Is Coca-Cola changing its US recipe? What we know so far
In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, July 16, the president said he has spoke with the company about using "REAL cane sugar" in its flagship soda, adding that company has agreed to do so.
"I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!" he wrote.
For its U.S. products, the soft drink manufacturer currently uses high-fructose corn syrup as opposed to cane sugar, which is used in other countries like Mexico.
The announcement aligns with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to shift American food consumption away from certain ingredients, like artificial dyes. While Kennedy has deemed both sugar and high fructose corn syrup as unhealthy, his Make America Healthy Again initiative combatting chronic health problems has claimed the proposed substitutes are ultimately healthier.
Here's what to know about the supposed recipe change.
What has Coca-Cola said about the move?
Coca-Cola has not yet confirmed a recipe switch, as of Thursday evening, July 17, but the company teased an announcement could be coming.
"We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon," the company said in a statement July 16.
A company quarterly earnings call is scheduled for Tuesday, July 22, 2025 starting at 8:30 a.m. ET.
What has Trump, the White House said?
The White House has not responded to USA TODAY's requests for comment after Trump initially announced the recipe switch on Truth Social July 16.
"I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so," Trump wrote. "I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!
Wall Street reacts: Stock prices of high fructose syrup producer ADM drop
Archer-Daniels-Midland, a major producer of high fructose syrup, saw its shares fall close to 1% on July 17, following Trump's announcement.
Meanwhile, ingredients provider Ingredion saw its shares decline by 0.6% after falling as much as 7% ahead of the market's open, CNBC reported.
Coca-Cola shares rose nearly 2% on Thursday.
Is cane sugar healthier than corn syrup?
If consumed in excess, both cane and high-fructose corn syrup, like all sugars, can carry negative health effects including weight gain, diabetes and heart disease.
While some studies have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may be linked to increased fat production and inflammation, the FDA says it is "not aware of any evidence" of a difference in safety between foods containing high-fructose corn syrup and "foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners."
How would the recipe change impact Coca-Cola?
Coca-Cola switching from cane sugar to high-fructose corn syrup would pose changes to cost and product labeling, Reuters reported, citing industry analysts. The company would have to significantly adjust its supply chains as the two sweeteners primarily come from different producers.
Is corn syrup cheaper than sugar?
Ron Sterk, a senior editor at food industry insider SOSland Publishing, said it is cheaper for U.S. food and beverage companies to use corn syrup than cane sugar, Reuters reported.
Contributing: Reuters and Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
30 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Here are the 10 most expensive cities for the ultra-rich in 2025 — and the quiet power shift shaping the next luxury capitals
For the third year running, Singapore ranked as the world's most expensive city for high-net-worth individuals, according to the latest Global Wealth and Lifestyle Report from Julius Baer Group, a Swiss wealth management group. London moved into second place, nudging Hong Kong into third — but behind these familiar frontrunners, a quiet transformation could soon redraw the global map for the super wealthy The 2025 edition of the report, published on Monday, tracked the cost of what it called "living well" — meaning the ability to afford and regularly spend on 20 luxury goods and services that high-net-worth individuals typically enjoy. These include private school fees, luxury property, watches, fancy dinners, and business class flights. Pricing data was collected across 25 cities between November 2024 and March 2025, and each city was ranked based on the weighted-average total cost of all 20 items, converted into US dollars. To complement the price index, Julius Baer also conducted a separate Lifestyle Survey, polling 360 high-net-worth individuals across 15 countries in February and March 2025 to understand how the wealthy are spending and investing. While the methodology is robust, it does not account for geopolitical shifts that followed, including the Trump administration's April tariff announcements, and its relatively small sample size may limit broad conclusions. Still, the findings point to a clear