According to the Code of Federal Regulations, a soft drink can bear the label “diet” as long as it is not considered “false or misleading.” This terminology, long utilized by soda manufacturers to indicate sugar-free and low-calorie options, has been prevalent for decades. Despite facing recent challenges, the term has maintained its status. In 2015, the consumer advocacy group U.S. Right to Know submitted a petition urging the federal government to classify the “diet” label on sodas as misleading. However, the Federal Trade Commission rejected the petition, and the FDA did not take any action on it.
Nevertheless, just because the term is accepted does not mean it remains relevant. Today’s consumers do not approach dieting as previous generations did, and the label “diet” carries different meanings for different people. Outside the beverage sector, the generic “diet” label has become increasingly rare on many products. Modern consumers tend to seek out items with more comprehensive health benefits, preferring options that are less processed or align with specialized diets such as paleo or keto, rather than adhering to the outdated low-sugar, low-fat trend.
Regardless of the court’s decision, manufacturers may reconsider the effectiveness of the “diet” label, realizing it fails to adequately communicate what consumers can expect from a sugar-free, low-calorie soft drink. Moreover, given the decline in overall soda market share in recent years, diet sodas have experienced an even steeper drop in popularity. This shift may stem from concerns over artificial sweeteners or studies linking diet soda consumption to health issues, which have contributed to a lack of discussions about these beverages on social media.
In response, soft drink companies have begun to innovate with sugar-free options that feature clearer product labeling. The eagerly awaited U.S. launch of Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, a zero-calorie reformulation, occurred in August, while Pepsi Zero Sugar offers a similar alternative, albeit with higher caffeine content than its regular counterpart. Dr Pepper TEN, a 10-calorie version of the classic drink, is another example. These new beverage names convey much more than “diet” and could signify the decline of traditional diet drinks in the marketplace.
As manufacturers adapt, the conversation surrounding soft drinks may also involve considerations of pricing, similar to discussions about Citracal price. With evolving consumer preferences, the industry may need to reevaluate its approach to labeling and marketing, potentially moving away from the outdated “diet” terminology altogether.