What Happens to the Coke in Coca-Cola? | Hacker News Reader

What Happens to the Coke in Coca-Cola?

good.is

256 pointsgruseom126 comments

I was going to say that I found it hard to believe that Coca-Cola was only manufactured in the USA, and ask how the export of coca leaves to other countries worked. Then I looked up Coca-Cola on Wikipedia and saw that "The company produces concentrate, which is then sold to licensed Coca-Cola bottlers throughout the world". So I guess it is only manufactured in the USA.

Which brings to mind an interesting tangent.

There's a recent trend for importing glass bottles of Coca-Cola from Mexico. The reason is that unlike American Coke, Mexican Coke has sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup. The reason American Coke has high fructose corn syrup is because of the US sugar tariff. So Mexican bottlers import American Coca-Cola concentrate, mix in carbonated water and some cane sugar of either Mexican or presumably Caribbean origin, and export the finished bottles of Coca-Cola back to the United States, simply to route around the damage of the US sugar tariff.

Also, it tastes better.

And is believed to be better for you.

But probably isn't (I say, as I sip from a bottle of Mexican Coke).

I'd like to see a controlled experiment. Are you willing to take the Pepsi Challenge?

It is interesting to me that so many people seem to believe that it's difficult to distinguish between different cola products. I'm a programmer at a game studio and when I randomly asserted that I could distinguish between Coke and Pepsi they immediately scoffed and said that I could take the test, but no one passes the test. Blind test results? 100% correct (the test only had Coke and Pepsi proper, no random RC cola.)

I don't think I'm a freak; can the average Joe not distinguish between the taste of Coke and Pepsi?

Perhaps you're a supertaster. I think I am; I find many green vegetables taste absolutely disgusting, which is a common problem among supertasters as they can taste certain substances normals can't.

That's an interesting thought, I hadn't even considered anything along those lines. After reading about it for a bit I find that I cannot disqualify it from being a possibility. I've also read studies about having other senses heightened due to the lack of strength in other senses; specifically, due to a nasal inflammation condition I have I've always had difficulties with my sense of scent. Maybe I have a heightened sense of taste to compensate? Either way it's something interesting to think about, so thanks. :)

Olfactory and gustatory analysis of flavors are intricately linked; losing smell severely diminishes one's ability to discriminate between subtly different aromas. Indeed, smell generally dominates here. So I don't think that's what happened.

I agree, but go put them in a food, cooked as an ingredient, and its fine. Its the raw veggies by themselves that disgusting.

It depends how you do the tests. People in the US tend to have drinks very cold, which makes it harder to tell the difference. Doing "sip" tests makes a difference too.

I've seen (uncontrolled not-scientific just-for-fun) tests where blindfolded volunteers could not tell the difference between coke and 7up / sprite.

For sure I agree with you; I think that I'd easily be able to tell the difference between pepsi and coke. But I've never tested myself.

I can tell the difference right away and I am definitely not someone with a particularly acute sense of taste. I won't even drink the Pepsi.

It is genetic. If you can tell, you can tell easily, but most people can't tell.

No, I don't think it's unusual. I've watched a former colleague (now the state superintendent of schools) successfully identify not only pepsi from coke, but coke, diet coke (which he drinks regularly), and caffine-free diet coke from each other in a blind test.

How do you think "New Coke" happened? Malcolm Gladwell has the details in one of his books. You remember back when Pepsi used to do those taste test ads saying more people preferred Pepsi? Coke repeated the tests internally and found they were right (barely).

So Coke decided to reformulate. Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, so that is what Coke did. They repeated their taste tests, got good results and told the whole world.

Where they had screwed up is that they used small containers for their latter taste tests. People are quite happy for sweetness in small quantities, but as the volume of drink gets larger they prefer less sweetness "density". Naturally the new Coke was far too sweet and there was the resultant backlash.

TL/DR: A major contributor to Coke messing up "New" Coke was using too small testing cups.

Or you can just buy kosher coke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula#Kosher_Coca-C...

Or buy Pepsi Throwback, which is a mass produced version of kosher Pepsi.

I love my coke here in Australia, and a few years ago Coke Zero came out promising 'Tastes just like regular coke!'. Tasted nothing at all like it.

Similarly, the cola wars never made sense here - Coke tasted far superior to Pepsi, how could there even be a competition?

