{"id":15013,"date":"2009-06-13T10:56:55","date_gmt":"2009-06-13T16:56:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=15013"},"modified":"2009-06-13T10:57:02","modified_gmt":"2009-06-13T16:57:02","slug":"more-on-the-coke-zero-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2009\/06\/13\/more-on-the-coke-zero-story.html","title":{"rendered":"More on the Coke Zero story"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

As speculated earlier, the Venezuela ban kerfuffle<\/a> is (on the surface, at least) about the artificial sweeteners used in Coke Zero.<\/a> <\/p>\n

\n

Venezuela’s Health Ministry said Friday it banned sales of Coca-Cola Zero because the company failed to declare that the no-calorie soft drink uses an artificial sweetener allegedly harmful to health.<\/p>\n

Health officials said tests show the cola contains sodium cyclamate. Coca-Cola Co. disputes that, saying the product sold in Venezuela uses different artificial sweeteners, Acesulfame-K and Aspartame.<\/p>\n

Cyclamate is not prohibited in Venezuela. But the ministry said the company failed to report sodium cyclamate as an ingredient in Coca-Cola Zero when it received its initial health permit to begin selling the drink in April.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It’s not clear — especially since it is legal in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America, why Coke would lie about using Cyclamate. My suspicion is:<\/p>\n