PDA

View Full Version : Corn prices... higher and higher !



SumPoosieCat
03-17-2007, 11:09 AM
I have to admit it is music to my ear. Maybe now some of these companies will stop using that Corn Syrup garbage and start using good old fashion cane sugar and making just about everyone happy.

With corn prices going higher and higher you have to ask WHY NOT USE SOMETHING BETTER !!!

SkipWankman
03-17-2007, 12:16 PM
I have to admit it is music to my ear. Maybe now some of these companies will stop using that Corn Syrup garbage and start using good old fashion cane sugar and making just about everyone happy.

With corn prices going higher and higher you have to ask WHY NOT USE SOMETHING BETTER !!!

You should look into Stevia, it's an herb that is 30x sweeter than sugar. The only problem is I don't think it's FDA approved, even though all testing has shown that it's actually GOOD for you, and has none of the harmful effects of sugar....lol. There is controversy that if brought to the open market it would put the cane sugar industry out of business, and the Gov't can't have that....

You can find a little bottle of stevia at any whole foods market or organic store, it's pretty good and doesn't have a weird aftertaste, i can contest to it....

asexymind
03-28-2007, 02:35 AM
You should look into Stevia, it's an herb that is 30x sweeter than sugar. The only problem is I don't think it's FDA approved,

We were going to use stevia, until we learned that we would be in serious legal trouble. You can use stevia as a "dietary supplement", you just can't use it as a sweetener! It hasn't passed FDA "safety" requirements. In the end, we didn't want to be a test case for them...

Mark

greg
03-28-2007, 10:11 AM
I have to admit it is music to my ear. Maybe now some of these companies will stop using that Corn Syrup garbage and start using good old fashion cane sugar and making just about everyone happy.

With corn prices going higher and higher you have to ask WHY NOT USE SOMETHING BETTER !!!

Better is often more expensive. Are you willing to $1.69 for a 20oz soda?
Of course the increase in the COG's will be passed on to the consumer. Do really think the investors will eat that charge? That is one reason they went to HFCS in the first place.

SumPoosieCat
03-28-2007, 05:20 PM
Greg... you have me a bit confused

Remember it takes less sugar to do the job than corn syrup

Secondly, the difference is a few pennies per can or bottle

Third... the product taste BETTER with real sugar

Last ... if corn prices continue to go up they will soon HAVE to make the product better and use REAL SUGAR!

Don't you find it interesting that Coke and Pepsi put that corn sludge in their product instead of something that cost a few pennies more but makes the product taste even better!!! Sounds like a small example of corporate greed.

By the way Citigroup CEO was paid 26 million for 2006 a few months later 15,000 jobs are cut....yeah leave it to corporations to do the "right" thing.

DrPepperYummy
03-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Better is often more expensive. Are you willing to $1.69 for a 20oz soda?
Of course the increase in the COG's will be passed on to the consumer. Do really think the investors will eat that charge? That is one reason they went to HFCS in the first place.

we're probably going to be paying 1.69 for a 20oz this year anyhow.. its kinda sick to imagine 4.49 12packs but looks like we're all getting ready to make it reality... might as well use real sugar to make it less painful when you're drinking :P

anyone ever dive into wondering how much stock or invested interest these large companies might have in the actual producers plants? (for the sugar/corn syrup plants) I mean if you own the plant it might be harder to switch cause you're not profiting off your other company owned interest? Just a conspiracy theory for everyone :) (its like health insurance companies investing in cancer cure companies)

greg
03-28-2007, 05:45 PM
Greg... you have me a bit confused

Remember it takes less sugar to do the job than corn syrup

Secondly, the difference is a few pennies per can or bottle

Third... the product taste BETTER with real sugar

Last ... if corn prices continue to go up they will soon HAVE to make the product better and use REAL SUGAR!

Don't you find it interesting that Coke and Pepsi put that corn sludge in their product instead of something that cost a few pennies more but makes the product taste even better!!! Sounds like a small example of corporate greed.

By the way Citigroup CEO was paid 26 million for 2006 a few months later 15,000 jobs are cut....yeah leave it to corporations to do the "right" thing.


Yeah just a few pennies more.......times millions of cans of Soda!
Why do you think they switched in the first place? Cost is a major factor in that decision.
"This is because HFCS are cheaper to transport and produce, easier to store and mix into food and actually taste sweeter . Food products sweetened with HFCS can therefore be made with lower cost and sold at a lower price."(The Science Quarterly)
Plus, If i'm not mistaken, and someone please call me out on this if I am, Sugar is not as shelf stable as HFCS. That is also a concern.

