Close
Story Time today i learned (til)

A Reflection On Divisive Foods: Coconut Water

October 8, 2022

Everyone’s relationship with food is a unique one and often changes and fluctuates over time. For some, it’s simply a means of survival, and for others, it can be what they most look forward to during the day. I personally fall into the latter category and enjoy indulging in a large variety of foods whenever possible. But even with my open and adventurous nature towards different foods, I’ve always wondered why there are some foods that I strongly dislike but are otherwise loved by my friends and family. What is it about our relationship with food that causes us to love or hate certain dishes or ingredients? These “divisive foods”, as I’m choosing to call them, can be very polarizing in society, and over the past few months, I’ve found myself thinking about why these foods evoke this black-and-white response.

 

Food is multidimensional

Foods possess a variety of traits (besides the taste) that define them. Some have different chemicals that can react with compounds in our body, others have unique textures that can satisfy or disgruntle us, and others still can hold special memories associated with them through experiences. I believe these additional traits are the key to understanding why foods can be so polarizing. I hope to create a series out of several different popularly divisive foods, but for now, I’d like to discuss in particular the properties of coconut and coconut water.

Coconut. You either like it or you don’t. While coconut itself has a laundry list of traits that might cause polarization over it, I’m particularly interested in what’s inside them– coconut water.

 

My First Impressions of Coconut Water

To start off with a little anecdote, I recently tried coconut water for the first time ever. I’m personally not a huge fan of coconut to begin with, (the texture of desiccated coconut shavings is especially not my favorite), but my significant other enjoys it so much that I decided I would give it a try to see what all the fuss was about. Long story short, I absolutely hated it and was completely disgusted by the taste immediately after it hit my tongue. I spent the next 20 minutes scrambling to eat or drink anything that would get the taste of it out of my mouth and was baffled at how anyone could stand to drink a whole glass of it. As you can imagine my s/o was quite offended and shocked by my violent reaction and quickly began an interrogation as to why I disliked the coconut water so much. 

My first impression was that it somehow tasted spoiled. We knew for sure that the coconut water was not expired, but to me, it somehow tasted like how watered-down sour milk might taste. This came as a surprise to my s/o as he interprets the taste as pleasantly sweet and refreshing– the very opposite of what I tasted. Were we really drinking the same beverage? How is it that two people can have such different experiences tasting the same thing? These thoughts lingered in my mind for weeks following my taste test.

 

The Truth Behind the Taste

After some research, I found out that pasteurization may be to blame. Pasteurization is the partial sterilization of a product, typically milk or wine, that makes it safe for consumption and gives it longer shelf life. This is done by heating up the product and subsequently denaturing all enzymes in the product that may cause future spoilage. While this sounds like a great mechanism for sterilizing coconut water, it also greatly alters the flavor. In particular, this type of pasteurization can introduce a burnt-like flavor to the drink, which may explain why it tasted so funny to me. Fresh coconut water apparently tastes very different from packaged and pasteurized coconut water and is widely enjoyed in many South Asian cultures. This difference can also be compared to the contrast in taste between store-bought orange juice and freshly squeezed orange juice. While the ingredients used are practically the same, they taste different due to one being pasteurized with most claiming that the freshly squeezed juice tastes better.

Why is it that this flavor detraction is so strong in coconut water, but is less noticeable in products like milk? This is likely due to the long history of milk pasteurization that has allowed cultivators to perfect the level of pasteurization that both sterilizes the product to make it safe for consumption and preserves the flavors that we know and love. Coconut water pasteurization is a bit more difficult to strike a balance with, mostly because so much of its flavor profile is because of the enzymes that get removed during the process. It certainly makes sense then for people to swear by fresh coconut water and enjoy its natural properties for the tradeoff of shorter shelf life.

 

The Verdict

After exploring the properties of pasteurized coconut water, it can be easier to see why it’s so divisive among people. While some enjoy the flavor of coconut, others strongly dislike it, and whether that be due to pasteurization or simply an aversion to the flavor profile and aftertaste can vary from person to person. Reflecting on my experience with coconut water has inspired me to try fresh coconut water to see if I might enjoy the raw, unaltered flavor of the tropical fruit, but until then, I think I’ll elect to keep coconut out of my fried shrimp and away from my pastries.

0Likes
About Author

Abby is a 3rd-year undergraduate student at Georgia Tech majoring in Biology with a pre-med track. She loves all things biology from bacteria and cells to plants and animals. In particular, she enjoys learning about pathology and molecular biology and hopes to one day work in the medical field where she can learn forever. In her free time, Abby enjoys doing arts & crafts with her enormous sticker collection, watching mystery shows, and finding tasty restaurants to try with her friends.

You May Also Like

Articles, today i learned (til)
Why Is Math So Hated?
today i learned (til)
Medieval Medicinal Remedies Not to Try at Home
today i learned (til)
Uses of Medical Marijuana
Story Time
Don’t call me bird-brained!

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.