Comment by dantiberian
20 hours ago
I'd be very interested to know how they produce it if the formula is so tightly held. At some point people need to be purchasing the ingredients and mixing them together.
20 hours ago
I'd be very interested to know how they produce it if the formula is so tightly held. At some point people need to be purchasing the ingredients and mixing them together.
It's possible to separate out these tasks such that no single person or group has every needed piece of the puzzle.
The Carthusian monks who produce Chartreuse (a collection of herbal liqueurs popular for use in cocktails) have been producing it and protecting the secret 130 ingredient recipe for over 400 years successfully. At any given time no more than three of the monks hold the entire recipe, and yet they have a company they have formed to execute most of the production without the secret being leaked.
The designated monks coordinate production and are involved in QC, as well as developing new blends for special releases, but much production is done by paid employees who do not know the complete recipe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartreuse_(liqueur)
I suspect though that a lot of the secret behind Chartreuse isn't just the recipe, but the actual sourcing of the ingredients.
Presumably the recipe relies on very unique and location-specific herbs to the alps. Part of the justification for limiting supply is concern for the environment and sustainability of their production. The order also had to cease production while they were evicted.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the key ingredients weren't wild foraged or at least very unique species.
> secret 130 ingredient recipe
One of the greatest use cases of security by obscurity, specially if part of the ingredients are decoys.
You could say the same about cryptographic signatures where each party only knows a part of the key, yet those all work fine. You could probably piece together the formula by a sum of some employees and some external suppliers if everyone broke their NDA, but if people keep their word, your factories could just as well see shipments of "Ingredient A" and the worker only knows how much to add to each batch.
Real life ain't abstract math. You have MSDS 'mulmen mentioned, but I also can't imagine any factory being able to just mix shipments of ingredients "A", "B", "C", etc. without the actual content being documented on purchase orders, OSHA reviews, etc. You may want to operate in secret, but at the very least, the taxman really wants to know if you aren't skimping on your dues, so there should be plenty of relevant documents in circulation.
Since they're operating in Europe it's trivial to split manufacturing into 3+ places that are within an hour drive but also in 3+ distinct jurisdictions that are part of the same free trade zone, so no tax authority can have a full picture either. And you'll never get, say, French and German tax authorities to voluntarily talk to each other.
I do recall some episode of "How its made" or similar of a food factory discussing some mix they were doing for a fast food chain, IIRC, that involved "two separate bags of spices, each sourced from a separate supplier for secrecy". That's about the level I'd expect out of such a scheme.
I wonder how much information leaks through something like Material Safety Data Sheets.
Exactly what I was thinking. I mean how can you produce something, esp. in bulk, when the exact ingredients and quantities aren't known? Assuming it is made in a typical factory, the machines would have to be programmed and that would typically mean someone has to know. I wonder if they split the knowledge over several different groups so a group only knows a single piece? Hmm....
This is how they do it. There was a documentary about coca-cola and they explained that they completely separated the supply pipeline. Operators manipulate unlabelled sources coming from separate parts of the company.
It's a myth that Coca-Cola is a closely held secret, though. Any food flavoring specialist can reconstruct the flavor of Coke almost exactly.
A few years ago I (not a specialist!) made lots of batches of OpenCola, which is based partly on the original Pemberton recipe, and it comes so close that nobody could realistically tell the difference. If anything, it tastes better, because I imagine Coke doesn't use fresh, expensive essential oils (like neroli) for everything.
The tricky piece that nobody else can do is the caffeine (edit: de-cocainized coca leaf extract) derived from coca leaves. Only Coke has the license to do this, and from what I gather, a tiny, tiny bit of the flavour does come from that.
12 replies →
Ive heard from others that this is how defense software engineering goes.
You write code for a certain part/spec that could go on a number of things (missle, airplane, etc). You dont know if your code will be used in a missile or not.
Slightly unrelated, the recent LabCoatz video went into a bit about the CocaCola recipe and how it's protected: https://youtu.be/TDkH3EbWTYc?si=GuvCd-kKXP5_gcRs&t=26
He mentions that the ingredients are shipped unlabeled from different facilities who don't know what they're making.
He then goes on to reverse engineer the formula. Because science.
Considering how complex some software can get, it's more surprising there are people who can hold enough of the whole design in their heads that they have a good idea of what's going on in general.
A fairly obvious solution (IMO) would be to have multiple people buying the ingredients, some even buying unused ingredients. That would cover purchasing.
The mixing, again, spreading it out, have factory A mix ingredients x, y, and z, factory B mix ingredients Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and factory C mix factory A and B's mixtures.