Cola wars take a low-carb turn for the worse

The low-carb colas are here, and I'm not sure we want them. Coca-Cola has introduced C2 and Pepsi is offering Pepsi Edge. C2 has 45 calories (12 grams of carbohydrates) per 8 fluid ounces, while Pepsi Edge has 50 calories (13 grams of carbohydrates). These sound like great products, offering less than half the calories and carbohydrates of the regular versions. For 8 fluid ounces, both Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have 100 calories/27 grams carbohydrates. The taste of each of these is less than desirable.

Even though I am a tried-and-true Coca-Cola drinker and do not care for Pepsi, Pepsi Edge definitely has the edge (too bad a pun?) with their low-carb cola. It doesn't have the greatest taste, using sucralose to compensate for the lower amount of high fructose corn syrup/sugar. It is drinkable, and perhaps it will succeed as a lower-calorie alternative to regular cola.

C2, on the other hand, has the potential to be a disaster nearly on a scale with New Coke. Coca-Cola has flooded the market with C2 and is running a high-profile advertising campaign (Pepsi Edge is being introduced in a much more sedate fashion). The problem with C2 is the taste. It, too, uses sucralose to compensate for the reduction in the traditional high fructose corn syrup/sugar. But the mistake Coca-Cola made with C2 is that it also contains aspartame. This makes C2 taste like a diet soda, which seems to defeat the purpose. If you can drink Diet Coke with 0 calories and 0 grams of carbohydrates, why would you switch to C2? And for people who can't stand the taste, myself included, it is totally undrinkable.

As much as I'd like to drink a soda with fewer calories, I will not be turning to either C2 or Pepsi Edge. Perhaps my tastes are not representative of the market. Pepsi Edge may catch on, but I don't see much of a future for C2.

kherr @ 00:11 CDT | link | foodstuff