Coke, Pepsi, and Passover | Hacker News Reader

Coke, Pepsi, and Passover

dangoldin.com

5 pointsdangoldin8 comments

I think a lot of people assume that cane sugar is healthier than HFCS although that may not be true. See: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/27/what-you-need-to-know-about...

The reason the big soda brands use HFCS in the US is because it's cheaper (due to corn subsidies). The speciality sodas like Boylan's, etc. compete on quality, not price, so they are able to transfer that cost to the consumer. The consumer with more disposable income wants to justify the extra cost to themselves and peers. "Oh, yeah, this is 'Mexican Coke'. Sure it's more expensive but it has REAL sugar."

Would the average consumer in the midwest be willing to pay more for a 12-pak of Coke if it had real sugar? Maybe, maybe not.

Fair. Most of these movements are starting out in the urban areas but they do move towards the rural ones since it is perceived to be more "cool."

It's actually healthier to do neither of them since they're both pretty terrible for you. But if I ever crave a nice Coke on a hot summer day the one with sugar, out of a glass bottle, feels amazing. Maybe that's all nostalgia though.

I bet that the Mexican Coke is healthier, because you only get 12 fl. oz. instead of the 20 or 32 of domestic Coke you'd get for the same price.

I've read a few people talking about coke with 'real sugar'. They've never mentioned any perceived health benefits. They have mentioned perceived taste.

Personally, I dunno about flavour. Certainly it could make a difference, as could water hardness, but I've seen people drink something blindfold and not know whether it's 7up or coke.

1) The "fructose is the same as sugar" debate is far from over. The research on fructose's effect on leptin and insulin levels is ongoing.

2) The demand for corn to produce ethanol has started to exceed the demand for corn to produce HCFS. It might turn out very soon that cane sugar is cheaper than corn syrup again. The subject of US sugar import tariffs is also a factor.

The sugar version does taste better. Not a big difference, but coupled with the HFCS question many people would buy it exclusively if they could, even if they pay a bit more. That the big brands don't offer it may be because it would be handled as a separate product, instead of a special run mixed in (look for the yellow caps) with the main HFCS product.

Most places around the globe have coke with sugar. Its purely a cost conscious decision on coke's part

Yea - that's why I think they may be able to make up the margin loss by doing a marketing push saying HFCS just isn't as good. I suspect this would actually be pretty appealing in this day and age although I come from an urban background. As wittyphrasehere says, it may be completely different in the midwest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com