Sorry for the light posting; John is busy grading and being mean to Slavoj Zizek and I am busy lying in bed. But, I have thought of an important reason to oppose US farm subsidies that some of you might not be aware of. Now, the main reasons are obviously that we have better things to do with those $80 billion, and that subsidies go mainly to big agribusinesses, and they encourage environmental degradation by making farming on marginal lands (cotton in the desert, anyone? Everglades, much?) profitable, and they harm the poorest of the poor in third-world countries by undercutting the meager prices they can charge for their farm products. A case can even be made that agricultural subsidies also contribute to the growing problem of obesity in America, because Archer Daniels Midland is basically giving high-fructose corn syrup away to food manufacturers, and they use it to make Ding Dongs and Super Big Gulps. But let's set all that Brad DeLong-ish stuff aside and consider the real problem: Coke tastes bad when made with high fructose corn syrup.
I think we all know now that the "New Coke" fiasco was just a Trojan horse to get corn-syrup-sweetened Coke in the door. First, they pulled sugar-sweetened Coke off the market, then they introduced New Coke, then they brought back Classic Coke, and oh, we were all so grateful. BUT Classic Coke is not the same as original Coke. No. It has corn syrup. Let us consider the experience of the suffering US Coke drinker. He buys a 16-ounce plastic bottle of high-fructose laden "Coke" from the insufficiently cold mini-mart fridge. Ten minutes later, he is in his car, sipping piss-warm corn syrup. Is this right? Now consider what his experience could be in one of the many countries where Coke is still sweetened with good old white sugar (as it is in Europe and Asia, because ain't nobody giving away corn syrup). He is, say, on an empty beach in Phuket (may I suggest the north end of Kamala Beach?). White sand is dappled with the shade of swaying casuarinas. He approaches the little hut where some ancient Thai Muslim auntie presides over a cooler full of ice. He buys a 6 1/2 ounce GLASS bottle of Coke, sweetened with sugar, practically dry and astringent in comparison with its inferior corny brethren, so bubbly that the straw is in danger of being forcibly ejected. Then, he drinks. Slanting rays of gold shoot down from the sky, the Andaman sea crashes, green and foaming, on the sand. This is what the good chemists at the Coca-Cola factory originally had in mind, people (well, plus cocaine.) And Sprite! The difference is perhaps even more marked with Sprite. When was the last time you actively wanted a Sprite, hmm? Never? I thought so. But a Sprite with sugar is a sparkling, Limony treat, for real. So, in conclusion, stop sucking on the government's tit, farmer boy, and let's buy the world a Coke.
Wow. So when the gubmint stops giving handouts to agribiz, I'll also get all that ambience when I stick my dollar in the coke machine?
Heck, I'll even pay two dollars for a coke if it'll also transport me from Minnesota to Phuket.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 10, 2004 at 09:44 PM
I travel to Brazil regularly and I've noticed that the Coca Cola there does taste different. Do you know if they use corn syrup outside the US?
Posted by: Randy Paul | April 11, 2004 at 01:04 AM
Luckily, this is the time of year for sugared Coca-Cola. The Kosher-for-Passover stuff is made with cane sugar, not corn syrup. I've been known to stock up. I don't usually drink Coke (past the all-nighter studying stage), so I've never really A-B'ed 'em.
Posted by: Contrary Mary | April 11, 2004 at 02:24 AM
Just checked the empty bottle of Irish Coke someone left on the radiator. Sugar.
Sugar's a pretty rotten product, though. It's supposed to be a real bad one for environmental degredation and land use, and the labor situation with it has always been pretty vile. (Wasn't it the crop that kicked off African slavery in the Americas?) Plus they use animal bone char to refine the white variety, so that kind isn't even vegetarian.
Date sugar and maple syrup are bad choices for beverages, though. I think Reeds is made with honey; that tastes pretty good.
Posted by: Nick Fagerlund | April 11, 2004 at 02:35 AM
Sorry for the light posting; John is busy grading and being mean to Slavoj Zizek
Being mean to Zizek? Say no more.
Posted by: JoJo | April 11, 2004 at 05:42 AM
Truly a tour-de-force -- and now I am putting two and two together and realizing that the Mexican restaurant down the street has bottled Coke products, imported from Mexico. I don't have to go to a tropical paradise to experience this taste sensation -- I can get it right here in the vast wastes of the American middle-west.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | April 11, 2004 at 07:10 AM
Yes, I had heard that special kosher-for-passover Coke is made with sugar. Stock up, everybody! I think that sugar is used to sweeten Coke everywhere BUT the US. It's true that sugar isn't the greatest in some sense, but it would be better for poor Carribean nations to have something to export rather than nothing.
Posted by: Belle Waring | April 11, 2004 at 10:46 AM
As Adam said, you can usually find Coke with sugar at your local Mexican restaurant. But I've heard that Coke is starting to use high-fructose corn syrup in Mexico, too, so I don't know how much longer that'll work.
Posted by: Josh | April 12, 2004 at 12:57 PM
High-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar in the US due to our price supports for the sugar industry. In Europe, sugar is much cheaper than it is here and hence cheaper than corn syrup. Coke uses the cheapest sweetner in each of its markets. Europe buys sugar at world prices, we pay a "sugar tax" to ensure growers in Florida, Louisiana, and Hawaii remains economically "competitive" with growers in the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and every other hot, wet, poor developing region.
Posted by: fastback | April 20, 2004 at 06:31 AM
guys, most of the sugar on the market is produced from beets, not cane. I think.
Posted by: dsquared | April 20, 2004 at 06:25 PM
Beets for sugar are certainly important in Europe, especially northern France where the CAP encouraged farmers to continue to grow beets. For awhile French farmers were actually converting fields to beets. IIRC it was such a ridiculous outcome and an embarassment for the CAP that sometime in the late '80s (?) the EU actually managed to pull off a political miracle and adjust the CAP incentives. Couldn't take the flak if they'd wound up with mountains of beets to go along with the butter mountains. I'll have to take fastback's word that Europe buys sugar at world prices now, but I'd be surprised if the CAP didn't still protect the beet farmers in some way. The conclusion's the same, however -- the cheaper sweetner is corn syrup in the US and sugar in Europe.
Posted by: nadezhda | April 21, 2004 at 09:36 AM
Have you ever been to thailand? Phuket is the most beautifully tropical place in the world, and trust me, i have been to most places!i live in this place Phuket Marina . If you ever have the option, give it a go!
Posted by: Phuket villas | October 10, 2004 at 08:01 PM
i have no idea what this is but i just wanna say that hawai'i is beautiful.
---
hawaii is way prettier than thailand. and if people want it to stay that way then tourist should stop coming here. some of them dont even know there are 8 main islands and thousands of mini ones.
AND
sugar cane was a big export in hawaii. the first sugar plantion in hawai'i was on Kaua'i in a town called Koloa. the plantaion is still there today, though it is not functioning. We would continue with sugar as our major export until we had to compete with other countries who sold the product for less;thus running us out of a bussiness.
---
when you think hawaii you probably think pineapples, sunny days on sandy beaches, grass skirts and coconut bras. this is NOT so.
i live on kaua'i and that is not true. the media has perceived/portrayed us , as well as the hawaiian race, as lazy and incompetent.
hawaiians are being judged by american standards. if you are not able to communicate with proper english, you are considered uneducated. as a recent honors english final exam assignment at my highschool, Kamehameha Schools Kapalama Campus, we were asked to read an one of two articles. the article i chose was about the intelligence of hawaiians. in hawaii there is a language called "pidgin". if you didnt know, it uses words/phrases such as "Da kine" or "Pau". The article compared two people; one with an iQ of 120 the other of 140. one of them was perfect at speaking english. the other spoke partially in pidgin and didnt speak perfect english. one person is haole. [haole=white person, normally forgien,etc] the other is a hawaiian local.lets pretend the hawaiian locals iQ is 140.
now imagine leaving both in a room alone. if you eavesdropped on a conversation between them, who would sound more intelligent? the man who could effectively communicate his thoughts, feelings, etc. through english; or the man who had many grammatical errors, confusing expressions, etc.? to majority of educated americans the haole man would seem smarter.
not all hawaiians are lazy. this assumption has tarnished the reputation of hawaiians. when forgeiners first came to hawai'i they were suprised and puzzled by the working hours of native hawaiians. in ancient hawai'i the work schedule varied. forgeiners thought it uncanny and senseless to stop work around the mid point of the day. the fact is hawaiians were intelligent and perfected their system of living. waking up early to beat the morning sun they worked. when it became the hotest time of day the work ceased. in hawaii it can become extremely hot and humid. later they would start up work again. captian cook arrived in the year 1778 during the time of Makahiki. this is a time period between the months of october to about march. makahiki is a time dedicated to Lono, god of agriculture and peace [among other things]. during this period of time war was forbidden. even if there was a war going on it would be postponed until after Makahiki ended. major work stopped.the ali'i* and followers accompanying him would make their way around the entire island collecting tributes to Lonoikamakahiki [Lono]. * ali'i = chief/royalty.
it was an honor to participate. the more a family gave, the more status/power they contained and were respected. after the trip was completed, games would begin.
this along with other hasty generalizations has shaped the conclusion in the minds of americans that hawai'i is full of mindless lazy savages.
what do you think?
Posted by: zoe | May 30, 2005 at 07:09 AM