- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Coca-Cola has received a warning letter from the FDA informing the company that its beverage, Diet Coke Plus, does not meet FDA criteria to warrant the designation of “plus,” and is thus in violation of section 403(r)(1)(A) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The term “plus,” as well as the information on the label, which reads “Diet Coke with Vitamins and Minerals,” indicates to consumers that the beverage is fortified with vitamins and minerals. The FDA requires that foods labeled “plus” must have “at least 10% more nutrients than comparable products.” The agency stated that, in accordance with federal regulations, it is inappropriate for Coca-Cola “to fortify snack foods such as carbonated beverages.” Furthermore, the Diet Coke Plus label does not contain information regarding the beverage’s nutritional content that is required of a product that uses the term “plus” on its label.
The director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated that companies that fortify food products with additional nutrients may charge more for the items, even though consumers do not necessarily need the supplemental nutrients.
Coca-Cola maintains that the Diet Coke Plus label complies with FDA requirements, and will formally respond to the FDA’s letter in early January. It is unclear whether Coca-Cola will ultimately be required to remove Diet Coke Plus from commercial distribution, change the label, or follow any other particular course of action.
Interestingly, the FDA issued the warning letter regarding Diet Coke Plus just days before it approved Coca-Cola’s new sweetener, Truvia, which the company has announced will be used to sweeten some Odwalla juices as well as Sprite. For Coca-Cola’s sake (as well as the sake of the public), here’s hoping all of these drinks remain safe for consumption.
Recent Blog Posts
- Former Cardinals Executive Pleads Guilty to Hacking, But Will the Cardinals Pay the Price?
- Making a Murder – Technology in Forensic Evidence Questioned
- Is “smart gun” technology the future of gun safety?
- Why High-Profile Athletes’ Defamation Lawsuits Against Al Jazeera Are Nothing More Than a Hail Mary
- Executives of a Chinese Online Video-Sharing Service Provider Stood Trial for Internet Pornography
- The Rise of ‘Swatting’
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution