Why doesn't Coke switch from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar?

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I'm sure Coke has thought about this. From an economics point of view, it's pointless to spend more money on cane sugar instead of HFCS when there aren't that many more people that are going to buy it. People like Coke as it is - why change it?

I would like to see a version of coke that has sugar.

I would pay more for it because the taste.

You can keep coke as it is.

Just add a new version of coke in addition to coke, diet coke, cherry coke, coke zero, coke with lime etc.

What is the harm in that?

 

[Jeff7]

But...but Mercola must be legit! They have ferrite beads to cut down on cellphone radiation going into your brain!

Why, they even have quotes, in red capital letters.

USING A FERRITE BEAD IS THE ONLY THING I'VE FOUND THAT MAY PROTECT YOUR CHILD'S BRAIN FROM THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RFI'S IN CELL PHONES.

And they're just $14.97 each.
Or $2.00 each.
Yes, evidently these amazing things arrest the EM radiation coming from your cellphone's internal antenna - by clipping onto a completely unrelated wire.
Simply incredible.


Alas, despite the variety of other oils and such there, I don't see any genuine snake oil.



Their "healthy home" CFL page is great too.

Third, there is no such thing as an incandescent full spectrum light bulb (despite what some unscrupulous sales people might tell you). Inexpensive neodymium bulbs touted as "full spectrum" lights will not give you the health benefits of true full spectrum, and are consequently no bargain.

Of course, an incandescent bulb puts out a much more complete spectrum than a CFL. Good CFLs use tri-color phosphors, which are meant to put out light that best suits our eyes, namely good RGB output. Incandescents put out a much larger range of the EM spectrum, including stuff we can't see at all.
And an incandescent filament is (nearly) a blackbody, just like the Sun is.

All for the price of just $11.37 each.



And of course, there's this at the bottom:

The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I prefer cane sugar-flavored sodas over HFCS. The reason why HFCS is cheaper still is due to an archaic government subsidy brought about during the great depression to address the needs of back then. Fuck knows why it's still in place when corn is among the more difficult crops to grow. Sugar is easier to grow, but farmers dont' give a shit. They still get paid for growing as much corn as possible.

Actually, no. Sugar Tariffs passed in the early 80s directly precedes the switch to HFCS.

So if you like sugar, you have a very valid. reason to believe in a free market.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I prefer cane sugar-flavored sodas over HFCS. The reason why HFCS is cheaper still is due to an archaic government subsidy brought about during the great depression to address the needs of back then. Fuck knows why it's still in place when corn is among the more difficult crops to grow. Sugar is easier to grow, but farmers dont' give a shit. They still get paid for growing as much corn as possible.

Its more the US sugar growers that lobby for the tariffs. US sugar growers make a killing here and that is what keeps sugar prices here high.

The corn subsidy does lower the price of corn but given the world price of sugar it is still cheaper than US price of corn.

So while the corn lobby is partially responsible most of the blame ultimately lies on the sugar growers and their lobby.

Sugar is NOT easy to grow in the US due to our climate but that doesn't mean there should be tariffs on it. It simply shouldn't be grown here and our sugar crop should be diverted to something else if US sugar can't compete with the rest of the world.

 

[ra1nman]

Speaking of Coca-Cola......anybody see this before?
Text

Seems like it will be pretty interesting.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: mchammer187

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I'm sure Coke has thought about this. From an economics point of view, it's pointless to spend more money on cane sugar instead of HFCS when there aren't that many more people that are going to buy it. People like Coke as it is - why change it?

I would like to see a version of coke that has sugar.

I would pay more for it because the taste.

You can keep coke as it is.

Just add a new version of coke in addition to coke, diet coke, cherry coke, coke zero, coke with lime etc.

What is the harm in that?

But then there's the problem of making an entirely new production line for sugar coke cans/bottles, new marketing, etc., that really just takes away from the sales of HFCS coke. It doesn't make sense to market the same product twice, when most people will still just go for the cheaper HFCS alternative when it's still there. You might pay an extra $.20 for a 2 liter bottle, but that's going to take awhile to recoup on the setup costs for making it.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Barfo
$$$

And don't forget that contrary to what people say, the taste is the same.

They taste the same except for the difference in taste.

 

[adlep]

I feel sorry for all the people who can not make out the difference between the aroma of the HFCS and Sugar.
Regular sugar > HFCS

 

[alkemyst]

mountain dew mouth.

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: Amused

And obesity also correlates with the rise in popularity of Rap music. Shall we blame that too?




Dumbass.

Here's a hint: The minute you posted Mercola, you lost. Even if you had a basis for an argument here you would have lost posting that quack as a reference.

ROFL. eits, I'm sorry, but your attempt to bury the opposition in a mountain of documents has failed.

All the doctors of the world need to stop jumping on the bandwagon "threat to humanity" du jour.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Itchrelief

Originally posted by: Amused

And obesity also correlates with the rise in popularity of Rap music. Shall we blame that too?




Dumbass.

Here's a hint: The minute you posted Mercola, you lost. Even if you had a basis for an argument here you would have lost posting that quack as a reference.

ROFL. eits, I'm sorry, but your attempt to bury the opposition in a mountain of documents has failed.

All the doctors of the world need to stop jumping on the bandwagon "threat to humanity" du jour.

doctor <> M.D.

 

[Chaotic42]

Coke has gotten too sweet anyway. Didn't it used to be 120 calories per can? I think it's like 150 or so now.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Because of sweet business deals with the corn industry.

iseewhatyoudidthere

I get it. You know, because high fructose corn syrup is sweet, and so is that business deal. Everyone get that?

I got it.

OH, now I see!

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I prefer cane sugar-flavored sodas over HFCS. The reason why HFCS is cheaper still is due to an archaic government subsidy brought about during the great depression to address the needs of back then. Fuck knows why it's still in place when corn is among the more difficult crops to grow. Sugar is easier to grow, but farmers dont' give a shit. They still get paid for growing as much corn as possible.

Actually, no. Sugar Tariffs passed in the early 80s directly precedes the switch to HFCS.

So if you like sugar, you have a very valid. reason to believe in a free market.

Originally posted by: mchammer187
Its more the US sugar growers that lobby for the tariffs. US sugar growers make a killing here and that is what keeps sugar prices here high.

The corn subsidy does lower the price of corn but given the world price of sugar it is still cheaper than US price of corn.

So while the corn lobby is partially responsible most of the blame ultimately lies on the sugar growers and their lobby.

Sugar is NOT easy to grow in the US due to our climate but that doesn't mean there should be tariffs on it. It simply shouldn't be grown here and our sugar crop should be diverted to something else if US sugar can't compete with the rest of the world.

Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I've always thought corn subsidies were the sole reason. I didn't know tariffs based off of gov't lobbies existed. I wonder in a global economy if these tariffs and subsidies still hold any water. Will it be a wise idea to get rid of these and let the global economy "normalize" everything? ...Or will it be in our best interest (as in the consumers, and to the overall wellbeing of US citizens) to keep these tariffs/subidies?

 

[Fingolfin269]

I want the Mountain Dew Throwback to be permanent.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: Tobolo

Originally posted by: lokiju
Once every few years I'll go to the World of Coke in Atlanta, GA when people come to visit from out of town and want to check it out and every time I've been there I've been told by the tour guides that Coke has been working on releasing a sugar version of Coke due to popular demand.

I go about twice a year and I have never heard that.

Every time I'm there someone always ask the question in the group.

Ask and you shall receive (an answer).

 

[nageov3t]

haven't had a sip of soda (or other sugar-laden beverages, not counting that one white tea snapple I drank by accident) in over a year and not looking back :beer:

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Jadow

Originally posted by: eits
hfcs is cheaper to use than cane sugar... and even though hfcs is bad for you and is making america fatter, coke only care's about the almighty dollar.

it's no worse for you than a million other things. and it's no worse for you than sugar. HCFS gets a bad rap.

not true.

yes, although there was a study about 5 or 6 months ago about how there was no difference in the human body between hfcs and sugar, it was a poor study. it didn't talk at all about the nature of hfcs, byproducts of it, and it's overall result on the cellular and biochemical level.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...6/AR2009012601831.html
http://www.organicconsumers.or...cles/article_15241.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...09/03/090303123802.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.or...icles/article_6210.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...09/08/090826110118.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.or...cles/article_17345.cfm
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911#SEC8
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
http://articles.mercola.com/si...nsulin-Resistance.aspx

Okay, where to start...

It's obvious you have no idea what a valid, peer reviewed and repeated study is so I'll just discredit your links for the masses:

First link: Unsubstantiated fear mongering. No amounts are given, meaning they are too small to raise a valid alarm.

Second link: Invalid poisoning of the wells, which is a joke, given the source.

Third link, and this is where ignorant people fail: Fructose is in sucrose as well. Both cane sugar and HFCS are hal/half fructose/glucose. A study on fructose is equally as damning of common cane sugar as it is of HFCS. Fail.

Forth link: Mercola. Enough said. I don;t even have to mention how his claims are completely unsupported by facts and he applies studies on fructose to HFCS. He's a quack.

Fifth link. Absurd. There have been no, none, nada cases of HMF poisoning. Trace amounts do NOT make a poison when many millions more times are needed to be toxic.

Sixth link: Irrelevant.

Seventh link: Again, you fail. Fructose is in table sugar same as HFCS. Only a dumbass would present a study showing harm from Frustose and claim it proves HFCS is worse than sugar, when both are HALF FRUCTOSE.

Eighth: A complete joke which combines the ever stupid "frucose studies =HFCS" mentality and claims a correlation = causation. It's not even a study, it's a unsupported theory. A posit.

Ninth: Mercola. 'Nuf said.

There's a reason you're a chiropractor and not a real doctor.

Folks, there is not a single valid study showing HFCS having any different long term or short term effects on the body or body fat than an equal amount of calories of sucrose consumed. Not a single one.

Dude, you're arguing with a chiropractor. Scientific evidence is whatever he says it is.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I usually drink diet, but I made an exception to try the pepsi and mountain dew throwbacks. I didn't even really like them.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I want the Mountain Dew Throwback to be permanent.

The story behind that I heard was that some stored supplies of corn syrup from a major supplier was tainted. Pepsi had a choice, cut production or solve the problem.
Using higher priced sugar was the answer.
Leave it to marketing to figure out a way to profit from a loss.

 

[Acanthus]

I saw a thing on discovery that had a coke rep saying that the cost difference when coke made the switch originally was 1 cent per 12oz can.

I would imagine it is similar now.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I saw a thing on discovery that had a coke rep saying that the cost difference when coke made the switch originally was 1 cent per 12oz can.

I would imagine it is similar now.

But that is 1cent to coke, not the buyer. Let alone 1cent per can when they make millions of them everymonth.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I want the Mountain Dew Throwback to be permanent.

The story behind that I heard was that some stored supplies of corn syrup from a major supplier was tainted. Pepsi had a choice, cut production or solve the problem.
Using higher priced sugar was the answer.
Leave it to marketing to figure out a way to profit from a loss.

Call it what you will but I've always thought sugar tastes 100x better. I don't drink nearly enough of the stuff to be concerned about any health complications either so that aspect doesn't bother me at all. It's about the flavor. Throwback dew > current dew.

 

[sourceninja]

I preferred pepsi throwback to pepsi. It didn't leave the same aftertaste in my mouth and had a nice 'spice' to it. I however could not stand mountain dew throwback.

I would love coke with suger.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Because corn syrup based cola tastes nearly identical to that made from beet sugar and thanks to the corn subsidies, costs much less.

No, no it does not "taste nearly identical". There is an abundantly clear difference between Canadian Coca-Cola and US Coca-Cola and I've never been able to find any source that lists any difference in formula other than cane sugar vs HFCS.

I don't buy into the supposed health issues of HFCF, but I do stand by there being a noticeable difference in taste.

ZV