Coke Zero Discontinued

What does everyone think of this?

After 11 years they're discontinuing Coke Zero permanently.
Keep an eye out for clearance sales.
It's being replaced by Coca-Cola No Sugar, which has a different blend of flavourings to taste more like real Coca-Cola with sugar.

They'll be having free samples for Coca-Cola No Sugar so be sure to inform the community here if you spot one.

I'll reserve judgement until I've tried the replacement, but I'd say this is a risky move. Coke Zero is pretty popular.
I'll miss the black packaging and labels.

The new one is now available in stores.

Related Stores

Coca-Cola
Coca-Cola

Comments

  • +26 votes

    After 11 years, this is a mistake.

  • +15 votes

    The after taste of Coke Zero is horrible. If they've managed to resolve that I'll be a happy camper.

  • +16 votes

    I really liked coke zero, it didn't taste as strong as normal coke and "apparently" it had more caffeine then normal Coke.
    Not sure about the taste with the new one but I don't think it sounds as good, Coke Zero made me feel like I was buying a coke drink. Coke No Sugar makes me feel like I'm grasping at straws trying to be healthy after ordering some bad for you take out meal.

    • +7 votes

      I liked Coke Zero because it didn't have as sweet a taste as normal Coke or Pepsi Max. Will reserve judgement on the new one, but not excited.

      •  

        same here, I like Coke Zero as it doesn't taste like you are swilling a can of sugar. I find coke undrinkable because of how oversweet it tastes.

  • +19 votes

    I'll miss the black packaging and labels.

    Just keep a few empty bottles in the top cupboard.

    I've been repackaging home brand cola as TaB Cola for decades; the kids still can't tell the difference!

  • +32 votes

    Putting my tinfoil hat on here for a moment, hear me out.

    Coke Zero is quite popular. Popular enough, in fact, that this is kind of a head scratching move to discontinue/replace the product. Now, if Coca-Cola were banking on the replacement being more popular than Coke Zero, why not simultaneously introduce the new alternative and see which the consumer prefers? That way they have a back up already on shelves, and more importantly, still with an existing consumer base should the new product flop(as many innovations in this sector do). Discontinuing the product makes little sense from a business perspective, so why are they doing it?

    We've seen a number of studies indicating that the artificial sweeteners being used in sugar-free soft drinks are potentially carcinogenic and causing DNA mutations. The only reason the product is able to be sold on shelves is that there are no completed human clinical trials with a substantive enough link to the cancer/DNA mutations, so the Food Standards authority (FSANZ) will not intervene and make a product illegal at this stage. Yet if you do the research yourself, early indications from animal trials indicate these sweeteners are potentially carcinogenic/DNA mutating, and we have no idea what if any levels are tolerable in humans.

    I believe it's a very real possibility Coca-Cola has seen some preliminary results from their research that indicate bad news on this front, and want to distance themselves from the product to reduce a potential scandal when/if the research is finalized and becomes public. I wouldn't ingest a bottle of this stuff if you paid me.

    • +7 votes

      I kind of get what you're trying to say and arguments about the studies aside though, I think all three cokes (Coke Zero, Diet Coke and the new Coke No Sugar) all use the same artificial sweetener Aspartame. I'll be honest I thought this was one thing they would change (to Stevia or something else?) but it seems they're using the same sweetener again. So I wonder how they're making the taste to be all that different.

      •  

        I certainly hope it is not that corn fructose syrup they use in America.

        Had Coca-Cola there last week and disgusting compared to our fresher tasting local variety.

        That said; I have an allergy to Coke zero, maybe the aspartame/phynethaline or the extra caffeine or combination of the two.

        Maybe I will be able to drink the no sugar one.

        Maybe they will change to another artificial ingredient.
        Sucralose is about 320 to 1,000 times sweeter than sucrose,[5] three times as sweet as aspartame, twice as sweet as sodium saccharin and three times as sweet as acesulfame potassium

        •  

          Diet Coke, Coke Zero and Coke No Sugar all use the same sweeteners.

        • +1 vote

          @durd0008:
          Yep, 951 and 950

        • +1 vote

          You won't see the use of corn syrup (HCFS) over here. There are two main reasons for its prevalence in the U.S:
          1. The U.S government subsidises the production of corn which leads to loads of corn being produced which in turn leads to low prices because the supply is so high (30% of all crops over there are corn).
          2. The importation of cane sugar into U.S is heavily restricted which leads to prices being considerably higher than the world average.

