Another Warning for Diet Soft Drink Drinkers

Source: iHealthTube.com
April 27, 2017

In this week’s natural news headlines, find out why consumers of diet soft drinks have another reason to be concerned. Also learn about the link between consuming animal protein and a serious health condition. And find out why how you get to and from work can have a big impact on your health.

Nestle Paying Next to Nothing to Extract Water from San Bernardino National Forest

Source: RT
April 22, 2017

Mike Papantonio is joined by Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of the Trial Lawyer Magazine, to discuss Nestle’s water extraction efforts in the San Bernardino National Forest.

Coca-Cola’s Beverages are “Poisonous” Rules Nigerian Judge, Boycott Ensues

CocaCola

Source: TheMindUnleashed
Christina Sarich
April 5, 2017

Coca-Cola is in vehement opposition to the recent ruling of a Nigerian judge concerning their sugary sodas. In a lawsuit over beverages Coca-Cola makes in a Nigerian factory, a Lagos High Court judge recently stated that the drinks contained high levels of carcinogens that are both harmful and “poisonous.”

coca

The Carcinogens in Question

The carcinogens in question are benzoic acid and other additives like 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), which are used to create the “caramel coloring” that is added to Coca-Cola’s products. The judge’s warning implies that consumers of the popular drinks have much more to worry about than just rotting teeth and obesity caused by sugar consumption. (Just months ago, it was found that Coca-Cola funded scientists were paid to tell Americans they were too worried about what they were eating and drinking though sugary sodas have been directly linked to an obesity epidemic.)

A Nigerian judge has called Coca-Cola products

A Nigerian judge has called Coca-Cola products “poisonous.”

The Nigerian court Justice, Adedayo Oyebanji, held that high levels of carcinogenic additives were causing an unnecessary health risk, and that when mixed with ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) they could cause dire health consequences. Coca-Cola’s Nigerian Bottling Company (NBC) was forced to put warning labels on Coke’s products – including Fanta and Sprite, and awarded 2 million naira (around $6,350 U.S. dollars) against the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) for failing to ensure specific health standards.

“It is manifest that NAFDAC has been grossly irresponsible in its regulatory duties to the consumers of Fanta and Sprite manufactured by Nigeria Bottling Company,” the judge said.

He continued, “NAFDAC has failed the citizens of this great nation by its certification as satisfactory for human consumption products … which become poisonous in the presence of ascorbic acid.”

Meanwhile the Nigerian Health Ministry released a claim stating that Coca-Cola’s products were safe to consume even though several studies including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) have confirmed that soft drinks containing a mixture of the salt of benzoic acid, sodium benzoate and vitamin C can cause cancer and other chronic conditions

Coca-Cola representatives are also trying to quash the roiling ramifications of Justice Oyebanji’s verdict now that Nigerians are boycotting Coca-Cola products in the lawsuit’s aftermath.

Additionally, the NBC and the federal food-safety agency are both appealing the ruling, arguing: “Coke’s products don’t exceed benzoic acid limits in Nigeria …” The Coca-Cola Company and the agency cite limits set by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which technically wouldn’t label the sodas as dangerous, but only because permissible ingredient levels vary by country, depending on many factors.

Coca-Cola’s Incendiary History

Many are not wise to Coca-Cola’s shady past, though most are well advised of the company’s current lackluster image.

  • Coca-Cola Beverages Used to Contain Cocaine. This addictive drug was used to keep people coming back for more Coke. It was only removed in 1929, more than forty years after Coke products were introduced to a mass market. (In other words, plenty of time for the company to have developed a mass following through a highly-addictive product.)
  • Coca Leaf Extract is Still Used in CocaCola Products Today. This plant alkaloid still has a highly stimulating effect on the brain, just like speed.
  • The Coca-Cola Corporation has been Accused of Assassination to Further the Company’s Greed. The notorious Columbian death squad terrorism funded by Coca-Cola are detailed here.
  • Coca-Cola is Not All-American. The company has promoted its drinks as all American when they were doing business with Nazi Germany, with their logo resting comfortably next to the 3rd Reich’s Swastika.

    Is the Nigerian judge over-zealous in his determination that Coca-Cola’s products are “poisonous”? If the company’s history is explored, he seems quite right.

    Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com

    Image: SourceSource

Nestle, Pepsi Fined for Concealing GMOs as Campbell Soup Announces Voluntary Label

Source: NationOfChange.org
Lorraine Chow
January 10, 2016

As the food fight over genetically modified food (GMOs) rages on in the U.S., six major food manufacturers—including Nestle, PepsiCo and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo—have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice for concealing the presence of GMOs in their products.

According to teleSUR, the respective companies are facing fines ranging from $277,400 to just over $1 million, amounting to $3 million in total.

The ministry’s decision came after a 2010 investigation carried out by Brazil’s Consumer Protection Agency, Senacon, which detected GMOs in various food products sold by the companies in Brazilian markets.

Senacon accused the companies of violating Brazilian consumer rights, including the right to information, freedom of choice and the right for protection against abusive corporate practices, teleSUR reported.

Since 2003, Brazilian law has required food products containing more than 1 percent of GMOs to carry a warning label—a yellow triangle with the letter “T” inside, standing for “transgenic.”

Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense researcher Ana Paula Bortoletto praised the ministry’s decision to enforce GMO labels.

“The decision confirms the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to require all products that use genetically modified ingredients to include this information on their labels,” she said.

Although the ministry’s decision spells victory for Brazilian consumers demanding food transparency, the country’s relationship with GMOs has been fraught with contention in recent decades.

GMOs in the South American country were initially banned after the Institute of Consumer Defense won a lawsuit in 1998. In the ensuing years, however, black market GMO seeds spread widely into the agricultural space and ultimately forced the nation into adopting the technology in 2003. As Reuters described back in a 2005 report:

So sought after is the cost-cutting technology on the black market that over a third of Brazil’s massive soybean crop—the main farm export worth 10 percent of total trade revenues—is seen planted with pirated GMO seeds. And nearly all the country’s cotton seed has been contaminated by GMOs.

“There is strong demand, industrially and scientifically, for biotechnology in Brazil,” Jorge Guimaraes, president of Brazil’s CTNBio biotechnology regulator, told Reuters.

In 2003, faced with cracking down on the entire No.3 soy producing state of Rio Grande do Sul and thousands of other producers in other states, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after taking office opted to push for legalization and regulation of GMOs.

GMOs are now rampant in the country—Brazil is currently the second-largest grower of GMO crops in the world after the U.S. According to the Genetic Literacy Project, Brazil had 104 million acres of GMO crops in production in 2014, and “more than 93 percent of the country’s soybean crop is GM and almost 90 percent of the corn crop. GM cotton, more recently introduced, makes up 65.1 percent.”

While producers of bioengineered seeds tout its resistance to certain pathogens over organic seeds, as EcoWatch reported in 2014, Brazilian farmers found that “Bt corn” no longer repelled the destructive caterpillars it was genetically modified to protect against. In turn, farmers were forced to apply extra coats of insecticides, racking up additional environmental and financial costs.

The Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the Mato Grosso region called on Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow companies to offer solutions as well as compensate the farmers for their losses, who spent the equivalent of $54 per hectare to spray extra pesticides.

As for how the Brazilian public feels about GMOs, a 2014 study from the University of São Paulo suggests that despite the major presence of GMOs in the country, many consumers are skeptical of the food.

The authors of the study concluded that even after Brazil imposed the GMO label law, “the majority of Brazilians consumers still do not have a positive image of genetically modified foods, and do not consider it a buying option.”

The negative reputation of GMOs in Brazil could perhaps explain why Nestle, PepsiCo and the others decided to skirt the country’s label law.

Over in the U.S., one food company has decided to take the GMO label debate into their own hands. Campbell Soup Co., the world’s largest soup maker, has initiated plans to include a GMO label on its products.

Campbell is the first major food company to respond to growing calls for food transparency spurred by food safety advocates and concerned consumers, as well as states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut that have passed mandatory GMO labeling laws.

According to Just Label It, 89 percent of American voters are in support of mandatory GMO labeling.

The Camden, New Jersey company said in a statement that it will support federal legislation mandating all foods and beverages regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be clearly labeled for GMOs.

Campbell “continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by-state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete, impractical and create unnecessary confusion for customers,” according to the statement.

The company “continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods.”

As EcoWatch exclusively reported, food industry groups have heavily lobbied politicians and spent millions in court to block states from mandating GMO labels.

In December, Congress decided not to include a policy rider in the federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory genetically engineered food labeling laws.

Read More At: NationOfChange.org

CDC cronyism exposed: Scientists with integrity call out the agency’s corrupt industry ties

Image: CDC cronyism exposed: Scientists with integrity call out the agency’s corrupt industry ties

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
February 9, 2017

According to its mission statement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “conducts critical science” to protect Americans against health threats. But can an agency with deep ties to various industries really conduct research and formulate policy in a critical, unbiased manner?

The Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA) says no.

In fact, the ANH-USA has repeatedly uncovered evidence of industry influence on the agency – for example, that of food corporation giant Coca-Cola. Barbara Bowman, director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, recently resigned her post at the CDC after her long-term connection with Coca-Cola was made public. Bowman was once a senior nutritionist at Coca-Cola, and has been accused of granting favors to a lobby group backed by the beverage maker.

According to ANH-USA, Coca-Cola was able – with Bowman’s help – to influence the setting of WHO sugar limits.

Now, the ANH-USA reports that a group of ethically-minded scientists within the CDC have sent a letter to the CDC chief of staff voicing their concerns regarding rampant corporate influence over the agency. (RELATED: Find more news about government corruption at Corruption.news)

CDC SPIDER exposes influence from ‘outside parties and rogue interests’

The group calls itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence, and Ethics in Research (CDC SPIDER), and the introduction of their letter reads as follows:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

The letter describes several troubling examples of conflict of interest and influence from outside the agency, including the Bowman Coca-Cola scandal and others.

The fact that a group of scientists from within the agency found it necessary to take such an action is strong evidence that such influence actually exists, prompting the ANH-USA to ask:

“Are vaccine manufacturers influencing CDC leaders concerning childhood vaccinations, as we’ve long believed? Are potential whistleblowers being threatened and silenced to protect industry interests? How can we put our children’s health in the hands of an agency that has this level of corruption being reported by its own scientist employees?”

Valid questions all, and ones which must be addressed by the CDC if the agency expects to be given any credibility at all.

Industry lobbying is nothing new, and a certain level of interaction between various industries and the agencies charged with regulating them is unavoidable – corporations should have some input in the regulatory process, and agencies should not necessarily be in conflict with their interests.

Can Donald Trump fix a rigged regulatory system?

However, the system has been rigged by those with deep pockets who seek to subvert agency agendas to suit their interests. Agencies such as the CDC have been deliberately infiltrated by industry insiders like Barbara Bowman, and the scales have been tipped in industry’s favor.

Far from conducting “critical science,” the CDC provides the research results and regulatory guidelines that corporations such as Coca-Cola pay them for. (See more examples of fake science at FakeScience.news)

Current CDC director, Thomas Frieden, will step down this month, and president-elect Donald Trump has not yet announced his successor. It will be interesting to see how the incoming president handles the appointment and the subsequent management of the agency.

Trump has indicated that he believes vaccines are linked to autism. If he appoints a new CDC director who echoes that sentiment, then the CDC could indeed be headed in an entirely new direction.

The incoming president has a chance to do the right thing in draining the CDC swamp – provided he selects the right person for the job.

Sources:

ANH-USA.org

USRTK.org[PDF]

CDC.gov

NaturalNews.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Veteran CDC Employer Resigns After She Was Caught Helping Coca-Cola Gain Political Influence Over Health Authorities

Corruption
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
August 1, 2016

America’s “health” authorities have again been caught conspiring with Big Food to ensure their products remain on the market and lucrative, despite mounting evidence of causing widespread, chronic illness among millions of people.

The latest example of collusion between the food industry and the U.S. government involves a veteran employee with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who was caught helping Coca-Cola and a food industry front group gain political influence over the World Health Organization (WHO).

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request filed by U.S. Right to Know found that Dr. Barbara Bowman, who worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola before beginning a career with the CDC in 1992, was eager to help the beverage company gain approval for its sugary drinks, which are strongly linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes.

CDC employee tasked with reducing diabetes lends helping hand to sugary beverage maker

The communications show Bowman, director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, was eager to help her long time friend Alex Malaspina, a former top Coca-Cola executive and strategist who founded International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a Big Food industry front group.

The division led by Bowman is tasked with providing “public health leadership,” working to reduce the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. However, Bowman had another interest – helping the food industry gain approval for its unhealthy products.

“Emails from 2015 detail how Malaspina, representing the interests of Coca-Cola and the food industry, reached out to Bowman to complain that the World Health Organization was giving a cold shoulder to the chemical and food industry-funded group known as ILSI, which Malaspina founded in 1978,” says USRTK journalist Carey Gillam, writing for The Huffington Post.

“The email strings include reports of concerns about Coca-Cola’s new Coca-Cola Life, sweetened with stevia, and criticisms that it still contained more sugar than daily limit recommended by WHO.”

WHO issues warning about sweetened beverages

The WHO has been very vocal about the importance of eliminating sugary drinks from the diet in order to reduce the risk of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.

“Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is high in many parts of the world and is suggestive of poor dietary quality, as sugar-sweetened beverages contain added sugars such as sucrose or fructose, often in large amounts, which contribute to the overall energy density of diets,” said the WHO in January.

“The calories provided by sugar-sweetened beverages have little nutritional value and may not provide the same feeling of fullness that solid food provides. As a result, total energy intake may increase which can lead to unhealthy weight gain.”

This of course, infuriated Coca-Cola, prompting Malaspina to ask Bowman for help in setting up a conversation with the WHO to try and influence their recommendations on sugary drinks.

Coca-Cola: “The threat to our business is serious”

Several top executives with Coca-Cola and ILSI were copied on the emails sent to Bowman. They expressed grave concern regarding “negative reports about products with high sugar content, and sugary soda tax plans in Europe,” reports Gillam.

Actions by the WHO could have “significant negative consequences on a global basis,” said Malaspina in the email chain. “The threat to our business is serious.”

Included on the correspondence were Coca-Cola Chief Public Affairs and Communications Officer Clyde Tuggle and the company’s Chief Technical Officer Ed Hays. Malaspina told Bowman that “something must be done” about the WHO not wanting “to work with industry.”

CDC recommends beverage company contact Bill Gates

Bowman tells the Coca-Cola execs that either Bill Gates or “Bloomberg people” may be able to get him access to the WHO, suggesting they also reach out to someone at the PEPFAR program, a U.S.-backed program addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

“WHO is key to the network,” confirms Bowman, adding that she “will be in touch about getting together.” Malaspina proceeds to thank Bowman for the good leads before suggesting they meet for dinner soon.

The CDC has yet to assume any responsibility for the inappropriate communications. Bowman’s boss, Ursula Bauer, Director at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said she doesn’t find the relationship a conflict-of-interest.

Though Bauer defended Bowman’s actions, she admitted in an email to staffers that Gillam’s article doesn’t bode well for the agency. The “perception that some readers may take from the article is not ideal,” said Bauer.

She reminded CDC employees that if they wouldn’t want to see it on the front page of the newspaper, they shouldn’t be doing it.

All of the emails but one were sent from Bowman’s personal account. Bowman announced a “late retirement” shortly after the emails broke, not mentioning the revelations about her Coca-Cola connections.

Bauer applauded Bowman’s work in another email sent to staffers, saying she “served with distinction and has been a strong, innovative, dedicated and supportive colleague.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ActivistPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

WHO.int

CDC Collusion: CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola To Salvage Soda Market

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
July 14, 2016

I’ve often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.1

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHO’s recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).2 According to PhillyVoice:3

“The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).

They allegedly show Bowman’s multiple attempts to aid Malaspina’s relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.

According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — ‘appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'”

Soda Politics

This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.’s book “Soda Politics.” I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YmS_WiR0U

In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:4

“[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper,” adding the emails “suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an ‘in’ with a prominent CDC official.

The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to ‘eat less sugar’ and ‘disclose industry funding’ recommendations.

The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship … This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials.”

Nestle’s book reveals the soda industry is well aware of the connection between soda consumption and obesity and obesity-related diseases.

Soda companies are by law required to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about vulnerabilities, and for the last decade Coca-Cola has been telling the SEC that obesity is the most significant threat to soda industry profits.

In short, Coca-Cola knows that once the truth about soda’s influence on obesity becomes fully recognized, their jig is up.

Exposed CDC Official Steps Down

For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold.

U.S. soda sales have dropped 25 percent since 1998,5 no doubt due to successful public health advocacy, and this makes the current scandal all the more scandalous, as it’s an attempt by a high-level health official to undo all the work that’s already been done to protect the public health. According to USRTK:6

“Alex Malaspina was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the … CDC on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.

The emails … reveal that … Bowman … tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports … ”

Surprisingly, Bowman had the good sense to immediately vacate her post once her betrayal of the public trust was exposed.

According to The Huffington Post,7 Bowman “announced her immediate departure from the agency … two days after it came to light that she had been offering guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate who was seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.”

Perfect Example of Why Revolving Door to Industry Needs to Be Shut

While Bowman didn’t mention her public disgrace as a factor in her resignation, saying she’d made the decision to retire “late last month,” her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman’s dealings with Coca-Cola in an internal email to CDC staff.

In it, Bauer states the “perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman’s dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal,” adding that the situation “serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don’t want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn’t do it.”8

Bowman’s connections to Coca-Cola actually dates back decades,9 and it’s anyone’s guess as to how those ties may have slowed down the path to truth and influenced public health policy. She’d been at the CDC since 1992; she was appointed director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) in February 2013. But earlier in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola.

This just goes to show the power of the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances. Public servants must choose the hard road of doing what is best for the public, not their former bosses and acquaintances.

Few have that kind of integrity, it seems, and this case is a perfect example of why the door between private industry and public health and regulatory agencies needs to be more closely monitored. This is not a new problem and is pervasive in Washington for other industries. Yet the U.S. Congress and Senate continually fail to pass legislation to address this glaring loophole that decimates public health.

Philadelphia Imposes Soda Tax and Other Bad News for Big Soda

This scandal comes on the heels of a number of blows against the soda industry. Aside from WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan announcing soda is a key contributor to child obesity and suggesting restrictions on sugary beverages, Philadelphia recently decided to implement a soda tax to cut consumption.

Mexico imposed a soda tax in 2014, and San Francisco requires ads for sugary drinks to include a health warning as of last year. Many cities around the world are also considering similar measures to restrict soda sales. However, the stance against sugar taken by WHO was perhaps considered one of the most serious. In a June 2015 email to Bowman, Malaspina expresses worry about negative publicity related to sugar-rich products and European soda tax plans.

Malaspina says WHO’s actions can have “significant negative consequences on a global basis,” and that “the threat to our business is serious.” He also notes that WHO officials “do not want to work with industry,” adding that, “something must be done.” In response to Malaspina’s request for suggestions on how to get an audience with WHO, Bowman replies that “someone with Gates or ‘Bloomberg people’ may have close connections that could open a door at WHO,” USRTK writes.

“She also suggests he try someone at PEPFAR program, a U.S. government-backed program that makes HIV/AIDS drugs available through the sub-Saharan Africa. She tells him that ‘WHO is key to the network.’ She writes that she ‘will be in touch about getting together.'”

Clearly, the soda industry is struggling to stay alive. But at what cost should they be allowed to promote their business? It’s equally clear that the price for their unrestricted success is disease and death of its consumers, which is why these kinds of backdoor dealings are so unpalatable.

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

Pepsi To Reintroduce Noxious & Dangerous Chemical Aspartame To Drinks – Aspartame Is Known To Have LEAST 92 Potential Side Effects

[Editor’s Note]

To Read More On The Disturbing Issues Regarding Aspartame Please Read:

Breakaway Guide To Aspartame

Pepsi
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
July 4, 2016

A year ago PepsiCo announced that it would be removing the controversial sweetener aspartame from its Diet Pepsi products, claiming that was the No. 1 request from customers. But now the company says it is putting the sweetener back in Diet Pepsi, allegedly because that’s what consumers want.

As reported by The Associated Press, aspartame-laced Diet Pepsi will be back on U.S. shelves soon after sales of the soft drink plummeted following the company’s reformulation. As AP noted further:

PepsiCo says it will offer “Diet Pepsi Classic Sweetener Blend” made with aspartame starting in September, in 12-ounce cans, 2-liter bottles and 20-ounce bottles. The move is intended to appease fans who don’t like the taste of the reformulated drink, which is made with the artificial sweetener sucralose.

PepsiCo Inc. did say, however, that the Diet Pepsi formula with sucralose – more commonly known by its brand name, Splenda – would remain the primary diet choice. Those cans will be silver, while “classic” Diet Pepsi with aspartame will come in a light blue can.

PepsiCo said because of the complaints it decided to switch formulas and remove the aspartame but the plan backfired, the company claims: Sales for Diet Pepsi fell 10.6 percent, according to an industry tracking trade magazine, Beverage Digest.

Some years ago Coca Cola tested ads defending aspartame and its safety. The company has also seen a decline in sales over the past year of 5.7 percent.

Part of the sales slump is that a) despite what these companies are hearing, more Americans are avoiding aspartame – and sugary soda altogether – because they are opting for healthier choices. In fact, sales have been slumping for several years now. We reported in March 2012 that, finally, the trend was going the right way and an increasing number of Americans were shunning sugary soft drinks, as indicated by falling sales.

We noted further that in all actuality, soda sales had already been dropping off for a number of years. But sales figures took a very dramatic hit in 2011 because millions more consumers were making smarter choices and putting healthier drinks in their bodies.

As for the dangers of aspartame, we have reported extensively on them as well:

Aspartame is converted by the body into a cancer-causing agent, formaldehyde:

Composed of three unique compounds, aspartame is a synergistically toxic chemical, meaning the sum of its individual parts is exponentially more toxic than each one by itself. And yet even in isolation, the three main constituents found in aspartame — aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol — are idiosyncratically toxic in their own right.

It can also cause obesity – even as a ‘diet’ substance – and metabolic syndrome:

Fake sweeteners, we noted, are generally seen as better alternatives to real sugar. But that is bogus as well. In fact, as the science becomes better known, more people are discovering that even sugar alternatives are responsible for weight gain and metabolic disorders like diabetes, when excessive amounts of “diet” sodas are drank.

In addition, many studies have indicated that chemical sweeteners like aspartame may even be more harmful that regular sugar because they lead to weight gain that is not tied to the intake of calories.

Aspartame was originally approved even though there was evidence that it was toxic:

Though it may be hard for you to believe, aspartame was not initially developed as an artificial sweetener. In fact, like other substances on the market, it was discovered by accident by scientists who were actually trying to develop an ulcer medication for G.D. Searle and Company (a Big Pharma absorbed by Monsanto in 1985).

After scientists found that the chemical was sweet, the company formally presented it to the Food and Drug Administration and it was eventually approved for commercial use.

The stuff is made from the feces of genetically modified E. coli bacteria:

Similar to the fermentation process, E. coli are modified with special genes that cause them to produce unnaturally high levels of a special enzyme that, as a byproduct, produces the phenylalanine needed for aspartame production.

It is also capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which could lead to permanent brain damage.

And now PepsiCo is putting it back into one of its products because the company believes that – and not overall slumping soda sales – is the reason why less of it is flying off store shelves.

Leaked Emails Prove Coca-Cola Was Paying for Propaganda Promoting Sugary Drinks

Coca Cola’s Spin Doctor Steps Down

coke-bottles-735-350

Source: NaturalSociety.com
By: Christina Sarich

Rhona Applebaum, a senior executive at Coca Cola, had been arranging to give donations amounting to $1.5 million to ‘charities’ that published propaganda telling people that sugary drinks have nothing to do with their weight problem, diabetes, and multiple other health issues associated with obesity.

Rhona Applebaum likely didn’t count on the trial (so clearly proving that Coca Cola is contributing to America’s obesity epidemic) being unveiled through her personal emails. Now she is taking ‘immediate retirement.’

In August of this year, The New York Times reported that Coca Cola had financial ties to the research group Global Energy Balance Network, which is made up of university researchers. The company provided the group with $1.5 million in research funding, $1 million of which went to the University of Colorado where group president, James O. Hill, is a professor.

Further investigations found that the beverage company helped pick the group’s leaders, draft its mission statement, and design its website. The research group argues that Americans are too fixated on calories and diet and should be more concerned about exercise – shifting focus away from Coca-Cola’s contribution to this nation’s ill health.

The emails reveal that Sense About Science, run by Simon Singh, had been given donations of £20,000. GEBN promotes the idea that lack of exercise, not sugary drinks and colas, is the primary cause of obesity.

Sense About Science published a report discounting one study showing that sugary drinks, such as those sold by Coca-Cola, are responsible for a whopping 184,000 deaths annually. Sense About Science also ‘corrected’ a journalist who was linking the beverage Coke to cancer. [1]

Though the University of Colorado has returned the $1 million after receiving criticism, Applebaum’s name continues to be tarnished. Many believe she helped to orchestrate the propaganda. [2]

Even Harvard has published studies showing that consuming sugary drinks like Coca Cola sodas are bad for your health, and contribute to the over $190 billion this country spends annually in fighting obesity-related health conditions. Companies like Coca-Cola also spend as much as $3.2 billion marketing these health-destroying drinks.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com