可口可乐改配方背后，是一场已持续40年的甜味剂暗战

Core Viewpoint - The announcement by former President Trump regarding Coca-Cola potentially switching back to real cane sugar in its U.S. products has sparked significant attention and concern within the industry, particularly affecting corn syrup manufacturers like Archer-Daniels-Midland, whose stock dropped by 8% in after-hours trading [2]. Group 1: Historical Context and Ingredient Changes - Coca-Cola originally used cane sugar as the sole sweetener in its classic formula until the 1980s when high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) began to replace it due to lower production costs influenced by U.S. corn subsidy policies [3][5]. - By the 1980s, nearly 40% of added sugars in the U.S. market were HFCS, leading Coca-Cola to switch its U.S. formula to HFCS while maintaining flexibility for other products [3][5]. Group 2: Market Variations and Consumer Preferences - In contrast to the U.S. market, countries like Mexico, the UK, and Australia still use cane sugar in Coca-Cola, creating a unique consumer preference for the "Mexican Coke," which is often sold at a premium due to its nostalgic value [7]. - The flavor profiles of cane sugar and HFCS differ significantly, with HFCS providing a quick sweetness and cane sugar offering a more prolonged, nuanced taste experience [7][8]. Group 3: Economic and Supply Chain Considerations - Transitioning back to cane sugar would significantly increase production costs for Coca-Cola, potentially leading to higher retail prices and reduced market competitiveness [9]. - The existing supply chain for HFCS is well-established, and switching to cane sugar would require substantial adjustments, including sourcing new suppliers and modifying processing equipment [9][10]. - The HFCS industry supports approximately 120,000 jobs, and a shift to cane sugar could result in a 3%-5% reduction in these positions, impacting the livelihoods of many in the food manufacturing sector [9]. Group 4: Political and Consumer Resistance - The U.S. agricultural subsidy structure heavily favors corn production, with about 60% of agricultural subsidies allocated to corn and other grains, complicating any potential shift to cane sugar [10]. - Consumer taste preferences have evolved, and while some may long for the original formula, many have adapted to the HFCS version, creating uncertainty about market acceptance of a potential switch back to cane sugar [10][11].