          If both of these policies were theoretically removed (never going to happen due to the vested interests in keeping the status quo) normal sugar would probably return to the likes of Coke & Pepsi.

        • +1 vote

          @sprucemoose:

          Corn is so heavily subsidised in the us that HFCS is available cheaper than the cost of production.

      •  

        Coke Life is flavoured with Stevia and it still available

        They have reworked the flavour profile compared to normal coke to compensate for the difference in taste between sugar and the artificial sweetener whereas coke zero they just straight swapped out the sugar for aspartamine.

        As an FYI they also have done studies and found that only a small percentage of people think that coke zero actually tastes good. which is part of the reason they have changed it.

        •  

          Funny you say that, I just went to the shop and bought a Coke Life with stevia, seems its 50 percent less sugar then normal coke according to the packaging. Not sure if that just means the rest is stevia?

          Interesting in knowing the difference in how they went about it. I'm very surprised and saddened to hear that Coke Zero is not well liked since it seems to be everywhere (at stores and vending machines). I haven't seen much of Coke life and average on Coke Diet. I'm assuming stores and vending machines will just do a straight swap from zero to no sugar as well.

      • +2 votes

        Doesn't coke zero use sucralose? the diet versions use aspartame if i recall correctly

    • +3 votes

      there are no completed human clinical trials

      That's what they want you to think!

      Google: Lisa Trevor

    •  

      I believe your just making up rubbish and pretending you have special insights to feel special.

    • +4 votes

      Yet if you do the research yourself, early indications from animal trials indicate these sweeteners are potentially carcinogenic/DNA mutating,

      How much would I have to drink to develop super powers?

    • +6 votes

      Nah, it's just New Coke all over again.

    • +14 votes

      that is indeed a brilliant theory, if it wasnt for the fact this new 'No Sugar' uses the same artificial sweeteners…….

    • +13 votes
      1. Coke Zero uses aspartame, the safest and most widely tested artificial sweetener known to man
      2. Coke no Sugar uses the same sweetener, so it doesn't matter anyway
      • -18 votes

        Aspartame and safest?

        If you google aspartame it comes up with a link to cancer

        • +20 votes

          I did the search. I love how all those who claim aspartame is dangerous are all trying to sell you something (usually their diet/lifestyle plan) and the ones which are claiming it is safe are all national health bodies.

          Who should I believe?

          Maybe we should all forgo food and become breatharians

        • +11 votes

          FDA officials describe aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut." The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe as a non-nutritive sweetener

        • -5 votes

          @phosphoresce:

          Have a look at this; mentioned in my comment below:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

          Heres a nice excerpt about exactly how "safe" aspartame is:

          Our study shows that APM is a multi-potential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw).

          What this is saying is that aspartame(APM) caused multiple types of tumours in several different sites around the body, even at LESS THAN HALF the so called "safe" allowed daily intake(ADI) recommended for humans.

          It's only the tip of the iceberg, I highly recommend doing further research. What these multi-billion dollar mega-corporations and the food industry do is manipulate the studies they fund by altering the parameters of the study. For instance they will frequently repeat a study with a small sample size over and over until variance results in a favourable outcome, and then they will only publish that one study whilst disregarding all the previous ones.

          Oh, and a good one specific to aspartame: In these manipulated trials they actually killed all the rats at a certain number of week olds, before the cancer had time to develop, then used this as "evidence" of aspartame being safe. When an independent group repeated the exact same study but allowed the rats to live until they died, they were riddled with cancer caused by the aspartame. Again, look into this before volunteering yourself as a human lab rat.

        • -2 votes

          @Fiximol:

          Uhh, you got that the wrong way round I'm afraid. Who is trying to sell you a product? Coca-cola. The national health bodies accept manipulated research as I discussed in my comment below, and you would be naive to think that a $188 billion company doesn't hold sway over some health body reliant on funding.

        • +16 votes

          If you google aspartame it comes up with a link to cancer

          If you Google "vaccines" you get links to autism (despite this link being absolutely debunked for many years).

          If you Google "flouride" you get links to government mind control.

          If you Google "contrails" you get links to government mind control.

          If there are legitimate concerns, please provide scientific papers as references, rather than appealing to the mass of loonies that can get any old junk onto Google.

        • +5 votes

          If you google BACON is comes up with links to cancer.

          Aspartame has not been shown to have any negative health effects. Any report saying it's dangerous has been debunked.

