Food and Drug Administration Against Healthy Soda

[CaptKirby]

While I certainly think that everyone should drink water instead (I drink no soda), the fact that they are against advertising healthier soda is absurd to me. Any improvement on something people will drink regardless of facts seems to be a good thing to me...

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22450/1066/

The December 10, 2008 FDA letter (“'Warning Letter' Re: CFSAN-OC-09-01") was sent to Muhtar Kent, president and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company.

The warning letter states, “The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the label for your Diet Coke Plus 20 FL OZ (1.25 PT) 591ml. Based on our review, we have concluded that this product is in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).”

It adds, “Your Diet Coke Plus product is misbranded within the meaning of section 403(r)(1)(A) of the Act [21 USC 343(r)(1)(A)] because the product makes a nutrient content claim but does not meet the criteria to make the claim.”

Specifically, the FDA says, “Your product bears the term "Plus" as part of its name, and the principal display panel of the product label also includes the language, ‘Diet Coke with Vitamins & Minerals.’”

FDA officials further state within their letter, “The ingredient list includes the following added vitamins and minerals: magnesium sulfate (declared at 10% of the Daily Value (DV) for magnesium in the Nutrition Facts panel), zinc gluconate (declared at 10% of the DV for zinc), niacinamide (declared at 15% of the DV for niacin), pyridoxine hydrochloride (declared at 15% of the DV for vitamin B6), and cyanocobalamine (declared at 15% of the DV for vitamin B12)."

And, “Your product Diet Coke Plus is a carbonated beverage. The policy on fortification in 21 CFR 104.20(a) states that the FDA does not consider it appropriate to fortify snack foods such as carbonated beverages."

Page two discusses comments from the FDA, Coke, and a representative from a public-interest organzation

According to the Reuters’ article “UPDATE 2-US FDA warns over Diet Coke Plus nutrition claims,” the FDA suggested to the Coca-cola Company that "You should take prompt action to correct the violations” in order to avoid being fined and having other such legal actions taken against it.

if(typeof(ffxAds)=="undefined")var ffxAds = []; var ad = { width: "300", height: "250", adtype: "doubleisland", isiframe: "yes" }; ffxAds.push(ad); document.write("
");
var sc_project=4176786; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=48; var sc_click_stat=1; var sc_security="0f6e4b22";

In the same Reuters article, a representative for Coke stated, "This does not involve any health or safety issues, and we believe the label on Diet Coke Plus complies with FDA's policies and regulations.”

Michael Jacobson, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), stated, “Fortification is dirt cheap and allows companies to charge more. People would be better off drinking water than Diet Coke Plus."

The Brand Republic article "Diet Coke Plus to target health-conscious consumers" was written when the soda was first introduced in the United Kingdom.

The March 22, 2007 press release for Diet Coke Plus is found at "Coca-Cola North America announces plans to launch Diet Coke Plus."

The press release states, "Coca-Cola North America today announced it will launch Diet Coke Plus™, a sparkling, calorie-free beverage with vitamins and minerals."

And, "In addition to providing great, refreshing taste, Diet Coke Plus is a good source of vitamins B3, B6, and B12, and the minerals zinc and magnesium.eat Taste Has Its Benefits”

Katie Bayne, senior vice president, Coca-Cola Brands (Coca-Cola North America), stated within the press release, “Consumers, including Diet Coke drinkers, are increasingly looking for more beverage options, and we wanted to offer them the convenience of a calorie-free beverage that is a good source of several essential vitamins and minerals, and one that delivers on the great taste that they have come to expect from us.”

 

[Outlaw]

So its automatically not healthy because it is labeled as a snack food by the FDA?

Don't we want healthy snack foods?

What is this, I don't even..

 

[QuickDraw]

healthy and snack food right next to each other makes me lol because snacking isn't really healthy.

that aside i do find it interesting that the FDA doesn't want fortified carbonated beverages on the market.

 

[Deck Knight]

Government Against Consumer Choice

What else is new?

It's all Milk and Juice for me.

Let's just hope Vitamin Coke is based off the Original Coke and not the New Coke.

 

[jamespicone]

I think the idea is that you really can't make Coca-Cola healthy. No, not even by pumping it full of 'vitamins' that likely aren't even bioavailable. The FDA doesn't want them advertising Diet Coke Plus as healthy because it's not, basically, and they think it's misleading.

 

[Darkartisan]

I actually laughed at this. If the F&D admins want the earth to sink due to the fact that America is fat as hell means that they obviously don't give a shit about us, which I find ridiculous. That's like saying "No johnny, don't eat those carrots! Have some ice cream instead!"

WTF?

 

[WaterBomb]

I agree with jamespicone. The FDA isn't rejecting healthier foods, it's stating that this new Diet Coke Plus is not any healthier than regular Diet Coke. Soda in general is unhealthy, and they should find a way to reduce the unhealthy agents in it like Sodium instead of just adding other vitamins.

 

[foibles]

ok, so the FDA hates snacks? I mean, i'm not a big diet coke fan, but this is bizarre.

 

[DM]

I actually laughed at this. If the F&D admins want the earth to sink due to the fact that America is fat as hell means that they obviously don't give a shit about us, which I find ridiculous. That's like saying "No johnny, don't eat those carrots! Have some ice cream instead!"

WTF?

More like, "No Johnny, don't eat that ice cream full of conservatives! Eat this all natural ice cream instead."

Well, still not quite the same, but you get my point. Coca-Cola is genius for attempting that marketing, because you KNOW the fat people would fall all over each other to buy this garbage.

 

[E.A.]

Well, it makes a little sense. Putting vitamins in Diet Coke or even regular Coca Cola would encourage kids to drink it (it's better for their profits.) And Coke is not good for you to begin with. I just do not think that by putting in a vitamin makes it count as a healthy soda.

 

[Outlaw]

Doesn't putting vitamins and such in it at least warrant it to be considered a healthier product than the original diet coke in some sense?

 

[FiveKRunner]

Doesn't putting vitamins and such in it at least warrant it to be considered a healthier product than the original diet coke in some sense?

I wouldn't classify a small increase in % of your daily value of a vitamin healthy. As a whole, it is still an unhealthy product that has little to no nutritional value.

The FDA is concerned that this will keep people from making a healthy choice. People who were perhaps somewhat concerned about their health now justify their drinking of an unhealthy product, Coke, with its small quantity of vitamins. In then end, there are excellent sources for these vitamins in healthy food products and Coke shouldn't be pushing itself as one of them.

I'd compare it to smokeless tobacco (chew). Sure it won't cause you lung cancer but you're going to face the same addiction, if not worse, and will eventually develop cancer in other areas of the body.

 

[jamespicone]

Doesn't putting vitamins and such in it at least warrant it to be considered a healthier product than the original diet coke in some sense?

Probably not, actually - in almost all 'fortified' foods, the added vitamins aren't actually bioavailable - you can't process and use them. So sure, while that bread may have added omega-3, it isn't any better than regular bread - because your body doesn't actually process that omega-3.

Note that the reason for refusing it is that the label makes a misleading claim - if the label didn't say "Now with vitamins!" etc. etc., the FDA might approve it. The problem isn't the fortification, it's the advertising thereof.

That said, regulations regarding fortification and advertising are somewhat incomplete, slipshod, and inconsistent in Australia. They probably are over on your side of the pond, too. Seems a bit silly that you can put omega-3 in bread and advertise about it but you can't put vitamin B in coke and advertise about it.

 

[havoc]

More like, "No Johnny, don't eat that ice cream full of conservatives! Eat this all natural ice cream instead."

Well, still not quite the same, but you get my point. Coca-Cola is genius for attempting that marketing, because you KNOW the fat people would fall all over each other to buy this garbage.

so THAT'S the secret to ice cream

seriously though, I agree with this post. anything that looks to people like they can cheat their way into a healthier lifestyle ("but it has VITAMINS AND MINERALS") has potential to sell very well.

 

[Raj]

I'd also like to point out that the FDA disapproves of Coca Cola's soon-to-be-released juice products because of some ingredient. Only thing is, the FDA can't make them not put out their product because of some FDA-Coca Cola agreement.

 

[Kietharr]

They're against it because they think it will reinforce a notion that this new soda is good for you as opposed to not quite so terrible for you. Healthy soda is an oxymoron. Carbonic acid upsets the pH of your stomach and scours the enamel off of your teeth. They've got a tough enough time convincing kids to drink healthier stuff with all of the soda and sugary drinks out there. Start telling them that soda is good for you and you can dash all hopes against the rocks.

 

[CaptKirby]

But there should be no one in this world that would possibly be fooled into thinking that pouring carbonated beverages into oneself could be more healthy than unhealthy. If they are that stupid, then the coca-cola companies have the right to take advantage of it. It is the same reason that warnings on smoking labels should not be necessary; no one who smokes them should possibly be unaware of how negative they are. If the government wants to make a difference in people ingesting soda, then they could impose a set soda price double, triple, whatever its cost. Instead, they employ this bureaucratic bullshit that will do nothing except to make people ridicule the government.

 

[Pyr0]

I agree with jamespicone. The FDA isn't rejecting healthier foods, it's stating that this new Diet Coke Plus is not any healthier than regular Diet Coke. Soda in general is unhealthy, and they should find a way to reduce the unhealthy agents in it like Sodium instead of just adding other vitamins.

This man speaks the truth, besides most people don't really need those additional vitamins (they are quite common in your average fast crap food meal), it would just be pounding your body with more stuff.

 

[Syberia]

If the government wants to make a difference in people ingesting soda, then they could impose a set soda price double, triple, whatever its cost. Instead, they employ this bureaucratic bullshit that will do nothing except to make people ridicule the government.

I especially have a problem with this one. I don't even "like" the fact that they impose an extra "sin tax" on cigarettes and alcohol, despite the fact that I don't consume either. The government shouldn't go artificially raising the price of certain products to convince people to not use them.

 

[Bologo]

How about stop trying to play health police and let people eat what they want. As CaptKirby has said, if anyone honestly drinks soda thinking it will make them healthy, they deserve to get fat.

Yes, but if people start getting fat off the soda, can't they just sue the people who made the soda saying that it was false advertisement since they advertised it as healthy, and possibly win?

These people have to play the health police. Don't forget about that time that some dumbass sued McDonalds and won because "their food made him fat". I have a feeling that the FDA doesn't want the same stuff happening to them.

 

[Syberia]

Well, there comes a point where the judge in those cases should have just said "use common sense next time, case dismissed."

I personally think the fact that someone can sue McDonald's for making them fat, or because they burned themselves with hot coffee, and won reflects a failing of our justice system more than anything.

 

[Outlaw]

If the government wants to make a difference in people ingesting soda, then they could impose a set soda price double, triple, whatever its cost. Instead, they employ this bureaucratic bullshit that will do nothing except to make people ridicule the government.

Sin taxes are as much bureaucratic bullshit as the warning labels on cigarettes if not more. Sin taxes are simply a ploy by the government that earns them equal scorn because they are trying to profit on the addictive products on the market by making them outrageously costly.

 

[CaptKirby]

It is not bullshit in the least. The government is not going to make them illegal no matter what, so making them harder to obtain is at least helpful. The tax on cigarettes is even better because it is a public pollution that hurts all of us, especially those of us with poor lungs (of course, I think they should be illegal though, not merely harder to obtain). With something like soda it is more ridiculous, but certainly not unreasonable.

 

[Bakuhatsu404]

Huh, I've always heard that Diet sodas are even unhealthier than the normal sodas due to some of the ingredients put in them, but if this is wrong, someone let me know.

 

[Outlaw]

It is not bullshit in the least. The government is not going to make them illegal no matter what, so making them harder to obtain is at least helpful. The tax on cigarettes is even better because it is a public pollution that hurts all of us, especially those of us with poor lungs (of course, I think they should be illegal though, not merely harder to obtain). With something like soda it is more ridiculous, but certainly not unreasonable.

Of course they won't make them illegal, look what happened during prohibition. Not only would crime rise, but the government would lose oodles of cash because they aren't getting all that blood money.

This is not helpful at all. They aren't making them harder to obtain so much so as they are profiting off of those addicted to the product. Adding soda to the list of products under sin tax would be a horrible act.