BREAKING NEWS Coca-Cola stuns fans with recipe change that Trump declares as 'just better'
The drinks giant will launch a Coca-Cola in the US this fall made with real cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup.
Food companies have scrambled to make changes in ingredients and include healthier substitutes amid Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign.
President Trump has also pushed for the change, declaring Coke made with sugar is 'just better.'
'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 on Truth Social last week.
'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!'
The move was confirmed during Coca-Cola's second quarter earnings call on Tuesday morning.
The Atlanta-based company beat expectations benefiting from resilient demand for zero-sugar drinks as well as higher pricing.
Coca-Cola's comparable revenue rose 2.5 percent to $12.62 billion in the three months ended June 27, beating estimates of $12.54 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Netflix delivers big blow to Harry and Meghan's business empire
Netflix will not be renewing its US$100 million (£73m) agreement with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, according to reports. The couple signed the five-year deal with the streaming service in 2020, producing several shows. Their docuseries Harry and Meghan garnered 64 million viewing hours, but subsequent projects like Polo and With Love, Meghan saw significantly lower viewership or poor critical reception. Sources suggest there is no animosity, but Netflix feels they have gained all they could from the partnership, and Meghan's priority is now her own brand. The reported decision not to renew the deal represents a significant loss of revenue for the Duke and Duchess.
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Morning Joe throws embattled Donald Trump a very surprising lifeline as Jeffrey Epstein scandal worsens
Joe Scarborough gave Donald Trump a very surprising vote of confidence on the worsening Jeffrey Epstein scandal that threatens to engulf the presidency. The Morning Joe host, who is a notorious Trump critic, said on Thursday that while hardcore MAGA supporters and influencers are outraged by the president's refusal to release the Epstein files, the majority of traditional Republicans don't yet care. 'MAGA influencers, the MAGA base - They're outraged. They're enraged with the president there. There's a split on where they stand on the Epstein files... it's about a 50/50 split,' Scarborough said. 'That said, we've seen no evidence yet of Donald Trump losing support among Republicans. He's sitting at 88 to 90 percent support among Republicans. So until those numbers start moving, I suspect that we're just talking about MAGA influencers, mainly.' Scarborough's comments come as major MAGA allies - who were promised the 'truth' on Epstein - turned their backs on Trump for failing to release Epstein's 'client list. The MAGA world was rocked by revelations of Trump's friendship with the pedophile - including a salacious 50th birthday card published by the Wall Street Journal that Trump allegedly sent him in 2003. Trump denies doing so and has filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Journal. On Wednesday, the prestige paper alleged that Trump was first told by his Attorney General Pam Bondi in May that his name appeared in papers concerning pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein. Last week, Trump said Bondi hadn't told him his name was in the files. There's no suggestion of wrongdoing on President Trump's part, but he has angered many of his own supporters by vowing to release the Epstein files while campaigning, only to refuse to do so now he's in power. Democrats are said to be delighted by the scandal and are using it to try and create ruptures between Trump and the GOP. While Scarborough appeared to defend Trump on Thursday, earlier this week, he accused the president of trying to distract his supporters amid the Epstein files scandal. 'Pretty much, what everyone in Washington and New York, anybody in politics have concluded, is that Donald Trump is throwing everything at the wall,' Scarborough said on Tuesday. 'You can say he's doing it to distract from Epstein, you can say he's doing it to distract from whatever, but there is no doubt he's throwing everything at the wall.' Scarborough was specifically discussing the Trump administration's claims that former president Barack Obama is guilty of treason over the Russian interference probe. It's not the first time Scarborough defends the president. Last month Scarborough stunningly defended the president's bombing of Iran - saying Hillary Clinton and several previous presidents would have all done the same. Scarborough, 62, argued that Trump had no other choice. 'I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton - you know, go down the list - any president wouldn't have felt compelled to take that strike,' the former Florida Republican explained. He also said Trump was left with 'no good options' when it came to a solution. 'What would Monday look like if he hadn't have moved?' he asked panelist David Ignatius, who agreed that any president would have made the same call. Both said Trump had 'inherited' the 'battle plan' from presidents cited. Ignatius said all three considered 'this scenario' when 'diplomacy wasn't working.' The MSNBC star left the Republican party over Trump's rise, but had a meeting with him in Mar-a-Lago after the 2024 presidential election, enraging his liberal audience. At the time, David Frum of The Atlantic accused the liberal network host of surrendering to fear of then-president-elect Trump with the headline 'The Sound of Fear on Air.' Scarborough defended himself in a 20-minute rant on his show last December. 'That wasn't the sound of fear, that was the sound of civility,' Scarborough said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What is the Muhammad Ali Revival Act and how will it affect boxing and fighters?
