SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Margot Sanger-Katz reports in the NYT that soda consumption is experiencing a serious and sustained decline as sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted by more than 25 percent over the past twenty years. Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they are actively trying to avoid the drinks that have been a mainstay of American culture and bottled water is now on track to overtake soda as the largest beverage category in two years. The changing patterns of soda drinking appear to come thanks, in part, to a loud campaign to eradicate sodas. School cafeterias and vending machines no longer contain regular sodas. Many workplaces and government offices have similarly prohibited their sale.
For many public health advocates, soda has become the new tobacco — a toxic product to be banned, taxed and stigmatized. "There will always be soda, but I think the era of it being acceptable for kids to drink soda all day long is passing, slowly," says Marion Nestle. "In some socioeconomic groups, it's over." Soda represents nearly 25% of the U.S. beverage market and its massive scale have guaranteed profit margins for decades. Historically, beverage preferences are set in adolescence, the first time that most people begin choosing and buying a favorite brand. But the declines in soda drinking appear to be sharpest among young Americans. "Kids these days are growing up with all of these other options, and there are some parents who say, 'I really want my kids to drink juice or a bottled water,' " says Gary A. Hemphill. "If kids grow up without carbonated soft drinks, the likelihood that they are going to grow up and, when they are 35, start drinking is very low."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 04 2015, @07:49PM
Some experimenters reported that fructose added to various beverages at various temperatures was 77% to 136% sweeter than sucrose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2758952 [nih.gov]
When soda makers disclose the energy content of their drinks, they can write a smaller number for the calories, without reducing the sweetness, if they use fructose rather than sucrose.
In the US, corn production is heavily subsidized. I speculate that it may have to do with fact that the Iowa primaries are held early, in election years.
Sucrose, on the other hand, is subject to regulations that tend to increase its price to about twice that on the world market:
http://www.atr.org/sugar-policy-sweet-economy-a7127 [atr.org]
Ton for ton, fructose is about twice as sweet and (in the US) costs about half as much, so it yields around four times as much bang for the buck.