Oh Yeah, Don't try and bait me with your "Class Envy" statements about CEO's versus employees. Try and get a job from a poor person next time you are looking. And when it's time to get a loan or VC to expand and grow SPC try and get it from some guy thats Broke. It's all got to come from somewhere and I am trying to get on top of that heap.
g

SumPoosieCat
03-28-2007, 11:24 PM
Lol... class envy? Wow... I will have to save that for another time.

Cost? Price? Profit? Do you think Coke and Pepsi won't raise the price of their drinks if HFCS continues to rise ??? You know they will... well.... why not use Real Sugar which everyone knows taste better and is better for you than HFCS. It is not the company that eats the few pennies its the consumer and most will gladly pay a little more for a better product.

People drive long distances to get Coke made with Real Sugar... hmmmm just imagine if they just made it that way!

There is no defending HFCS over Real Sugar... it would be nice if people would just do the right thing but corporations seem to have a problem doing that if it cost a few pennies more.... what a shame!

greg
03-29-2007, 10:34 AM
Lol... class envy? Wow... I will have to save that for another time.

Cost? Price? Profit? Do you think Coke and Pepsi won't raise the price of their drinks if HFCS continues to rise ??? You know they will... well.... why not use Real Sugar which everyone knows taste better and is better for you than HFCS. It is not the company that eats the few pennies its the consumer and most will gladly pay a little more for a better product.

People drive long distances to get Coke made with Real Sugar... hmmmm just imagine if they just made it that way!

There is no defending HFCS over Real Sugar... it would be nice if people would just do the right thing but corporations seem to have a problem doing that if it cost a few pennies more.... what a shame!

Do you think that the Sugar industry will not raise their prices when demand goes up?
I'm not arguing taste or preference. I am arguing cost of goods sold. As a For profit company Coke and Pepsi have the obligation to create a product that can be sold to the most amount of people at a set price. If that set price is raised they will lose consumers. It is about business and the decisions made to operate a profitable one.
You can't just call out Coke and Pepsi becasue HFCS is used in all brands and categories in our lives.

What is the SRP for a 16oz SPC? Why do you charge that. Why not charge just a few pennies less? If you sell 1mm cans of SPC that would equate to 30K. 1mm units is = to one more person you can employ for a year. That is one more person not looking for a job. You just created a job for someone by charging a few pennies more instead of a few pennies less.
Take that equation and put it into Coke and Pepsi numbers. How many jobs do they create by saving 3 cents per can? ??????? Thousands! That is 1000's of people and the familes that some of them support. They are a part of the economy and that is how I look at business. I look at it through a wide angle and its implications on many not just one consumer buying my single unit of beverage.

SumPoosieCat
03-30-2007, 09:16 AM
Your arguing cost of goods sold? I am arguing the use of HFCS...!!! Since it has replaced Real Sugar in the early 80's the rate of obese children in the USA has more than tripled... diabetes... more than tripled. Medical research has determined HFCS actually prohibits the body from feeling full. To put it in plain english Greg the stuff is garbage.

Who cares if it cost a few pennies more... MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT ! You may lose a few because the cost goes up a few pennies but think how many you would gain because you are using REAL SUGAR.

greg
03-30-2007, 10:01 AM
Your arguing cost of goods sold? I am arguing the use of HFCS...!!! Since it has replaced Real Sugar in the early 80's the rate of obese children in the USA has more than tripled... diabetes... more than tripled. Medical research has determined HFCS actually prohibits the body from feeling full. To put it in plain english Greg the stuff is garbage.

Who cares if it cost a few pennies more... MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT ! You may lose a few because the cost goes up a few pennies but think how many you would gain because you are using REAL SUGAR.


I beg to differ about just HFCS creating obese kids. Lack of activity and convenience foods has made kids fat. When I was a kid my mom used to tell me and my brother to go outside and play and take the damn dog. Now parents are afraid to let their kids go outside so they sit on their a$$ and play video games all day. Furthermore, schools are actually taking Phys Ed out of the curriculum. Gee that helps doesn't it.
Parents are getting lazy by serving theri kids pre-packaged foods with little to no nutrient value which promotes obesity.Parents also would rather not force the kids to eat healthier because that would mean they would have to eat healthy as well.
Look at the rate in which obesity starting rising in the US and around the World. It started a noticably stark increase in the late 60's early 70's, 10 whole years before HFCS-55 was used commercially in large amounts in sodas(1980).
HFCS does not differntiate at all in absorption rates than that of sucrose. All things considered I would bet due to this alone obesity rates would not show a steep decline if HFCS is dropped in favor of sugar in sodas.
It is also widely reported that HFCS is often confused with regular corn syrup( essentailly all glucose) This could be where some of the misunderstanding comes from.

I'm not saying that HFCS is Good for you, but I am saying that if, like anything else, taken in moderation it's negative impact can be minimalized.
4-5 sodas a day is not healthy. It is about choices. People taking personal responsibility for their actions. OOPS, there I go go again holding people responsible for controlling their hand to mouth activities......

So, create a product where a few pennies can be saved by using a product that has greater shelf stability, easier to store, better mixability, helps control crystallization of carbohydrates and caffeine,helps control microbial growth,lower viscosity(no syrupy felling in mouth), has equal sweetness factor compared with sugar(inverted liquid) and oh yeah, lower cost.

I'm not saying you are wrong for creating a drinkwith Sugar, that is your perogative and your vision. You have customers that want that. I am just looking at it from a grand production scale.

SumPoosieCat
03-30-2007, 10:42 AM
Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.

(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)

In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.

Defending HFCS and its use will fall on deaf ears here Greg... I think you need to know the facts about this stuff. Do a google search on the dangers of HFCS and you will be amazed.

I think you have been sold a bill of goods about HFCS.

greg
03-30-2007, 11:07 AM
Until the 1970s most of the sugar we ate came from sucrose derived from sugar beets or sugar cane. Then sugar from corn--corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, dextrine and especially high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)--began to gain popularity as a sweetener because it was much less expensive to produce. High fructose corn syrup can be manipulated to contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.2 Thus, with almost twice the fructose, HFCS delivers a double danger compared to sugar.

(With regards to fruit, the ratio is usually 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose, but most commercial fruit juices have HFCS added. Fruit contains fiber which slows down the metabolism of fructose and other sugars, but the fructose in HFCS is absorbed very quickly.)

In 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. In 1994 the average person ate 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose, providing 19 percent of total caloric energy.3 Today approximately 25 percent of our average caloric intake comes from sugars, with the larger fraction as fructose.

Defending HFCS and its use will fall on deaf ears here Greg... I think you need to know the facts about this stuff. Do a google search on the dangers of HFCS and you will be amazed.

I think you have been sold a bill of goods about HFCS.


You said it. It will fall on deaf ears. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is tantamount to insanity.

I know my nutriton, physiology, and metabolic pathway science. I never said HFCS is good for you. I said that it is a cheaper substitute with positives to the manufacturer that is unparalled to that of sugar.
I will stand by my point that even if HFCS is taken out of sodas the sugar that will replace it will have little to no effect on obesity.

Hey, some people still belive that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There will always be information to support your argument of you look hard enough.
g

SumPoosieCat
03-30-2007, 11:16 AM
I know what you said Greg.. its just not true! Plants all over the world use Real Sugar.. not HFCS. The benefits you claim in manufacturing are just not true. I have used both with my own two hands for 30 years.

Entropy
04-04-2007, 04:39 AM
What is the SRP for a 16oz SPC? Why do you charge that. Why not charge just a few pennies less? If you sell 1mm cans of SPC that would equate to 30K. 1mm units is = to one more person you can employ for a year. That is one more person not looking for a job. You just created a job for someone by charging a few pennies more instead of a few pennies less. Take that equation and put it into Coke and Pepsi numbers. How many jobs do they create by saving 3 cents per can? ??????? Thousands! That is 1000's of people and the familes that some of them support.

What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

Do you really think the kind of "people" who would use HFCS in beverages instead of sugar would actually use the money they saved to give people jobs, instead of just using it to line their own pockets?

~ Kiran <entropy@io.com>

greg
04-12-2007, 12:35 PM
What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

Do you really think the kind of "people" who would use HFCS in beverages instead of sugar would actually use the money they saved to give people jobs, instead of just using it to line their own pockets?

~ Kiran <entropy@io.com>

The guys saving money by using HFCS as opposed to real sugar do not actually say"Hey we are saving X amount of money so lets hire a guy".
You must look at the big picture. Sure they make more money for the shareholders or owner, but, they also have more money to spread about buying equipment, space, better raws, packaging, etc. I am talking about major beverage manufacturers, not just the idependent that is servicing a niche market.
Do think Pepsi and Coke got as big as they are by shoving all that profit into their pockets? NO! The use profits to build their companies and then they pay the shareholders and owners.