Could someone tell me what ingredients are in Coca cola? I read the label, and it said it contains natural flavors. What type of plants do these natural flavors come from? Do they come from the cola tree?
"The original Coca-Cola contained cola leaf extracts (a source of cocaine prohibited in soft drinks in the U.S. after 1904.)" Is this right? I know the coca tree has cocaine, so I think they might have gotten cola confused with coca.
Could someone tell me what ingredients are in Coca cola? I read the label, and it said it contains natural flavors. What type of plants do these natural flavors come from? Do they come from the cola tree?
"The original Coca-Cola contained cola leaf extracts (a source of cocaine prohibited in soft drinks in the U.S. after 1904.)" Is this right? I know the coca tree has cocaine, so I think they might have gotten cola confused with coca.
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Could someone tell me what ingredients are in Coca cola? I read the label, and it said it contains natural flavors. What type of plants do these natural flavors come from? Do they come from the cola tree?
According to Disinfotainment Today:
THE COCA-COLA RECIPE 1 oz. citrate caffeine 1 oz. vanilla 2½ oz. flavoring * 4 oz. fluid extract of coca 3 oz. citric acid 1 qt. lime juice 30 lbs. sugar 2½ gal. water caramel * orange, lemon, nutmeg, cinnamon, coriander, neroli oils, alcohol, and crack
So, it's a kind of mocha, caramel, curry milkshake without the milk.
So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine?
It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no.
NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say.
They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves as they'd need given the daily production.
So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine?
It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no.
NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say.
They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves as they'd need given the daily production.
Pastorio
According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca leaves each year:
>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine?
It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no.
NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say.
They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves as they'd need given the daily production.
Pastorio
According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca leaves each year:
>[email hidden] wrote: > > >>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine? > >It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no.
NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say.
They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves as they'd need given the daily production.
Pastorio
According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca leaves each year:
I really trust the "facts" in a story the very headline of which is "Satire: the unauthorized history of Coca-Cola."
Zowie, huh?
Pastorio
I was wondering about that too. But most of what they speak of, I already knew to be fact. For satire, they sure are bang on with the facts that I know to be true.
>TC wrote: > > >>[email hidden] wrote: >> >> >> >>>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine? >> >>It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no. > >NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily >enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say. > >They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a >long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves >as they'd need given the daily production. > >Pastorio
According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca leaves each year:
I really trust the "facts" in a story the very headline of which is "Satire: the unauthorized history of Coca-Cola."
Zowie, huh?
Pastorio
I was wondering about that too. But most of what they speak of, I already knew to be fact. For satire, they sure are bang on with the facts that I know to be true.
Funny thing about that. So much of that piece was snotty stuff, snide comment. Much of the rest was conjectural. I didn't find much news that I felt confident about. YMMV
>TC wrote: > >>[email hidden] wrote: >> >> >>>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine? >> >>It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no. > >NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily >enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say. > >They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a >long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves >as they'd need given the daily production. > >Pastorio
According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca leaves each year:
I really trust the "facts" in a story the very headline of which is "Satire: the unauthorized history of Coca-Cola."
Zowie, huh?
Pastorio
I was wondering about that too. But most of what they speak of, I already knew to be fact. For satire, they sure are bang on with the facts that I know to be true.
It repeated accurate and known historical facts about Coca-Cola, both the company and the drink. It did not validate the facts as much as the facts as presented validated the article to some extent, IMHO.
If you are challenging the accuracy of the points presented in the article, please go ahead and tell us exactly which points you are challenging and why. Please, inform us poor plebes.
>Bob (this one) wrote: > > >>TC wrote: >> >> >>>[email hidden] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine? >>> >>>It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no. >> >>NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily >>enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say. >> >>They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a >>long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves >>as they'd need given the daily production. >> >>Pastorio > >According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca >leaves each year: > >http://www.newstarget.com/003228.html > >Wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
<LOL>
I really trust the "facts" in a story the very headline of which is "Satire: the unauthorized history of Coca-Cola."
Zowie, huh?
Pastorio
I was wondering about that too. But most of what they speak of, I already knew to be fact. For satire, they sure are bang on with the facts that I know to be true.
Funny thing about that. So much of that piece was snotty stuff, snide comment. Much of the rest was conjectural. I didn't find much news that I felt confident about. YMMV
Pastorio
I have read a number of books and other numerous pieces on the history of coke and coca-cola (the company) and what you appear to label as conjectural appears to me to be historical facts. The article is accurate on the points related to the history of the company and the product. If you feel otherwise, please educate us as to what "conjectures" were inaccurate.
And yes it snotty snide coment, based on accurate history and observations.
>TC wrote: > > >>Bob (this one) wrote: >> >> >> >>>TC wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>[email hidden] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>So, it does still contain minute amounts of cocaine? >>>> >>>>It could. Why not? Of course Coca-Cola will say no. >>> >>>NO. It doesn't. And any remotely competent lab could find it easily >>>enough no matter what anybody says or doesn't say. >>> >>>They don't use coca leaves in the formulation any more. Haven't for a >>>long, long time. Be real hard to import as much sheer tonnage of leaves >>>as they'd need given the daily production. >>> >>>Pastorio >> >>According to this guy, Coca-Cola imports up to eight tons of coca >>leaves each year: >> >>http://www.newstarget.com/003228.html >> >>Wouldn't surprise me if it were true. > ><LOL> > >I really trust the "facts" in a story the very headline of which is >"Satire: the unauthorized history of Coca-Cola." > >Zowie, huh? > >Pastorio
I was wondering about that too. But most of what they speak of, I already knew to be fact. For satire, they sure are bang on with the facts that I know to be true.
Funny thing about that. So much of that piece was snotty stuff, snide comment. Much of the rest was conjectural. I didn't find much news that I felt confident about. YMMV
Pastorio
I have read a number of books and other numerous pieces on the history of coke and coca-cola (the company) and what you appear to label as conjectural appears to me to be historical facts. The article is accurate on the points related to the history of the company and the product. If you feel otherwise, please educate us as to what "conjectures" were inaccurate.
And yes it snotty snide coment, based on accurate history and observations.
Give it a rest. No one argues with the history of the company. It's all that [censored] "chemistry" and "biology" that's a bit too far out to buy. If Coke were such a destroyer of teeth and bodies as the doomsayers say, it would either be put back to its medicine state where the syrup was commonly found in drugstores (as it was when I was a kid) or it would be taken off all the shelves of every store.
Frankly, it's not worth going through a multi-part, purple-prosefest to isolate the obviously absurd parts. It's a garbled piece, alternately dealing with historical fact then raging and ranting about deleterious effects that may or may not actually be the case. He quotes a whole lot of people, virtually all "alternative" types, most of whom take shots at Coke. Fine, for a polemic. Just not much science in there.
