by Marion Nestle

Food Politics by Marion Nestle

President Trump says sucrose is better than HFCS (both are glucose plus fructose)

The President of the United States says Coke should switch from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to cane sugar.

My response: this is nutritionally hilarious.

HFCS is glucose and fructose separated in liquid form.
Cane sugar (sucrose) is glucose and fructose bonded, but quickly split (so is beet sugar, but the Presudent is not mentioning it).
Both HFCS and cane sugar are sugar(s). Both provide about 4 calories per gram.
There may be people who can taste the difference, but when Coke found that nobody could tell the difference, it switched from sucrose to HFCS.

I’ve written about this previously, most recently in 2014: HFCS politics, continued. Endlessly.

Yes, HFCS is derived from genetically modified corn, but that doesn’t change the basic biochemistry, taste, or health effect.

Note: A 12-ounce Coke has 39 grams of either one. It doesn’t matter which sugar is used; it’s too much to be consumed at one time.

At the time Coke switched to HFCS, it was much cheaper. It is still cheapter but less so (because half of corn production is used to produce ethanol).

It will cost Coke more to replace HFCS with cane sugar or even beet sugar (which is identical to cane sugar). So Coke is not exactly committing to doing this.

As Reuters reports, the switch would raise prices for consumers and be tough on US farmers too.

On this issue, I have to agree for once with the Corn Refiners Association.