Scientists claim to have found no proof that Mexican Coca-Cola, beloved of food snobs and hipsters, contains cane sugar.
Further proof that I'm just another member of the urban-myth-believing deluded masses?
But according to Time, a recent study that analyzed sodas found that Mexican Coke doesn't seem to contain the compound you find in cane sugar--sucrose. Instead, the bottles seemed to contain glucose and fructose, which show up in high-fructose corn syrup.
Further proof that I'm just another member of the urban-myth-believing deluded masses?
Maybe not.
From the Gawker article:Luckily for those of us who've staked our reputations on our Coke snobbery, there may be a possible explanation for the lack of sucrose in Mexican Coke--namely, that the bottles were old and the sucrose had split into the other two compounds. (The researchers also said they didn't analyze enough bottles to come to a firm conclusion.)
There is also this recent article from Consumerist, in which the website asks Coca-Cola directly why the company doesn't market a sugar (as opposed to high fructose corn syrup) version of the drink.
"We already provide a Coca-Cola with sugar in the U.S. - is Coca-Cola from Mexico and it's available year round," Greg Galvez, vice president and general manager of Importation and Commercialization, Coca-Cola North America, told Consumerist.
Clearly, someone -- not us; we're a free newspaper -- needs to commission an actual study, with new bottles and enough bottles, to get to the bottom of this mystery.
Or we can continue to live in ignorance. Really, either way is cool with me.
