🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <668@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP> bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) writes:
>I hate to tell you guy, but according to NPR's "All Things Considered"
>you've already been had.  Coca-Cola has been using "corn sweetener" in
>Coke instead of (part of) the sugar since last October/November.  

When the "NEW" coke came out in March or May or whatever I compared the
lists of ingredients on the two cans.  The old can said "sugar" with nary
a word about corn oil.  If what NPR said is true, it must be a regional
thing...

>For that you can thank the sugar industry which insisted on protectionist
>tariffs and price supports which made corn sweetener a viable substitute 
>even though it costs more to manufacture.

Nope, try again.  Until the Castro revolution most domestically consumed
sugar came from Cuba.  Come the revolution, our government decided that it
would be in the interest of "national defense" to develop a domestic sugar
industry.  Hence the price supports.  Of course, sugar "cane" just will not
grow in our country, so we grow (inferior) sugar "beets".

I still think this whole thing is just another way of putting the screws to
Nicaragua by cutting its sugar allocation/quota.  Reports of the "classic"
still having (domestic) corn oil instead of (imported) sugar just tend to
reinforce this feeling.

By the way, you can consider this as an example of the seamier side of the
precious "amerikan interests" the government keeps prattling about.

>Coke made outside the country (presumably in Mexico and Canada) is 
>sweetened entirely with sugar. 

Of course, it's not American dollars going to Nicaragua then, and there is
no conceivable way (I hope) to force the bottlers in other countries to
toe the line.

>Anyone want to engage in Coke-running from the Great White North?

It just might get to that point.  Only question is, as long as we are at
it, do we go ahead and put the cocaine back in too?   :-)
-- 
Ben Cranston  ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben  zben@umd2.ARPA