Posted on 04/18/2016 7:56:57 AM PDT by Olog-hai
PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi said Monday the company is reshaping its product lineup to better reflect the growing interest in healthy eating and noted it has reduced its reliance on colas for sales.
The maker of Frito-Lay snacks, Mountain Dew, Naked juices and Quaker Oats now gets less than 25 percent of its global sales from soda, Nooyi said. And she said just 12 percent of global sales comes from its namesake soda.
Representatives for PepsiCo were unable to provide how those figures have changed in recent the years.
The remarks underscore PepsiCo’s recent shift in tone as the world’s biggest soda brands have been pressured by intensifying competition and a bad image for fueling weight gain in markets such as the U.S. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
They should just stop making all that PepsiStuff that’s bad for you. It probably contributes to global warming too.
A lot of libs complain about soda companies and how much water they use up from whatever area their factories are, to produce their soft drinks.
Coke (KO) is a “sugar water” company, whereas, Pepsi (PEP) has a HUGE snack/food portfolio in addition to its own “sugar water”
Pepsi has always sucked.
I do wonder the effects of water removal from a regional area by the production of all drinks, bottled water, soda, etc... Its hard not to argue when you take millions or billions or perhaps even trillions of gallons of water a year out of one local area to ship it somewhere else, that it doesn’t have long term impacts.
Its one thing if the water remains in the general watershed region that it is taken from, its another if its taken somewhere far outside of it.
That’s not liberalism though, that’s just basic understanding of how it all works. Not to mention the possible impacts downstream if you are taking water from a flowing supply.
What the soviets did to the Ural Sea is an example of what happens when you start removing or diverting water from natural flows in large amounts.
Not anti capitalism, but certainly can see that in particular locations removal of large amounts of water for various purposes can have real long term negative impacts that are not considered or understood.
I’m glad Pepsi has gone to splenda instead of aspartane for their diet drinks. But I’ll gladly switch to whoever puts out a stevia soda. And I don’t drink soda’s like I used to. I now drink water with a stevia sweetened flavor packet in it 90% of the time.
I think Busch Gardens originally started out as an abatement project, to offset something beer production does to the water.
The amount of water that bottled drinks shift across watersheds would seem to be trivial. You have calculations that show otherwise?
California is in a drought and every time someone says anything about conserving water here the residents all scream about Nestles water bottling in the Bakersfield plant.
Very rarely do I drink a soda anymore. I really don’t miss it.
I don’t have statistics, but every place I have lived there was a local bottling plant.
Depends on the watershed and the source of the water, no one thought we’d be depleting water aquifers when we started tapping them to water crops either, but we are.
There are lots of variables that come into play when you start doing this sort of thing, in some areas large water removal probably has little to no major impact.. in other places, removal of a lot less water from the system can have devastating impacts.
There is nothing “liberal” about asking the questions. It is also not “liberal” to realize that many actions done in the past were done without even asking the what impact will this have.
If I took 600,000 cubic feet of water out of the Mississippi at its mouth, that would equate to 1 second of its flow, the odds of that having any impact are negligible, go far enough upstream from there and that volume could represent a lot more of the flow and have a lot more impact.... sure at the mouth of the river no one would notice, but could affect a lot of folks.
The interesting thing with bottled products, plastic bottled products in particular, is that it takes more water to make that bottle than the bottle itself holds... When you add in the actual water used to make that 1 liter bottle, you end up having to use nearly a gallon of water for every bottle of water actually made... Same thing with soda, etc. I am not against these industries, but depending on their location and situation they can have imacts on water tables and things.
In the eastern US the impact of something like this would be negligible, assuming they are not taking water from deep aquifers and are using ground water in most places... in the Western US??? Well as someone pointed out, California is in a multi year severe drought, but still has bottling plants operating, which seems a bit insane just intuitively. However the real issues are no so much the US... but other nations where these sorts of plants can get built, in a developing nation someone upstream removes billions or trillions of gallons of water from your flow, and you can be talking life or death impacts for people downstream who probably were not taken into consideration in the planning or decision making.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking the questions, it doesn’t make one liberal to want to understand the impact. If the impact is real and tangible it needs to be taken into account when decisions are made... Lord knows how many chemicals we released into the world without any thought of the potential long term health impact they could cause... hopefully we’ve learned from that and will do better going forward.
So lots of what-if type concern troll questions.
Sorry, that doesn’t work for me.
“Water removal” how? Living things continue to excrete water; it does not get “removed” from a system except by acts of God. (That includes the Aral Sea.)
They should just stop making all that PepsiStuff that’s bad for you. It probably contributes to global warming too.
Maybe if they bundled an offset for the carbonation with each six-pack...
#6 The soda you drink eventually ‘comes out’ and goes back into the local ecosystem in a circuitous route.......
Go read up on the Ural Sea, just because water may not be removed from the planet, does not mean that moving it from one place or another does not have large and heavy impact on the local systems. Which I was quite clear about in all of my postings.
If I take all the food from one nation and move it to another, sure the total food supply hasn’t changed, but the impact of that is disasterous, particulary to the folks who live in the nation that now has no food.
Pretending that removing water from a local system can have no impact is idiotic on its face. Ever wonder why there are water rights in most of the western states that explicitly spell out how much water can be claimed, removed, taken or damned? The fact you want to try to argue that the entire system didn’t change, ergo no impact has occurred requires a level of willful ignorance that is mind boggling.
Only if I live in the same watershed where the water was pulled from, and assuming the water used to originally create it was ground water and not extracted from a deep aquifer.
If the water was removed from a watershed in say California, and I drink and urniate it here in PA, that water isn’t flowing back into that original watershed anytime soon.
If it was pumped out of a deep aquifer to be used, on the surface, even if its exactly on top of the aquifer it could take hundreds or thousands of years for it to work its way back into the original aquifer.
I’m not talking about situations where hey, I just filled this up down the block and you drank it, we are talking about situations where large quantities of water are being removed from their original watersheds to be intentionally sent elsewhere. And in situations where water is relatively scarce this can indeed have serious impacts.
Sure, the overall sum of fluid on earth hasn’t changed, but that doesn’t mean that doing so has no local impacts. No one ever suggested if you take water from a to b that the earth somehow has less of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.