There have been many debates on HFCS vs cane sugar and the fact remains that the calorific value of both is still the same. let me also point out that “real sugar” also goes through processing to become granulated sugar from sugar beets or sugarcane. Unless you are getting your sugar from squeezing an orange or eating a banana, any other sugar (including cane sugar, HFCS) would have undergone “considerable” processing to reach you.

Preservatives like Sodium Benzoate and sorbates have been added to jams, jellies in almost the same levels as in colas and never have people pointed fingers at those products. The levels of preservatives are only to prevent growth of microorganisms

While I agree that larger bottle sizes and cheaper sodas do encourage a consumer to buy them instead of healthier options like water or juices, I feel that educating a consumer goes a longer way in dealing with health issues. and i feel pepsi has taken that step by removing full calorie sodas from schools and by committing themselves to reducing calories and salt in their portfolio.

In the end, I feel the onus lies on the consumer. Education and awareness go a long way in influencing people what to consume rather than curbing the availability of options. We will consume sodas if we want to regardless of how bad people say they are or how much government tries to limit their sales. Its because we love doing what we want and only awareness and education and change that.

2) How can Pepsico allow its scientists to be open and honest and impartial or freely disclose facts without qualification or shading without risking its business success and unknown present and future legal liability? I don't think it can. Don't Pepsico's food scientists have to sign nondisclosure agreements, for starters?

3) There is no question but that private industry can do much if not most of the real science in its area. But Pepsico's interests are not with discovering things that may help make food healthier. Its interests are in developing products that people will want to buy. If it can *also* make its products healthier such that it will help sell the products, fine. But Pepsico is not going to, say, increase its costs for product X by Y% just to make it a bit healthier knowing that it won't be able to recover those costs in the marketplace *and* that it's competitors are not going to handicap themselves in such a way.

Now if it was an alcohol company? I guess 80%. Alcohol consumption follows a 20-80 distribution, with 20% of the consumers using about 80% of the product. All efforts to “smooth out” the curve have failed. the more casual drinkers drink, the more heavy drinkers drink, this is remarkably consistent across times and cultures.

But it is a food company. Their products aren't as inherently harmful as tobacco, and they don't have the severe network effects that alcohol has (though they do have some). A big difference from the latter two is that they have actual scientists employed in addition to PR people. If these scientists were independent – if they could actually speak their mind on this blog, on any topic, without fear of repercussions – then it would be worthwhile.

However, I must agree with Greg Laden in the above piece: At present, there appears no indication that this is the case. The PR team appears to be in charge here. That really won't work, guys.