Re: The inferior thing
> a company that prizes its trademarks & reputation asProfit: "inferior sugar" is cheaper.
> much as Disney does, allow its reputation to be tarnished.
> There must be a reason.
However, "tarnished" is not applicable here. Curt already explained that "inferior sugar" is a label, not an absolute measure of quality.
Given that Coke the same "inferior sugar" in the US uses as it does in Slovakia, it is equally relevant to ask why the company does not use the same type of sugar in Germany, Austria. The question, and the answer, make as much sense as asking "why doesn't it...": profit, by the "regular sugar" companies with well-entrenched lobbyists.