nt t a" whiff."

It was actually quite a strong stench of hysteria once you started with your strident, BIG BOLD TEXT!

Totally uncalled for.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

You find bold print offensive?............ sigh......now that's hysterical!

Interestingly,, all soft drink consumption has decreased in the US, and the dropping sales don't seem to be related to aspartame.

For one.......Berkeley, California has a Soda Tax.

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-06/berkeley-becomes-first-us-city-to-vote-for-soft-drink-tax/5871...

[siggie-reported-by-alarmists]

[icyfroth]

Wow that's really impressive work there, Siggie! Thanks for all those graphs. Very enlightening.

AlthoughI think you should try reading my OP again.

"PepsiCo said it would switch to sucralose, a less controversial but still artificial sweetener. The beverage giant said the change—the boldest soda reformulation since Coca-Cola's New Coke fiasco—was in response to consumer surveys showing aspartame as the No. 1 reason Americans are shunning diet colas"

Sometimes it helps to understand when you start from the beginning.

[k0llectable5]

As far as I'm concerned those diet drinks taste so foul and they leave such a foul taste in your mouth afterward, whether "studies" prove or disprove the safety of aspartame makes no difference to me, it tastes gross and thats enough for me to never want to drink it.  Also I know quite a few people who buy diet drinks by the slab, weekly.  They're addicted to the stuff, it cant be good...