The marketing mavens at Coca-Cola must long for those halcyon days of yore when the simple act of drinking an ice-cold Coke occupied a spot in the Great American Pantheon—right next to mom, her apple pie and the Chevy in which you may have been conceived.
In 1980, the slogan was “Have a Coke and a Smile!”
The genial voice-over even claimed that “Coke adds life!”
Well, that was until sometime around 1984 when Coca-Cola finally dropped cane sugar in favor of the super-engineered super-sweetener—high fructose corn syrup.
Ever since, Coke has been subtracting life. People are sicker. Fast food is ubiquitous. Soft drinks are gigantic. And diabetes and obesity are now widely-considered to be epidemics.
But it is not just Coke. A tidal wave of processed foods and sugary drinks has flooded the American diet. This transition to a cheap, highly-processed “convenience-based” diet mirrored the rise of two-income families, a rise in “worker productivity” (meaning Americans work longer hours for less pay) and the industrialization of the food supply.
The American diet is now a mine-field of sickness, empty calories and chemical additives. And the number-crunching folks at Coca-Cola think this mine-field may blow-up in their faces.
How do we know that they know a backlash is brewing?
Titled “Coming Together” and brimming with implications, this new ad is a bit more of a “we-a culpa” than a “mea culpa.” Apparently, we have to “come together” to attack head-on the growing problem of America’s “growing problem”—the obesity epidemic.
Fair enough. Personal responsibility is a key component.
But so is high fructose corn syrup. It’s the key ingredient in Coke and, if you look at the label, almost every can of soup, box of cereal and, it seems, just about anything else found on supermarket shelves.
Although high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is increasingly linked to a panoply of illnesses, diseases and syndromes, it is notably absent from Coke’s pre-emptive strike against legal restrictions of its soda. Rather, they promise to reduce the portion size—the “Half a Coke and a Smile” campaign—and to concoct a menu of new and exciting sweetening technologies.
The trouble with artificial sweeteners is that they, too, have caused illness and even addiction. Seriously, how many people do you know who are functionally addicted to Diet Coke? Aspartame is a peppy little chemical, one that was denied FDA approval for years until pharmaceutical CEO Don Rumsfeld took advantage of connections in the new Reagan Administration to get it quickly okay’d.
Conspiracy-minded folks have good reason to be suspicious of Rumsfeld, particularly after his convenient Tami-Flu windfall during the Avian Flu scare of 2005. Some even believe the epic fail called “New Coke” was actually a bit of nifty subterfuge designed to hide the switch from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup.
The key element of these suspicions is high fructose corn syrup itself. When it comes to food ingredients, the longer the name of the ingredient, the more likely it is to be bad for you. Finally, after decades of public exposure to HFCS, scientists are starting to weigh in on the impact of Big Agribusiness’ favorite cash crop—one based on government-subsidized and predominantly-GMO corn.
High fructose corn syrup has, thus far, been linked to:
Big Ag isn’t taking this list lightly. They, like the folks at Coca-Cola, know that the research and the public are turning against their little Frankensweetner. The Corn Refiners Association tried and failed to re-brand HFCS as the kinder, gentler “Corn Sugar.” The FDA’s rejection kept HFCS on consumer labels, but it is up to consumers to stop putting this pernicious comestible in their bodies, and the bodies of their kids.
The evidence is growing that those of us who are still growing should not eat HFCS or the panoply of snacks, drinks and fast foods that Big Ag serves up every day. Aside from diseases and conditions and obesity, just ask any teacher about the challenges presented by entire classrooms suffering from the predictable post-breakfast, lunch or snack-time sugar crash.
This obvious possibility—that poor diet impairs learning—is a rational alternative to politicized hyperbole about falling grades and failing teachers, and it may even explain the continuing spike in Attention Deficit Disorders. Perhaps the simple answer to the education crisis is our damaging diet of junk food, chemicals, colorings and high fructose corn syrup.
As the old saying goes, “Garbage in, garbage out.”
And the garbage is going out…to the rest of the world.
Ironically, America now is exporting obesity and switching to HFCS in holdouts like Mexico, which has long produced a cherished version of Coke made with cane sugar. This also portends a global rise in America’s fastest growing disease and emerging profit opportunity—diabetes.
So, take Coke’s marketing pivot with a grain of salt…because that heaping spoonful of HFCS doesn’t help the medicine go down, it helps the profits of Big Pharma go up.
This article originally appeared at newsvandal.com



15 Comments

Very good information.
Also, there is not a single product containing High Fructose Corn Syrup that has that corn syrup being conventional – it is all Genetically Modified. So if you’ re trying to avoid GM products, stay away from High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Sugar, the Bitter Truth. This is a biochemical analysis of fructose, fruit sugar. It is not necessarily bad. But too much is bad.
Stevia may be a healthy replacement as a sweetener.
But we all should reduce sugar consumption, and exercise more. Why do the corporations hate us and want to poison us with HFCS, hydrogenated fats, Bis Phenols, MSG, Frankenfoods, and radiated foods?
The little 6 oz bottles of Coke up until the mid-1960′s tasted quite different from everything since then. I’m sure that was the last Coke to have sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup …
Hope we ain’t getting any of that Roundup residue in that high falutin corn syrup (;-
I dissent on making anything much, health-wise, of the distinction between HFCS and cane sugar. If people say they can tell one from the other by taste, fine whatever. But cane sugar is … wait for it … sugar, not a health food.
I known some studies claim some difference between how the two are metabolized, with HFCS being worse somehow, but even if there is some truth to it (which I doubt), that minor difference is leading to marketing that treats cane sugar as some sort of beneficial ingredient with “natural goodness”. It’s not; it’s sugar.
Personal responsibility is
athe key component. I fixed it. It’s people putting this garbage in their mouths, not Coca-Cola corporation.all of the studies i have seen over the last three years point to a significant difference between fructose and glucose, particularly when it comes to the regulation of insulin. cancer cells also display a vigorous response to HFCS. interesting to note that the massive spike in diabetes seems to mirror the market penetration of HFCS over plain sugar, which is glucose dominant, not fructose dominant. funny how many had a high sugar diet in the 60s, 70s and beginning of the 80s, but the diabetes spike occurred after the industry switched and HFCS ended up in everything…even campbells tomato soup. also, new research indicates that fructose triggers a hunger reflex, inspiring more consumption of the product. and, not coincidentally, HFCS is heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
Keep in mind that a 6 oz Coke was much smaller than any serving size since the 1960′s. The very first HFCS COKE was “king size”, almost twice the old 6 oz size. So sugar wound up less damaging also because they were stingy with it …
Once a month or so, I drink one of the so-called “Mexican Cokes” that can be bought in Los Angeles, in smallish glass bottles, and made with cane sugar.
Yes, they’re delicious: like the traditional Coca Colas, of my youth. which were rationed by my parents to birthday parties, the occasional hot summer day, and Christmas, maybe.
And there were no soda machines in the school cafeteria.
Can’t stand the HFC sodas — I attempted a Diet Coke last week, which I couldn’t finish for the bitter chemical taste.
The last time I indulged heavy in Diet sodas was the ’70s, and I swear they weren’t as bitter.
So Rumsfield was to blame for that, too.
Not a fan of high fructose corn syrup, but Coke could take the paint off a car and was nothing but a gutful of destructive chemicals before it began using high fructose corn syrup. Eliminating the high fructose corn syrup from Coke is not going to make it a good thing to drink.
Thanks so much for the reply, JP Sottile.
I concede that that research is out there. While mainstream nutritionists would I’m pretty sure at this point take the side that the HFCS (fructose) vs. cane sugar (i.e. sucrose, a fructose-glucose disaccharide) distinction is not important to nutrition, I think that those same experts at this point still probably underrate the health risks of sugar generally, since “a calorie is a calorie” is still the orthodoxy (and companies like Coca Cola are doing everything they can to make sure it stays that way).
Therefore I don’t want to make a big argument from authority. I hope you would acknowledge that fructose-vs.-sucrose health distinctions are not fully proven, and I acknowledge that the question is a live one and may end up being part of the growing understanding of the enormous health problems caused by excessive sugar intake.
My point is not to convince you that the difference is non-existent, but that you should be careful not to let it overshadow the bigger questions about sugar, and also to realize the danger posed in giving a “health” patina to cane sugar because it is not HFCS, which I have observed is becoming a real thing in marketing and everyday conversation.
You really should consider whether you want to be part of that.
As for the historical data, I can’t cite specifics; I just don’t have the expertise. But I don’t believe an American 1960s “high sugar diet” is the same as the 2000s version. Just look at the arrival of those stupendous soda serving sizes.
And yes, HFCS is in almost everything on the mass-market U.S. supermarket shelf. But is that all replacing equal amounts of cane sugar from a generation or two ago? I really don’t think so: I think a lot of it is just more sugar than before. (Was that Campbell’s soup loaded with equal amounts of cane sugar pre-HFCS?)
Which brings me to the final point in your reply, with which I absolutely agree. The subsidies for corn are absolutely encouraging massive amounts of HFCS in our diets, and ending that perverse political economy, and so reducing Americans’ HFCS intake would be an unambiguously good thing. But the value of that, as I see it, would be the decrease in overall sugar intake, not the relative swing in favor of cane sugar.
Thanks again.
Absolutely! The arrival of HFCS as an ingredient, and a ubiquitous one at that, in U.S. mass-market food (and so-called “food”) was hugely important, for just the reason you cite, and countless other examples.
I just see the HFCS issue as basically economic and political: agricultural policy just leads to so damn much of the stuff, priced so low, that it’s gotten into everything. I am not yet convinced on the biochemical importance of HFCS (fructose monosaccharide) vs. cane sugar (fructose-glucose disaccharide).
It’s also a big environmental issue: growing endless fields of corn in the semi-arid Midwest wastes irreplaceable aquifer water, and industrial monoculture farming relies on petro-chemical-based fertilizers and other chemical inputs, and displaces more diverse, beneficial uses of the land.
Coke’s marketing people may disagree with you, since it is precisely their job to get this garbage into your mouth. Supposedly, their studies show it works. The individual pops the top, it’s true, but how many fewer would drink this if there wasn’t the relentless advertising, product placement, etc.
Great read!
This is the kind of concept that is really undermined by the platinum-coin-and-corproate-bailouts-solve-everything mentality.
The very metrics by which we measure economic activity, like CPI and unemployment, have been tweaked and refined over the years to essentially ignore the big standard of living changes in our society like wage stagnation, two income families, industrial agriculture, and processed foods.