Is it actually possible to taste the difference between cane sugar vs. corn syrup...

All soda is acidic desu. Fucks up your teeth within months so it definitely messes with you're buds as well

If you consistently eat overly sweet things you begin to lose your ability to notice subtle flavor differences. Its why a shitty american diet is so hard to break. Once you ruin your palate the only things that taste good are overly salty/ overly sweet things.
Im oversimplifying but it’s a real problem.

Taste buds aren't like teeth. If you fuck up your teeth as an adult, they won't grow back. Taste buds are more like skin or hair, you can destroy them repeatedly and they'll keep growing back. They're already going to die and be replaced on a pretty regular basis regardless of what you expose them to.

I'm on OP's side. I think the difference is negligible. Did people flip the fuck in the olden days when they started using corn syrup?

Yes they did. The original transition out of using sugar was to New Coke which used corn syrup and was grossly sweet. After the negative backlash to that they started making Coke Classic, which is what we have today, which uses less corn syrup than New Coke and tastes more like original coca-cola by comparison but is noticeably different.

To me Mexican coke with real sugar tastes way smoother & fresh. But somehow Dr Pepper with cane sugar is worse than Dr Pepper with corn syrup.

>have product
>want to make it shittier but cheaper
>give total shit
>people get mad
>bring back the "original" but making it more shit and pretending youre doing people a favor

Clever girl

Shouldnt this be normal coke vs murrican coke ?
You lot are talking like mexican coke is special but literally every country in the world uses cane suger besides murrica.

it was because you were stoned

I'm 99.99% sure you've retarded, because most people can tell the difference

So why does America use corn syrup that much? I don’t really believe the cost theory because even literal shitholes use cane sugar.
Is it really because of lobbying only?

People claim to know the difference, but that doesn't mean they actually do.
>In a sneaky study, Brochet dyed a white wine red and gave it to 54 oenology (wine science) students. The supposedly expert panel overwhelmingly described the beverage like they would a red wine. They were completely fooled
realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html

When conditions are good, you can grow lots of corn, but so can everyone else, so you won't make as much money off of it due to the abundance driving the price lower.
When conditions are bad, the price will be much higher because scarcity will increase demand, but you won't have much corn to sell, so again you won't make much money.
Corn subsidies create an incentive for farmers to not over-plant the land by giving them a basic guaranteed level of income they'll receive regardless of how well each season goes. More specifically this sort of practice for corn in the US stems from the 1930s when way too much corn was produced in response to the war having increased demand for global exporting. The price dropped so low that all the mass produced corn was effectively worthless to the farmers who produced it, and the Great Depression compounded the problem since lots of people out of work and destitute meant way fewer local buyers even with prices being very low. By introducing a form of government assistance that kept farmers paid regardless of their actual output, farmers were able to leave some of their land alone, over-planting was prevented, and prices were more favorable in response to the supply going down, in a way farmers could actually take advantage of because the decreased supply was artificial instead of due to a bad season where they were actually incapable of growing much corn.
So the subsidies are there because they make corn production more profitable and protect farmers from the problems of either extreme of overshooting or underperforming by giving them a base pay that lets them behave more conservatively and less reactively. It might sound silly to continue doing this today, but keep in mind the US is a massive international exporter of corn and subsidizing in this way actually keeps a lot of people around the globe from starvation.

It is possible for most people to tell the difference, HOWEVER:
In blind taste tests with randomly labeled samples of coke made with HFCS or cane sugar, people in America will prefer whichever one they are TOLD is "Mexican Coke" regardless of which is which. And when not told which is which they will prefer the one with HFCS because that is the one they are used to

So in other words Mexican Coke is a meme and you're a meme if you pay extra for it

Interesting. Thanks a lot.

nothing compares to macedonian coke. not sure what they make it with but it's almost undrinkable in America

We're talking about Coke, not here

The plant in Ohio still uses sugar

>I was talking with a bartender once and he said mexican coke is better for cocktails because of the way it blends with alcohol or whatever.
This is true. I generally drink coke and X cocktails (X is usually rum, but sometimes whiskey) and true cane sugar coke is a better mixer. Couldn't precisely tell you why, but something about the sugar blends better with alcohols.

eeh even here in mexico it's kind of a 60% chance that you'll have a regular corn syrup coke instead of a cane sugar one, they're becoming rarer

I tried one and it tasted completely flat. Maybe its because I live in California's north bay and it went flat on the way to the store.