High fructose corn syrup vs cane sugar
Trump was recently in the news promoting a switch from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar in Coca-Cola, which he’s claiming credit for.
Look, I’m not the world’s best biochemist, but this looked like marketing hype to me. Why is high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) problematic but cane sugar—which is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose—isn’t? The most common type of HFCS used in soft drinks is HFCS-55, which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. By definition, sucrose (cane sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
I put this question to a young assistant professor in my department whose research specialty is metabolism. Here’s his response:
“I would say your hunch is correct, in that replacing HFCS with cane sugar (yes, 50% fructose) is still likely just as bad. Studies and meta-analyses have found pretty similar effects weight gain between the two.
“Overall, I would say that the Coke stuff in the news Thanks to Trump is merely trying to wash the bad name of HFCS…
“The only halfway logical explanation that I can come up with for the potential of sucrose to be any better, is if you could believe that perhaps some amount of the disaccharide is not broken down and further metabolized. But from my understanding, the combined actions of stomach acid and intestinal sucrase enzyme make that pretty unlikely. There could be some effect of the monosaccharide being absorbed and metabolized quicker than the dissacharide, but that’s likely getting in the weeds.
“Long story short, I’m more of a proponent that both are excess calories and likely overall similar effects.
I am curious that I haven’t seen any discussion of how this switches us from a product (HFCS) that is grown by US farmers to an imported (?) product subject to tariffs (?). Isn’t that supposed to be bad?
@BKsea,
I don’t know why you haven’t seen any discussion of the impact on US farmers and a shift to imported sugar. It’s been all over the media since Trump’s announcement. Here are some examples (lots more if you use Google):
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cokes-shift-cane-sugar-would-be-expensive-hurt-us-farmers-2025-07-17/
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/17/trump-cane-sugar-coke-corn#
https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/corn-refiners-coca-cola-jobs-farmers/
“similar effects weight gain between the two” Bottom line–both are bad for your health. Why not focus on that as the narrative?
Personal note: I stopped drinking sweetened drinks 25 years ago.
@John,
My bottom line is that whether you get your fructose from HFCS or from cane sugar, it’s still fructose. Substituting cane sugar for HFCS isn’t gonna make much difference in your fructose intake.
It is important to note that glucose and fructose are metabolized differently. Fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver, and excessive amounts can lead to fat accumulation in the liver (different from weight gain), insulin resistance, and other metabolic issues. While glucose is also metabolized in the liver, it is also used as an energy source by other cells in the body, making it less likely to cause the same metabolic problems as fructose.
You’re setting out here is a distinction without a difference…there is plenty of potential harm attributable to excess glucose intake as well as fructose intake.
@John,
What you are setting out there is your personal opinions on a subject orthogonal to my post. Your personal opinions don’t make any difference to me as the author of the post. You obviously don’t know anything about the topic.
I’m a scientist, so the facts are my bottom line. The harms from glucose and fructose are distinct and fructose is worse. The point of my post is that it doesn’t make any difference what the source of fructose is, it’s still fructose.
You sure he wasn’t confusing cane with cocaine … ?
Some additional information . . .
Trump says Coke will shift to cane sugar. But increasingly, shoppers want no sugar in their sodas
“The scrutiny over Coke’s sweeteners began Wednesday, when President Donald Trump announced that Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Co. had agreed to switch to using cane sugar in the regular version of its beverage manufactured in the U.S.
“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 his social media site. “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!”
Coca-Cola didn’t confirm the change. In a statement, the company said it appreciated Trump’s enthusiasm and would share details on new offerings soon.
Stanford said he doubts Coca-Cola will fully shift away from high fructose corn syrup, which has sweetened Coke in the U.S. since the 1980s. There would be tremendous supply chain and logistics headaches, he said, and the U.S. doesn’t make enough sugar for Coke’s needs.”
HFCS and cane sugar taste different. They’re both sweet, but I never found HFCS satisfying. It always felt hollow, not filling going down. I gave up Coke in the 1980s. It just didn’t taste right.
I have my own theory about which foods induce satiety, and how an awful lot of modern substitutes for traditional ingredients don’t leave one feeling full. This means people tend to eat and eat or drink and drink which is good for sales but not one’s waistline.
Of course, the big problem with HFCS is that it is cheap. When the Staley company worked out the formula in the late 1970s, it cut the price of adding sweetness to soft drinks as well as other products. There’s some sugar in a lot of foods to balance the flavor, but odds are in small sample focal groups, the sweeter version is preferred. The consumer has spoken and it’s cheap to add sweetener. Great!
Speaking as someone whose immediate family has corn allergies, the presence of small quantities of corn proteins in HFCS may be an issue. I do know that old style corn syrup is an issue which is why I use Agave when I make my Jack Daniels pecan pie.
Also, American corn is exposed to a lot of glyophosphate (Round Up) and that stuff is nasty. (It allows the farmers to harvest the corn a week or so earlier, and time is money)
I will note that I think that sucrose tastes better, it does not linger in the mouth as much, and that cane sugar should be cheaper as a sweetener than HFCS, but US agricultural policy drives up the price of cane sugar to politically appease sugar beet growers.
Matthew:
Yes, on the RoundUp