Kool-Aid Burstin' Waters Tropical Rain

Not to be confused with Capri Sun's Roarin' Waters (also made by Kraft Foods Group) this is Kool-Aid's take at flavored waters for children.

They're most similar to Kool-Aid Bursts, which have the same packaging, but are 100 calories per bottle versus 35 for the Burstin' Waters. It just means that Bursts have more sugar and no sucralose because, otherwise, the ingredient list is about identical.

We can get into a history of Kool-Aid when we start mixing the powders at some point in the future. For now, let's just get to the tasting.

Presentation/Appearance - 3/10 Tropical Rain has no color. The drink comes in 100ml plastic bottles with the twist off tops. The bottle is made of low density polyethylene (LDPE, code 4) which makes the bottle soft enough to squeeze. Unfortunately, the bottle is not readily recyclable in most communities. This seems to be wasteful. But I don't know the cost differences for other types of plastics, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PETE, code 1) which is far more common but might not lend itself to an easy twist off cap.

Nose/Aroma - 4/10 Okay, I am getting hints (power of suggestion) of rain in the nose. But it could also be the scent of Barbie perfume or another inexpensive eau de toilette.

Taste/Flavor - 5/10 Maybe this speaks well for sucralose, but it does takes like sugar water, though with no distinct flavor. Tropical Rain smacks of a flavor caused by a mistake in the natural and artificial flavor recipes, or a botched shipment from the flavor company, or some other failure of food design. "Hey, what does this taste like to you?" "Ah, nothing, really." "What was it supposed to be?" "Tropical punch, but there's no pineapple." "There's nothing. Wait. Maybe there's...ah...papaya?" "Yeah, let's sell papaya flavored water to kids."

Finish/Satisfaction - 4/10 It serves its purpose as a purveyor of sweet flavor, but it doesn't do much else. 100ml of any fluid would never satisfy me when I was a kid. We drank our soda pop from 16 oz glass bottles that were scratched and chipped from being returned and reused. We drank our water, unfiltered, straight from the garden hose. These types of drinks would have been met with indifference by me and my friends, not even deserving of our scorn.

Overall - 4.45/10 Shortly after I mention that all the drinks seem to be above average, we get to sample the unfortunately named "Burstin' Waters" mediocrity. This is not even as good as the score. Calling it average sullies the good name of the commonplace. Why do this to your kids? Why put it in packaging that isn't readily recycled? This bottle cost about $0.17. Seventeen cents. A six pack for $1.00. You can bet that the target market for this are kids that have even less of a need to consume a drink such as this. There is no redeeming nutritional value.

I'm unhappy with this drink, despite the Mr. Kool-Aid guy having a blast on the label.

How do we stop this stuff from being sold? The customer service number on the package is 800-367-9225. I'll be posting the call and the feedback over on this blog's sister site: Solicited Feedback.

Radenska Classic

I am not an expert on any of the beverage styles that I review here. I know a bit about beer, I guess, and maybe regular colas, but that's about it.

Waters, though, of all the categories, have me most concerned. How, with my so-so palate, do I discern differences in waters? What is a good tasting water? There are experts out there, but I wanted to rely on my own impressions for this blog.

So, for $3, I picked up a 1.5 liter bottle of naturally sparkling mineral water. From Slovenia. Called Radenska Classic. Apparently, the three hearts logo is well known throughout Europe.

And, Radenci, a town in northeast Slovenia, is very famous for its natural spas. Having tried the water from Hot Springs, Arkansas, and finding it to be quite tasty, I figured this water would be different enough from regular bottled water to be a reasonable place to start.

Presentation/Appearance - 7/10 It looks like...water. But it comes in this distinctive tall recyclable plastic bottle. I can easily fit this in a refrigerator. Its height might be an issue for some spaces, but it is no taller than a wine or beer bottle. Compared to fat bottomed juice bottles, this is a welcome style.

Nose/Aroma - 6/10 Clean, with no chemical smells. However, I'm not smelling anything earthy or minerally. No limestone or stone of any kind in the nose.

Taste/Flavor - 7/10 Mild effervescence. Now the stony cleanness comes through in the taste, very strong. No added carbonation to ruin it, either. This is a refreshing water. It isn't one you would guzzle after extended physical activity. Drink it at your leisure.

Finish/Satisfaction - 8/10 The finish is long for this water, with a calcium powder finish. A dry water? Yeah, I think so.

Overall - 7.15/10 More than a serviceable replacement for soft drinks, tonics, and club sodas. The Radenska website recommends using this as a mixer, not just with cocktails, but also to cut the strength of juices. That sounds like a sound recommendation.

A fine start to the line of waters. They won't all be this good. I've noticed that all of the drinks have been above average so far. That makes sense. I have to start with what I've purchased, and, with the exception of a sentimental Yoo-hoo selection, I've tried to purposely sample things that I expect to be fairly decent.

In other words, I promise to review some bad stuff soon.

Any recommendations?

Ale-8-One

Is it ALE-8-1? Ale-8-One? or "A Late One"?

Is this a ginger ale? Ginger soda?

Well, it has all the makings of a classic soft drink. Created by G.L. Wainscott in the 1920s in Kentucky, the beverage is still bottled in Winchester. It got the name A Late One in a name the beverage contest. The company used Ale-8-1 as a pun on the winning entry for its logo.

The recipe is a secret, though it clearly contains ginger, and is known by only two people. That some cachet on par with Coca-Cola, no?

There is plenty of history and Kentucky pride associated with this soft drink. Let's see if it is worth all this fuss.

Presentation/Appearance - 7/10 Looks like a ginger ale after pouring from a green glass bottle with a twist off cap. Label has a cool retro feel to it and the bottle contains the raised logo and the dates 1926-2009 to show the heritage of the beverage.. Woodcut of Mr. Wainscott (1867-1944) is on every bottle. After sitting in the glass, it also has the appearance of a cream soda. Doesn't it?

Nose/Aroma - 6/10 Clean, like a mild ginger ale. Not spicy at all.

Taste/Flavor - 6/10 I can't help the comparisons to ginger ale. It has ginger flavors for sure, but it is not a ginger ale, and it doesn't claim to be one. It would be a rather weak ginger ale and a far sweeter one. But I am not going to hold that against this drink. It is tasty, if a touch sugary.

Finish/Satisfaction - 6/10 Sweet throughout the mouth. Short finish that on some sips borders on cloying, while on others I taste more of the ginger.

Overall - 6.05/10 This is a solid beverage but it isn't knocking my socks off. There is nothing quite like it, but should there be? Is there a niche for a sweet ginger drink? Isn't this covered by not-so-good ginger ales?

All right, I know what a Bourbon Buck is. Maybe this would make a Kentucky Buck, with a homer substitution for the ginger ale. The Ale-8-1 website has cocktail recipes, but I am sure that Kentuckians have created their own concoctions over the years. Can anyone point me to one?

Orangina

This soft drink has a lot going for it: storied history (created by a Spanish pharmacist in 1935, sold for use in the Algerian market, expanded to France, then the world); specific "shaking motion" that all authentic Orangina drinkers do; pulp(!) in the soda; and a distinctive bottle design.

But is it all hype? Is this beverage any good?

Presentation/Appearance - 7/10 I have the 10 oz (296ml) glass bottle. It feels like a glass orange. The liquid looks like sparkling orange juice. Pulp, natural pulp, floats around. The label and most of the commercials want you to shake it, which seems unnatural because this is a carbonated drink. But, it does mix the pulp.

Nose/Aroma - 7/10 It smells like orange juice, even though it is made from concentrates (orange, lemon, and mandarin) and is only 12% juice and 2% pulp.

Taste/Flavor - 5/10 Unfortunately, it tastes like watered down orange juice. The use of HFCS instead of sugar doesn't help too much. It does have some orange bitterness to it though. It doesn't taste bad, but it doesn't overwhelm you with a delicious orange flavor either.

Finish/Satisfaction - 6/10 A little orange in the finish. The carbonation helps things stick around for a bit, if not too long. This seems like it would be a satisfying summer quaff. 120 calories in a 10 oz serving is not unreasonable, but 10 oz of this stuff disappears rather quickly. Switch from HFCS to sugar, up the juice a tad to add some more competing bitterness and make 12 or 16 oz bottles (which they likely do) and I'd be real happy with a beverage like Orangina.

Overall - 5.7/10 Routine soft drink that has the makings of a great soft drink alternative. I think the company spends more time on branding and commercials than on improving the taste. It's survived for 75 years without me. It will continue to do so.

I plan on trying Orangina as a cocktail mixer. Also they have Light and Rouge (made from Blood Oranges) versions that I'll try, too.

Any Orangina fans out there? Have I missed some important or subtle nuances on this beverage? Or are my taste buds just dead?