Kirks Sugar Free Multipack Cans (Various) 20 x 375ml $11.44 (S&S Only) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon AU

1470

Kirks Sugar Free Multipack Cans (Various) 20 x 375ml $11.44 (S&S Only) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon AU

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

Kegsta on 21/01/2024 - 12:04 amazon.com.au (4617 clicks)
Last edited 21/01/2024 - 17:52 by 1 other user

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Sugar Free Creaming Soda, Pasito, Lemonade, Lemon Squash. 20 packs

$2.60 Coupon for S&S brings it down to $11.44 Delivered with prime, can use multiple times to get the different flavours.

EDIT
Looks like S&S has ended for Pasito and Lemon Squash.

Normal Sugar Versions also avaliable
https://www.amazon.com.au/Kirks-Creaming-Soda-Drink-Multipac…

https://www.amazon.com.au/Kirks-Pasito-Soft-Drink-Multipack/…

Price History at CamelCamelCamel.

Groceries Kirks Soft Drink

22 Jan 9:56am

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

closed Comments

Grannular on 21/01/2024 - 12:08

+2

The lemon squash sugar free goes great with vodka
CheapandUsed on 21/01/2024 - 12:16

+11

Pasito is so underrated, I grab it every chance I get
- Ladcake on 21/01/2024 - 16:04
  
  It’s the best!
- 2jzzzz on 22/01/2024 - 09:47
  
  It smells like parmesan / vomit to me
dottjt on 21/01/2024 - 12:18

Could I just subscribe and then cancel immediately?
- Slave1 on 21/01/2024 - 12:23
  
  +6
  
  Pretty sure that's what most of us do
  - [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 12:29
    
    +2
    
    That's illegal, pretty sure Bezos will come knocking on your door with a letter of, please re-subscribe.
    - Bigboomboom on 21/01/2024 - 15:51
      
      In fact Amazon has "I want to get initial discount only" as cancellation reason, and it would only cancel re-subscribe. So Bezos is an OK.
      - [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 15:52
        
        @Bigboomboom: He will still come to you house though, he has some selfies he wants to share with you.
        
        Bigboomboom on 21/01/2024 - 15:52
        
        @[Deactivated]: Does he want to post in on X?
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 15:53
        
        @Bigboomboom: It has something to do with rockets yes.
        
        Bigboomboom on 21/01/2024 - 15:58
        
        @[Deactivated]: What's in his pocket?
      - b2dz on 22/01/2024 - 12:07
        
        @Bigboomboom: Don't choose this!
        
        You don't want them to scrap the whole S&S scheme because too many people chose this and they determine it's no longer profitable to offer S&S. Choose a different cancellation reason!
[Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 12:19

Price is incorrect, there is 2 prices, 1 is for 1 off which is

$15.60 minus $2.60 = $13.00

or

$14.04 minus $2.60 = $11.80 for auto delivery which nets you another 10% reflected in this price.
- RSmith on 21/01/2024 - 12:23
  
  $15.60 minus $2.60 = $13.00
  
  $2.60 coupon is for subscribe and save only.
  - [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 12:25
    
    +1
    
    Coupon:
    $2.60 coupon applied to one item at checkout Terms
    
    ^^ Can be used as 1 time too.
Slave1 on 21/01/2024 - 12:29

I'm only getting the 10% S&S discount? So $14.04
- dazchan on 21/01/2024 - 12:32
  
  Checkout
  - Slave1 on 21/01/2024 - 12:39
    
    No dice. Assuming it's for those who haven't used S&S before
    - Morien on 21/01/2024 - 13:01
      
      +3
      
      Nope. I’ve used it plenty.
nubzy on 21/01/2024 - 12:37

Thanks got pasito sugar free
Ham Dragon on 21/01/2024 - 12:44

Thanks OP, only looked yesterday and they were still regular price. Loaded up on all flavours!
Slave1 on 21/01/2024 - 12:55

Seems to be only for new S&S orders as discount doesn't apply at checkout
- Spam on 21/01/2024 - 12:58
  
  Have you check the coupon discount?
  Works for me, placed 2 seperate order for 2 diff flavours
MrGareth on 21/01/2024 - 13:00

+1

I managed to get 3 separate S&S orders, all at the $11.44 price (lemonade, lemon squash and creaming soda - all sugar free, not that the drinks are anywhere near healthy anyway!)
Alley Cat on 21/01/2024 - 13:02

Thanks, got 4 delivered for free.

I didn’t realise there’s preservatives in soft drinks until I had these from the last promo. 211 is much milder than 220 for my body, would rather not having any tho. They also need to replace aspartame with stevia/monk fruit/flavour of the year natural sweetener.
- pennypincher98 on 21/01/2024 - 13:36
  
  -5
  
  Aspartame aren't in these afaik, but cyclamate (952) is which has been researched to be carcinogenic and banned in 45 countries, even in the US.
  - tbone74 on 21/01/2024 - 13:45
    
    Can you please provide a reference for your "banned in 45 countries" comment?
    - [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 14:11
      
      -3
      
      Cyclamate is actually banned in the UK, Canada, Japan and the US in fact 45 countries ban it as animal studies linked it to bladder cancer.
      
      Cyclamate (952) is an artificial sweetener that tastes most like natural sweeteners and is often added to Sodium Saccharine to make a balanced artificial sweetener. Cyclamate is actually banned in the UK, Canada, Japan and the US in fact 45 countries ban it as animal studies linked it to bladder cancer. It is allowed here in Australia and although FSANZ found it safe, it may be good to avoid this one as well.
      
      Cyclamate
      - tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:05
        
        +6
        
        @[Deactivated]: @pennypincher98
        
        From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclamate :
        
        In 1966, a study reported that some intestinal bacteria could desulfonate cyclamate to produce cyclohexylamine, a compound suspected to have some chronic toxicity in animals. Further research resulted in a 1969 study that found the common 10:1 cyclamate–saccharin mixture increased the incidence of bladder cancer in rats. The released study was showing that eight out of 240 rats fed a mixture of saccharin and cyclamates, at levels equivalent to humans ingesting 550 cans of diet soda per day, developed bladder tumors.
        
        https://sci-hub.se/10.2307/1728690 published in 1970:
        
        The development of bladder neoplasms had not been reported in other species or in other strains of rats fed cyclamate or saccharin. There is no evidence that the use of cyclamate or saccharin has caused cancer in man, malformations in children, or any other abnormality in humans other than a rare skin hypersensitivity.
        
        List of countries that permit its use: https://www.cyclamate.org/pdf/Cyclamate_worldwidestatus.pdf
        
        Emphasis mine.
        
        No offense, but the site having 'superfoods' in its name should make you immediately sus at its bias.
        
        If you would avoid this, you're be more prudent to avoid red and processed meat / processed foods in general.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:13
        
        -5
        
        @tetra: Fact you cite Wiki as a source is offensive.
        All I did was show there was a link, not that it was a fact.
        The fact it's a fact and you use Wiki as a non fact is in fact tactless.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:16
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: No it is not, because the wiki uses references which you can then follow to see the source, which is why I linked the paper which you ignored.
        
        A wikipedia article requires references, your viewpoint on using wiki is outdated and wrong.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:18
        
        -5
        
        @tetra: I do ignore it because you've used Wiki as a source.
        I did how ever provide a link to the 45 countries that have banned said Cyclamate.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:18
        
        @[Deactivated]: Well that's just stupid m8.
        
        Nothing else to be said.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:20
        
        -7
        
        @tetra: Well that's your opinion, which is as good as Wiki, which means nothing.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:21
        
        @[Deactivated]: You're honestly embarrassing.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:21
        
        -4
        
        @tetra: So is your Wiki citation.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:23
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: M8, let's break it down.
        
        You under the opinion that a scientific paper means nothing, solely because it was cited in a wikipedia article.
        
        The Australian education system is failing us.
        
        Sigh
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:25
        
        -5
        
        @tetra: I am not your M8.
        I don't know who you are or why you're trying to palm off Wiki as some source of credible information, and that's where the Australian educational system has failed you, not I.
        They do not allow Wiki as any form of credible citation, but you would know that if you had a healthy dose of Australian education.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:26
        
        +3
        
        @[Deactivated]: WHICH IS WHY I LINKED THE SCIENTIFIC PAPER.
        
        Jesus, you are dense. You can't even understand basic Aussie lingo.
        
        Shameful.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:27
        
        -4
        
        @tetra: I don't even know what basic Aussie lingo is, because I have been educated and don't use Wiki as a source of credible information.
        I.e I am not of bogan descent.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:30
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: If I ignore everything and hyper-focus on a single aspect, I too can match your education level.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:32
        
        -4
        
        @tetra: Why are you continuing to post to me when you have not added anything to this conversation since your 1st post which contained that Wiki post that isn't of credible source?
        Maybe you're bored, or you should do your homework.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:33
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Look in a mirror.
        
        You got embarrased for being stupid, so you double down and post inane comments.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:37
        
        -3
        
        @tetra: Says the guy who keeps trying to insult, and you know what they say when you sling insults, you automatically lose the argument, on top of trying to palm off Wiki as a credible source.
        
        Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.
        
        Source
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:40
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Great job googling! Wow!
        
        Let's circle back to my first reply on this topic,
        
        which you can then follow to see the source, which is why I linked the paper which you…
        
        Now lets take a look at your link (wow great job! you googled, I'm proud of you!)
        
        The online encyclopedia does not guarantee the validity of its information. It is seen as a valuable "starting point" for researchers when they pass over content to examine the listed references, citations, and sources. Academics suggest reviewing reliable sources when assessing the quality of articles.[18][19]
        
        You are so tiring.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:41
        
        -1
        
        @tetra:
        
        Great job googling! Wow!
        
        Googling*
        
        Now lets take a look at your link (wow great job! you googled, I'm proud of you!)
        
        Googled*
        
        You are so tiring.
        
        Go to bed then.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:42
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Googling and googled are verbs. Google is a noun.
        
        Not a great show of your education is it?
        
        Way to deflect as well. Classic.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:44
        
        -1
        
        @tetra: I don't prize my education, I just acknowledge it, where as you are a product of it clearly as shown.
        Any other insults you're trying to pass off, like Wiki as a credible source?
        Oh my.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:48
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Can you give an honest reason why you double down on something baseless and just ignore everything that shows you're wrong?
        Even your own sources that you tried to use to prove yourself correct?
        
        Genuinely?
        
        In such a situation, is calling a stupid person stupid an insult?
        
        And let's not pretend you didn't start with the insults.
        
        Well that's your opinion, which is as good as Wiki, which means nothing.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:50
        
        -1
        
        @tetra: Again, just your opinion when using Wiki then flinging insults, you lost the argument as soon as you did both.
        Now go and do something productive with the last part of your Sunday before school starts again.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:51
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: But it's not 'using Wiki', it's reading and linking a published scientific paper.
        
        before school starts again.
        
        So you're admitting you got outsmarted by a kid.
        
        Self-own.
        
        [Deactivated] on 21/01/2024 - 16:52
        
        -1
        
        @tetra: You've cited Wiki time and time again, which results in not being a credible source, l have better things to do than try and educate someone that insults people with both Wiki and insults.
        Maybe if you were more civil, I would have had a proper conversation with you, but that time has passed.
        
        Good bye M8.
        
        tetra on 21/01/2024 - 16:55
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        You've cited Wiki time and time again
        
        I cited wiki once and only once.
        
        which results in not being a credible source
        
        So you don't think a published scientific paper is a credible source.
        
        Maybe if you were more civil, I would have had a proper conversation with you, but that time has passed
        
        No you would not have. Your first reply was not civil to begin with.
        
        Not surprised the type of person to double down when wrong would also lie blatantly.
        
        Arronaj on 21/01/2024 - 18:07
        
        +1
        
        @tetra: You two need to get a room, there are some sparks when it gets drawn out this long. Or just chill out with some cyclamate flavoured Kirk's.
    - pennypincher98 on 21/01/2024 - 14:23
      
      Got it from here from one of those google dropdown questions of "which countries banned cyclamate" and admittedly didn't further research, but upon further research it seems that while US, Japan and a few others have held steadfast in this approach, others have changed their tune. Some still only use as a packaged tabletop sweetener (ie in tablet form) but others have begun using it again.
      
      It seems the general consensus has gone from "carcinogenic" to increasing the potency of other carcinogens. Other sources state it's a Type 3 (insufficient evidence to conclude either carcinogenic or not). General rating seems to be avoid.
      - [Deactivated] on 22/01/2024 - 07:49
        
        @pennypincher98: It's funny when you provide them with what they ask, suddenly your posts get negged.
        I never wrote any articles, I merely posted a link to which they could read.
        
        Not fussed, I mean if countries are banning things, there must be a reason to do so.
  - Alley Cat on 21/01/2024 - 13:55
    
    Huh indeed, 950, 952 and 955. I think I went to look up the diff between 211 and 212 when I felt weird the next day and assumed aspartame because that’s what’s in coke. Makes sense now. I’m most reactive to 955 though, interestingly.
    
    Edit: the irony is I tried to stop drinking beer, but it’s really hot so thought I’d go for soft drinks. Coke and Pepsi were out due to their high acidity, these seemed to be harm-less in comparison.
    - pennypincher98 on 21/01/2024 - 14:39
      
      If you're looking for a "natural" soft drink and don't mind burning a bit of a hole in your wallet, I've heard Sodaly is good, or if you do try Nexba (it's currently $2.45/L at Woolies if you have rewards card).
      - Alley Cat on 21/01/2024 - 14:46
        
        @pennypincher98: Cheers, I’ll check these out. I’m waiting for mt Franklin slightly sparkling to have decent sales.
      - CheapandUsed on 21/01/2024 - 18:20
        
        +1
        
        @pennypincher98: My local Aldi had sodaly 4x250ml cans for $5… The passion fruit flavour is a very good imitation of pasito
Smigit on 21/01/2024 - 13:08

FWIW I made two orders at 11.44 each, appeared to be able to use the code more than once.
Rookie1 on 21/01/2024 - 13:36

S&S doesn't work for Lemon Squash
R4 on 21/01/2024 - 13:37

+1

Their sugar free creaming soda is my favourite soft drink now.

Great price.
Squirmy Squid on 21/01/2024 - 13:43

Thanks op. Was down to my last 5 cans.
Chenzo on 21/01/2024 - 14:04

I've cancelled drink orders from amazon and will probably not buy drinks from them.
Reason being the drivers I've received don't handle the drinks well.
- Alley Cat on 21/01/2024 - 14:49
  
  Were they drunk or did they shake your drink vigorously before dropping them off? It’s a good opportunity to get some refund from Amazon and keep the drinks.
  - Brick50 on 21/01/2024 - 16:35
    
    I've had some of these arrive with a few punctured cans before, beats lugging them from the supermarket
    - Alley Cat on 21/01/2024 - 17:40
      
      Photo to Amazon customer service and score! 😆
      - Chenzo on 22/01/2024 - 08:55
        
        +1
        
        @Alley Cat: I always get the credit when it occurs. Just sharing my experience
- UrMumsOnlyFan on 21/01/2024 - 22:02
  
  Science Minute: How to keep a soda can from exploding
  
  Tapping the top of a badly shaken can does nothing, however flicking the sides works wonders. Couldn't believe how effective it was.
MelBorn on 21/01/2024 - 14:12

13.50 no longer the normal sale price? looks like they jacked it up across the board to $15.60 then you need a coupon…
Amr911 on 21/01/2024 - 20:04

Cant find the s&s option!
sam cho on 21/01/2024 - 21:52

Only cream and soda is available s&s
danielh on 22/01/2024 - 07:22

Isn’t it $8.40 (at 40% off) for a 10 can pack at Woolworths right now?
- Crownie on 22/01/2024 - 16:20
  
  It's 3 for $19.50 as a Woolworst "online special."
  I prefer to buy from Coles as I get 10% off right now but there's no 1/2 price special at Coles.
  I guess Amazon Primes 1-2 day delivery and slightly cheaper price is worth it.
joshash on 22/01/2024 - 07:48

I found this ozbargain post from the Wikipedia article on cyclamate.
joshash on 22/01/2024 - 07:53

"Cyclamate was discovered in 1937…. He put his cigarette down on the lab bench, and when he put it back in his mouth, he discovered the sweet taste of cyclamate."
Ah 1937 - the golden era of organic chemistry and lab safety.
Those were the days - you didn't even need to go outside for a smoke.
"This stuff might cause cancer, let me just have a smoke over this flask of acetone while I research it"
sena86 on 24/01/2024 - 21:40

Did people get their orders? Mine has been "delivering by 8pm" for the past few days.

I guess it will be a refund soon enough
- Crownie on 25/01/2024 - 10:44
  
  Got mine next day with Amazon Prime delivery.
  - sena86 on 25/01/2024 - 10:47
    
    Mine was lost/never shipped according to them, they ended up issuing a refund.

This was posted 10 months 1 day ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Kirks Sugar Free Multipack Cans (Various) 20 x 375ml $11.44 (S&S Only) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon AU

Related Stores

closed Comments

Related Products

Top Deals

New Deals