Interview about Stanford Football Strength and Health - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Interview about Stanford Football Strength and Health (/thread-5076.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Interview about Stanford Football Strength and Health (/thread-5076.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: You sugar experts.... - Bruce Wang - 04-23-2013
(04-23-2013, 11:16 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:Dextrose from US corn isn't the cheapest sugar in the world: despite all the factors Publius mentions, cane sugar (from Brazil and other places) is still cheaper on the world market. Sugar from corn dominates the US market because we have limits (either tariffs or quotas -- I can't remember which) on imported sugar. As a result of those limits on imports, the US price of sugar is well above the world price (often twice as high). That's why US Cokes are made with corn syrup, while Cokes sold most other places in the world are made with cane sugar.
US sugar in the form of Raw Sugar (#11) is indeed more expensive because of the tariff. I checked and need to correct my prior statement. Prior to the corn drought, 95 Dextrose, which is the closest equivalent to Raw Sugar #16 (raw sugar without the tariff) was cheaper. Right now Dextrose is a little more expensive. My expectation is that once corn stabilizes, 95 Dextrose will be cheaper again. Basically costs have been rising in Brazil. Then again, we are dealing with commodities so who the hell knows what the future holds. My basic point is that US is a lot more cost competitive in the production of raw sugar than people realize. This, cheap natural gas, and logistics is why much of the planning for building capacity for industrial products made from sugar is shifting back to the US from Brazil.
Re: Interview about Stanford Football Strength and Health - slide - 04-23-2013
(04-23-2013, 11:32 AM)Kathy link Wrote:[quote author=Publius link=topic=7798.msg61484#msg61484 date=1366658706]
I love Coke Zero, but am trying to wean myself off it. Coke Zero uses aspartame. It's basically Diet Coke, but made sweeter to produce an even closer approximation to Coke. My theory is that the Coca-Cola Company is trying to cannibalize sales of regular Coke, because the increasing costs of sugar and corn has compressed margins on their flagship product.
What say you, slide?
[/quote]
Coke Zero and Diet Coke are different brands, with different taste profiles, with different sweeteners and with different ingredients. my shorthand taste-wise, Coke Zero is a zero calorie regular Coca-Cola; Diet Coke is a zero calorie version of New Coke (although Diet Coke preceded New Coke to market by several years).
the US Coke Zero is sweetened with a blend of aspartame and ace-K; Diet Coke is sweetened with aspartame.
the US has a sugar quota and sugar tariffs as well.
Re: Interview about Stanford Football Strength and Health - CowboyIndian - 04-23-2013
(04-23-2013, 11:43 AM)garvin link Wrote:I can hardly wait until somebody here is offered a little Hawaiian punch. That never got old.
Perhaps inspired by "a little Hawaiian Punch"...Shiner Beer (the national beer of Texas) ran a radio ad in the '70s (on the redoubtable KOKE-FM) wherein Commander Cody (of the late, lamented Lost Planet Airmen) walks into a bar and asks the bartender to give him a Shiner. Broken furniture and hilarity ensued.