Trump-backed cane sugar Coke tastes different, but health benefits are a myth
Early in my career, I was puzzled when a lab colleague asked me to bring back a few cans of Coke from my trip home to Brazil. I soon learned that sodas in the United States are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of cane sugar, and that many people miss the original flavor of sugar-sweetened versions.
What I've learned about sweeteners since then feels especially relevant now, as Coca-Cola's decision to reintroduce cane sugar into at least one of its American-sold products, allegedly prompted by President Donald Trump's encouragement, has reignited discussion over what goes into our sodas.
While sucrose, the chemical name for cane sugar, could be the most common sweetener in our kitchens, many other substances also taste sweet to us.
These include glucose, fructose and intensely sweet compounds like saccharin (a synthetic sweetener), steviol glycosides (extracted from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana) and even ultrasweet proteins.
One of the most intriguing of those proteins is brazzein, my personal favorite, which was discovered in the West African plant Pentadiplandra brazzeana and is now produced at scale by engineered microbes in large fermentation tanks.
Some of these substances are packed with calories, while others are virtually calorie-free. The way our bodies metabolize them varies widely.
Coca-Cola's reintroduction of cane sugar in its products line is a big deal, not just because it affects a multibillion dollar market, but also because beverages operate in an intensely competitive market space with razor-thin margins, where even a few extra cents per can carry real weight.
Cost, technical advantages and national interests might explain why soda manufacturers switched to corn syrup.
The technical advantages to using HFCS versus cane sugar include the level of sweetness. You can pack a lot of sweetness into HFCS because it is more soluble in water than cane sugar, and it is often easier for the industry to manage syrups versus powders.
There is also a strategic advantage for the U.S. economy. With the help of tariffs imposed on imported sugar in the late 1970s, adoption of HFCS allowed replacing sugar imports with a U.S.-grown and -produced alternative.
This explains why the industry made the switch, but does soda sweetened with HFCS taste the same? And is sugar really any healthier than HFCS?
Even though the sweetness level of the final product can be adjusted to be exactly the same, some consumers notice slight differences in taste and mouth feel when HFCS replaces sugar cane in beverages.
Some say that the cane sugar version is 'crisper,' or that the HFCS version tastes more 'syrupy,' while others will either not notice the change or quickly get used to it.
However, beyond the perception in our mouths, our bodies handle these sugars in different ways. After we swallow products containing sucrose, our body breaks each molecule into one molecule of glucose and one of fructose.
Glucose is one of the most important sources of energy for our body, essential for the functioning of our brain, which might explain why we are hardwired to crave sweets so much.
Fructose, however, is almost solely metabolized in our livers, and because it isn't as readily consumed as an energy source, it may saturate liver capacities and lead to more fat accumulation.
Overconsumption of either of these sugars increases likelihood of obesity and fatty liver disease, ultimately leading to type 2 diabetes and other severe health problems.
The bottom line is simple: The potential difference in health impact between cane sugar and HFCS is minor when compared with the well-established risks of excessive consumption of sugar.
Both are added sugars that contribute to the growing burden of metabolic disease when consumed in excess.
Hopefully, the discussion around corn syrup versus cane sugar won't lead us to lose sight of the importance of reducing overall sugar consumption − perhaps by opting for the diet versions of our favorite sodas, as President Trump has.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GM, Hyundai join forces to battle rising Chinese rivals
STORY: General Motors and Hyundai are joining forces to battle mounting competition from Chinese rivals. The pair said Wednesday (August 6) that they would develop five vehicles together. Four will be targeted at markets in Central and South America, where Chinese brands have been gaining ground. The other one will be an electric van for the North American market. For GM, the deal offers access to hybrid technology that it has lacked. For South Korean Hyundai, it's a first-ever partnership on vehicle development and offers a way into new markets, including American vans. The two companies didn't say where the models will be made. Hyundai already has a factory in Alabama and has promised to ramp up output at another plant in Georgia. It also has a factory in Brazil that could be used. The tie-up comes as Chinese brands release a slew of low-priced, high-tech models, pressuring legacy names like GM to cut costs in return. Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs have also added billions in costs, increasing pressure to take action. South Korea last week agreed to a 15% levy on its exports to the U.S. as part of a deal with Washington.