Then I visited the US and only had access to the corn-syrup coke, which I'd never had before, as we have our own sugar industry. Tasted much more like Coke Zero - it seems we'd just imported the US advertising slogan there. And the cola wars made much more sense... well... not in themselves, just that they could have happened.

> "Coke tasted far superior to Pepsi, how could there even be a competition?"

Actually, double-blind taste tests was reputedly in favor of Pepsi. Pepsi, for a long time, used this in their marketing, and Coke confirmed the results for themselves, which was the main driving force behind the creation of the disastrously failed New Coke.

It would seem that the tasted of Coke is affected as much by its branding as by its recipe!

Coke in Australia is made with sugar, not with corn syrup. It's noticeable different to pepsi.

Interestingly my personal taste-testing anecdote in this thread started because I stated that I could distinguish between American Coke and Mexican Coke (given that one is corn syrup and one is cane sugar) which led to the challenge to even be able to identify Coke over Pepsi.

Might still be, that one wouldn't be able to distinguish corn syrup Coke from corn syrup Pepsi. And similar for a comparison between the sugared versions.

The switch to New Coke happened just as the HFCS transition was being made, which is part of a conspiracy theory all its own.

I studied this a little.

Pepsi tastes better than Coke on a single sip because it's sweeter, but the preference among consumers gets murkier if you have to drink a whole can of the stuff. And even moreso if you want to have two cans.

Sweeter == better to have a taste. Not necessarily to have larger quantities though.

More people drink Pepsi. The minority who drink Coke, drink enough of it to sell more syrup than Pepsi.

More people drink Coke.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/20070527_COKE_GRAPHIC.ht...

I was, however, surprised at how difficult it was to find Coke in many restaurants in the US. That's not usually the case in the UK, for example.

The Pepsi corporation ownes some fast food chains in the US, so you're not going to find Coca-Cola at a Taco Bell for example. Aside from that, I've never really had trouble finding Coca-Cola in any kind of restaurant. Then again, I don't usually look.

I think coke and pepsi try for exclusive arrangements at every dispensary. That means most restaurants prefer a discount from say pepsi for exclusivity, than to offer both with reduced profits.

Pepsi doesn't own YUM! Brands anymore, but does have permanent contracts with all their restaurants.

Availability varies significantly by region. For whatever reason, some parts of the US are Coke-centric and others are Pepsi-centric.

^Malcom Gladwell's "Blink"

> It would seem that the tasted of Coke is affected as much by its branding as by its recipe!

There was an interesting experiment where some researchers put subjects inside an MRI machine, and then fed them two samples of cola. Sometimes both drinks were anonymous, and sometimes the drink was labelled as Pepsi or Coca-Cola, while the other was anonymous but actually the same drink. When the drinks were anonymous, people seemed to like both equally, but when told what the drinks were, people tended to prefer Coca-Cola over the anonymous drunk. Even more interestingly, when people were told they were drinking Coca-Cola, extra bits of their brain lit up, specifically memory and cognitive control, which suggests that when you think you're drinking Coca-Cola, it's not just the immediate sensation of drinking the coke that affects how much you enjoy it, but also the effect of all of that marketing that makes your brain think "Mmmm, Coca-Cola is delicious!"

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/briefs/mentalhealth/h...

From what I recall of the presentations at the Coke HQ/Museum in Atlanta, there's more to the memories than marketing. It also has to do with the association of the beverage to the pleasurable experiences where you've drank it. This explains why e.g. Pepsi fought hard to be the official beverage of the NFL, so that people can associate being at a football game with drinking Pepsi.

HFCS 55% fructose 45% glucose

Sucrose (regular sugar) 50% fructose 50% glucose

Not much of a difference.

It's enough of a difference that Mexican coke is flatter and tastes sweeter than the HFCS flavor.

? Sucrose is sucrose. It's its own molecule. The only way you could describe it as 50% fructose 50% glucose is if you also described water as 66% hydrogen and 33% oxygen.

You could also describe water as 8 parts oxygen to 1 part hydrogen, mass wise.

I'm not a biologist or chemical engineer I'm just going by the information I can find and decipher.

If the sucrose molecule can be broken down/decomposed into two other molecules one fructose and the other glucose is that not accurate?

From what I understood sucrose is composed of fructose (an isomer of glucose) and glucose of which the molecule sucrose is comprised of. The human body breaks down sucrose and then fructose in the liver into just glucose for the body to use for fuel.

Yes, a sucrose molecule can be broken down. But the full sucrose molecule still behaves differently from the glucose/fructose mix that it was being compared to. Even if the glucose/fructose mix was exactly 50%/50%, that mixture of glucose and fructose molecules would still behave differently from a pure sucrose solution.

Wow, even a simple lookup of those four terms on Wikipedia can easily tell you how wrong you are. You fail science, forever.

Here in Chile Coke is still made with sugar. For my honeymoon I went to the US and found that the Coke over there was undrinkable. Since they're using HFCS the drink is much more bitter instead of sweet so I can understand why Pepsi does slightly better in the US.

It made me kind if sad being a long time Coke fan.

Coke outsells Pepsi in most areas of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi#Rivalry_with_Coca-Cola

I think some people might have a misconception that Pepsi does better due to the very popular Pepsi Challenge marketing campaign. But if you think about it, that campaign is a classic "underdog" campaign. It would be silly for a product that's already winning in the number one position to "challenge" the number two product.

The "Pepsi Challenge" was the brainchild of none other than erstwhile PepsiCo president John Sculley, who you mind remember for later running Apple into the ground.

In Jerusalem it is possible to get Coca-Cola from two different plants. One is the Israeli plant near Tel Aviv. The other is a Palestinian plant near Ramallah. I can tell the difference in between the two.

The Israeli plant adds aromas to their Coca-Cola as it is common for Israeli drinks to add them. The also use very high concentration of carbon. So much that the lid can shoots off like champagne.

The Palestinian one is a lot cheaper and far better than American one IMO. So what I use to do was buy the Palestinian glass bottles and the Israeli large bottles. heh.

I find it interesting that both the Israeli and Palestinian drinks differ from the American version.

My American friends always preferred the Palestinian one, which lead me to believe I the Palestinian version was using the American concentrate, and the Israeli version an Israeli-adapted one.

And as I'm already discussing the topic of Israeli Coca-Cola, there's a famous story (though citation needed, so take with a grain of salt, &c) that the highly guarded secret formula was disclosed to Rabbi Moshe Yehuda Leib Landa, so he could certify the drink as Kosher. After the Rabbi's death, his son continues to certify the drink as Kosher, but wasn't disclosed the recipe: he took his father's word for it being Kosher (a highly unorthodx [pun not intended] practice)

There is also an American version of the story. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kasherin...

I quiet like the feel of opening an Israeli bottle and drinking the first cup. Sad to say I have not found a similar Coca-Cola experience anywhere else in the world.

The book mentioned (For God, Country and Coca-Cola) is an excellent read, and very thorough. It actually includes the recipe in the back too(1). Coke has had many imitators over the years and fought vigourously to keep their name. They did want to stop using coca leaves, but that then loses meaning and protection for the "coca" part of the name.

In the early part of the 1900s they used to sell the product at soda fountains in malls etc. At one point two businessmen wanted to bottle it instead. Bottling at the time was not particularly advanced, product often spoiled, refrigeration wasn't widespread, and they are heavy. Coke figuring they had a couple of chumps then sold them worldwide perpetual exclusive bottling rights. Oops. Coke has managed to buy back around half of those rights from people around the world. You should look carefully at the bottles and cans. They usually tell you if they were produced under the authority of the Coca Cola bottling company (the company from those businessmen) or Coca Cola itself.

(1) Ok, so you have the exact recipe and can make something that is identical to Coke. What are you going to call it? How are you going to market it? Which retailers are going to buy it from you? How many years of funding do you have for lawyers?

Anyone can make a cola flavour drink. The hard part is marketing, logistics and sales. Heck there is even an open source cola to get your started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola_(drink)

So what's the difference between Coke from those two?

Nothing. Only the main Coke company makes the syrup. It is then distributed to the Coca Cola Bottling Company and to Coke's own bottlers.

Wow, that's almost exactly like the deal IBM gave to Microsoft.

Is Coca-Cola the only cola maker that uses real cocoa leaves?

Clarification: Coke is made with leaves from the coca plant (Erythroxylum coca), not cocoa (Theobroma cacao). Despite differing only by one letter, they're not closely related.

That's not correct, there's a coca cola concentrate plant in Ireland, Singapore and many others around the world.

