From the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

http://cspinet.org/new/200605111.html

Quote from the article:

“Pretending that soda made with high fructose corn syrup is ‘all natural,’ is just plain old deception,” said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. “High fructose corn syrup isn’t something you could cook up from a bushel of corn in your kitchen, unless you happen to be equipped with centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, and buckets of enzymes.”

This could be a major victory for Cane Sugar in soda, as CS is left with two alternatives from this case - Pull all of the new ads, packaging, and formula that they spent big big bucks on *OR* change the product to comply with their claim, using real sugar!!

I firmly disagree with the article's stance that HFCS doesn't pose health threats, as do other sources on the web that state that HFCS (unlike sugar) is linked to increases in diabetes, obesity, and other health problems. However, this point doesn't matter, as they still state that it isn't "Natural".

I recommend they put more resources into taking on Splenda's slogan "Made from real sugar.", rather than this.

Besides, one sip of the new 7up and you can immediately tell it's not "all natural".

Way to go, CSPI.

Good thing, but even sucrose-sweetened soda still wouldn't be all natural. It still has to be extracted from beets or sugar cane...

It is my understanding that the extraction process is less involved for sucrose, that is has been around for a long time, and it doesn't make drastic changes to the original product. Sugar cane is also not considered a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) like corn, so the natural food stores shy away from it for that reason. I would imagine that even if they change the sweetener, they still probably wouldn't sell 7Up at a natural food store.

By the same reasoning, the Splenda slogan should be struck down, as the end product is so far modified from the original, that there is no reason to make the statement. It is an industrial sweetener, just like any other artificial sweetener.

Hansen's been calling their sodas Natural, but do they use HFCS? It is different than plain corn syrup I understand.

It's a stretch to call Coca Cola "Classic" when it used sugar for so many years.

[ 05-12-2006, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Hacksaw ]

"all-natural" is defined by federal law. Of course, its a meaningless term, since asbestos, dog vomit, cyanide, and crude oil are all "natural" products.

The CSPI is a part of Ralph Nader's extremist political network. Nothing it does can be remotely described as either "science" or as being in the "public interest". It is a tiny group of old-hippie hate-filled extremist animal right wackos and communists who want to take consumer choice away from you. Hopefully the judge they draw will fine the ultra-wealthy hypocrites that make up this group a large amount for frivilious fileing.

The CSPI opposes not only HFCS, but refined white sugar as well. It does not want you to have the consumer choice to live life the way you want to.

HFCS is made from corn. Corn grows out of the ground. Its a plant. How much more "natural" can you get?

Plain corn syrup is not sweet enough, so HFCS has to be used in place of real sugar. Even plain corn syrup goes through quite a bit of industrial processing, but the very high concentration of Fructose is what makes HFCS "work" as a sweetener that can replace sugar. It is also what poses the health risk when over-consumed.

This is actually the first time I've ever come across CSPI, but apparently it isn't as credible as it might seem. However, despite this, there are numerous other places that have done studies on the HFCS / Sugar argument.

I agree that Coke "Classic" should only be printed on the KP Coke bottles and cans, as that is what they actually are.

[ 05-13-2006, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Zap ]

I just read the full press release. IMO what a bunch of crap. I agree with SamC's above post. This is a big waste of time and money! Who will pay for this if the suit goes to court, in the long run. That's right the good customers of CS. What a joke.

[ 05-13-2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Mr Zabe ]

I would think that this (like many other corporate matters) will be settled out of court, with little to no change in prices. The result will be a notice, or something of the sort, disclaiming the 100% natural claim. So, probably not a whole lot of consequence one way or the other.

On that note, I am still interested to try this new reformulation and see how it tastes, if I can ever find a small package of it.

Plenty of 4 pack cans around here, going for around 79¢.