-
-
re: DirtyD11
I did not grow up with Coca-Cola. I first enjoyed it travelling, and came to enjoy it. We drink it here with lemon twist or lime, with or without ice.
I did notice the same effect with Coke, visiting Brasil and Mexico over many years. It does taste better, sweeter, and a little more citric. 25 years ago I asked the same question, and was told that is due to the supply of local SUGAR CANE sugar, versus CORN sugar. The local supply source, versus corn sugar obviously makes sense.
I do not believe it is only that ingredient affecting the taste, but I too prefer those domestic brands.
-
-
-
I don't know that any truly impartial third party observer would prefer one to the other, BUT I will state unequivocally that Mexican cokes taste like the cokes I grew up with in the sixties and seventies and the new HFCS cokes do not.
Better? That's up to you.
Nostalgic? Absolutely.
-
-
The one with the slightly sweeter sweetener won - Not very surprising. The hype around Mexican Coke is due to the hysteria over HFCS.
That said, my choice is diet. Soda's nice, but it isn't nice enough that I'm willing to spend ~250 calories on it. Sometimes it's called for (Warm day out and paired with a flame cooked something), but most of the time I'm happier with the diet.
-
-
-
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-
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.
-
re: bulavinaka
I never got an answer, so I will try again.
-
-
-
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.
http://health.msn.com/healthy-living/...›17 Replies-
-
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...
~TDQ
-
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).
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
re: ferret
This article gives a complicated history of sugar tariffs in the USA, but does not mention this lobbying by the corn processors. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp
When have these companies been most active in lobbying for sugar tariffs or quotas?-
-
-
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).
~TDQ
-
-
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.
~TDQ
-
-
-
-
-
re: paulj
Here's a link and there are many others:
-
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?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-