shift in momentum: while the podium remains stable, several key cities — especially in Asia and the Middle East — are climbing fast, suggesting a broader power shift in global luxury hubs. The top 10 most expensive cities for the wealthy in 2025 Singapore. London. Hong Kong. Monaco. Zurich. Shanghai. Dubai. New York. Paris. Milan. The quiet rise of new luxury capitals Several emerging cities climbed the rankings at an unexpected pace, especially in Asia and the Middle East. Dubai jumped five spots to 7th place, edging closer to European strongholds like Monaco and Zurich. Bangkok and Tokyo both rose six positions, landing at 11th and 17th, respectively, driven by rising costs of fashion, watches, and property. Bangkok's "growing upper-middle class has had a direct impact on the expansion of the local luxury market," Rishabh Saksena, cohead of Julius Baer's global asset class specialists, told Business Insider. "Increased wealth has mechanically driven demand for luxury goods and services, allowing the development of luxury malls, fine dining, and experiences such as spas," he said. "Additionally, the city benefits from Asia's long-standing appeal as a global tourism destination." Tokyo's rise reflects a similar trend. " Tokyo, and Japan more broadly, has long been a culturally rich and influential region, with a strong luxury market, especially in areas such as fashion, fine dining, and experiences," Saksena added. "The recent global shift among HNWIs toward valuing experiences over goods has further enhanced Tokyo's attractivity and appeal." Meanwhile, Shanghai, which topped the index in 2022, fell from 4th to 6th place — a sign that its dominance may be fading So Paulo and Mexico City also dropped notably in the rankings. "Dubai is nipping at the heels of the bastion cities in the region for wealth and lifestyle — London, Monaco, and Zurich — in a trend that is likely to continue as the Emirate ups the ante on offering an attractive residence proposition for HNWIs," the report said. Behind the movements is a growing desire among the ultrawealthy for stability, wellness, and future-focused cities. The report also notes that Dubai's appeal lies in tax advantages, luxury infrastructure, and a booming property market, while Bangkok and Tokyo benefit from regional economic momentum and cultural cachet. What's driving the change? The global average cost of "living well" actually declined 2% in US dollar terms between 2024 and 2025 — a rare drop in a sector typically shielded from macroeconomic headwinds. Yet, beneath that decline are sharp regional contrasts: Business class air fares jumped 18.2% globally, driven by a shortage of jets and booming demand for premium pleasure travel. Luxury goods like handbags and jewellery fell in price, reflecting shifting consumer priorities. Private school fees soared in cities like London, where new tax rules drove up costs by over 25%. More broadly, high-net-worth individuals increasingly prioritize experiences over possessions and longevity over status. These include spending more on wellness, curated travel, and health services, especially in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. "The main shift we've seen recently is the growing move toward aspirational consumption among HNWIs, who increasingly value experiences over physical goods," Mark Matthews, Head of Research Asia at Julius Baer, told BI. "This trend varies from one location to another. Markets with a long cultural history of luxury goods (e.g., Switzerland with watches or Germany with cars) tend to show a slower transition toward 'experience-based' spending," he added. Data from the Lifestyle Survey backs this up. While luxury spending growth has cooled in Europe — where only 36% of high-net-worth individuals reported spending more on hotels — HNWIs in Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, and Latin America continue to ramp up their spending on high-end fashion, jewellery, and watches. In APAC, 65% reported increasing spending on both hotels and watches, and 63% on women's fashion. In the Middle East, 52% spent more on hotels and 50% on fine jewellery. Across the board, travel and hospitality remain top spending priorities, with fine dining and five-star hotels leading the way. A Eurasian future? The report also hints at a broader geopolitical rebalancing in how — and where — the world's wealthy choose to live. "There is already talk of many wealthy Americans decamping to Europe for the next four years — and possibly forever," Julius Baer's report said, citing affluent individuals looking for political stability and strong institutions. Cities like London, despite Brexit and political change, remain magnets for global wealth thanks to world-class education, healthcare, and cultural capital.
