Talk:Diet Pepsi

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)Reply

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 666Reply

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)Reply

Updated for clarity. Lord 666 07:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Lord 666Reply

The August 23 episode of AMC's TV series Mad Men hinted that Diet Pepsi's original name was "Patio." I wonder if that's true. If so, it would be worth mentioning. Mad Thinker 16:39, 26 August 2009

Apparently like 51% of people prefer diet pepsi over diet coke. Honest advertising for its own sake is a relative rarity, and probably noteworthy.

ASPARTAME was bullied through by Donald Rumsfeld and the FDA rubber stamped it. This product was a political favor for some very high ups that wanted to increase profits for their bottom lines, nevermind the fact it has been PROVEN to cause cancer in lab rats. This product was blocked numerous times from gaining entry into the food chain by well intentioned people who knew its dangers, but Donald Rumsfeld had other plans. ASPARTAME= POISON, CANCER, other medical problems such as Brain Lesions. AVOID....AVOID....AVOID. (`71.116.19.235 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC))Reply

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)Reply

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.

Jadine (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I see at this point is bias the other way, where the government propaganda scientists are given undue weight. The article doesn't seem to be balanced, and seems to favor politically correct sources.66.110.251.145 (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article should rely on the aspartame article to describe aspartame's properties. While there are some issues for people with certain conditions, there is almost certainly no increase in incidence of brain cancer. 68.50.211.111 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand why Diet Pepsi is supposed to market to women, and Pepsi Max to men. It doesn't make any sense to me, does anybody have some suggestions?

Laisinteresting (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Pepsi shift more units that way. Stub Mandrel (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, This article meets Wikipedia's notability standards; however the version which exists at present falls short of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines outlined in the manual of style. Looking to bring it up to a level of quality fit for Wikipedia, I've drafted up a proposed revision here in my user sandbox that I'd like others to take a look at. The elements addressed include:

1. The sources currently in place are largely not in line with WP:RS. Out of four references, one is a link to a YouTube video (not considered RS), another is a broken link to an obscure website (akamaitech.net) and a third (rocw.raifoundation) is a link which links to a site containing malware. The proposed draft cites 41 reliable sources. The majority of these are secondary sources, such as The New York Times; Primary sources are used sparingly, and only in instances where appropriate.

2. The current article is written in a U.S.-centric perspective. While Diet Pepsi was invented in the U.S., the existing Formula section (which could be more aptly titled "Composition") contains out-of-date information on only Canada and U.S. versions, and no reliable sources are cited. The proposed draft clarifies the fact that Diet Pepsi (Pepsi Light in some countries) has slight differences in its ingredient makeup in different countries, and backs up this information by citing reliable sources. It also provides a historical description of how the ingredients have changed (and what prompted those changes) since the invention of the beverage (and up through present day).

3. The Advertising section previously consisted of a jumble of ad campaigns--some of which were notable and others which were not notable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The article also does not cite any reliable sources in this section. This edit made about a month ago was helpful in parsing out some of the non-notable content from this section. The proposed draft builds on this approach, describing only campaigns which were notable enough to be written about in WP:RS.

Note that the proposed update does not contain any images, since those can not be hosted in a user sandbox. The intention is to--with input from others--first bring the text of this article up to Wikipedia's content standards, and then return here to the Talk page to discuss which pictures would be an appropriate fit. In order to best uphold Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, it is also important to mention that the broader parent company under which Diet Pepsi is owned, PepsiCo, is a client of my employer. I don't think this has gotten in the way of writing in a neutral manner consistent with the manual of style, but still feel it is best to state this upfront. This proposed update is written with attention to WP:NPOV and WP:RS; however at this stage, adequate peer review and input from other editors on this proposed draft would be of help. Can others weigh in here in regards to the readiness of this proposed update to the Diet Pepsi article? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Following input from the Wikiproject Food and Drink (initial post here; follow-up and consensus here), the proposed update referred to above has since been implemented into this article. Wikipedia is always a work in progress, so for those coming across this now or in the future, continued input is helpful and welcome. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems as if the Diet Pepsi logo is out of date. Check out Pepsi's logo on it's Wikipedia page. See the difference? Please change this.209.213.155.25 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right, User 209.213.155.25! Diet Pepsi got their current logo in 2010. It's the regular Pepsi smile and it has been in use for almost four years. I'm surrprised that Wikipedia didn't update the photo of the logo yet. The current logo needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia soon along with the rest of the other Diet Pepsi logo used through the years! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Jacob ChesleyReply

Due to my previous commet above, I am going to put a history of Diet Pepsi's logos throughout its history. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Jacob ChesleyReply

• 1st logo:Diet Pepsi was introduced in 1965 as Diet Pepsi Cola. This logo had plain texting on the Pepsi swirls that would be introduced to regular Pepsi in 1973.

• 2nd logo:In 1968, the Cola name was dropped, light blue was added to the right of the logo, and the texting was changed.

3rd logo:In 1975, the logo was changed and the swirl globe was removed. The logo was changed into a circle with one red and two blue waves. The texting was also changed to lower case lettering.

4th logo:In 1986, the texting was changed back to uppercase lettering. In fact, the texing on this Diet Pepsi logo would be the same texting that regular Pepsi would get the following year. The swirls came back and they look simalar to the 1991-late 2008 globe.

5th logo:In 1991, the text was italicized and the globe was moved to the top of the logo. The texting was sideways on cans and bottles.

6th logo:In late 1993 or early 1994, the 1991 logo was jazzed up and the logo was changed so that the logo was going to the upper right of the can or bottle. This might just be a variation of the 1991 logo and not a different logo itself.

7th logo:In 1997, the word "Diet" was changed to lowwer case and is colored red. The Pepsi Globe was made more 3D.

8th logo:In 2002, the Pepsi Globe was put on a light blue bubbly backround. The word "Diet" from the 1997 logo was kept intact and was put on the top of the globe.

9th logo:In 2007, the word "Diet" changed typeface and the "D" was changed to lowwer case. The logo was also moved onto a silver or grey backround, the the light blue backround was also still in use on this logo. This was the shortest lived Diet Pepsi logo, it was only on store shelfs for only about a year and a half. This logo can still be seen on some soda machines.

10th logo:Already on the page and of need of an update!

11th logo:In 2010, the regular Pepsi smile replaced the Diet Pepsi grin after Pepsi decided to just have one logo on their Pepsi soft drinks.

Could someone please answer my request soon!? I'd really like that and I hate being ignored for a long period of time! --24.147.1.197 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Jacob ChesleyReply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Diet Pepsi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418062151/http://www.refreshyourclub.cz:80/ to http://www.refreshyourclub.cz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110528181630/http://ar.pepsimundo.com:80/productos/pepsi-light/ to http://ar.pepsimundo.com/productos/pepsi-light/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324014233/http://www.pepsimax.gr/site/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=61&Itemid=31 to http://www.pepsimax.gr/site/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=61&Itemid=31
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110417002219/http://www.pepsicoturkey.com:80/brands/pepsi/ to http://www.pepsicoturkey.com/brands/pepsi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722154541/http://www.pepsico.com.br/brands/brands-pepsi.html to http://www.pepsico.com.br/brands/brands-pepsi.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011072952/http://www.beverage-digest.com/pdf/top-10_2010.pdf to http://www.beverage-digest.com/pdf/top-10_2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219070333/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/diet-pepsi-quietly-changes-sweetener to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/diet-pepsi-quietly-changes-sweetener
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425231143/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/09_17/b4128032006687_page_3.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_17/b4128032006687_page_3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

As of 2/20/2018. The Diet Pepsi web-site claims the formula contains aspartame as the major sweetener (listed before the sucralose in USA labels (where ingredients must be listed in order of highest to lowest %) (but note that sucralose is a much stonger flavoring)). The reversion back to the aspartame formula was not, despite what this article claims, caused by a few complaints on their website. Diet soda sales - as an industry - have been in serious decline for years. Pepsi made the (stupid, stupid) decision to accede to the anti-aspartame hand-wringers (no judgement me) and pull aspartame in the hope of improving sales. It did the opposite; it steepened the decline. Their initial response seems to have been the reintroduction of the aspartame formula (we can't really determine based on the label whether the formula is the old one, or not - just that the taste is the "classic taste"). By the end of 2017, the decision had been made to stop producing (for the USA) the new aspartame free formula and go with aspartame. As of 2/20/2018 "Classic Diet Pepsi" is off the shelves at all the Wal-Marts and grocery stores in my area (Cleveland, OH) - but the space has been left empty. The bottles had a light-blue and white label (as opposed to the "aspartame free" silver labels), but based on the picture on their website, the label going forward will be silver. What a mess, apparently they made the (stupid, stupid) decision to run out current inventory before shipping the new inventory. Since the current formula isn't selling, their choice seems highly questionable. For the record I have been a Diet Pepsi drinker for decades, the aspartame-free formula has an OK taste to me. BUT, it also causes a delayed aftertaste which is somewhere between sour and bitter and is quite objectionable. While this is anecdotal, I arrived at it after drinking the stuff for several months and finally realizing it to be the cause of the unpleasant effect I was experiencing. AFTER I recognized it as the probable culprit, I went online and found that others shared my experience. While this could be confirmation bias, I believe it to be based on real physics (biology, genetics?, my microbiome?). Pepsico probably knows (or should have known) what this phenomenon was and its causes, but they're not likely to say, are they? Note also that sucralose is a chlorinated sugar, and while little of it is metabolized, it is wise to avoid the ingestion of ANY chlorinated organics if it can be helped. Pepsico has so blundered here, I doubt if the reformulation fiasco is over, especially with Coca Cola's introduction of the new flavored Coke...174.130.76.236 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply