Talk:Diet Pepsi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Soft Drinks WikiProject, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to all non-alcoholic beverages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Nutritional information
Why is U.S. nutritional information on this article? It's incredible ugly, and it seems overboard on detail for an encyclopedia article. I'm removing it — anyone disagree, please discuss. —Cleared as filed. 02:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Nutritional Information
Diet Pepsi's main component and marketing point is the nutritrional content/delta between Diet and non-Diet. It should be included with the listing Lord 666 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Lord 666
[edit] Confusion
I don't understand this: "Its current formula in the United States contains the artificial sweetener aspartame, but the current Canadian formulation contains both Aspartame (124mg/355ml) and Acesulfame Potassium (32mg/355ml). Pepsi does not list Aspartame/Nutrasweet content on its United States labeling, but it is assumed to be similar to Canadian version." First it says it contains aspartame, then says it doesn't list it but it is assuemed to be in it. Is it refering to the acesulfame potassium? The can I'm drinking now lists aspartame on the can. Squad51 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Confusion
Updated for clarity. Lord 666 07:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Lord 666
[edit] Those new ads
Apparently like 51% of people prefer diet pepsi over diet coke. Honest advertising for its own sake is a relative rarity, and probably noteworthy.
[edit] Health Concerns
RE: >The Health Concerns section about aspartame is seriously biased. It makes it sound like drinking a diet pepsi is no different than smoking a cigarette.< ... or going duck hunting with the vice president...
Donald Rumsfeld, is that you? ;-)
But ... seriously...
RE: >The Health Concerns section about aspartame is seriously biased. It makes it sound like drinking a diet pepsi is no different than smoking a cigarette.<
I'm not clear on why you think the health concerns section of this article is biased. It simply and briefly points out the primary health concerns related to Aspartame, and directs anyone who is interested in, or questions the accuracy of this information, to a more detailed article called "Aspartame controversy". Your analogy does not effectively emphasize any bias in the article - in one case (with the cigarette) the user is taking in a known (or suspected) carcinogen through the lungs, and in the other case (with diet Pepsi) the user is taking in a known (or suspected) carcinogen through the stomach and/or intestinal tract. So there is a difference - but primarily in method of consumption of the carcinogen, and type/number of carcinogen(s) being ingested. There is no "bias" in this section of the article because it does not go into any level of detail that could be considered biased, as I have done here for example/emphasis. The article does not imply that occasionally drinking a diet Pepsi will give you cancer, any more than occasionally having a cigarette will necessarily give you cancer. But regular long term consumption of either product could certainly increase your chances of developing certain forms of cancer. I would certainly argue that the method of regular consumption (through the lungs) of the cigarette smoke is a bigger health concern than is the regular consumption of diet Pepsi. I would also posit that because nicotine is arguably a more addictive substance than caffeine, that the cigarette smoker is at a higher risk of their use becoming habit-forming than is the diet Pepsi drinker. The cigarette smoker is also likely taking in way more other toxic substances into their body than is the diet Pepsi drinker. However, this article makes no such claims, it just simply points out the facts relating to the health concerns relating to Aspartame in a brief, matter-of-fact way, and then moves on. The information presented is not biased, it is fact. Do you work for Pepsico by any chance? Anyway, based on what I've read here, if the other minor concerns have been addressed, I vote to remove the NPOV flag from this article. I see no controversy here that is not already sufficiently addressed in the other main article that is referenced: "Aspartame controversy". Garth of the Forest 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the section is overly biased because it only presents facts supporting one side of a controversial issue. Previously some balancing statements were included, and the more balanced version was in place when Garth of the Forest commented above. However, these were subsequently removed by Latitude0116, whose edits have consistently represented the anti-aspartame POV. The current version does not appear to reflect consensus, merely inattention. Since this has not been actively discussed for several months, I am changing the article now rather than waiting for discussion, but I am certainly open to other opinions on NPOV here.
I think the introduction to the aspartame controversy article is much more balanced, probably due to the number of editors who have actively worked on it. Therefore I am using it to replace the existing information on aspartame. Here is the old version in its entirety:
Diet Pepsi contains the artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to cancer[1] in laboratory rats. Aspartame has also been shown to cause brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma[2]. One of the chemicals produced by aspartame after ingestion is methanol, which is also found in antifreeze[3][4].
I also added information about several other possible health concerns.
