Evaluation of General Sources

Pepsi has just announced that they will replace the artificial sweetener aspartame with sucralose. What is sucralose, and how safe is it anyway? Below is an analysis of two sources that cover Pepsi's switch.

Eating Academy

Source 1: Buzzfeed

The URL links to a ".com" site, which isn't generally accepted to be as credible as a non-profit or educational link. The more reliable links are typically ".edu, .gov, and .org." Sites like ".com, .biz, .name, .info, and .net" are sites that just about anyone can obtain.

The author of this article is Vanessa Wong. She works for Buzzfeed and covers subjects pertaining to the Food Industry. She also writes for a website called Bloomberg Business, which is a respected news source.

This article was posted August 12th of this year. The article has not been updated since it was posted. The article links to a Washington Post article posted on April 27th of this year, which is very current. The site also links to scientific websites like cancer.org and fda.gov, all of which work.

The purpose of the text is to discuss the research done on sucralose, evaluate safety, and pose the question of whether or not is will help Pepsi's sales.

The graphics in the article show the Pepsi logo, a sucralose molecule, an aspartame molecule, and a picture of splenda. They mainly serve the purpose of showing a scientific side.

The article shows skepticism of sucralose. It is not completely one sided, but throws in comments like "there is 'a lack of long-term studies on humans'" (buzzfeed). If the information is true, and people should be cautious of artificial sweeteners, the readers will profit.

The site suggests further reading within the article by hyperlinks. It definitely directs to reputable and science centered sources.

Source 2: Washington Post

The post links to a ".com" site, and while it is not one of the "better" URLs, it is still a respected website.

The author of this article is Roberto Ferdman. Prior to working at The Washington Post, he was a reporter for Quartz.

This article was posted April 27th of this year (yes this is the article buzzfeed links to). It has not been updated. The article links to a Bloomberg Business article posted just 3 days before. It also links to other Washington post articles, all of which work.

The purpose of the text is to inform readers that no one has proved that aspartame is harmful, and that giving in to consumer demands of eliminating it is bad for science. It tries to sway the reader into believing there is no proof against aspartame.

In the article, there is a picture of Pepsi soda cans, and also a graph of diet soda brand's sales. The first photo is to visualize the brand. The second is to show information of how diet soda sales have dropped.

While the article is informative, it is one-sided. The brands that use aspartame will benefit if people believe that there is no harm.

The article links around to its own website, which seems a bit biased. It does cite Bloomberg, which is a recognized news site.