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private equity firms account for 35% of ClearView Wealth Limited's (ASX:CVW) ownership, while individual investors account for 32%
Key Insights The considerable ownership by private equity firms in ClearView Wealth indicates that they collectively have a greater say in management and business strategy The top 2 shareholders own 51% of the company Institutions own 26% of ClearView Wealth Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of ClearView Wealth Limited (ASX:CVW) can tell us which group is most powerful. And the group that holds the biggest piece of the pie are private equity firms with 35% ownership. In other words, the group stands to gain the most (or lose the most) from their investment into the company. Meanwhile, individual investors make up 32% of the company's shareholders. In the chart below, we zoom in on the different ownership groups of ClearView Wealth. Check out our latest analysis for ClearView Wealth What Does The Institutional Ownership Tell Us About ClearView Wealth? Institutions typically measure themselves against a benchmark when reporting to their own investors, so they often become more enthusiastic about a stock once it's included in a major index. We would expect most companies to have some institutions on the register, especially if they are growing. We can see that ClearView Wealth does have institutional investors; and they hold a good portion of the company's stock. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. When multiple institutions own a stock, there's always a risk that they are in a 'crowded trade'. When such a trade goes wrong, multiple parties may compete to sell stock fast. This risk is higher in a company without a history of growth. You can see ClearView Wealth's historic earnings and revenue below, but keep in mind there's always more to the story. ClearView Wealth is not owned by hedge funds. Crescent Capital Partners Management Pty Ltd. is currently the largest shareholder, with 35% of shares outstanding. In comparison, the second and third largest shareholders hold about 16% and 6.1% of the stock. To make our study more interesting, we found that the top 2 shareholders have a majority ownership in the company, meaning that they are powerful enough to influence the decisions of the company. Researching institutional ownership is a good way to gauge and filter a stock's expected performance. The same can be achieved by studying analyst sentiments. There is some analyst coverage of the stock, but it could still become more well known, with time. Insider Ownership Of ClearView Wealth The definition of an insider can differ slightly between different countries, but members of the board of directors always count. The company management answer to the board and the latter should represent the interests of shareholders. Notably, sometimes top-level managers are on the board themselves. Most consider insider ownership a positive because it can indicate the board is well aligned with other shareholders. However, on some occasions too much power is concentrated within this group. Shareholders would probably be interested to learn that insiders own shares in ClearView Wealth Limited. In their own names, insiders own AU$5.8m worth of stock in the AU$295m company. It is good to see some investment by insiders, but we usually like to see higher insider holdings. It might be worth checking if those insiders have been buying. General Public Ownership With a 32% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over ClearView Wealth. While this size of ownership may not be enough to sway a policy decision in their favour, they can still make a collective impact on company policies. Private Equity Ownership With a stake of 35%, private equity firms could influence the ClearView Wealth board. Sometimes we see private equity stick around for the long term, but generally speaking they have a shorter investment horizon and -- as the name suggests -- don't invest in public companies much. After some time they may look to sell and redeploy capital elsewhere. Next Steps: While it is well worth considering the different groups that own a company, there are other factors that are even more important. Take risks for example - ClearView Wealth has 1 warning sign we think you should be aware of. If you would prefer discover what analysts are predicting in terms of future growth, do not miss this free report on analyst forecasts. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
CNBC
6 minutes ago
- CNBC
Sony hikes annual profit forecast by 4%, citing smaller trade war impact
Sony raised its full-year operating profit forecast Thursday by 4% to 1.33 trillion yen ($9.01 billion), citing a diminished impact from U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. In May, Sony forecast a profit of 1.28 trillion yen, factoring in a 100 billion yen hit from the tariffs. The Japanese conglomerate has transformed from a maker of household electronics such as the Walkman to an entertainment behemoth spanning games, movies, music and chips. Sony reported a 36.5% rise in operating profit to 340 billion yen for the April-June quarter, beating an estimate of 288 billion yen from eight analysts surveyed by LSEG.