On Wednesday evening, the boxing world became gripped by conversations about a new bill that could change the sport and the way fighters are paid. Purportedly for the better. Potentially for the worse. The bill, named the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, was introduced to the US Congress by Representatives Brian Jack and Sharice Davids, with the intention of altering federal regulations around the sport. It is a bill that has been backed by TKO, the UFC ownership group that is crossing into boxing, with UFC president Dana White co-promoting September's seismic Canelo vs Crawford fight in tandem with Saudi adviser Turki Alalshikh. The name of the bill comes from the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 (widely referred to as the 'Ali Act'). The key aims of that act were: '(1) to protect the rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate basis, by preventing certain exploitative, oppressive, and unethical business practices; (2) to assist State boxing commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public oversight of the sport; and (3) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and enhance the overall integrity of the industry.' Just as the Ali Act sought to amend the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act, so does the Revival Act. On the face of it, the intentions of both acts are noble, so why were there qualms with the former, and why has the latter proven so controversial? Why is the Revival Act controversial, and what criticisms did the original Ali Act face? Well, at the time of the Ali Act's introduction, some questioned what right Congress had to regulate boxing, given it regulates no other sports. There was also the criticism that the Act had laid out a series of rules for Congress to enforce, but without clear methods of how to enforce them. But to a more pertinent point: on Wednesday evening (23 July), there were altogether different criticisms being aimed at the Revival Act, the main one being that it could see UFC's widely derided style of fighter pay cross into boxing, harming the earning ability of athletes while claiming to do the opposite. Why does the UFC receive criticism over fighter pay? The UFC recently settled an antitrust lawsuit, which claimed the mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion suppressed fighters' ability to negotiate; it was suggested that the UFC had essentially forged a monopoly in MMA. In October, the UFC agreed to pay $380m to a group of former fighters who had competed under its banner between 2010 and 2017, with approximately 1,100 deemed as affected and 97 per cent of them applying to receive funds. The fighters in question received compensation payments between $100,000 and $1m, according to the firm that handled the lawsuit. In general, average fighter pay in the UFC is believed to be much lower than in boxing, though UFC president White has continuously insisted that the media does not know the real numbers. The Independent understands that many fighters enter the promotion on a contract where they earn $12,000 to fight and another $12,000 if they win – with those figures increasing after three bouts, and with $50,000 bonuses available (Fight of the Night, Performance of the Night). The UFC antitrust lawsuit also confirmed numerous reports that, in 2010, the UFC took home approximately 80 per cent of its overall earnings, with fighters left with less than 20 per cent. In comparison, basketball's NBA and its players received around 50 per cent each at the time, and they still do. Currently, players in the WNBA (Women's NBA) are pushing the league for a similar pay system. But how does the UFC's track record on fighter pay relate to the Revival Act, beyond the fact that its parent company (as of 2023) is backing the new bill? What specific changes does the Revival Act seek to make? The Revival Act seeks to allow the creation of Unified Boxing Organisations (UBOs), which would serve as alternatives to boxing's current sanctioning bodies: chiefly the World Boxing Council, World Boxing Association, World Boxing Organization, International Boxing Federation, and International Boxing Organization. Just as those bodies have their own champions, so would UBOs. One UBO would be Zuffa Boxing, likely overseen by UFC president White and Saudi adviser Alalshikh. The UBOs would also pay a minimum national compensation of $150 per round for professional boxers, a figure that might be seen as substantial by very low-level boxers but pitiful by anyone else. The new system would also bid to improve the minimum health insurance available to boxers and access to anti-doping programmes – which can be costly for promoters. As it stands, the minimums in those aspects are controlled by individual states in the US. Many undercard boxers compete in six-round fights, meaning – if they went the distance – they would be expected to earn $900 under the new system. That is understood to be less than a boxer would earn on most shows now, and the sum would struggle to cover the costs of coaching, sparring partners, travel and/or accommodation. These are expenses that fighters are often expected to pay during camp. So, what now? It is worth stressing that this act has not yet been passed. It is likely to be referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the same House that received the 1996 and 2000 acts, with a vote in the House of Representatives being the next step. Thereafter, it would be sent to the US Senate.