I wrote this! Sweet! It's from my email newsletter, http://dlewis.net/nik -- GOOD republished it w/my permission :) Love seeing it discussed here!

Is there an rss feed of that I could subscribe to instead?

The author doesn't seem to make the connection, but the Mallinckrodt Corporation's cocaine hydrochloride can also be found at your favorite neighborhood retailers as a white powder for ~$80 / gram. It's 'regular' cocaine.

I assume you mean it's available at those neighborhood retailer pharmacies (CVS, Walgreens?) and with a prescription? Could you explain more?

Cocaine hydrochloride IS cocaine, the fine white powder drug. It is distinct from free base cocaine, commonly known as 'crack', which is made by stripping the hydrochloride ion using a strong alkali. Crack is popular because the free base form is more pharmacologically active, meaning you get more bang for the same price, or alternatively, the same bang for a lower price.

I think "favorite neighborhood retailers" means "shady but friendly local drug dealers".

I don't know if CVS or Walgreens would have a reason to stock in at the local store, but they could likely get it from their regular distribution. Yes, a medical doctor can prescribe this but it takes considerable extra paperwork (and receives DEA scrutiny). It would likely be more common in a hospital setting, usually as one ingredient in a compound.

I'd like to think that they'd have better purity controls than the more...informal distributors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_agent

And more specifically, Levamisole is becoming something of a hot topic as a dangerous, but desirable for its ability to pass most purity tests. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955112,00.ht... is one overview. The DEA journal Microgram has covered it a few times as well.

I've long known that CocaCola affects me differently than most people. For a long time, I thought it was the caffeine in it, but then I drank Mt Dew (with more caffeine) and didn't have the same problems.

Basically, it's really addictive to me. If I start drinking it, I'll feel the need to drink more and more until I'm drinking enough that it makes me physically ill each day... And I will just continue.

It took me a while to get off it, and other caffeinated drinks do not affect me in the same way.

I didn't realized, until now, that they still used an extract from the coca leaf. That seems like it's different from every other drink out there, and maybe that's why it affects me differently. Hopefully this knowledge can help strengthen my resolve to stay off of it.

It's really sad, too, because I love the flavor. I just can't handle it.

Me too. I highly suspect Coca Cola was specifically designed in a way that it can not quench one's thirst. Once you open a bottle, you can not stop drinking it until it is finished. That's why I completely stopped drinking Coca Cola few years ago.

I wonder if there's cola that is still made with active coca ingredients somewhere in the world. I believe chewing on coca leaves is legal in some parts of South America and cocaine is legal in some european countries... with the recent "boutique soda" craze, it must exist.

edit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/14/coca-colla-real-...

See also Coca Brynco:

(http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/19/us-bolivia-coca-id...)

It is decriminalized in Portugal but that is not the same as being legal. I'm fairly certain that it is not legal in any European country and I know for a fact that it is in the EU controlled substances list and is not legal in the EU except for a very few and very narrow uses in medicine and pharmacology.

Also, according to Wikipedia[1] Coca Sek, a coca leaves based soda is still sold in Colombia, even though is was removed from super markets shelves.

I was living in Colombia when it was launched. It had a big media coverage, so I tried it once just out of curiosity. It tasted really really bad and I didn't notice any side effects after managing to drink just half bottle.

It never took off.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_Sek

In Peru and Bolivia, coca leaves are sold just about everywhere. A good tasting tea is made from them, and people chew them while hiking on the mountains and so on. The effects are similar to caffeine. I didn't see any coca soft drinks there, though.

So coca-cola has a legal monopoly on the use of an ingredient. Seems like pretty unfair business practices to me.

I imagine it's possible for some competitor to set up a similar arrangement. The government just likes to make it a PITA.

>I imagine it's possible for some competitor to set up a similar arrangement.

In theory. Coca-Cola is rumored to be pretty friendly with US intelligence and would likely lobby against a competitor getting a similar coca import arrangement.

Sure, yeah, but lots of things you might want to do with a business require a permit or approval or waiver from the government. I'm not sure that is inherently unfair in practice.

There is a huge difference between a permit and an agreement with the DEA.

Uh, how so? You could request DEA permission too. There's a form on their website. (But be aware the application fee is nonrefundable.)

Sounds like the Stepan Corporation has an effective monopoly on the manufacture of cocaine-free coca leaves. That really says nothing about a restriction on their use.

"In fact, the United States (and most other nations) expressly prohibits the sale and trade of coca leaves. In order for Coca-Cola to continue to exist in its current form, the company has a special arrangement with the Drug Enforcement Administration"

The article makes it seem as though Coca-Cola has an exclusive arrangement that involves funneling leaves through a chemicals company. It doesn't mention anything about Stepan being the only chemical company that can process the leaves for other reasons.

It doesn't mention anything about it being exclusive either. Just special.

I wonder if the coca leaves could be processed outside the US and then imported.

Coca-Cola's market dominance probably has epsilon to do with their formulation.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but if not, why then would they regard their formula as such a secret that the only two people allowed to know it may not fly together in case the plane should go down? As a diversion form their business practices?

It's a marketing tactic.

This.

Especially when it also mentions the recipe is stored in a vault. BOTH recipe mixers could instantly cease to exist and the Coca Cola company would not miss a beat in terms of selling mass quantities of their product.

Brand mystique?

Probably but it's still unfair (if the deal really is exclusive). It's also interesting how many goods are never invented due to the fact that experimenting with many substances is prohibitively expensive.

Interesting read, thank you!

Tangentially, I want to note that Coke has a great marketing strategy! True or not, but "only two people who never travel together" makes the formula sound 1000x times better than "sugar water + stuff that's probably bad for you".

In fact, when I was about 13 yrs old, I remember going on a tour of Coke factory, where they showed us the movie about the process, including "historial" references to coke being made a 100+ years ago. For a kid, their marketing was better than Coke itself.

It would be great if Coke kept the same 'secret ingredients' instead of tainting them with the disgusting taste of high fructose corn syrup, which was not in the ingredient list. Coke is not serving coke as we know it, but 'new coke'.

Many studies have been done on the negative effects of HFCS, not evening considering it's inferior taste to organic cane sugar.

Stopped drinking any beverage product with High Fructose Corn Syrup, which means virtually every Coke product.

see: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Coca-cola only uses HFCS in the US, if you buy imported Coke or Kosher Coke they'll have sugar rather than HFCS.

For a true cola-rific experience check out:

A) Mexican Coca-Cola (sold in tall, skinny bottles: http://www.amazon.com/Mexican-Coca-Cola-Drink-12-Ounce/dp/B0...) B) Kosher Coca-Cola (only available around Passover in select markets like NYC & Miami - look for the yellow cap on 2-liter bottles)

Both are made with real, honest-to-goodness sugar, not HFCS. They taste better and are a fun treat.

As a related note: There's a whole subculture of soda geeks (I presume you are as not-surprised as I was to discover this ;) and it's a fun mini-adventure to explore some of the things one can buy (i.e. vanilla coke w/ real sugar)

See: http://www.sodafinder.com/products/coca-cola-coke-vanilla

If you don't want to pay nearly double the cost of the product just to ship Mexican coke via Amazon, try your local Mexican grocery store. The one down the street from me in Chicago (at Ashland & Beach) sells cases of 24 bottles for $24.81 including tax.

Or Costco, for that matter.

There are two varieties of Mexican Coke I've found in the wild (i.e. Seattle corner stores), the 12 ounce bottles linked above and 500mL "Medio Litro" bottles. The Medio Litros are closer to a 20oz bottle while the 12 ounce bottles are the same as a can in terms of capacity.

Here in Louisville, the tiny grocery down the street sells it for $1/bottle, not even a particularly Mexican area. Lot of coffee shops here have it too for a bit more.

In Portland, OR they can be found in convenience stores and Walmarts for 99 cents/bottle. If I recall correctly, the employee-owned Winco food stores carry them for 88 cents. I haven't checked to see if anyone will give a price break for buying a case at a time. (Proof I guess that I'm not a Mexican Coke addict ... yet.)

Kosher Coca Cola may only be available around Passover, but Pepsi Throwback is now available all year round.

I dislike Pepsi, prefer Coke, most likely because I grew up outside the US and in the rest of the world Coke is sharper than in the US while Pepsi is sweeter. Even so, I've converted to Pepsi Throwback for the real sugar taste instead of Coke's nasty tasting HFCS formula here.

Sugar vs HFCS Coke and Pepsi smackdown: http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2011/11/soda-the-pepsi-throwba...

One can get pretty close to the coca-cola formula using chemical analysis. i think it would be a good documentary show to do this in CSI miami style, and i bet funding wouldn't be that hard to get :)

Pretty sure they already do:

http://www.rense.com/general7/whyy.htm

Also, I have no real way to confirm, but I've heard (via friend of a friend: suspicion +10) quite a big part of a high-value flavour science is not just now it tastes, but that it is hard to reproduce faithfully, by means of unnecessary extra additives, novel process control requirements, and unusual synergistic effects.

"n fact, the United States (and most other nations) expressly prohibits the sale and trade of coca leaves."

Wouldn't Jeff Bezos be in jail then, considering that they are sold on Amazon?

This report[1], from 2003, shows some unpleasant behaviour from Coca-Cola. (This was stopped by local officials)

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3096893.stm)

> Waste product from a Coca-Cola plant in India which the company provides as fertiliser for local farmers contains toxic chemicals, a BBC study has found. Dangerous levels of the known carcinogen cadmium have been found in the sludge produced from the plant in the southern state of Kerala

The photographer Sharad Haksar had some trouble from Coca-Cola after using their brandname in some of his art.

(http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/1077.html)

Be cautious when importing foodstuffs. Sometimes they're not produced to the high standards you'd like. I'm not sure how reliable this source is (seems a bit flame-baity) but it suggests that Indian versions of some soft drinks (not just Coca-Cola) are high in pesticides.

(http://www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2006/cokepoisoni...)

> In blatant disregard for lives in India, the Coca-Cola company continues to sell products in India with high levels of pesticides even today. Coca-Cola maintains that its products in India are completely safe, and that it has one global standard for all its products.

> The reality, however, is very different. On at least 10 occasions since January 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration has rejected the shipment of Coca-Cola products made in India coming into the US, on the grounds that they do not conform to US laws and that they are unsafe for the US public.

---

[1] It is frustrating when the BBC uses their news programmes and websites to promote their other programmes. "Face the Facts" is a reasonable investigative programme. Here's the website for it:

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007tmlp)

> “only two people know how to mix the 7x flavoring ingredient”

To what extent are they allowed to keep this a secret? For example, I'm a vegetarian, so presumably they would have to declare if this secret ingredient contains animal products? (I'm sure it doesn't, it's just an example to portray the point).

And I'm guessing one of the people who knows the secret ingredient is Moe Syzlak?

I think the secret is how to mix them and in what quantities, not what the ingredients are.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/help/faqs_flavorings/index.asp

From this page, to directly answer the question:

What substances or ingredients can be listed as "natural flavor," "flavor," or "flavorings" rather than by a specific common or usual name?

Spices (e.g., black pepper, basil, and ginger), spice extracts, essential oils, oleoresins, onion powder, garlic powder, celery powder, onion juice, and garlic juice are all ingredients that may be declared on labeling as "natural flavor," "flavor," or "flavoring." Spices, oleoresins, essential oils, and spice extracts are listed in the Food and Drug Administration regulations.

Can the terms "dried meat or poultry stocks," "dried broth," "meat extracts," and "dried beef plasma" be listed on meat and poultry labels as "natural flavorings"?

No. Substances derived from animal sources must be identified as to the species of origin on the label and be consistent with the definition established by Federal regulation. For example, the listing on the label would read "dried chicken stock," "lamb extract," or "dried beef plasma."

So, to the original question: vegetarians can rest comfortably knowing that "natural flavors" don't contain meat.

This isn't exactly true. They needn't list the "species of origin". They just have to name the substance. They can list things like gelatin, glycerides, lecithin, guanine, and other lesser understood animal products by those obscure names.

It wasn't always vegan. It was reformulated when they got Kosher certification, and incidentally the Rabbi who certifies it also knows what the ingredients are.

See: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kasherin...

Very cool. This is something it never even occurred to me to wonder about, and here it is asked and answered.

Sounds like lore. Won't let them fly on a plane together? I hope they don't ride in the same car to the airport since that's even more dangerous. (see my point?)

It's possible only 2 people know it since 3 can't keep a secret. More likely anyone that knows it has signed NDAs on top of which they each know two versions of the same recipe with an indistinguishable flavoring difference due to a minor quantity differences. Either recipe were to get out it's obvious who leaked because the master copy is in the vault. The exact quantities are like a watermark that gives away the leaker. At any rate, if you have golden handcuffs you don't leak due to self preservation anyhow.

