The Definition of the Word "Plus": Coca Cola and the FDA

[mkrishnan]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/12/22/daily50.html

The Food and Drug Administration has warned The Coca-Cola Co. that one of its products has a misleading nutritional label.

Diet Coke Plus, the no-calorie soft drink labeled as including vitamins and minerals, has come under fire from federal health regulators because they say the drink fails to meet the standard for including the word “plus.”

Diet Coke Plus, the FDA wrote in a letter to Coke officials is “misbranded … because the product makes a nutrient content claim but does not meet the criteria to make the claim.”

The drink contains added vitamins and nutrients, including 15 percent of the FDA-recommended daily allowance of vitamin B12 and 10 percent of magnesium.

Roberta Wagner, director of the office of compliance at the Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition wrote in the letter the FDA does not consider it “appropriate to fortify snack foods such as carbonated beverages.”

In other news, the FCC has sent Apple a letter asking them to desist use of the term "iTunes Plus" because they do not consider it "appropriate to use digital rights management for online music sales."

 

[GSMiller]

I see no problem with the branding, because if anyone is using Diet Coke Plus as their main source for vitamins and minerals, they're beyond help.

 

[iGuardian]

Since when has the FDA done something in the people's interest?

FDA: Cracking down on misused branding, and turning a blind eye to GMO foods and Monsanto.

 

[Abstract]

The "+" stands for "plus-sized", which means your ass will grow if you drink too much of it. Sounds accurate to me.

 

[irmongoose]

Too good, Abstract, too good!

So what exactly does a "warning" from the FDA entail? Is it like a "warning" from your college RA? Or is it like a "non-binding resolution" the Democrats were so fond of last year?


irmongoose

 

[dmw007]

I see no problem with the branding, because if anyone is using Diet Coke Plus as their main source for vitamins and minerals, they're beyond help.

Quite true!

Since when has the FDA done something in the people's interest?

FDA: Cracking down on misused branding, and turning a blind eye to GMO foods and Monsanto.

Good point...unfortunately.

The "+" stands for "plus-sized", which means your ass will grow if you drink too much of it. Sounds accurate to me.

Even better!

 

[djellison]

The "+" stands for "plus-sized", which means your ass will grow if you drink too much of it. Sounds accurate to me.

Given that Diet Coke has about the same number of calories, carbs and fat as, err, a vacuum - you're a bit wide of the mark.

 

[Mr. Giver '94]

The "+" stands for "plus-sized", which means your ass will grow if you drink too much of it. Sounds accurate to me.

LOL...... exactly.....sad but true.... Actually most people who buy this thinking it is a source for vitamins and minerals don't need to add any more plus to their size.

 

[iCantwait]

FDA: Cracking down on misused branding, and turning a blind eye to GMO foods and Monsanto.

whats wrong with GMO foods and Monsanto??


Frikking hippy

 

[iGuardian]

whats wrong with GMO foods and Monsanto??


Frikking hippy

Studies proved that they cause cancer in Rats. There's no benefit in them, they don't make more food, they certainly don't make the food healthier, and they make the seeds of the plants sterile to force farmers to buy a new set of seeds each year.

Have you ever seen the future of food?

 

[mkrishnan]

Studies proved that they cause cancer in Rats.

Can you provide any links to peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate this?

 

[Abstract]

^^^Can you use Google?

 

[mkrishnan]

^^^Can you use Google?

I can... but the only study of which I'm aware that claimed to demonstrate a specific link between GMO consumption and tumor formation was a rodent study involving GMO potatoes out of Russia. This one generated a lot of attention because it was initially suppressed by the Russian gov't and later leaked. However, even Greenpeace called it flawed methodologically, and it certainly was not subjected to peer review (not that Google is a particularly good way of finding peer reviewed studies anyway).

On Pubmed, I have not been able to find any such studies.