New Coke Labels Show How Many Empty Calories You're Drinking
Coca-Cola is getting ready to roll out new labels that will prominently display the calorie count for each bottle or can. "Now more than ever, people expect facts about the products they consume to be both readily available and visible," said CEO Muhtar Kent. What facts won't be on those labels? Any information about where the calories come from, like, say, high fructose corn syrup, is relegated to its traditional spot in the Nutrition Facts box. But with most non-diet sodas, the math is pretty easy: If the label says 100 calories, that's pretty much 100 calories of sugar or corn syrup.
According to Coke's Chief Scientific & Regulatory Officer, Dr. Rhona Applebaum, the company has "been a leader in driving and promoting efforts to advance fact-based nutrition labeling. ... Our new product labels aim to help people better balance their energy intake, as variety, moderation and regular physical activity are the keys to effective weight management."
Skeptics, however, don't see any real value in labeling products that have minimal nutritional value to begin with. "It's a useful step," Michael Jacobson of Center for Science in the Public Interest told USA Today. "But listing calories on the front of a Coke is like putting lipstick on a pig. Coca-Cola is basically ... liquid candy."
Others suggest that Coke may be attempting to get out in front of potential taxation of sweetened beverages — something that Kent earlier likened to the policies of the former Soviet Union. Jacobson, though, sees one positive outcome: with calorie counts so easy to see, more consumers may decide to choose one of Coke's zero-calorie products, instead of the sweetened ones.
Coke makes calorie information more prominent - USATODAY.com
Previously: Coke CEO: Soda Taxes Are Communist Conspiracy To Sap Our Precious Bodily Fluids
(Photo: Coca-Cola)
Post a comment
Comments:
I don't know why, but whenever I see "no artificial flavors" and "high fructose corn syrup" combined on the same label it just makes me cringe.
The argument can be made that if you can taste something the flavor is REAL, therefor there can be no "artificial flavors". Imitation? Sure. It's sort of this BS work around between "all natural" and "artificial".
Either way, screw "XXX calories per serving". They need to list "serving" and "per bottle". How many people drink 1/3rd of a bottle and go "Whoa! I better stop. I just had my serving."
Don't you guys watch TV. HFCS is natural, made from corn.
@Preyfar:
It's not BS. Artificial flavoring has a very specific meaning. HFCS is a processed corn syrup, not a flavor.
But more importantly, if you're drinking Coke, do you really care about how "natural" it is? (Hint: it doesn't matter a bit, healthwise.)
I don't know, guys -- I see this as a positive move, but it seems like the article is almost complaining.
Now, I'm not entirely sure whether Coke's move is useful to the consumer -- how much harder is it to look at the label on the back? (To me, the bigger help would be to stop claiming that a bottle of Coke holds two servings...)
But if this helps...great.
i do notice that somehow that bottle of coke has 8 servings in it; so wouldn't the drinking the entire bottle (like everyone does) be 800 claories?
why can't they just make one serving size the amount that is in one package?
@noinamg: Because they are trying to "trick" the consumer (in my opinion) into thinking they are actually drinking 100 calories or only 40g of sugar in the entire bottle. I think its a really shady practice and undermines the whole point of labeling the nutrition.
I'm going to make something that is 1000 calories per bottle, but I'm going to say there's 10 calories per serving and 100 servings in the bottle...I'll be rich!
I don't care if it says a million calories I'm still going to drink 6 cans of Coke a day. I'm 40 years old and going to die from something so I might as well choose what I want to die from. I've never once thought OMG no Coke for me, too many calories. On a side note I already have a disease and have trouble keeping my weight up anyways.
@TheOtherBob: I don't see the problem either. IMO, the fact that it's high in calories is way more important than whether it contains HFCS or not.
It's like complaining poison is just labeled "poison" instead of "evil poison".
@noinamg: I think the label is for a 2-liter bottle. I don't know about you, but I don't know many people who drink a 2-liter bottle in a single sitting.
@noinamg: I'm pretty sure that bottle is part of a 6 or 8 pack. I've never seen a bottle that said it has 8 servings in it.
Be wary of the terms "natural" and "artificial" flavour.
Many flavours in food products are added as a specific chemical that reproduces the "high note" of a taste. For example, the chemical that gives banana flavour it's distinctive taste can be either derived from a natural source via processing or created from scratch. By deriving it from a natural source it is deemed a natural flavour. If it was cooked up in a lab it is an artificial flavour, even if both are chemically the same thing. In fact, there are cases where the "natural" flavour is worse since it may also contain unwanted byproducts of the processing.
Ideally, if you want a pure product, you would see it without the words natural or artificial flavouring in the ingredient list.
Two minor points to my commentary: 1 - I don't care myself that much where the flavour comes from, just wanted to put some light on this, and 2 - yes, we Canadians spell flavour like colour and neighbour.
@noinamg: I think that must be a 2L bottle. The 12 oz. cans usually say they contain one serving, and the 20 oz. bottles usually say 2.5 servings. Which isn't realistic either, but it's more realistic than when they assumed 2 servings in a 12 oz. can.
"with calorie counts so easy to see, more consumers may decide to choose one of Coke's zero-calorie products, instead of the sweetened ones."
Yes, because the questionable effects of artificial sweeteners are certainly the healthier choice.
It's a 2 liter bottle. 1 "Serving" is 8 ounces.
A "can" of Coke (12 oz.) has 150 calories.
@LastVigilante: Actually, they probably are. The negative effects of consuming too many calories, especially in the form of sugar, are pretty well established. The negative effects of artificial sweeteners are mostly speculation and urban legend.
That label is like 1 inch from the nutrition facts. Putting calorie counts on menu boards where you can not readily see the nutrition facts makes sense to me, but if people are going to ignore the nutrition facts, I would think they would tune out that little label as well.
Sugar and HFCS are both sourced from nature and highly refined. Neither are laboratory creations -- they aren't artificial or unnatural. And from a nutritional standpoint they're the same -- neither is particular bad or good for you. They are both, as it was so eloquently put, empty calories.
It certainly makes sense that people would prefer the taste of one over the other, but to argue that one is unnatural and worse for you is uneducated at best and intentionally dishonest at worst.
@Preyfar: Taking the 20 oz as an example, if you can't multiply by 2.5, you probably don't have a job that's terribly demanding.
@Orv: The negative effects of artificial sweeteners are mostly speculation and urban legend.
Except for those of us who have experienced vomiting or migraines triggered by certain artificial sweeteners.
I drink 1 or 2 20-oz sodas a month. As long as I keep walking a mile a day, I'll take the empty sugar calories over the illness.
@Orv: 8oz is usually a serving size of a drink. I think 12oz is a can serving size because you can't close a clan after you open it. You have to finish the whole thing in one serving.
Though the Arizona tea cans say 3 servings I think so whatever.
@ohnoes: I'm not saying the basic math is hard, but the average consumer still just looks at the calories and goes by that, NOT by serving.
@maddypilar: Well... derived from natural sources, anyways. Refined sugar is just as processed as HCFS, and healthwise theres not really much of a difference. But somehow, I think I prefer the taste of sugar.
@LastVigilante: Well, the health effects of artificial sweeteners can't be precisely determined, but scientific research is somewhat ambiguous.
On the other hand, the extremely negative effects of processed sugars is very well documented, so you're still better off with the artificial stuff. If you're not getting migraines and vomiting that is.
@diasdiem: Have you seen the nutrition info on a bag of extra butter popcorn? 2.5 servings, working out to something like a total of 300-360 calories per bag. Tasty, filling, healthy, and less than $.25 per bag. Microwave popcorn is what I usually have for lunch at work, it is not bad for you, like, at all.
@SexCpotatoes: Isn't microwave popcorn butter one of the most horrific things to introduce your body to?
@Orv: The 20oz bottles also list for the entire bottle. Two columns, one for the "dubious" 8oz serving, one for the bottle.
I was in the foreign food aisle in Wegmans recently, and apparently they're now selling bottles of Mexican coke, but they're hella expensive; good thing I still have my stockpile of Pepsi/Mountain Dew Throwback. Getting slightly off-topic, those new 2 liters of Coke shaped like the 20 oz bottles freak me the heck out.
@bloggerX: If your referring to the label, it says "No artificial flavors. No preservatives added." It's neither a flavoring nor a preservative.
a little off topic but
best way to reduce calories in a drink or any food product, decrease the serving size then on the front of the package of bacon wrapped meatloaf write something like "ONLY 5 CALORIES!!!" then in the back in 1 point font you put serving size, 1 gram
how many times have you seen this, you see a company come out with a "healthier" version of a meal that you will have to eat 2 packages to get full because there so small and the package says that it gives 2 or even 4 servings (yea right out of a box that contains like 130 grams of food )
@Kyattsuai: Sams Club has the Mexican coke now, but too pricey at $18 for 24 12oz bottles. I still have my stockpile of Pepsi/Mt Dew Throwback as well, but dwindling fast. Luckily, a response from Pepsi tells me that Throwback is being released again around December so we can restock.
@levenhopper: During the summer here in NYC I can go through a 2-liter bottle of seltzer water, and that's why I drink seltzer water and not any coke/pepsi so that I don't all that other stuff with the bubbles (I like my fizz).
@nybiker: I should mention that it would take me the time in the evening during my dinner and while watching some tv afterwards.
Do empty calories actually exist?
"A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, a latte or an ice-cold Coke. Cola calories are not uniquely "empty." They are not bleak, hollow shells of calories, staging tiny productions of "Waiting for Godot" in your love handles. A calorie is a calorie."
[reason.com]
Would anyone care to refute that?
@SexCpotatoes: My point is, why divide the servings like that? A 20 oz. bottle of soda is "100 calories per serving, 2.5 servings per bottle." Who the hell is going to drink a third of a bottle of soda? Just like who the hell will eat only part of a bag of popcorn (unless they're sharing with someone)? Just tell us how many calories are in the whole thing.
@maddypilar: High Fructose Coal Slurry?
I recently saw a documentary called 'King Corn' where they try to make HFCS in the kitchen. I think there were seventeen steps and they had to add sulfuric acid (and the tears of a baby, IIRC).
@Kyattsuai: I find it mildly hilarious that in the US Coke made with real sugar is some sort of holy grail, and yet I live in a country where Coke is made with sugar and I hate it. Sugar Coke leaves this awful syrupy aftertaste and coating in your mouth. Coke Zero is pretty much perfect (yes, I will probably die of artificial sweetener caused cancer...butbutbut zero calories!).
"What facts won't be on those labels? Any information about where the calories come from..."
Aren't the ingredients listed on the label? Doesn't that tell you where the calories come from?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here (despite how it may sound). I've been living in Japan for the last 20 years and I don't know what is on the listings of American products anymore.
@MooseOfReason: I think "empty calories" are considered those coming from food with no other nutritional value (other than the energy in the form of calories). You get calories from everything, but you also get nutrients (vitamins, minerals, fiber) that come along for the ride.
This is purely a marketing tool and not an informative tool. This information is already on the Nutrition Facts on the label...it's pretty straightforward to read. Furthermore, this probably serves to use "100 calories" (per serving) as a selling point for the item in a semi-misleading way. One example on many 20oz bottles of pop, they list each serving as being 8oz. So they advertise "100 calories" per serving x 2.5 = 250 actual calories.
@MooseOfReason: A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. But ShariC is entire correct -- an "empty calorie" is a calorie with no otter benefit than it in itself being a calorie.
An empty calorie is like an empty bus, it's fuel burnt with no purpose.
@Kyattsuai: Not all Mexican Coca Cola is made with sugar so still check the label. When I bought a couple bottles the other day as part of my take away order from the local Taqueria I was shocked to see the sonora, mexico bottling company is using HFCS.
I thought HFCS was artificial...