CNBC
30 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' includes these key tax changes for 2025 — what they mean for you
It's been about two weeks since President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" became law, and financial advisors and tax professionals are still digesting what the sweeping legislation means for clients. Meanwhile, several changes are effective for 2025, which will impact tax returns filed in 2026. While the Trump administration has been promoting "working family tax cuts," the legislation's impact depends on your unique situation — and some updates are complex, experts say. "There are just so many moving pieces," said certified financial planner Jim Guarino, managing director at Baker Newman Noyes in Woburn, Massachusetts. He is also a certified public accountant. More from Personal Finance:Trump's 'big beautiful bill' caps student loans. What it means for youTax changes under Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — in one chartTrump's 'big beautiful bill' adds 45.5% 'SALT torpedo' for high earners Currently, many advisors are running projections — often for multiple years — to see how the new provisions could impact taxes. Without income planning, you could reduce, or even eliminate, various tax benefits for which you are otherwise eligible, experts say. When it comes to tax strategy, "you never want to do anything in a silo," Guarino said. Here are some of the key changes from Trump's legislation to know for 2025, and how the updates could affect your taxes. The Republicans' marquee law made permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts — including lower tax brackets and higher standard deductions, among other provisions — which broadly reduced taxes for Americans. Without the extension, most filers could have seen higher taxes in 2026, according to a 2024 report from the Tax Foundation. However, the new law enhances Trump's 2017 cuts, with a few tax breaks that start in 2025: If you itemize tax breaks, there is also a temporary higher cap on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT. For 2025, the SALT deduction limit is $40,000, up from $10,000. The higher SALT benefit phases out, or reduces, for incomes between $500,000 to $600,000, which can create an artificially higher tax rate of 45.5% that some experts are calling a "SALT torpedo." This creates a "sweet spot" for the SALT deduction between $200,000 and $500,000 of earnings, based on other provisions in the bill, CPA John McCarthy wrote in a blog post this week. Trump's tax and spending bill also introduced some temporary tax breaks, which are effective for 2025. Some of these were floated during his 2024 presidential provisions include a $6,000 "bonus" deduction for certain older Americans ages 65 and over, which phases out over $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for married couples filing jointly. There are also new deductions for tip income, overtime earnings and car loan interest, with varying eligibility requirements. This chart shows a breakdown of some of the key individual provisions that are effective for 2025 compared to previous law. During the pandemic, Congress boosted the premium tax credit through 2025, which made Marketplace health insurance more affordable. But Trump's legislation didn't extend the enhanced tax break, which could raise Affordable Care Act premiums for more than 22 million enrollees if no action is taken, according to KFF, a health policy organization. That could impact enrollees when choosing ACA health plans this fall, according to Tommy Lucas, a CFP and enrolled agent at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo in Orlando, Florida. Starting in 2026, enrollees need to prepare for the ACA subsidy cliff, where enrollees lose the premium tax credit when income exceeds the earnings thresholds by even $1, he said. Currently, most ACA enrollees receive at least part of the premium tax credit. However, the subsidy cliff means enrollees lose the benefit once earnings exceed 400% of the federal poverty limit. For 2025, that threshold was $103,280 for a family of three, according to The Peterson Center on Healthcare, a nonprofit for healthcare policy, and KFF.
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Go Back To The Office, But Bring Your Own Snacks. Blame Congress.
I ncreasingly, companies have been asking (or demanding) that employees return to the office, claiming that it fosters a stronger company culture and enhances productivity. To woo employees back, or to make sure they're not angry/hangry when ordered back, companies have been expanding perks such as on-site gyms, childcare facilities, and, of course, free food and beverages. Beginning January 1, the food part will be more expensive for employers, meaning more of them could revert to B.Y.O.S (Bring Your Own Snacks). Congressional Republicans, who extended so many other tax breaks (and added some new ones) in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) President Donald Trump signed on July 4th, decided they would allow a current deduction for employers who provide meals and snacks to expire—except that is, for certain employees, such as those working in restaurants and in Alaskan fishing vessels and fish processing facilities. (No, we're not making it up. The fishy part was one of the concessions Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski extracted from her Republican colleagues for her crucial support.) Before Trump's first term tax cuts—the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—employers who provided meals for their employees—and the employees who benefited from them—were entitled to tax breaks under one of two sections of the tax code. Under section 119 of the tax code, employees are not taxed on on-site meals provided by employers for the employer's convenience. For tax purposes, whether meals are for the convenience of the employer depends on all the facts and circumstances, but typically means that there's a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay (the exclusion