Now here's a shocker: Diet Coke Plus isn't nutritious, feds say

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


We hate to break it to you, but it looks like sodaisn't good for you after all.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the Coca-Cola Company to revise its labeling of Diet Coke Plus so that it doesn't mislead consumers into believing that the pop, a brew of chemicals mixed in with some vitamins and minerals, is healthy.

A letter posted on the FDA's Web site yesterday tells Coke that the soda is "misbranded" because only products that contain at least 10 percent more of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) or Daily Reference Value (DRV) for a given nutrient "than an appropriate reference food" can legally call themselves "plus." The Diet Coke Plus label doesn't name such a reference food, says the FDA. RDI refers to how much daily consumption of a particular nutrient is sufficient for healthy adults, and it's included in the DRVs on nutrition labels that base those values on caloric intake.
 
In the letter, dated Dec. 10, the FDA gave Coke 15 days to tell the agency how it plans to fix the violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which spells out the criteria according to which a company can make nutritional and health claims.

A spokesperson for the company, Scott Williamson, said in a statement that Coke would respond to the FDA early next month. "We take seriously the issues raised by the FDA in its letter," Williamson said. "This does not involve any health or safety issues, and we believe the label on Diet Coke Plus complies with FDA's policies and regulations."

The product's Web site claims that Diet Coke Plus, introduced last year, "provides 15 percent of your RDI for niacin (a B-vitamin) and vitamins B6 and B12, and 10 percent for zinc and magnesium."

The agency's warning letter is a notable commentary on the booming enhanced beverage industry. Many drinks — from water to coffee — are now dosed with vitamins and minerals, but the FDA doesn’t closely scrutinize their health claims, the Wall Street Journal notes.

In its letter, though, the FDA said it "does not consider it appropriate to fortify snack foods such as carbonated beverages."

So much for the "fortification" we were going to add to our soda water this afternoon.

Updated at 4:10 p.m. to clarify criteria for food products labeled "plus."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Image of Diet Coke Plus/The Coca-Cola Company

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe