Does Pepsi Use Aborted Babies To Test Their Formulas? No, and Here’s Why.

The big headline lately is from the super-sensationalized-world known as LifeSiteNews, a watchdog for abortion subjects. Their recent article, Obama Agency Rules Pepsi Use of Aborted Fetus is “Ordinary Business” is woefully, woefully inaccurate immediately from the headline alone.

Obama Has Nothing To Do With It
The “Obama agency” that ruled the use was ordinary is the Securities and Exchange Commission which was begun in 1934. Anyone who would have been president at this moment would have given the same ruling, because it is ordinary. Be prepared to be completely bored and how ordinary the ruling is. If McCain had been elected instead of Obama, it would have been McCain’s agency, so to speak. And they still would have made the same ruling.

Pepsi isn’t the culprit, either.
Kraft, Campbell Soup, Cadbury, and Nestle have all used the same biochemistry outfit called Senomyx which owns a proprietary technique for figuring out, essentially, whether something objectively tastes good without asking a subjective person to taste it themselves. The reason they don’t just go straight to human tests is because there are 800,000 formulas to try out.

The sensors used for testing are made from cells. The cells are made from other cells, that reproduce to make more cells, times upwards of 10,000 generations ago potentially. The original sample of cells used in the original dividing process to reproduce them was taken in ~1972 from an aborted fetus. The cells used today are not “aborted fetus” cells, but rather, cells that are zillions of generations down the line from the original sampling which was from an aborted fetus.

The cells don’t go into the formula
An amount of a potentially-tasty formula from a recipe is placed into a device containing the cells, and various reactions are measured, and from those results the recipe is approved or disapproved and may go on to people taste-test trials — not using the amount that was used in the test. It’s a little like suggesting teflon could be found in some newly-prepared stir-fry asparagus made in a teflon-free wok, when instead actually the original recipe was devised years ago in a teflon-coated pan, but the asparagus you’re using now never even touched that pan from years ago. The teflon in the old original pan has nothing to do with the asparagus you’re making now in the wok, in the same way that there are no Nth-generation fetus cells in Pepsi soda.

Or if you prefer, it’s like suggesting a surgeon uses X-Ray film developer fluid inside your knee replacement surgery — when instead the fluid was only used to develop the X-Ray to figure out why you need surgery, but the fluid itself doesn’t have anything to do with the actual operation. The cells are like the developer fluid, used to determine if the recipe meets certain standards, and then the recipe itself is made separately for other people to try out.

The cells aren’t fetal remains
Think about a person who is dead in the ground, rotting in a coffin, perhaps named Winston. Say that Susan finds an old diary of Winston’s that contains a locket of his hair, and that Susan puts that hair into a culture and brews live cells somehow to make new cells based on the original sample of Winston’s hair. From those new cells, those divide into new cells, those divide into still newer cells, and so on. Is it fair to call the newest generation of cells part of Winston’s “remains”? They’re arguably not even actually Winston’s anymore, because they had to be spliced into something else to restart the process of replication.

What if you stubbed your toe on a sharp rock, and left behind a splotch of blood. The rock washes into the ocean, and a shark smells the blood. The shark swims over, and gobbles up a nearby child. Are you responsible for the child’s death? Did your own carelessness cause the child’s gruesome fate? The blame game is far too complicated to pin down specifically. Maybe some kid was skipping rocks and had to leave when his father called him, and left that rock in the sand that you stepped on. Maybe the father who called his son away from skipping rocks got called into work early. Maybe you buying up the last loaf of bread from the supermarket earlier that day caused the manager to see the shelf empty, fire the person who normally stocks it, and that person in frustration drinks heavily before driving home, smashes his car into a tree, causes a power line to fall down, creating the need for the father in to work early. There are too many unanswerable questions to be answered to pin blame on “the cells of an aborted fetus.”

MAYBE, the mother gave up the child for science. Maybe, the sincerely missed, yet-unborn fetus had to be given up and was instead of being discarded as it might normally by incinerator — instead was given for the promotion of scientific research, and that contribution to science later became groundwork for testing retrovirus cures, and among other high-demand intensive research matters, a better tasting soda.

59 thoughts on “Does Pepsi Use Aborted Babies To Test Their Formulas? No, and Here’s Why.

  1. I’m a scientist, and I’m also very much pro-life. I was struck by the misleading nature of the original article, because as I was reading it I wasn’t sure how they were getting the cells since it’s currently illegal to use an aborted fetus. Then I got to the punchline that the cells were HEK293 cells, and I was shocked at the misrepresentation of this cell line.
    HEK293 cells (also called 293T) are one of the most ubiquitous cell lines in science. They were originally derived from a single aborted fetus in the 1970s, when things were poorly regulated. However, because of the nature of the cells themselves, all of the cells today are from that single preparation. Although their derivation is terrible, the cell line has since become integral to scientific development. At some point in the development of virtually every medication (prescription or over the counter) HEK293 cells have been used. As much as we may dislike the way these cells came into existence, to stop using them now would set scientific development back 40 years!

  2. Your rationalization is absurd. These cells would not exist but for the murder of that child in 1972. If it was okay, as you claim, to use these “ever so far removed but still from a murdered baby” cells, then why wasn’t it okay to use the reults of the Nazi experiments on twins now? Or their results from other studies where they used captive people as lab rats?

    It’s not okay, no matter how far removed or how it is rationalized, because a human being was murdered to obtain it. But then, I’m sure you can just go to those so called “bio-ethicists” from Australia to justify the practice for you. Heck, I’ll bet they would even approve of getting brand new cells from afterbirth abortions for such things.

    If this system cannot work ethically using cells from a live person who gave them willingly, then they should find a different system. Convenience is not a good enough reason to excuse this.

    • I agree with call me mom. The “origional” cells were from aborted babies so therefore these cells are from aborted babies. You can’t reproduce it and say they are not from them.

      People these days are trying to justify abortion in saying that we wouldn’t have advanced in science and that is wrong. Abortion is murder and murder is wrong. You can’t do wrong to do right. They don’t mix. It doesn’t work.

      Thank you Call me Mom for your comment.

    • Thanks “Call Me Mom” for sound reason. I think it speaks volumes that the author ablestmage feels 3 lengthy paragraphs are necessary to explain why these aren’t fetal remains. It’s either right or wrong – no explanation is necessary.

      • These comments are far from the topic of the original article. Writer is simply addressing whether or not Pepsi Next contains the remains of a dead fetus, which it apparently does not. The evaluation of using cells as science is a different issue

    • Well the way I see it, the fact that cell usage began with one fetus really bothers you. If that is a fact then you should boycott all companies that use these cells. So Stand up for your beliefs and start growing your own food. And I hope you don’t ever need to take any medication since the same cells are
      used for prescription and otc drugs. So if your going to voice your beliefs I sure hope
      your backing the

    • I agree no matter what these cells do come from an aborted baby. Pepsi is just freaking sick!!!!!!!!!! I feel like vomiting just knowing I drank pepsi!!

    • I agree. It doesn’t matter when the child was aborted, but that it was aborted and used in the original formula. How can you justify consuming anything that has a history of using an aborted child in it’s development? It is also why I refuse vaccines. It’s morally wrong, but then, morality means nothing in this world we live in today.

  3. I agree with Call Me Mom.
    Thing is you can only regenerate cells so many times, whose to say it was only this one time? You Sciencetist have been know to clone animals, plants and I for one would not put it past you all to Clone babies for your experimenting purposes and you are keeping this under wraps just like the Government keeps things under wraps. America, what else are they not telling us?

    • What’s unique about this cell line is that it is immortal. It has special properties that allow it to continue to propogate. If I were to call the company and order a vial of the cells today, they would have originated from the first batch created. It’s one of the things that makes these cells so valuable to research.
      Katatkms … You seem to have a very low opinion of scientists. May I ask why? I can’t speak for all of us, but I can say that when I come in to my lab every day, I do it to help make people’s lives better. My work is focused on curing pediatric cancer, and I know that what I do has the potential to make a difference. I don’t understand the distaste you seem to have for us.

  4. I think it’s interesting how scared people become of something that they don’t understand or care to understand.

    One of the most commonly used cell lines in research today, called HeLa cells were extracted from an african american woman without her knowledge in the early fifties. Im sure no scientist or ethicist would argue that the way that these cells were obtained is completely unethical. However, the research these cells were used in has led to cures and treatments for polio, salmonella, HPV, HIV, and tuberculosis. I don’t see anyone complaining that drug companies use dead black ladies in their medicines. Because they don’t. They use cells propagated from one set of unethically collected cells to use in research. Not the actual product.

  5. My friend was flipping her shit about this and I was like ‘seriously?! They didn’t kill the baby! It was never really alive’ I think it’s a good way to use the unborn fetus. Instead of just being thrown the fire the unborn child actually has a purpose in life. So people should be more happy than upset

  6. it is not “valuable science” to put used and modified human cells into our food source! no matter how far removed from the original cell….. this is shear obsurdness to say that human cells in food is a valuable science.

    • You didn’t even read the article — it’s not going into the food. It’s inside a testing device that gathers data about the recipe — NOT part of the recipe.

  7. I tend to agree with Carol, but I appreciate the clearing up of this misunderstanding. I was running around thinking I’d drunk dead babies or something. Glad to know I only drank stuff that had been -tasted- by -generations- of dead baby cells. *wipes sweat drop*

  8. “Be prepared to be completely bored and how ordinary the ruling is. ” (ablestmage)

    Trying to make the article sound boring doesn’t get away from that fact that bio-chemical scientists are using cells derived from an aborted foetus from the 1970s…so they are stll human cells..

    The cells used today are not “aborted fetus” cells, but rather, cells that are zillions of generations down the line from the original sampling which was from an aborted fetus. (ablestmage)

    Originally scientists were claiming they had synthentically replicated the foetus cells by recreating them, atom by atom. This is not the case

    • quite entertained by the ‘ so they are still human cells’ comment i mean come on every one here cuts there hair right? shit i bet youve even ran a rabbit over before, all the same thing. If people have such a problem with this then they have been living under a rock for the past parts of theyre lives.

  9. Conceptually I understand exactly what these dumbf*ck scientists have done because:
    1. I am an object-oriented computer programmer
    2. these dumbf*ck scientists have derived new child cells from the parent cells, which inherits the parents characteristics.

    So basically, genetically they are still human cells

    • Yes, they are still considered a human cell line. That is one of the things that makes them so important. Try as we might, we can’t make mouse cells, for example, behave exactly like human cells because they aren’t. Having the ability to test things in human cells that will eventually end up in human bodies is a very important step to ensuring that the things you put into your body are safe. It is very common that a new drug, for example, will behave perfectly in mouse cells, but when we test it on human cells it is extremely toxic. Rather than find that out on living human test subjects, we try to pre-screen them with a substitute, cultured human cells.
      You are correct that the scientists who originally derived the cell line mis-represented their work. It was a terrible breach of scientific protocol, but that doesn’t make the cells any less useful.
      I am sorry that you have such a poor opinion of scientists, but I assure you most of us are just hard working people who are doing everything we can to help make the world a better place. Yes, some of our counterparts have made bad choices over the years, but that doesn’t change the good that we are doing.

      • that just gives them more fuel to abort babies . like every thing else in this world that needs fuel to satisfy man mind to make it ok.

      • As I’ve stated before, laws currently prohibit aborted fetuses from being used in science as a safeguard. Scientists have no motivation to obtain newly aborted fetuses because they cannot publish any findings related to their use, which means the research cannot be funded.

      • “Having the ability to test things in human cells that will eventually end up in human bodies is a very important step to ensuring that the things you put into your body are safe.” Is this really why Pepsi is using the cells? To make their beverage safer for us? (They should have sold water; the only safe ingredient in it) I understand the use of the cells for scientific breakthrough (in medicine or other areas); but using the cells so they can enhance the flavor of their beverage to make more money; that is crossing the line. Not that the pharmaceutical companies are less greedy, but at least there are benefits associated with medicine. However, we can’t say the same about Pepsi.

  10. In regards to aborted fetal cells – do we know if they were from a fetus that was willing aborted or from a fetus that “auto” aborted? That would make a difference wouldn’t it? And either way – considering all life to be precious – is it not a way of honoring that life – no matter how it was aborted – that that one life has been able to provide value to all of human life? What is the purpose of our lives in the first place if not to honor our Creator in one form or another? Exist and be a teacher or exist on a cellular level only and still add value to life? It is a mute point and very possibly what God intended for that specific life from the beginning.

  11. Pingback: HEK 293 « serendipitousscavenger

  12. Sounds a little too much like …”Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am the Great and powerful Oz!” Meanwhile millions are killed, and unethical companies “liquify the dead, and (feed them) intravenously to the living”

    • Except if you actually read the article, you would know the cells aren’t actually in the soda. At all. Woops.

  13. Yeah makes sense but says who? Who wrote this article? Could be a bunch of b.s. to cover it up. If this was the case I doubt it would be all over the internet. Alex Jones also said they use fetus cells in vaccines. Sick…

  14. ok i read a comment by someone saying certian companies use aborted fetuses in their product to make it taste better…After reading this…at least what i got from that they use cells from 1 aborted fetus to figure out if it taste good??? but they dont put anything in their product? If thats the case then im good and power to em…

  15. Im pro life amd i didnt see anyhting where ablestmage said it was ok for an abortion in his comment. He just explained that the original headline was wrong from the very start and saying that Pepsico doesnt not use aborted fetus cells in their formula for flavor or any other reason. I doubt he had control over what happened in 1972 or even today with abortion, so i wouldnt take your anger out on him for it. Thank you for the explination, and too Nikkilina too.

  16. Other websites besides LifeSiteNews has posted about this highly controversial topic. I agree with a few of the others, no matter how you look at it, abortion is murder. Regardless of the packaging or the fancy terms and fancy words and lettering, abortion is murder!! For those that believe in Jesus and God and the Holy Bible, we are living in the last days when we eat our young. May God Help this world and forgive us!!

    • Alright Listen they use cells to test the taste of the soda by the reaction of the cell it is a safe way to test the drink or vaccine to make sure it won’t harm us or taste bad without the this study we would be set back so far I’m pro life but some things people say are crazy if the baby is aborted why not use it to make vaccines to save millions of people once again I’m pro life but I think people need to think more about the well being of the human population instead of what’s wrong or what’s right so instead of throwing up fingers and calling people murders think about the ability to cure diseases that kill hundreds of thousands people every day but that’s just my 2 cents

    • I wish you dumbf*cks would actually read the article before posting, but on a side not, I guess it works out well for those of us who don’t believe since we don’t have anything to worry about. Of course, that sentence itself was stupid. I don’t believe in your story (bible), or God, but that doesn’t mean I’d be ok with any company using aborted fetus cells in their product, however, if you read the article, you’d know that’s not what happened. Anyways, I’m off to drink a Pepsi…

  17. If they are researching the cells then that only means they have a plan to possibly use them in the future. This is cannobilism. It is murder. In the bible God tells Jeremiah that he knew him before he was in his mothers womb. If you can’t look at a eight week ultrasound and tell that there is a life inside of that mother then something is wrong with you. There is not an excuse for this. Even if I, somehow in my life, I would have gotten mislead and thought that abortion was humane the thought of this would still disgust me. Pepsi was my favorite beverage until three days ago. When I decided to boycott all who are involved in this. Take a stand research all involved and boycott. 120,000 babies are murdered each day. How long do we think that the God who created Heaven and earth will stand back and watch. Pick up a King James, turn to revelation and look for yourself. Us humans think we are something, and we are because God created us in his image. But that same God hates sin, and that same God will Judge us one day. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that he is God.

    • God tells Jeremiah that he knew *Jeremiah* before he was in his mother’s womb, not all people. Also, He is speaking to Jeremiah as an *adult* at the time He says it, knowing Jeremiah would become an adult. Wouldn’t He know whether “someone” would survive past the embryo stage?

      Pepsi, nor the testing company, kill children for research. It is not murder, because there is no killing involved. A single child was killed completely independent of the original tissue sample, and would have been killed had the tissue sample not been collected. The sampling team took a sample from tissue of an aborted fetus, without having *any* connection to how or why it was aborted, and has been able to use that sample in a thoroughly humane and respectful way, for 40+ years beyond the life of the fetus you never would have even known about until now.

      If I could be killed, and my tissues go on to do such amazing things, I would load the gun for you and let you do the honors.

  18. And if I can determine that pepsi along with other companies are not involved in this research then I will continue to do business. Fear not what man can do unto you.

  19. All that sounds like some bull….talking about sharks and crap…didnt have anything to do with pepsi….really….who ever came up with the idea of useing baby afterbirth..for something we put in our BODY…is stupid!!!!! and sick in there head..

  20. the level of retardedness of some of the people commenting is bewildering.

    these scientists, like every other single scientist in the biomedical field, use human cells to study their biology and develop treatment for diseases.
    without the use of human cells (and animal cells, and -god forbid- animal themselves) there would be no drugs and half of you people would be already dead as life expectancy would be 40-50 like a century ago.

    and i certainly hope none of you or your children ever get sick, because i am sure you would be consistent with your warped views and avoid any cure.


  21. I think some of the people commenting need to read the article. I do not agree with abortion. I disagree with it to completely. However, We are not drinking a dead baby and all the poor little babies whom are killed everyday just so someone can get out of their circumstances are not being used. It is against the law the article made that clear.

    One day every mother and father who chose to kill their baby will stand before Jesus and will answer to him as will all the doctors and nurses who took the lives of those babies.

    I was very unhappy when a friend told me that Pepsi used aborted babies for testing. I am still unhappy that what the author of this article has seemed to say that it was an aborted fetus not 5 or 10 or 5000. I still disagree with the original source these cells have been derived.

    However, God is a Holy and just God and as he had allowed Joseph to be stripped away from his family and sold into slavery and then thrown into jail. God had a plan for him and through that plan the story goes on and on and on. The brothers who sold Joseph into that pit and then sold him into slavery meant it for harm. God used it for good. The mother of that aborted baby did it for reasons unknown to us and will or has stood before the Lord to answer for her decision. However, God has used it for good and much research has taken place from this innocent life.

    Again it is not okay to kill babies and they are indeed babies from conception. Using aborted babies for research is wrong and I am glad that it is illegal at this point to do such a thing. I wish the story of the original human cell came from a knowing adult who’s death came about from age or illness but it didn’t.

    All you naysayers out there don’t get sick and need to take medicine that was tested by the cells created by the original cell of that baby okay. That original act of sin of a mother, father, and doctor has given you much to live by today.

    Maybe you will choose not to purchase Pepsi co. product but if you get sick are you going to choose to stay sick or death over being treated.

    If you are against this research then you are against this research so you better research everything this research has done or may do for you. We need not drink the product of this company but when it comes to medications we may really need those.

    • Oh this is very good, I wish I read your comment earlier, it makes sense.
      I understand that good can come from evil actions, but the thing that concerns me is if people try to justify evil actions and one thing leads to another. I would just be worried about certain things being OK’d and then the problem get worse : /

  22. I think it is fine people ate so over the top ridiculous with this abortion shit I have 2 children and what woman foes with her snatch is her buissnes sonow realize how many fingers are dipped into kraft Pepsi Campbell’s and so on and tell me u never ate or drank or used one of their products

  23. Can they/Pepsi and others who are using this procedure using human fetal cells just get one to however many needed, healthy, THIRSTY, LIVING, human beings WHO ARE MORE THAN WILLING to undergo what minor procedure it would take to extract enough human cells for that purpose? Pepsi could offer money or perhaps cases of their soft drinks (for those who like it) to the non volunteer’s just to really settle this humanly and ethically. I read enough of the article but I bet the subject or idea would still leave a bad per-say, TASTE in most humans/people’s mouth’s.

    • It’s like you never even read the article at all.. the procedure happened ONCE in the 1970s, to only one fetus of an unknown donor, and by a scientist studying tissue and unrelated to food science — so the procedure does not occur regularly. The cells from the first sample were regrown over and over to reproduce the same sample cells.

  24. Am I the only one that thinks that using a murdered babies cells to taste test is gross?
    How would any of you feel if you were murdered but “we’ve put your cells to good use!” Ok so it’s not the original babies cells, but obviously the recent cells used had to first come from the murdered baby.
    Why are people trying to justify murder?

  25. Pingback: 5 Dumb Myths I’ve Seen Christians Propagate (& Links to the Real Story) | Liz Boltz Ranfeld

  26. Pingback: An Ablestate of the Union Address for 2013 | the ablestmage press

  27. that “Obama agency” create an precedent. if we loose that cells inherited from baby body, the declaration will justify reusing same source. more then that maybe (if is unknown sure) today, some coke comp use in same way cells obtained from imorall sources and after 50 years, will find this in news like this. why gouvernamental agencies doesn’t care about 50 years ago? more then using those cells is violation of our rights to know what we consume and set us in accomplished fact. justifying an vicious circle where we are the victims and blame is on past. your article is correct but imoral because give credit to any actions of that kind, more it seem like a training, today you explain the fact and we can accept this little step against morality. and so on with small steps after 50 years, we will consume coke with cell obtain directly from babies, because are same or more tastefull and cheaper to obtain. or maybe some crazy, envogue marketing company will find very cool bottling the beverage in a aborted baby shape. all because we accept gradual little compromises.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.