doesn't apply to cash allowances instead of meals). So feeding employees who would otherwise be gone too long at distant lunch spots would be deductible for the employer and not taxed to the worker. Even if the meals couldn't be considered for the employer's convenience, they might still be tax-favored under Section 132(e) of the tax code as a de minimis fringe benefit—something so small or inconsequential as to not be worthy of attention. For tax purposes, it means something that has so little value that accounting for it would be unreasonable or administratively impracticable. Typically, this includes items such as coffee, doughnuts, or soft drinks, as well as occasional meals provided to allow employees to work overtime (although how coffee could be considered so inconsequential as not to be worthy of attention is a mystery to me). The de minimis exclusion also applied in most cases to restaurants' staff meals—the kind you see in The Bear . (Technically, it's deductible if the facility's annual revenue equals or exceeds its direct operating costs. Direct operating costs include the cost of food, beverages, and labor costs for cooks and waitstaff, and others who provide services primarily on the premises.) Note that the meals that qualified for the convenience of the employer and the food provided under the de minimis fringe benefit weren't (and still won't be) taxable to the employees. That was a win-win, since employees were not taxed on the perk and employers got a deduction. Trump 1.0: TCJA The TCJA made several changes to the tax treatment of meals and entertainment expenses. Entertainment expenses were disallowed. Plus, that 2017 law created section 274(o), which, beginning in 2026, disallows 100% of the deduction for expenses for food or beverages provided to employees, as well as expenses for the operation of certain eating facilities for employees. As part of the Congressional pattern of frontloading tax goodies and backloading tax pain, the TCJA provided that through 2025, 50% of the cost of on-site employee meals would be deductible (provided it was for the employer's convenience). And, although de minimis snacks aren't considered meals, they were also 50% deductible under the TCJA rules. Trump 2.0: The One Big Beautiful Bill Act The new tax law extended many expiring tax provision in TCJA, but did not extend the rules that had temporarily allowed deductions for snacks and employer convenience perks. Both are now set to expire at the end of the year, which means that U.S. companies that provide snacks, coffee, or on-site meals at the office will no longer receive a tax deduction for doing so. You might think that it was just an oops—that Congress forgot that the provision might expire. But that's not the case. OBBBA didn't roll back the provision for all industries—two notable exceptions have been carved out. One exception applies to very specific businesses—those on a fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or fish tender vessel, or at a facility for the processing of fish for commercial use or consumption located in the U.S. north of 50 degrees north latitude, and is not located in a metropolitan statistical area. It might not surprise you to learn that the only state north of 50 degrees north latitude is Alaska. Notably, the lobster industry wasn't similarly spared; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was a no vote on OBBBA. A second exception applies to establishments that sell food and beverages to customers and also provide meals to their employees—in other words, restaurants. The restaurant industry can continue deducting employee meal expenses for kitchen and waitstaff. As for everybody else? Businesses outside of the Alaskan fishing industry and restaurants may be out of luck now, but Congress apparently thinks it's worth it. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that eliminating the deduction will raise $32.5 billion over the next decade. That might not seem like a lot of money in a law that includes tax cuts that will reduce federal revenues by $4.475 trillion between 2025 and 2034. But consider this: The $25,000 tax deduction for tips, which lasts only through 2028, costs just $32 billion. And here's the weird part, the cost of throwing holiday parties for employees will still be 100% deductible. As for business meals—if say, an employee is taking a potential client to dinner—that is now, and will still be, 50% deductible. Will Employers Care About A Deduction Lost? Food at the office can be a big draw for employees. A 2023 survey found that 80% of workers say catered meals encourage them to come into the office. And anyone who is a regular reader knows that the pull of free coffee and a snack can get me in the door. Plus, let's face it: Sometimes the little, consumable things make a big difference, with 98% of employees saying free meals at work made them feel appreciated. Nearly two-thirds of those who receive free meals say it helps them eat healthier food, and over half (55%) of those who don't receive free meals say they would feel less stressed if they did. For employers, the small act of providing food to busy employees goes a long way towards retention. The survey—which we should point out was sponsored by EZCater, which delivers food to workplaces—found that seven out of ten tax professionals said they'd be more likely to stay at their company if they received free meals during the busy season. On the employer side, investing in employees' meals benefits overall well-being, work performance, and, importantly, employee retention. How much difference will the loss of the tax deduction make? That remains to be seen, but no doubt some employers will be putting out the B.Y.O.S. sign. More from Forbes Forbes IRS Issues Guidance On New Deductions For Seniors, Tips, Overtime And Car Interest By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes Questions About The New Tax Bill? Taxgirl Has Answers By Kelly Phillips Erb Forbes This Barely Used Child Care Tax Break For Employers Just Got An Overhaul By Danielle Chemtob
