NationStates Jolt Archive

This is new. My can of Coke today has a Nutrition Facts label. So let's see what nutrition is in a can of my favourite cola.
Per 1 can (355 mL) .. % Daily Value
Calories: 160
Fat: 0g .. 0%
Sodium: 40 mg .. 2%
Carbohydrates: 42g .. 14%
(Sugars: 42g)
Protein: 0g

Not a significant source of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, fibre, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium or iron.
So basically ... a waste of a label! ;)

(I can't believe someone went to all the bother to do this!)

This is new. My can of Coke today has a Nutrition Facts label.
Where do you live?

So basically ... a waste of a label! ;)
No, not really.

So basically ... a waste of a drink.

Ahhh, Coca-Cola. The nectar of the Gods!

Root Beer is better.

Where do you live?
I live in Edmonton, Alberta in Canada.

Ahhh, Coca-Cola. The nectar of the Gods!
Well, ambrosia *was* said to be inedible for consumption by Man. ;)

Funny that it misses phosphoric acid off that list - you can clean coins with coke :D

Your first coke can with nutrition info? :confused:

I've always had nutrition info on my coke (and any other soft drinks you can think of) cans.

Well, ambrosia *was* said to be inedible for consumption by Man. ;)

Being a Red Sox fan, I am no "mere" mortal.

Being a Red Sox fan, I am no "mere" mortal.
Any fan whose team takes 86 years to win the World Series is nor more deific than a squirrel that's been run over by a 1983 Honda Civic Hatchback.





(jest jokin, jest jokin, It's thirty times better to have the Sox win the series than to have the Yankees...of course, that's not saying much...)

Your first coke can with nutrition info? :confused:

I've always had nutrition info on my coke (and any other soft drinks you can think of) cans.
Come to realize it, I've always had one as well...

Any fan whose team takes 86 years to win the World Series is nor more deific than a squirrel that's been run over by a 1983 Honda Civic Hatchback.

Good one. Should've gone with an '86 Honda, though. (Bill Buckner)

Good one. Should've gone with an '86 Honda, though. (Bill Buckner)
I can't believe I didn't think of that....that's great.

This is new. My can of Coke today has a Nutrition Facts label. So let's see what nutrition is in a can of my favourite cola.

So basically ... a waste of a label! ;)

(I can't believe someone went to all the bother to do this!)

I completely agree, Coke is garbage and you don't need a label to tell you that.

Root Beer is better.

It's next to impossible to get over here :(

This is new. My can of Coke today has a Nutrition Facts label. So let's see what nutrition is in a can of my favourite cola.

So basically ... a waste of a label! ;)

(I can't believe someone went to all the bother to do this!)

You think that's bad?
The same company puts this label on Disani water:
Calories 0
Total Fat 0g
Sodium 0mg
Total Carb 0g
Sugars 0g
Protien 0g

You think that's bad?
The same company puts this label on Disani water:Calories 0
Total Fat 0g
Sodium 0mg
Total Carb 0g
Sugars 0g
Protien 0g

Haha! I concede... that is way more a waste of a label.

You think that's bad?
The same company puts this label on Disani water:
It should have also said this:

Bromates: 6 times legal amount.

Your first coke can with nutrition info? :confused:

I've always had nutrition info on my coke (and any other soft drinks you can think of) cans.
I have not seen them until now. I have my old Coke cans sitting here and none with a label.

You think that's bad?
The same company puts this label on Disani water:
they should add:

carconogenic material: some

I live in Edmonton, Alberta in Canada.
Canada is pretty strict about that stuff too...

I have not seen them until now. I have my old Coke cans sitting here and none with a label.
That is j ust weird. Does it also have something listing ingredients?

That is just weird. Does it also have something listing ingredients?
Oh yes, the old cans have ingredients listed.

This is new. My can of Coke today has a Nutrition Facts label. So let's see what nutrition is in a can of my favourite cola.

So basically ... a waste of a label! ;)

(I can't believe someone went to all the bother to do this!)


well it could say:
Has caused cancer in laboratory animals.

You think that's bad?
The same company puts this label on Disani water:

I thought that it was banned :confused:

I thought that it was banned :confused:
It is. It's also called Dansani

I thought that it was banned :confused:
it was withdrawn in the UK, but i think they still sell it elsewhere

i doubt they make it worldwide from a tap in england

it was withdrawn in the UK, but i think they still sell it elsewhere

i doubt they make it worldwide from a tap in england

I bet they tried though.

probably

it was withdrawn in the UK, but i think they still sell it elsewhere

i doubt they make it worldwide from a tap in england
They sell it in the US still, and it's still "purified" Chicago city water.

They sell it in the US still, and it's still "purified" Chicago city water.
i dont think they even pretended it was purified in anyway...straight out of a Birmingham tap i think

But at least they haven't tried what one company here is doing. They sell water as DIET water. Complete with a label that says it has zero carbs and zero fat.

Ou coke cans still do not have nutritional information, but our toilet paper has a use by date on the packaging!

But at least they haven't tried what one company here is doing. They sell water as DIET water. Complete with a label that says it has zero carbs and zero fat.

Ou coke cans still do not have nutritional information, but our toilet paper has a use by date on the packaging!

Well we have Penta water, which when reported in the Guardian's Bad Science column (here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1398872,00.html) ) has seemed to launch a mini saga with Penta being featured in nearly all the subsequent articles to the present (3/2/05 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1403982,00.html), 10/2/05 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1409016,00.html), and 10/3/05 (yesterdays) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience)) and not in an especially favourable light.

Meh, though I wonder if anyone actually believed their spurious claims