Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Sep 14, 2011 02:18 PM

Mexican Coke Vs American Coke

Interesting article about Mexican Coke vs. American Coke:

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. The results would have made more sense if he had used people who did not drink coke at all. People who drink American coke regularly are used to the flavor and would naturally prefer it; anything else would just taste weird to them.

    1. i had a mexican coke phase and have reverted to american coke. more bite. WAY more bite.

      1. Give MEX Coca-Cola any day.

        Pepsi Throwback too.

        Gave up HFCS years ago.

        SNIPPETT: Complicating matters, new studies, like one just published in the journal Cancer Research, are finding that fructose, a sugar found in high-fructose corn syrup, agave, honey, and, in small amounts, even in fruit, actually feeds some cancers.

        17 Replies
        1. re: Quimbombo

          I'm with you. But I'm pretty sure all sugers feed cancers.

          Haven't read your article yet but I talked to a food scientist about this and he said that Agave was as bad as HFCS.He also said if you want to take teh biggest bite out of obesity in the U.S. just ban HFCS.

          1. re: gr8pimpin

            But isn't the idea of banning HFCS to take a big bite out of obesity also intended to be effective because it would increase the price of food products because they'd have to use more expensive sweeteners and the increased price itself a disincentive to buy? It's not necessary because HFCS is "worse" than any other sweetener...


            1. re: The Dairy Queen

              HFCS has always been more expensive than sugar but the US implemented sugar price protections (with aggressive lobbying from ADM and Cargill) that required US food processors to buy domestic sugar at prices up to triple world market price. That made HFCS competitive and forced a lot of candy makers out of the US (where they could use real world-market-price sugar and then import the finished product back into the US).

              1. re: ferret

                Hmmm...I thought it was the corn producers who were the evil lobbyists, no?


                1. re: The Dairy Queen

                  The corn producers WERE the evil lobbyists. As long as US sugar prices were low, HFCS (a manufactured product) was always going to be too expensive by comparison. To beverage companies, every penny increase has enormous impact given the volume of sweetener they use, so HFCS would never have been considered were it not for artificially inflated sugar prices.

                2. re: ferret

                  I thought it was the sugar growers who wanted protection from cheap imports, not the HFCS producers seeking to enlarge their market share.

                  By the way, HFCS is virtually banned in Europe (to protect their own sugar beet growers), and they still have an obesity problem.

                  1. re: paulj

                    ADM and Cargill lobbied heavily for price protections because they knew they could exploit the opportunity for their own gain.

                    1. re: ferret

                      This article gives a complicated history of sugar tariffs in the USA, but does not mention this lobbying by the corn processors.
                      When have these companies been most active in lobbying for sugar tariffs or quotas?

                      1. re: paulj

                        Isn't it all about corn subsidies (not sure about tariffs or quotas)? Please don't make me re-read the Omnivore's Dilemma.


                        1. re: The Dairy Queen

                          Are telling me that Pollan completely ignores or discounts the sugar tariffs and quotas?

                          1. re: paulj

                            Not at all. I'm saying I don't remember the discussion of sugar tariffs and quotes. I do, however, remember all the talk of farm subsidies for corn producers. That's why I said I wasn't sure about the tariffs and quotes. But, I swear he clubbed us to death with the corn subsidies and that's what I understand is keeping the price of corn and, therefore, HFCS, artificially low.

                            (P.S. sorry about all of the typos. Am typing while trying to keep baby from making a run for the cat food. That won't end well for anyone involved).


                            1. re: The Dairy Queen

                              Does Pollan try to put a dollar figure on the effect of subsidies on the price of corn? Corn, and corn products, are $xxx cheaper because of the subsidies?

                              1. re: paulj

                                I don't recall if he does, to be honest. Have you not read Omnivore's Dilemma? If not, I can sum it up for you: "Cheap corn is killing us all. And probably killed Jack Kennedy." Ok, joking on the last part. But not the first. He makes quite a bore of himself on this first point.


                          1. re: ferret

                            There's one point claiming that ADM benefits from the sugar 'program', but it does not elaborate how it influenced the program. It also claims 'By limiting U.S. sugar production' - what is that based on? How can the US government limit US sugar production?

                            Lets say Sen Lugar's bill to cut the sugar program passes, and US sugar prices drop to the world market levels. I wasn't aware that there is currently such a bill. Would that help you? Would you eat better or have a healthier diet?

                      2. re: paulj

                        What are the obesity percentages in France and Spain? I was there recently, and I saw little evidence of that, especially of the young.

              2. Do your own taste test. A lot of Costcos carry Mexico Coke in the bottle.

                I know I prefer any drink in a bottle over a can.

                2 Replies
                1. re: scottca075

                  >>I know I prefer any drink in a bottle over a can.<<

                  I used to be of the same mindset, but I've recently been trying a lot more canned beers, and I have to say - canned beverages can be as good if not better than bottled. I've tried Oskar Blues, Avery Brewing and Uncommon Brewers products in the can, and I am impressed. A lot does influence the taste of packaged products obviously - canned or bottled. Handling, temperature, age and storage are the obvious factors.

                  Some thing to keep a weary eye on Mexican Coke - HFCS. I always assumed that Mexican Coke was sweetened with cane sugar until I read a label (the glued-on white label on the bottle, listing the ingredients) on a bottle in the fridge while waiting for my food at a taqueria. The label indicated, "high-fructose corn syrup," as the sweetener. I had to do a triple-take before believing what I was reading.

                  I was just in Costco the other day, and Mexican Coke was offered at ~$14.50 a case. Great price considering the average price per bottle used to be over $1/per.

                2. There's also some research that indicates in a taste test where all you get is a small sample, the sweeter product tends to win more often.

                  But that doesn't necessarily predict how you feel about the product after drinking the whole bottle.

                  1 Reply
                  1. re: coney with everything

                    You make a good point. If these tests are going to mean anything, they will have to closely replicate the circumstances in which the product is consumed.