Coca-Cola Zero and economics

[PauloMorfeo]

Economics are a very interesting thing.

In the end of last year (i think), i saw news that the company Coca-Cola had they're profits greatly decreased in that passing year. That recuction was greatly caused by the increase in the costs of one of it's components, the sugar.

So now i start to see alot of comercials on TV about the new Coca-Cola Zero (sugars). Hmmmm.

Anyway, i prefer to call it Coca-Cola Zero (natural ingredients).

[Weaver]

Sugar is cheaper than artificial sweetners last time I checked.

[PauloMorfeo]

You are probably thinking about a comparison of 1 kg of sweatner and 1 kg of sugar!? Sweatner has a much greater power that regular sugar, meaning less needed to make something as sweat.

Anyway, i can't really say for sure that sweatner ends up cheaper than real sugar, truth be told, but i think it does.

[AF]

Its also a move to help improve their unhealthy image and gain more customer interest from a health perspective.

[Neddie]

Artificial sweeteners are, in comparison for volume, significantly more expensive than natural sugars and the derivatives thereof. However, you can use a much smaller quantity to achieve the same "flavour" - a poor approximation, but it fools many. Aspartame is between 200 and 300 times as "sweet" by volume as glucose, later developed replacements are even more effective.

[manored]

Economics are a very interesting thing.

In the end of last year (i think), i saw news that the company Coca-Cola had they're profits greatly decreased in that passing year. That recuction was greatly caused by the increase in the costs of one of it's components, the sugar.

So now i start to see alot of comercials on TV about the new Coca-Cola Zero (sugars). Hmmmm.

Anyway, i prefer to call it Coca-Cola Zero (natural ingredients).

Survival of the fittest. Those who adapt for the new situations live. Those who dont die. That means whoever runs Coca-Cola is smart and whoever runs EUA is not :) (Fuel trouble)

[jackalope]

Artificial sweeteners are, in comparison for volume, significantly more expensive than natural sugars and the derivatives thereof. However, you can use a much smaller quantity to achieve the same "flavour" - a poor approximation, but it fools many. Aspartame is between 200 and 300 times as "sweet" by volume as glucose, later developed replacements are even more effective.

and they all give you cancer

[Neddie]

Artificial sweeteners are, in comparison for volume, significantly more expensive than natural sugars and the derivatives thereof. However, you can use a much smaller quantity to achieve the same "flavour" - a poor approximation, but it fools many. Aspartame is between 200 and 300 times as "sweet" by volume as glucose, later developed replacements are even more effective.

and they all give you cancer

Well, not always. Not quite as funny as you might wish, but they vary in dangers. As far as substances go, they are rated as non-toxic and functionally non-carcinogenic. However, in large doses or in concert with other factors, they can contribute to a range of cancers from the liver to the kidneys. In addition, they provide little or no usable carbohydrate content - part of the diet soda cruelty is that you still need fuel after intake, in addition to having reinforced your caffeine addiction.

High fructose corn syrup, the industrial replacement for sugar in most commercial food products available in the United States, isn't much better. The high concentration of the compound makes it difficult to absorb and utilize, leading to between 80 and 90% loss of material.

[AF]

An theyre arguably worse from a dental perspective

[SinbadEV]

I drink a 2 liter of Coca-Cola Classic a day and have never had a cavity, I brush my teeth weekly... I am beginning to believe that Oral hygiene and tooth decay are all part of a Conspiracy of Dental "Professionals"

[KingRaptor]

I drink a 2 liter of Coca-Cola Classic a day and have never had a cavity, I brush my teeth weekly... I am beginning to believe that Oral hygiene and tooth decay are all part of a Conspiracy of Dental "Professionals"

@#$%!

I brush my teeth twice a day, don't smoke, rarely eat sweets (but I do drink sugary drinks on a daily basis) and my teeth give dentists nightmares! WHAT HAX U USE

[PicassoCT]

An theyre arguably worse from a dental perspective

That written by AF who trows Cookies at everybody he wants to silence! Victory of the Dentist Unions is near!!

[KDR_11k]

Of course sweeteners are cheaper than sugar, they got to make up for the fact that they taste like crap.

[manored]

Artificial sweeteners are, in comparison for volume, significantly more expensive than natural sugars and the derivatives thereof. However, you can use a much smaller quantity to achieve the same "flavour" - a poor approximation, but it fools many. Aspartame is between 200 and 300 times as "sweet" by volume as glucose, later developed replacements are even more effective.

and they all give you cancer

As far as I know cancer is caused by digestive agents of cells that are liberated to "eat" useless stuff and go bersek, starting to eat everthing up and giving example for others who follow.

Considering the amount of shit that comes with everthing we eat those days I think we can say everthing causes cancer :)

[rattle]

Honestly, Coke Zero tastes like shit (read: pepsi cola) IMO. I hardly drink any cola at all. Plain water from the pipe wins!

The only advantage of artificial sweeters over sugar I could think of are less storage and shipping costs due to their higher effectiveness.

I drink a 2 liter of Coca-Cola Classic a day and have never had a cavity, I brush my teeth weekly... I am beginning to believe that Oral hygiene and tooth decay are all part of a Conspiracy of Dental "Professionals"

@#$%!

I brush my teeth twice a day, don't smoke, rarely eat sweets (but I do drink sugary drinks on a daily basis) and my teeth give dentists nightmares! WHAT HAX U USE

Same, three of my teeth are rotten from the inside. It's either something hereditary or lack of calcium or metabolism issues or all three together.
Root treatment is so much fun I tell you.

[Felix the Cat]

I drink a 2 liter of Coca-Cola Classic a day and have never had a cavity, I brush my teeth weekly... I am beginning to believe that Oral hygiene and tooth decay are all part of a Conspiracy of Dental "Professionals"

I'm worse:
-I regularly drink soda, and of course suh-WAYT TAY ("sweet tea").
-I eat sugary foods fairly often.
-I smoke.
-I drink coffee.
-I almost never remember to brush my teeth, which I suppose is functionally equivalent to brushing about once a week.
-I do not floss.
-My dentist says that I have some of the best teeth she's seen.

Of course, there's a trade-off. My teeth have a lot more enamel than most peoples' - but because of that they are always slightly tinged yellow, and cannot be made "movie-star white" no matter how hard I try.

[Snipawolf]

Swish with piss?

[PauloMorfeo]

Haa, Aspartame. Aspartame has a nice story, as far as i've heard in a TV documentary.

Aparently, when it was beeing decided wheter to aprove it as a safe product or not, these tests were made (sponsored not by independant people but by the companies that were trying to aprove the product):
- Test it with lab rats. Only that the aspartame was beeing delivered in chuncks in the middle of the food, meaning the rats would not eat it, only around it.
- Test it with lab rats. Only that the aspartame was also beeing fed to the control group (control group is the one that does not gets changed, to serve as a comparison). Aparently, one of the people in charge of the evaluation of the results went like this: "What? The lab rats had a rate of 80% rats with brain cancer???" with the obvious answer of: "Yes, but look! The control group is just the same".
- Test is with monkeys (chimps?). Out os some 10 monkeys, 6 or seven had sejures(???) and one of them died out of a heart attack.

As far as i understood from the documentary, Aspartame is particularly nasty to the brain, because it is a form of an alcaloid which, after absorved, forms formaldehide (that stuff used to preverve corpses. Can be found in jars with animals and stuff inside), which ends up in the brain. It is particularly nasty because it destroys the brain and it is a substance that is not filtrated out eventually, it will just add up in the brain.

How did it got aproved? Well, at some time one manager came into play. One of the companies hired the manager Donald Rumsfeld (that is correct, *the* Donald Rumsfeld) which imediatly made some friendships in the government and ended up beeing the major responsible for the process of aproval. People from the boards who decide wether it is aproved or not that had opinion against it were kicked from the board. Some other people, after it was aproved, got jobs at those companies with insanely high pays.

TV documentaries are often biased but .. this is much more than bias. The documentary would have to be so wrong, present so much lies (not just unsubstanciated stuff but true lies), that there would be no way that such documentary would be accepted. That is, i believe it to a great extent.
And i value greatly my brain, above any other organ.

Ho, and i said "sweat" instead of "sweet" in my post, hahaha. A sweatner .

[PauloMorfeo]

...
As far as I know cancer is caused by digestive agents of cells that are liberated to "eat" useless stuff and go bersek, starting to eat everthing up and giving example for others who follow.
...

That is completely wrong, you do not get cancer that way.

A cancer is cells that got mutated, they're ADN changed to something else that wasn't suposed to be, and they continue to reproduce (like a piece of liver that no longer does it's function but continues to reproduce wildly).

[PauloMorfeo]

Ho, easy. You can find stuff about aspartame on youtube:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query ... me&search=