Pepsi Retro/Throwback

While at work tonight I came across a pallet of this stuff. What caught my attention was not the older style graphics or logo, but the ingredient list.

It's made with REAL ingredients (I took photos with my camera phone, but I couldn't clean the image up enough to make the ingredient list readable).

It's a limited time offer, so it is most likely just a gimic, but it makes me wonder why bother? Unless perhaps it is a test to see if people will buy it over the more synthetic version widely available. It wasn't available for sale yet so I can't say what the taste is like (if there is any difference) but it makes me wonder why Pepsi Co. is doing this.

I know one of the reasons I have stopped drinking pop in any amount (other than a treat now and then when I've been a good boy) is because of the ingredients...I'm trying to return back to food that is actually food, not chemical cocktails that resemble food. Although there is still the issue of the massive amounts of sugar per serving, it's not fructose: it's actual sugar.

Is this possiblly a corporate response to a growing trend?

A quick Google search showed that this product has been released in various global markets over the last few years, but this is the first time I have seen or heard of it here in Canada.

Thoughts anyone?

I actually had a few cans of this product last summer I believe, only marketed as "Pepsi Throwback". Real sugar, not HFCS and, man, was it good.

And then it was just no longer available.... I was not happy.

If they are bringing it back, I am stocking up.

~Heff

Pepsi Retro is made from cane sugar.
The other stuff is high-fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup has been named as one of the culprits in obesity.
(pause to find the article)

Is high-fructose corn syrup worse for you than sugar? Researchers at Princeton University think so. But the American Medical Association and most dietitians say no. AOL Health contributor and nutritionist Victoria Stein examines the issue.

Before we delve into the debate, let's review some basic chemistry. Sugar and HFCS share the same biochemistry. The main difference is that HFCS is manufactured from corn syrup (primarily glucose), which undergoes enzymatic processing to increase the fructose content and is then mixed with glucose. Pure sugar is also composed of glucose and fructose but in marginally different concentrations. Both are calorie dense (with about 16 per teaspoon) with no nutrients.

Thanks to corn subsidies, HFCS has become a cheap alternative to sugar and is often added to processed foods and soft drinks -- substances that offer little nutritional value and, when consumed in excess, contribute to weight gain. But whether HFCS has distinct adverse health effects is less obvious.

www.aolhealth.com...

reply to post by beezzer


That's what caught my attention.

Although there is still undoubtedly way too much sugar in it, the fact that is not fructose makes this a "healthier" (if possible) version.

Seems an odd move.

reply to post by [davinci]


Their marketing staff just may be ahead of the curve. With Michelle Obama coming down hard on obesity and health foods in school, this may just be a pre-emptive move on their part.

Great. Now I'm thinking like a businessman.
-yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. . . .

I'm down here in beautiful SandyEgo, California, and I see the Moutain Dew Throwback almost everywhere here. The Pepsi Throwback, not so much, but probably in over half of the gas stations/convenience stores. Very tasty stuff indeed.

Originally posted by [davinci]




Unless perhaps it is a test to see if people will buy it over the more synthetic version widely available.

I think you've said it all right there. With all the concern about synthetic ingredients being put into our food and beverages, I think Pepsi is hoping this marketing strategy will help grab some of Coke's market share.

It's certainly not "healthy" but it tastes good in moderation.

It's far from natural though. Pepsi did market a "natural" version without the phosphoric acid in it. Red Bull markets a cola that doesn't use phosphoric acid. It's not an energy drink though.

What kind of vague meaningless term is that?

"Real ingredients"?

Um...if it's not real it doesn't exist. So even industrial toxic sludge is a "Real Ingredient".


What do you know, normal everyday Pepsi has "real" sugar too.


It's nice to see the old color scheme back though.

Originally posted by The Sword
It's certainly not "healthy" but it tastes good in moderation.

It's far from natural though. Pepsi did market a "natural" version without the phosphoric acid in it. Red Bull markets a cola that doesn't use phosphoric acid. It's not an energy drink though.

Plastic is natural.

To refine oil basically in over-generalized terms, you just pour it in a huge vat and heat it up and it separates into various layers. And then we use that to make everything basically.

It's more complicated than that but really you get the idea.

Remember that Carlin joke? Earth wanted plastic so it invented humans?

reply to post by muzzleflash


We're talking about soda, not plastic.

And yes, I'm very familiar with Carlin's work.

Soda pop is actually a medicine. That's why you should moderate use.

And always avoid those diet types and such with tons and tons of additives that are totally not suppose to be in there in the first place.

Pepsi originated in a Pharmacy, where most sodas originated as medicines.

It was later named Pepsi Cola, possibly due to the digestive enzyme pepsin and kola nuts used in the recipe.[1] Bradham sought to create a fountain drink that was delicious and would aid in digestion and boost energy

pepsi
pepsin
kola nut

Like I said though, throwing in who knows what else toxic crap that's in most diet and similar non-basic types of soda looks dangerous. But these basic traditional sodas I have to admit are medicinal if used correctly.

reply to post by muzzleflash


'Real' as a term that most people can identify with without having to reach for a dictionary or encyclopeadia.

Natural?

Nope, even a totally synthetic compound can be classified as natural if it has the same chemical composition. If it is chemically indentical is there a difference? Well, people would view a freshly squeezed glass of orange juice as being natural where as a chemically assembled version of the same is seen as artificial (even if identical).

Naturally sourced/derived?

Nope, the rendering process can involve steps that remove anything resembling nature from the finished product.

Your point is valid, although a tad nit-picky.

Yea, had some as well last year, they did pepsi, mountain dew, and a few other brands, definitely tasty....would be great to see them bring these in as full line options, plus, the packaging totally brought me back to my childhood...lol.

Mountain Dew is doing this too. My son asked me to pick some up and it threw me when I saw three kinds on the shelf...Mountain Dew, Diet Mountain Dew (eww), and Mountain Dew Throwback with REAL sugar. There's a pic on this page www.bevreview.com...

I hope they switchover permanently. If people are going to drink this stuff, the more real it is the better. The only soda I drink is all natural black cherry with real cane sugar, and even that's a rare thing.

(Oops, I see BigFrigginAl mentioned this too while I wandered off for coffee with real raw sugar

I just bought some of this at Walmart yesterday.
I couldn't wait to get it home and try it.

I quit drinking soda years ago because it was way too carbonated and felt like drinking battery acid, plus for some reason it didn't taste as good as I remembered it as a kid.

Then I got this Pepsi Throwback and wow is it different!
It actually tastes good and probably half the carbonation. It is actually pleasurable to drink.
Can't wait to mix it with some Captain Morgan

If I had to venture a guess, I think the food industry as a whole is responding to us as a whole and offering healthier foods and cutting out things like msg,high fructose corn syrup,sodium,trans fats,etc.

The people are speaking with their wallets
We are being heard.

Originally posted by GoodDocGonzo
I'm down here in beautiful SandyEgo, California, and I see the Moutain Dew Throwback almost everywhere here. The Pepsi Throwback, not so much, but probably in over half of the gas stations/convenience stores. Very tasty stuff indeed.

Pepsi is simply following the trend of Coke with their introduction of their original blend a couple of years ago. Fructose is getting a bad name across the food industry. Plus, and this is important, Pepsi found that Mexicans in this country would play a good bit more for imported Pepsi that is made with real sugar (and not fructose). In Austin, it is not uncommon to find the Mexican Pepsi. So far, I've only seen it in the older style glass bottles. It is quite a bit higher in price also. But people are willing to pay it because it comes down to taste.

It makes me wonder. If a noticeable difference in taste, that means enough of a different chemical composition between cane sugar and corn syrup to be detected by taste alone. Yet, we are told that both are virtually identical, and the corn syrup is simply cheaper and more convenient to use in sodas and no difference in the product.
However, recent studies seem to show that is not the case, that fructose interacts differently with the body, it turns to fat easier.

Despite the denials from the food industry, perhaps the bottlers pull a fast one on us by supplying us with nutrition data on the label when the chemical compositions are yet different, different enough to be discerned by taste alone.

This has been available for sometime where I live and I buy them whenever I get the urge for a pespsi (dr pepper fan myself)
Mt Dew is doing the same thing.

Now if they could just sell it in a glass bottle instead of that crappy tasting aluminum cans.

The Dr. Pepper version is available in plastic bottles which still interferes with taste but not as bad as the cans.

I've been buying Thomas Kemper soda's because they are made with cane sugar and come in a glass bottle.

Coke sells those little glass bottles, but they are a bit expensive.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Now if they could just sell it in a glass bottle instead of that crappy tasting aluminum cans.

The Dr. Pepper version is available in plastic bottles which still interferes with taste but not as bad as the cans.

I've been buying Thomas Kemper soda's because they are made with cane sugar and come in a glass bottle.

Coke sells those little glass bottles, but they are a bit expensive.

Dr Pepper version?
I havent seen that down here yet. Now THAT would be awesome.