> Won't let them fly on a plane together?

That's a common risk management tactic. It's literally in the textbook. Likewise, the Vice President flies on his own plane, Air Force Two, and never Air Force One. When the President and Vice President have to be in the same place at the same time, someone else in the chain of succession has to be kept somewhere else; most dramatically, when the President addresses a joint session of Congress, as in the State of the Union address, one cabinet member is named the "designated successor", is not allowed to attend, and is provided Presidential-level Secret Service protection for the duration.

It's not only those two.

The Rabbi who provides the Kosher certification for Coke also knows what the ingredients are. See:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Kasherin...

Maybe he was one of the two? lol Cool story. Always heard parts of it growing up never actually saw it recorded.

You're vegetarian by your own choice. Nobody's required to tell you whether their product contains meat or not.

That's correct. I am a vegetarian by my own choice, but your response stinks of a lack of tolerance or appreciation for other people's choices.

I don't know the actual laws when it comes to labelling of food products, but my initial question was more out of curiousity, not one of demanding that people say to the letter what is in their product. I often have to pass up on produce which should be clearly vegetarian because they don't label it with a "Suitable for" notice.

You said "presumably they would have to declare if this secret ingredient contains animal products" and I was pointing out that they shouldn't "have to", because unlike peanuts which might kill those who are allergic to it, meat won't kill vegetarians.

Coca Cola played an intricate role in race relations in 20th century America. The removal of cocaine from this popular beverage was not one of choice, but one required to help squelch concerns that the product lead to the degradation of society. Specifically increased violence from Blacks and miscegenation. I saw a documentary on it awhile back but can't remember the name. Here's a link that explains a little more http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/384/is-it-true-coca....

Honest question: Whats Coke and whats Coca-Cola. In some countries they sell it as "Coke". Here in Turkmenistan it's Coca-Cola. Is it a branding stuff? Or something different?

Reading the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_cola will enlighten you.

Maybe I've been watching too much Breaking Bad but there's a great opportunity here for someone to "acquire" the pre-processed shipments in Maywood NJ. Who wants to be my co-founder on this project? There's gotta be Pinkman out there to my Walter. C'mon!!!

Can someone explain how Coca-Cola is still able to keep this a secret ?

The company sells enough concentrate to produce millions of litters world-wide yearly.

Surely there are hundreds of trucks entering and leaving the facility, and by now the ingredients and their dosages are quite know.

The whole "secret formula" thing is more of a marketing gimmick than anything.

cf Kung Fu Panda!

Indeed, I suspect it's pure marketing hyperbole. Even if only two humans currently know, the machines must know to mass-produce it. Their best-kept out-in-the-open secret in my opinion is the way they are involved (as are others) with things like murdered union leaders and generally poor living standards in places like Colombia and other nations.

Even if someone observing the flow of incoming and outgoing trucks could determine the ingredients and their precise proportions, it's the cooking method that produces the right taste, and someone who counts trucks won't be able to figure that out. You can sniff packets in my LAN all day long, but that won't tell you 100% of things that go on inside my computer. Tricking me to install spyware on my computer, on the other hand, is a completely different matter. If the Coca-Cola formula is known, it'll be because of corporate espionage and not something you can tell from publicly available data.

Makes me want to try and make something out of an ingredient that could be banned in the future :P

If you haven't heard it before, This American Life did a cute piece on the Coke formula that includes what was probably (at one time) the full recipe. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/o...

Article too long? Didn't quite read it all?

"Bonus fact: Coca-Cola’s recipe contains a heavily guarded mystery flavoring, known as the “7X flavor.” In early 2011, This American Life broadcast an episode[1] discussing a potential early recipe for the drink, but almost certainly not the one in use today. Coke denied[2] that the program had discovered the true formula. In that episode, Mark Pendergrast, author of For God, Country, and Coca-Cola, an unauthorized history of the company (and beverage), told This American Life[3] that “only two people know how to mix the 7x flavoring ingredient” and that “[t]hose two people never travel on the same plane in case it crashes; it’s this carefully passed-on secret ritual and the formula is kept in a bank vault.”"

1. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/427/o...

2. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/16/bubbly-buzz-coca-cola-sa...

3. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/02/15/is-this-the-real-thing-c...

It almost impossible to get 100% of the cocaine out of the leaves and the coke you drink everyday probably has small traces of cocaine in it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com