4 ms·

Why dont they just remove the sugar from the syrup and offer packets or liquid syrup in containers like at coffee shops?

adventured 8y ago
Because they'll just chase you around with laws regardless. That attempt to avoid the law through cleverness would generate news and sensationalism. That would spur a government response, because if there's anything politicians hate, it's attempts to circumvent their power. You're better off working within the system and trying to negotiate them down or into a different regulatory framework, than waving a flag at the bulls.
intopieces 8y ago
The sugar is part of the recipe that people associate with the brand. It's why Coca-Cola works so closely with McDonalds to get everything right with their dispensing machines.
- Animats 8y ago
  Those new self-service auto-mixing machines for a long list of Coca-Cola products were designed by Dean Kamen.
dragonwriter 8y ago
They could, and then a mandatory charge for sugar packets (like there is for grocery bags) would be legislated.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  But if the objective is to reduce sugar consumption shouldn't there be a sugar packet tax now, as part of the soda tax? Butt for butt my local Starbucks isn't any different than BK, MD, etc.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But if the objective is to reduce sugar consumption shouldn't there be a sugar packet tax now, as part of the soda tax? I think the objective of soda taxes is to reduce childhood habituation to sugar, which is why they focus on a product heavily marketed to children. > Butt for butt my local Starbucks isn't any different than BK, MD, etc. Most of the sugar moving through Starbucks probably isn't sugar packets, anyway.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      I drink my coffee black so I'm not sure. But annecdotally, there are plenty at Starbucks who could probably let us know how sugar fulfillment works there. Yet the higher and higher cost of healthcare is a mystery?
  - Avshalom 8y ago
    This is actually a follow up to the next paragraph in that it doesn't address your specific point but it's also sort of more important: "poor people" go to BK and MD, and we can't be having with the idea that poor people are equally rational but existing in a world of different circumstances/choices. Nope, they need to be told whats best for them. On the left we tax junk food, on the right they demand SNAP/TANF/WIC only cover a very specific subset of food. None of the soda taxes are particularly well thought out BUT Starbucks does not offer a 64oz anything unlike 7-11, so it's less obvious.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      The problem with the tax is that it's a short term symptom-centric "solution" - bandaid on a fleah wound - but it doesn't actually address the root diseases. Unfortunately, the Nanny State is more popular at the voting booth. Eventually, we'll run out of band aids. Then what?
matthewmcg 8y ago
With dry table sugar, at least, it would be a lot of work. A large Coke from McDonald's has about 70 grams of sugar* and a typical sugar packet contains 2.8 grams. You'd need to stir in twenty five packets to get to the standard recipe level of sweetness. *Equivalent amount of table sugar (sucrose)--the syrup may use high fructose corn syrup instead. Edit: on further reflection, we should do this. It's a much more vivid illustration of how much sugar we consume through soda than an abstract calorie number.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  Also packets can be made larger.
mikec3010 8y ago
Because then people would see how much sugar they're actually consuming and question whether to drink it at all.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  I think people would actually increase their consumption if they felt like they could control the sugar. In my cynicism I think it would actually increase total sugar consumption (who's going to keep track of how many packets they're having) , Only putting in 1/2 the normal sugar rounds down to 0 in the mind and means "I put less in, therefore I can have 4 cokes a day) ....

adventured 8y ago

Because they'll just chase you around with laws regardless. That attempt to avoid the law through cleverness would generate news and sensationalism. That would spur a government response, because if there's anything politicians hate, it's attempts to circumvent their power. You're better off working within the system and trying to negotiate them down or into a different regulatory framework, than waving a flag at the bulls.

intopieces 8y ago

The sugar is part of the recipe that people associate with the brand. It's why Coca-Cola works so closely with McDonalds to get everything right with their dispensing machines.

Animats 8y ago
Those new self-service auto-mixing machines for a long list of Coca-Cola products were designed by Dean Kamen.

dragonwriter 8y ago

They could, and then a mandatory charge for sugar packets (like there is for grocery bags) would be legislated.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
But if the objective is to reduce sugar consumption shouldn't there be a sugar packet tax now, as part of the soda tax? Butt for butt my local Starbucks isn't any different than BK, MD, etc.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But if the objective is to reduce sugar consumption shouldn't there be a sugar packet tax now, as part of the soda tax? I think the objective of soda taxes is to reduce childhood habituation to sugar, which is why they focus on a product heavily marketed to children. > Butt for butt my local Starbucks isn't any different than BK, MD, etc. Most of the sugar moving through Starbucks probably isn't sugar packets, anyway.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    I drink my coffee black so I'm not sure. But annecdotally, there are plenty at Starbucks who could probably let us know how sugar fulfillment works there. Yet the higher and higher cost of healthcare is a mystery?
- Avshalom 8y ago
  This is actually a follow up to the next paragraph in that it doesn't address your specific point but it's also sort of more important: "poor people" go to BK and MD, and we can't be having with the idea that poor people are equally rational but existing in a world of different circumstances/choices. Nope, they need to be told whats best for them. On the left we tax junk food, on the right they demand SNAP/TANF/WIC only cover a very specific subset of food. None of the soda taxes are particularly well thought out BUT Starbucks does not offer a 64oz anything unlike 7-11, so it's less obvious.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    The problem with the tax is that it's a short term symptom-centric "solution" - bandaid on a fleah wound - but it doesn't actually address the root diseases. Unfortunately, the Nanny State is more popular at the voting booth. Eventually, we'll run out of band aids. Then what?

matthewmcg 8y ago

With dry table sugar, at least, it would be a lot of work. A large Coke from McDonald's has about 70 grams of sugar* and a typical sugar packet contains 2.8 grams. You'd need to stir in twenty five packets to get to the standard recipe level of sweetness. *Equivalent amount of table sugar (sucrose)--the syrup may use high fructose corn syrup instead. Edit: on further reflection, we should do this. It's a much more vivid illustration of how much sugar we consume through soda than an abstract calorie number.

maerF0x0 8y ago
Also packets can be made larger.

mikec3010 8y ago

Because then people would see how much sugar they're actually consuming and question whether to drink it at all.

maerF0x0 8y ago
I think people would actually increase their consumption if they felt like they could control the sugar. In my cynicism I think it would actually increase total sugar consumption (who's going to keep track of how many packets they're having) , Only putting in 1/2 the normal sugar rounds down to 0 in the mind and means "I put less in, therefore I can have 4 cokes a day) ....