Mr. Trump Posted:
Taste aside, if I were a Coke bottler, I wouldn’t order new ingredient labels just yet. Coca-Cola’s only statement: “We appreciate President Trump’s enthusiasm for our iconic Coca‑Cola brand. More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.”
The current dominant sweetener in US Coke is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). In his post, Trump didn’t mention cane sugar as the alternative to HFCS, but it was the elephant in the room. Those involved in the corn sphere – the farmers, refiners, everyone – were NOT happy. Here’s what the Corn Refiners Association had to say:
Photo: Tatiana Stepanischeva for iStock
“Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn’t make sense. President Trump stands for American manufacturing jobs, American farmers, and reducing the trade deficit. Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit.”
Science says they’re right, but more about that later. What Trump didn’t seem to consider is…
What Do Consumers Want?
Increasingly, they prefer no sugar. According to the Associate Press, global case volumes for Coke Zero are up 14% in the second quarter, but only 2% for regular Coke. PepsiCo is seeing the same trend during the same period: in major markets, low- or no-sugar drinks account for 60% of their beverage sales, per the AP’s report.
It appears consumers worldwide are “drinking beyond the headlines” by choosing fewer sugary drinks. Good!
Cane Sugar (Sucrose) vs HFCS – What’s the Difference?
Photo: Michelle Lee; iStock
Photo: Pixabay
Not much. Each has the same two simple carbs:
CANE SUGAR: →→→50% fructose, 50% glucose
HFCS: →→→55% fructose, 45% glucose
As you can see, other than one being liquid and the other solid, there’s not much of a difference between the two. Moreover, your body can’t tell much difference either. Keep in mind, you’re free to like or dislike either or both of these sweeteners, and avoid them if you choose, but there is NO HEALTH OR NUTRITIONAL ADVANTAGE TO CANE SUGAR OVER HFCS. NONE. FULL STOP.
Bottom line: Cane sugar or HFCS, it’s still soda with empty calories.
??More Tariffs, Fewer Manufacturing Jobs, Higher Prices??
Doesn’t seem to align with the “Trump agenda.” If the goal is to bring more jobs and industry back to the US this does the opposite – AND costs more:
- Sugar cane is grown in the US, mostly in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, as it loves the warm, humid climate.
- We use more cane sugar than we can grow, so the US imports it, making us vulnerable to world market prices.
- Importing brings tariffs.
- Sugar from US corn, as HFCS, is more economical, equally sweet, and supports US farms and manufacturing.
BTW – in the tropics, a higher demand for cane sugar encourages the deforestation to free up land to grow it.
Sugar Beets: The Domestic SUCROSE Alternative to Cane Sugar
Photo: stevanovicigor for iStock
Corn and sugar beets are largely GMO crops now. In contrast, there is no GMO sugar cane, so using cane sugar is a subtle way to indicate a product’s sweetener is not GMO-based.
Trump didn’t say this in his post, but RFK Jr, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is known to dislike GMOs. This, despite decades of science attesting to their safety.
- Sugar beets give us sucrose – same as in cane sugar, are a good option
- Sugar beets can be grown in colder climates, even in the northern states, like North Dakota.
- GMO sugar beets require fewer pesticides. Growing sugar cane requires a significant amount of pesticides.
N.B.: “NO GMO’s”– Is NOT a Health Claim!
It’s a descriptor, nothing more. Swapping out HFCS for cane sugar will NOT make anything healthier. Eating less sugar – not none, just less – would be one step in the right direction.
Cut-To-The-Chase Takeaway
S
peaking confidently can’t “Trump” sound science. Never will. When confusion reigns, go for science, where facts do the talking.
