Loading More Content
The recipe to Coca-Cola syrup, which has been added to carbonated water in order to produce the final product, is a long-held trade secret. The recipe was first introduced by John Pemberton, a chemist working on the formulation in the 1880s. However, it was not until the 1890s when American businessman Asa Candler purchased the recipe and founded the Coca-Cola Company, that the sense of secrecy around the recipe was introduced (partially as an IP protection strategy, but mostly as a marketing strategy – see the World of Coca-Cola’s high-tech ‘vault’ protecting the recipe in Atlanta).
One aspect of the recipe which is well-known by the public, however, is the sweetener used. Until the 1980s, the primary sweetener being used was cane sugar. Also known as sucrose, this is a sugar made up of glucose and fructose, and is produced naturally by plants. This is incredibly widely used – in 2017, 185 million tonnes were produced across the world.
However, a major change arrived in the 1980s with the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup (also known as HFCS) to the recipes of various soft drink manufacturers (not just Coca-Cola) – largely replacing traditional cane sugar. There were a number of reasons for the change initially – the most important driving factor was cost, since HFCS is generally much cheaper than cane sugar in the US due to US government subsidies on corn production and tariffs on cane sugar being imported from abroad. As has been discussed, these are mostly US-centric points – consequently, Coca-Cola still produces its flagship drink using cane sugar in many other countries, such as Mexico, where the drink is known specifically as ‘Mexican Coke’. The change was therefore made, primarily, for economic reasons rather than anything relating to the taste of the product itself.
Trump has taken aim at Coca-Cola’s use of high-fructose corn syrup in recent times. While he is himself an avid enjoyer of the product (often seen drinking Coke and eating McDonald’s on Air Force One, for example), most of the pressure has actually come via the Make American Healthy Again (‘MAHA’) campaign. This is mostly led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, an outspoken member of the Trump administration on matters of health who has repeatedly criticised artificial food additives like HFCS for their impact on physical health (for example obesity) and mental health (including suggestions of a link between highly processed food and autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders, which conversely lack any real basis in medical research). MAHA involves itself with not just food, but also wider aspects of societal health such vaccine development boundaries, which have divided many voters across the United States, especially post-Covid.
In response to this pressure from the administration, Coca-Cola clearly felt pressured into making the change. Trump tweeted a statement saying that the new recipe will feature ‘REAL Cane Sugar’, to which Coca-Cola responded by thanking him for his enthusiasm and, a few days later, announcing a US cane-sugar sweetened version of the drink to arrive this autumn.
However, it is worth noting that the brand is not giving up on HFCS altogether – they have also defended the ingredient as ‘just a sweetener made from corn’ in an attempt to detract from allegations of the formulation being overly artificial, and have also since clarified that this new product line is an extension of existing options – not a replacement. Executive James Quincey told media that “we are definitely looking to use the whole toolkit of available sweetening options to some extent where there are consumer preferences”.
The change is, regardless, seen as the company buckling under pressure to an administration which has been willing to use executive orders and other similar tools in order to punish companies which do not align their activities with the goals of the MAGA movement.
This is not to say that there are no other reasons for the change too, though. Consumer taste has been developing for a while, and the drive from the US administration to avoid ultra processed foods is reflective of wider sentiment by a large proportion of society who want their food and drink to appear more ‘natural’.
Immediately, there has been a response by other major food and drink manufacturers who are similarly seeking to win favour with the administration. For example, just a few days after the Coca-Cola announcement, Kellogg’s announced that it would be limiting its use of artificial dyes in certain cereal products within the next few years (in line with various other brands, such as Heinz, who have made similar commitments).
Producing Coca-Cola will now become (generally) more expensive as a result of the cost of cane sugar, especially amidst trade tensions which have been rising as a result of Trump’s tariff threats. Some industry commentators fear this increased cost could be passed onto consumers, which would be particularly difficult given the fact that Coca-Cola operates in a relatively cut-throat market with price-savvy consumers (who could, for example, turn to competitors like Pepsi instead).
This change is also likely to have a large impact on the corn production industry in the US, which counts soft drink companies purchasing HFCS as some of its most crucial clients. Job losses feel almost inevitable as a result, and the shares of various corn processors like ADM fell dramatically after Trump’s comments online.
This story speaks to an important point for future lawyers to understand (especially those working with corporate clients) – it is not just the power of ‘hard law’ such as statutes which drive change – in the world of business, commercial pressure often reigns supreme. By making the change, Coca-Cola are able to align themselves with an incredibly powerful MAGA administration (limiting the risk of any threats to their ongoing success, which others have faced) – in other words, they have been pressured by ‘soft power’. This is widely criticised as ‘regulation by shakedown’ by industry commentators, but has become a hallmark of the current administration under Trump.
Coca-Cola are also able to improve their image from a PR/marketing perspective by aligning with perceived health benefits – however, allegations that some of the health points may be unfounded are often at risk of resulting in some form of litigation, which lawyers again need to be aware of.
Loading More Content