Soft drinks have become quite popular in the United States and one of the major companies is the Coca-Cola Company. The Coca-Cola Company was created by John Pemberton, an Atlanta pharmacist in 1886 just out of curiosity and the company has been around for 126 years (Atlanta Begins). As of eight years the U.S. decided to import Coca-Cola from Mexico for the immigrant population (Walker). Since then it has become a popular soft drink in the U.S. Now many people argue whether or not it is better tasting than the U.S. coke considering these three factors: Taste, ingredients, and containers.
The Coca-Cola franchise has quite a reputation of their products according to taste. In this case, we have Mexican coke and American coke. Although U.S. coke is bought from the stores twice as much as the Mexican coke people still say that it is better tasting than the U.S. coke. According to a test done by "The Huffington Post" employees stated that the U.S. coke has a bland, tangy, vanilla after taste versus the cleaner, sweeter, thicker, and less artificial taste in the Mexican coke. But there were a few people that stated that they could not taste the difference between the two cokes (Huffpost Taste). Now this is just one test out of hundreds of test around the world done, not just by newspaper articles but from individual people as well. Even though this is just one test it can also mean that plenty of test results were similar. The graph below gives a sample percentage of people"s preferred coke.
The Coca-Cola"s ingredients have almost been the same for years. However, in the last 30 years the U.S. coke ingredients changed their pure sugar ingredient to High Fructose Corn Syrup "HFCS" because of the government-imposed importation laws and the cost of production is cheaper in the U.S., while the Mexican coke has all the same ingredients except the pure cane sugar (Peppers). The Coca-Cola Company states that they have never changed the ingredients in any of their products around the world, yet they also stated that it depends on the countries" cheapest and easy to produce ingredients that might seem like it changes the taste in them (Lopez-Alt ). Now from here people argue that they are either hiding an ingredient or do not want to acknowledge that they changed an ingredient. So because Mexican coke is made with cane sugar it is said that it is one of the factors that make it taste better than U.S. coke. Yet some people prefer the U.S. coke"s HFCS because it is already part of an American diet.
The Coca-Cola Company serves their soft drinks in either aluminum cans, plastic, or glass bottles. In this case, the U.S. coke serves them in either cans or plastic bottles, while Mexican coke is served in glass bottles (Kennedy). According to this it gives the soft drinks a different taste and texture. For example, most people prefer glass bottles over aluminum cans according to a test done by Serious Eats" J. Kenji Lopez. So by default the Mexican coke was chosen since it is in a glass bottle, but some people did not care whether it was U. S. or Mexican coke they just like the feel and texture the glass bottle gives them. Now there were some people that liked the U.S. coke in aluminum cans or plastic bottles regardless of how the glass bottled coke tasted.
In Conclusion, Mexican coke is preferred over American coke due to having a greater taste, ingredient, and container. The U.S. coke might be bought twice as more than the Mexican coke, it still remains the most popular coke in the U.S. There is a chance that the U.S. coke could be better tasting, but until the right factors to testing are used, the Mexican coke will remain a great tasting coke. Otherwise, we will see a change in American coke or the U.S. might stop importing the Mexican coke.
Atlanta Begins. Heritage Timeline. The Coca-Cola Company, 2006-2011. Web. 18 Sep. 2013.
Coca-Cola Tastes Better: High Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Sugar. Huffpost Taste. HuffingtonPost.com. The Huffington Post, 15 April 2013. Web. 19 Sep. 2013.
Kennedy, Bruce. Mexican Coca-Cola is Finding Sweet Success in the U.S. Daily Finance. AOL,20 Sep. 2010. Web. 19 Sep. 2013.
Lopez-Alt, Kenji. The Food Lab, Drinks Edition: Is Mexican Coke Better. Seriouseats.com.SeriousEats, 2 Sep. 2011. Web. 19 Sep. 2013.
Peppers, Margot. It"s the REAL Thing: How Tastier "Mexican Coke" Made with Cane Sugar HasBecome a Hit among Those in the Know. Femail. Mail Online, 19 July 2013. Web. 19Sep. 2013.
Walker, Rob. Cult Classic. NyTimes.com. The New York Times, 8 Oct. 2009. Web. 18 Sep.2013.
All right, I will begin by saying the resolution was poorly worded, but by my opponents argument I can only assume I am against her claim - Mexican coke is better than American coke.
So, by being con, and my opponent not setting any guidelines, I'll clarify my position. I do not have to support American coke or oppose Mexican coke. I just have to negate the claim "Mexican coke is better than American coke. " So let's start.
|Exhibit A: We taste with our eyes, not our mouths|
Actually, scratch that. We taste with our eyes, ears, noses, and even our sense of touch. We taste with our emotions, and our state of mind. This has been demonstrated time after time after time.
Research out of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab has shown that people will rate food as more enjoyable if it's consumed in the relaxed atmosphere of a fine dining environment, as opposed to a noisy fast food restaurant.
A 2006 study, published by the American Association of Wine Economists, found that most people can't distinguish between pat" and dog food.
A recent New Yorker piece describes a followup to Brochet's 2001 study, wherein he served wine experts a run-of-the-mill Bordeaux in two different bottles:
One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was summarized as being "agreeable," "woody," "complex," "balanced," and "rounded," while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table included "weak," "short," "light," "flat," and "faulty."
I will now go into "Wine tasting" seeing as how if we were to properly have tasters for coke, I would cite that, but the correlation will do just fine. We can assume if there were "coke tasters" they would resemble the same results.
|Exhibit B: Wine experts contradict themselves. Constantly.|
Statistician and wine-lover Robert Hodgson recently analyzed a series of wine competitions in California, after "wondering how wines, such as his own, [could] win a gold medal at one competition, and 'end up in the pooper' at others." In one study, Hodgson presented blindfolded wine experts with the same wine three times in succession. Incredibly, the judges' ratings typically varied by "4 points on a standard ratings scale running from 80 to 100. Via the Wall Street Journal:
A wine rated 91 on one tasting would often be rated an 87 or 95 on the next. Some of the judges did much worse, and only about one in 10 regularly rated the same wine within a range of "2 points.
Mr. Hodgson also found that the judges whose ratings were most consistent in any given year landed in the middle of the pack in other years, suggesting that their consistent performance that year had simply been due to chance. It bears repeating that the judges Hodgson surveyed were no ordinary taste-testers. These were judges at California State Fair wine competition " the oldest and most prestigious in North America. If you think you can consistently rate the "quality" of wine, it means two things:
1: No. You can't.
2. Wine-tasting is wrong.
|Exhibit C: Wine critics know wine reviews are wrong.|
Here's Joe Power, editor of the popular Another Wine Blog, in a post titled "Wine Reviews are Wrong!":
"Today, with apologies to messieurs Penn and Teller, I am going to stand up and shout, "Wine reviews are Wrong!"
If you are wondering if this is going to be some justification of why our reviews at AWB are just spiffy and everyone else is full of poop, you can stop wondering; ours are wrong too. It is just the nature of the beast.
There is no hard science involved in reviewing wine, no real way to quantify results, no test cases, and certainly no verifiable set of standards that everyone adheres to. Everyone makes up their own processes for reviewing from Wine Spectator to us and all of the way down to the most recent person who just discovered how easy it is to set up a blog of their own."
When asked point blank what he thought of the aforementioned results from Robert Hodgson's study (see Exhibit A) wine-maker Bob Cabral said he was "not surprised":
In Mr. Cabral's view, wine ratings are influenced by uncontrolled factors such as the time of day, the number of hours since the taster last ate and the other wines in the lineup. He also says critics taste too many wines in too short a time. As a result, he says, "I would expect a taster's rating of the same wine to vary by at least three, four, five points from tasting to tasting."
|Final Exhibit: Countless other studies|
In 1996, research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology concluded that wine experts cannot reliably identify more than three or four of a wine's flavor components. Most wine critics routinely report tasting six or more. The wine review excerpted in the top image for this post, for example (which is a real review, by the way " somebody actually wrote those words about a bottle of wine, in earnest) lists the following components in the wine's "principle flavor" profile: "red roses, lavender, geranium, dried hibiscus flowers, cranberry raisins, currant jelly, mango with skins [Ed. note: jesus wine-swilling christ " mango with skins?], red plums, cobbler, cinnamon, star anise, blackberry bramble, whole black peppercorn," and more than a dozen other flavors that I refuse to continue listing lest my head implode.
Fun fact: MIT behavioral economist Coco Krume recently conducted a meta-analysis of the classifiers used in wine reviews, and found that reviewers tend to use "cheap" and "expensive" words differently. Cheap descriptors are used much more frequently, expensive ones more sparingly. Krume even demonstrated that it's possible to guess the price range of a wine based on the words used in its review. "From a quantitative standpoint," Krume writes, "there are three types of words more likely to be used for expensive wines":
Darker words, such as intense, supple, velvety, and smoky
Single flavors such as tobacco or chocolate versus fruity, good, clean, tasty, juicy for cheap wines
Exclusive-sounding words in place of simple descriptors. For example, old, elegant, and cuvee rather than pleasing, refreshing, value,and enjoy
Additionally, cheap wine is preferentially paired with chicken and pizza, while pricey wine goes with shellfish and pork
Using her scientific metric, Krume goes on to create the most expensive-sounding wine review ever penned: "A velvety chocolate texture and enticingly layered, yet creamy, nose, this wine abounds with focused cassis and a silky ruby finish. Lush, elegant, and nuanced. Pair with pork and shellfish."
If that sentence made you yearn for a glass of classy red, congratulations, there's a very real chance you're a pompous guy.