        • +2 votes

          There is nothing wrong with aspartame. People just love to believe those made-up shit that everything causes cancer.

        • +8 votes

          @airal3rt:

          Interesting, this is what the Cancer Council of Australia had to say about the 2005 study you mentioned:

          Studies of laboratory rats in 2005 found that rats given high doses of aspartame were more likely to develop lymphoma and leukaemia. However, the doses given to the rats in this study were the equivalent of between 8 and 2,083 cans of diet soft drink daily.
          A survey conducted by the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) in 2003 concluded that Australian consumption was well below the levels at which adverse health effects could occur. A large safety evaluation study published in 2007 reviewed the health effects of average current consumption levels and found no evidence linking aspartame to cancer incidence.

          Source: Cancer Council of Australia

          So, it looks to me like there is one study which showed Aspartame was linked to cancer in rats (at high doses of the substance), while numerous other studies showed Aspartame is safe in humans.

          To link Diet Coke and cancer really seems like non-factual scare mongering to me.

        • +2 votes

          @tommohawk:

          yeah it's the same as the threat of cancer from cellphones. Yes, cellphone radiation can cause cancer - if you strap it to your head for 10 hours a day.

          so the answer to the question "does aspartame/cellphones cause cancer?" is yes. That's where the scared, or the easlity manipulated, or the lazy stop thinking. Everyone else will ask for some context or some more information.

          Bottom line, everything can be harmful if you don't treat it with respect.

        •  

          @Rumstein:

          The difference is bacon does have proven carcinogens, especially if it is burnt.

          Aspartame does not even have that.

        •  

          @wallet72:

          The cellphone comment is incorrect.

          There is no known method for low power non ionising radiation to cause cell damage, regardless of time of exposure.

          There is zero correlation between mobile phone use and cancer.

          Yes some people who use mobile phones get cancer, but so do people who don't use a mobile phone.

          There is a correlation between wealth and cancer though…

        •  

          @Jalif: Wasn't there some cases where someone got burnt their face for holding too long?

        •  

          @airal3rt: look at the actual data for that study. They basically fluked a few more cancer cases in the lower 20 mg/kg group. The sample size was no where near large enough to be conclusive (or rather, it needs to be repeated).

          On the other hand, consuming too many calories is strongly linked to many diseases. Personally I don't like the taste of artificially sweetened products, but if it stops people consuming sugar it might actually be healthier!

          I guess in 100 yrs time we can look back on our generation and conclusively make the links.

        • -1 vote

          @airal3rt: a well known study that has been pretty much debunked as not applying to humans. aspartame causes cancer in rats due to a chemical difference in the way rats react to it as compared to humans.

    • +1 vote

      Nice theory but I think they are trying to provoke outrage so they can claim all the karma for bringing it back … like New Coke

    • +4 votes

      We've seen a number of studies indicating that the artificial sweeteners being used in sugar-free soft drinks are potentially carcinogenic and causing DNA mutations.

      Can you provide some citations for this?

      • -8 votes

        Sure, there's loads of evidence out there.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392232/

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436139

        Heres a nice excerpt from the first study I linked:

        Our study shows that APM is a multi-potential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw).

        What this is saying is that aspartame(APM) caused multiple types of tumours in several different sites around the body, even at LESS THAN HALF the so called "safe" allowed daily intake(ADI) recommended for humans.

        It's only the tip of the iceberg, I highly recommend doing further research. What these multi-billion dollar mega-corporations and the food industry do is manipulate the studies they fund by altering the parameters of the study. For instance they will frequently repeat a study with a small sample size over and over until variance results in a favourable outcome, and then they will only publish that one study whilst disregarding all the previous ones.

        Oh, and a good one specific to aspartame: In these manipulated trials they actually killed all the rats at a certain number of week olds, before the cancer had time to develop, then used this as "evidence" of aspartame being safe. When an independent group repeated the exact same study but allowed the rats to live until they died, they were riddled with cancer caused by the aspartame. Again, look into this before volunteering yourself as a human lab rat.

        • +12 votes

          That's an insane amount of coke zero tho. 1 americana can has 58mg of aspartame, so to reach the levels in that study a 70Kg man would have to drink 24 cans in 1 day @ 20mg/kg bw, daily.

          Not saying its OK, but anything in excess can be bad. That's like 5.8L of coke each day.

        • +7 votes

          Sigh. If you believe those two studies, you should read the following:

          http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_out...
          https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/foodad...

          "Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."