repubblica.it
Trump Claims Coca-Cola to Revert to Cane Sugar
In 2025, President Trump claimed to have convinced Coca-Cola to use cane sugar again in its US recipe, sparking debate about the company's 1980s switch to high-fructose corn syrup and the cultural significance of the potential change.
- What are the immediate consequences of the rumored Coca-Cola recipe change, considering its historical context and President Trump's involvement?
- In 2025, reports emerged that President Trump claimed to have convinced Coca-Cola to reinstate cane sugar in its US recipe, a move echoing his 'Make America Great Again' agenda opposing sugar-free policies. Coca-Cola responded with vague promises of future innovations, neither confirming nor denying the change. This sparked renewed debate about the controversial switch to high-fructose corn syrup in the 1980s.
- How did economic factors in the 1980s influence Coca-Cola's decision to switch to high-fructose corn syrup, and what are the long-term consequences of this change?
- The potential return to cane sugar would be significant symbolically, culturally, and commercially. It highlights the ongoing debate over artificial sweeteners versus natural sugars and taps into consumer nostalgia for a perceived 'authentic' Coca-Cola taste. The controversy also reflects broader political and economic factors influencing food production and consumer choices.
- What are the potential future impacts on public health, consumer behavior, and industry regulations if Coca-Cola reverts to its original cane sugar formula, considering the current popularity of the Mexican Coke version?
- The situation underscores the complex interplay between political rhetoric, corporate strategy, and consumer preferences in shaping the food industry. Future implications include potential shifts in consumer demand, renewed scrutiny of artificial sweeteners, and possible policy changes related to food and beverage regulations. The outcome might influence other beverage companies' sweetener choices.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the potential return to cane sugar in Coca-Cola as a nostalgic and possibly politically motivated event, emphasizing the symbolic and cultural significance over the purely economic and health-related aspects. The headline, while not explicitly provided, likely contributes to this framing.
Language Bias
The article uses descriptive language that leans towards a positive portrayal of the original Coca-Cola formula and the potential return to cane sugar, employing terms like "authentic" and "natural." While not overtly biased, the choice of words subtly favors the historical formula over the modern version. For example, replacing "more natural" with "a different type of sweetener" would add neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the history of Coca-Cola and the shift to high-fructose corn syrup, but omits discussion of the potential health implications of this change. While acknowledging space constraints is valid, a brief mention of the ongoing debate surrounding HFCS and its health effects would provide a more balanced perspective.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a simple choice between sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, neglecting other potential sweeteners and the complex factors influencing consumer preference.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses Coca-Cola's switch from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in the 1980s. This shift, driven by economic factors, is linked to increased consumption of HFCS, which has been associated with health issues including obesity and related diseases that contribute to food insecurity and malnutrition. The potential return to cane sugar, while seemingly positive, does not address the underlying issues of diet-related diseases and their impact on global hunger.