Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Coke, HFCS and Corporate welfare

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 03:15 AM
Original message
Coke, HFCS and Corporate welfare
A welfare scam

Some quick numbers, on why Coke would use HFCS over sugar.

Annual US Per capita consumption of Coke in servings: 411
People in the United States: 297,890,000
Servings of Coke in the US, per year: 122,432,790,000

How much a 5 cent cost increase in sweetener, per serving, would affect the bottom line of Coca Cola: $6,121,639,500
How much a penny cost increase in sweetener, per serving, would cost Coca-Cola: $1,224,327,900

How much 1/10th of a cent increase in sweetener, per serving, would cost Coca-Cola: $122,423,790. Still nothing to sneeze at
That's a cost saving in the billions over years time. Of course, what Coke doesn't tell you is that your tax dollars are supporting their profit margins. You can thank **Corn subsidies**(corporate welfare) for that.
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/11/why_coke_uses_high_fructose_corn_syrup

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o
ADM Conagra coke on welfare..giving us HFCS because it's cheaper than sugar.Funny the soft drink companies stopped using sugar and obesity rose along with the intensity of industrial pollution..

HFCS lawsuit
High fructose corn syrup is used to sweeten a variety of foods, including soft drinks, candy and baked goods.

In the ruling, the appellate court said "there is evidence that the defendants were not competing; we might go so far as to say they had tacitly agreed not to compete, or at least to compete as little as possible; but the plaintiffs must prove that there was an actual, manifest agreement not to compete."
http://www.electricarrow.com/CARP/agbiz/170.htm

From HFCS to Ethanol..another corporate welfare cash cow?



http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1995/07/carney.html
Coke's dirty secrets, supported by YOUR taxes..
http://www.killercoke.org/ma060905.htm
http://www.killercoke.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC