Just as I was warming up to the new Coke "Original Taste" formulation here in the Philippine, Coke reformulated and now calls it "Original Taste - Less Sugar." Now, all regular (not Diet, not Zero) Coke that is sold is PET bottles (500ml, 1.5 liter, 2 liter) are only available in the OTLS (Orig Taste- Less Sugar) version. As all good things don't last, this version now has sucralose, an artificial sweetener.
Diet Coke and Coke Zero uses aspartame, and the choice of sucralose for regular Coke is interesting. Not because sucralose isn't as excitotoxic as aspartame, but that Coke doesn't want to give the idea away that Diet Coke and Coke Zero cost really less than regular Coke, because Coke is making a killing pricing Diet Coke and Coke Zero higher for products that cost less.
With OTLS Coke, Coke is using sucralose because it wants to use less cane sugar, as cane sugar costs more. With the new law taking effect the start of the year, where soda taxes are increased, with more taxes on soda using HFCS, the formulation was changed in favor of using locally-produced cane sugar. But with the cost and price of soda increased, Coke has felt its sales volumes going down, as less people were buying soda because of the tax-induced price increase.
The unfortunate consequence is that Coke is now resorting to the OTLS formulation so that it can keep a rein on the cost of its formulation, as well as the pricing of regular Coke. I suspect that the plan is to start with a low dose of sucralose, in order not to drastically change the taste from "Original Taste" Coke. Over time, sucralose content will be gradually increased, as taste buds slowly adjust to the slowly changing taste of Coke. Eventually, a point will be reached where Coke can no longer reduce the cane sugar/sucralose ratio without most of its customers noticing. At this point, Coke will have regained its cost and pricing control, such that the effects of the soda tax would be significantly contained, such that the sales dampening effect of the soda tax law would be blunted.
Pepsi has long began intoxicating its regular Pepsi products with aspartame, which is why I shun Pepsi products here. Coke, to its credit, was holding out in order to not destroy its Original Taste. But with the sugar tax on beverages, I believe it felt it has no choice but to follow the intoxication path to keep its ability to dictate its prices favorably.
Interestingly, Coke has spared its 330ml regular Coke in cans from intoxication. It figures that the more affluent market for Coke in cans can very well afford to pay for the price increase. Since I'm not a heavy Coke drinker, I'll make do with the Coke in cans, which still has the "Original Taste."
Philippine Coke drinkers, beware.
Three things:
1. Am I now nostalgic for last year's Coke made with HFCS, but no sucralose?
2. Is the soda tax a good tax, when because of it people are now being intoxicated?
3. I hope people's taste buds will have low tolerance for high sucralose content. This would keep sucralose content low. Artificial sweeteners don't have the nice aftertaste that cane sugar gives, and I hope this should limit Coke from incorporating too much toxins into its formulation.
Diet Coke and Coke Zero uses aspartame, and the choice of sucralose for regular Coke is interesting. Not because sucralose isn't as excitotoxic as aspartame, but that Coke doesn't want to give the idea away that Diet Coke and Coke Zero cost really less than regular Coke, because Coke is making a killing pricing Diet Coke and Coke Zero higher for products that cost less.
With OTLS Coke, Coke is using sucralose because it wants to use less cane sugar, as cane sugar costs more. With the new law taking effect the start of the year, where soda taxes are increased, with more taxes on soda using HFCS, the formulation was changed in favor of using locally-produced cane sugar. But with the cost and price of soda increased, Coke has felt its sales volumes going down, as less people were buying soda because of the tax-induced price increase.
The unfortunate consequence is that Coke is now resorting to the OTLS formulation so that it can keep a rein on the cost of its formulation, as well as the pricing of regular Coke. I suspect that the plan is to start with a low dose of sucralose, in order not to drastically change the taste from "Original Taste" Coke. Over time, sucralose content will be gradually increased, as taste buds slowly adjust to the slowly changing taste of Coke. Eventually, a point will be reached where Coke can no longer reduce the cane sugar/sucralose ratio without most of its customers noticing. At this point, Coke will have regained its cost and pricing control, such that the effects of the soda tax would be significantly contained, such that the sales dampening effect of the soda tax law would be blunted.
Pepsi has long began intoxicating its regular Pepsi products with aspartame, which is why I shun Pepsi products here. Coke, to its credit, was holding out in order to not destroy its Original Taste. But with the sugar tax on beverages, I believe it felt it has no choice but to follow the intoxication path to keep its ability to dictate its prices favorably.
Interestingly, Coke has spared its 330ml regular Coke in cans from intoxication. It figures that the more affluent market for Coke in cans can very well afford to pay for the price increase. Since I'm not a heavy Coke drinker, I'll make do with the Coke in cans, which still has the "Original Taste."
Philippine Coke drinkers, beware.
Three things:
1. Am I now nostalgic for last year's Coke made with HFCS, but no sucralose?
2. Is the soda tax a good tax, when because of it people are now being intoxicated?
3. I hope people's taste buds will have low tolerance for high sucralose content. This would keep sucralose content low. Artificial sweeteners don't have the nice aftertaste that cane sugar gives, and I hope this should limit Coke from incorporating too much toxins into its formulation.
Last edited: