Trump Was Right About Coca Cola. But Replacing Corn Syrup with Sugar Won't Be Cheap—or Easy
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Coca‑Cola recently announced it will launch a new soft drink made with cane sugar in the United States this fall, a quiet confirmation of what President Donald Trump loudly teased on social media days earlier. Trump claimed he convinced Coca‑Cola to bring back "real" sugar. Whatever is true or fabricated, the move is nonetheless real. And it's revealing.
The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement was a large piece of Trump's coalition last year. This will be seen as another win. But while cane sugar may be coming back into our cans or bottles, it won't come cheap.
This isn't just a product tweak. It's a flashpoint in a decades-long battle over U.S. food policy; one that's left our food supply warped by subsidies, protected markets, and artificially cheap corn.
A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, Texas.
A bottle of Coca-Cola imported from Mexico is displayed on a table on July 17, 2025, in Austin, Texas.For the last 50 years, America has made it easier, and cheaper, for companies to use high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Through generous subsidies, guaranteed price supports and ethanol mandates, the federal government made corn the king of American agriculture. The result: HFCS replaced sugar in sodas by the mid-1980s, not because it was healthier or tastier, but because it was profitable. For many families, especially those navigating corn allergies, these policy choices aren't abstract. They make grocery shopping and dining out a daily challenge.
Meanwhile, sugar, particularly cane sugar, was moving in the opposite direction. Since the 1934 Sugar Act, the U.S. has propped up domestic sugar prices through a rigid mix of tariffs, import quotas, and price guarantees. Today, these policies still function under a system of tariff-rate quotas: a small amount of sugar can be imported cheaply, but any excess triggers crushing tariffs. That's why U.S. sugar routinely costs 50 percent to 100 percent more than world prices.
These mismatched policies built the industrial food system we live in today, one where the cheapest ingredients aren't always the best ones, but the ones most politically favored.
Coca‑Cola's move to add a cane sugar variant isn't just a marketing play. It's a test of consumer demand, public perception, and logistical feasibility in an ecosystem where corn is subsidized and sugar is protected. If Americans embrace this sugar-sweetened version, it could signal a slow unraveling of the status quo, or at least force policymakers to confront the costs baked into it.
But it won't be simple.
Sugar is more expensive, and Coca‑Cola knows it. Analysts estimate the switch could add hundreds of millions of dollars to its ingredient costs if scaled broadly. Domestic cane sugar supply is limited, concentrated in Florida and Louisiana. And the moment a company tries to import more, it slams into tariff walls. That, and the fact that its harvest season is short, is not a recipe for scale.
Still, the public appetite is real. A MarketWatch survey found three out of four Coke drinkers prefer cane sugar to HFCS. They want what they remember from childhood, or what they've tasted in imported Mexican Coke. But until policy shifts, this new sugar-sweetened soda is likely to remain a high-end option, not the new norm.
So Trump and MAHA friends may have gotten the headline and the shift in the right direction, but the real story is policy. And that will be a bigger lift.
If we want more real sugar in our foods, or if we want market forces to shape food production instead of government favoritism, we need to rethink how we regulate both corn and sugar. That means ending distortions on both sides: winding down corn subsidies while phasing out sugar protections.
Until then, our choices at the grocery store will continue to be shaped more by Washington than by what we actually want to eat or drink.
Brett Kittredge is the director of marketing and communications at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders firing of US official as cracks emerge in jobs market
President Donald Trump said Friday he has ordered the firing of a key economic official, accusing her of manipulating employment data for political reasons after a new report showed cracks in the US jobs market. US job growth missed expectations in July, Labor Department data showed, and revisions to hiring figures in recent months brought them to the weakest levels since the Covid-19 pandemic. Without providing evidence, Trump lashed out at the department's commissioner of labor statistics, writing on social media that the jobs numbers "were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad." In a separate post on his Truth Social platform, he charged that Commissioner Erika McEntarfer had "faked" jobs data to boost Democrats' chances of victory in the recent presidential election. "McEntarfer said there were only 73,000 Jobs added (a shock!) but, more importantly, that a major mistake was made by them, 258,000 Jobs downward, in the prior two months," Trump said, referring to latest data for July. "Similar things happened in the first part of the year, always to the negative," Trump said, insisting that the world's biggest economy was "booming" under his leadership. He later told reporters "we need people that we can trust," accusing the economic official of inflating hiring figures under former president Joe Biden's administration. - 'Dangerous precedent' - The United States added 73,000 jobs last month, while the unemployment rate rose to 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent, said the Department of Labor earlier Friday. Hiring numbers for May were revised down from 144,000 to 19,000. The figure for June was shifted from 147,000 to 14,000. This was notably lower than job creation levels in recent years. During the pandemic, the economy lost jobs. The employment data points to challenges in the key labor market as companies took a cautious approach in hiring and investment while grappling with Trump's sweeping -- and rapidly changing -- tariffs this year. The numbers also pile pressure on the central bank as it mulls the best time to cut interest rates. With tariff levels climbing since the start of the year, both on imports from various countries and on sector-specific products such as steel, aluminum and autos, many firms have faced higher business costs. Some are now passing them along to consumers. William Beach, who previously held McEntarfer post at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, warned that her firing "sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau." The National Association for Business Economics (NABE) condemned her dismissal, saying large revisions in jobs numbers "reflect not manipulation, but rather the dwindling resources afforded to statistical agencies." "Firing the head of a key government agency because you don't like the numbers they report, which come from surveys using long established procedures, is what happens in authoritarian countries, not democratic ones," slammed Larry Summers, former US Treasury secretary under Democratic president Bill Clinton. - 'Gamechanger' - Heather Long, chief economist at the Navy Federal Credit Union, said Friday's jobs report was a "gamechanger." "The labor market is deteriorating quickly," said Long, noting that of the growth in July, "75 percent of those jobs were in one sector: health care." "The economy needs certainty soon on tariffs," Long said. "The longer this tariff whiplash lasts, the more likely this weak hiring environment turns into layoffs." It remains unclear when the dust will settle, with Trump ordering the reimposition of steeper tariffs on scores of economies late Thursday, which are set to take effect in a week. A sharp weakening in the labor market could push the Federal Reserve toward slashing interest rates sooner to shore up the economy. On Friday, the two Fed officials who voted this week against the central bank's decision to keep rates unchanged warned that standing pat risks further damaging the economy. Both Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Christopher Waller argued that the inflationary effects of tariffs were temporary. They added in separate statements that the bank should focus on fortifying the economy to avert further weakening in the labor market. Putting off an interest rate cut "could result in a deterioration in the labor market and a further slowing in economic growth," Bowman said. bys/sla/aks/acb Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's long history of bashing jobs report numbers dates back to 2016: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump's history of criticizing the Bureau of Labor Statistics' jobs report has surfaced in the wake of his decision to fire commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday. Trump's public frustrations with the economics and statistics agency appear to date back to his 2016 presidential campaign. "Don't believe those phony numbers," then-candidate Trump said in his New Hampshire victory speech during his first campaign for the White House. Last August, Trump claimed without evidence that former President Joe Biden's administration was "caught fraudulently manipulating" job statistics, when the agency publicly disclosed that the economy created fewer than 818,000 jobs between April of 2023 and March of 2024 than initial estimates suggested. "There's never been any revision like this," Trump said at a campaign rally in North Carolina on Aug. 21, 2024. "They wanted it to come out after the election, but somehow it got leaked," he claimed at the time. MORE: Trump fires BLS commissioner after weak jobs report and baseless claim of 'faked' stats Trump did not provide evidence that the information publicly disclosed by the agency was leaked. Then-Labor Secretary Julie Su in November 2024 defended the figures, and also suggested the numbers were impacted by Hurricane Helene's impact on the southeastern United States, and labor strikes. "The labor market remains very strong, and this shows what happens when you have a president and a vice president who are fighting for workers every single day," Su said at the time. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses several surveys for estimating employment levels in the U.S. and revisions are common. Every monthly Jobs Report has a blurb at the end that updates the figures from the previous two months based on new data. The revision that Trump was referencing was made public on Aug. 21, and updated with final figures in February 2025, according to the BLS website. The same downward revisions also took place during Trump's first term, under then-BLS commissioner William W. Beach. The agency determined 518,000 fewer jobs were created in March 2019 than it had initially reported. Alternatively, Trump had no complaints about the jobs report produced under McEntarfer -- a Biden appointee -- right before the 2024 election, which showed the U.S. gained 12,000 jobs in October. The then-candidate referenced the low numbers while criticizing the Biden-Harris administration at a rally in Milwaukee. "They did 12,000 jobs," Trump said to boos at the rally on Nov. 1. "It's hundreds of thousands of jobs less than it should be," he added. Trump was also quick to embrace the jobs reports as president -- when they were favorable. In March 2017 -- when the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the economy added 235,000 jobs the prior month -- then-Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump had full faith in the positive report, despite calling it "phony" in the past. "I talked to the president prior to this and he said to quote him very clearly: 'They may have been phony in the past, but it's very real now,'" Spicer said to reporters at the time. Trump's decision to fire McEntarfer on Friday came after the report found the U.S. had added 73,000 jobs in July, according to data from the BLS. The figure marked a slowdown from 147,000 jobs added in the previous month. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, keeping it at near-historic lows, according to the report. The report provided new estimates for two previous months, significantly dropping the government's estimate of jobs added in May and June. The fresh data indicated a notable slowdown in hiring as Trump's tariffs took hold over recent months. Trump criticized McEntarfer over the revisions, saying without evidence that the revisions suggested jobs statistics had been "manipulated." ABC News has reached out to McEntarfer for a comment. MORE: Fed holds interest rates steady, defying Trump's pressure The Trump administration described the downward revisions as an unwelcome sign for the U.S. economy but did not dispute the data. "Obviously, they're not what we want to see," Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said on Friday morning. Asked by reporters as he departed the White House on Friday about the reason for McEntarfer's firing, Trump said he believes the economy is doing well and claimed the latest jobs numbers were "phony." "I believe the numbers were phony just like they were before the election, and there were other times," Trump said, pointing to a previous revision in the jobs numbers last year that he claimed, without evidence, was an attempt to benefit Democrats heading into the election. He said this despite using the numbers as a talking point in his campaign. "So you know what I did? I fired her. And you know what? I did the right thing," Trump said.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate approves more than $180 billion in 2026 funding before August recess
The Senate on Friday passed its first tranche of government funding bills for fiscal year 2026 ahead of its upcoming August recess, but Congress is bracing for a potentially messy fight to prevent a shutdown when they return in September. The chamber approved three bills that provide more than $180 billion in discretionary funding for the departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), military construction, legislative branch operations and rural development. The bills passed in two parts: on an 87-9 vote for military construction, VA, agriculture and FDA funding; and an 81-15 vote for legislative branch funding. The votes cap off days of uncertainty over whether the Senate would be joining the House on a monthlong recess with any of its 12 annual funding bills passed out of the chamber. Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who heads the subcommittee that crafted the full-year VA funding bill, said Friday that he sees the first batch of bills as more of a 'test run.' 'It's just been so long since we've done our appropriations bills. A lot of people just [forgot] the procedures,' he told The Hill, noting that in the previous congressional session senators 'really didn't do bills.' Appropriators say the vote marks the first time since 2018 that the Senate has passed funding legislation before the August recess. 'It's really a matter of just kind of legislating again, and the more we do it, the easier, the easier it'll be as we go back,' Boozman said. In the past week, senators had gone through several iterations of their first funding package of the year, as leaders on both sides worked through frustrations in their ranks over proposed spending levels and actions by the Trump administration that incensed Democrats. Well over half of the funding approved Friday is included in the annual VA and military construction bill, which calls for upwards of $153 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. That includes about $133 billion for the VA and roughly $20 billion for the Department of Defense military construction program. More than $113 billion in discretionary funding would go toward VA medical care. The annual agricultural funding plan calls for $27 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2026. It includes $8.2 billion for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), about $7 billion in funding for the Food and Drug Administration, roughly $1.7 billion for rental assistance, and nearly $1.23 billion for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Democrats have also highlighted $240 million in funding in the bill for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, which was targeted in President Trump's latest budget request. The annual legislative branch funding plan calls for about $7 billion for House and Senate operations, the U.S. Capitol Police and agencies like the Library of Congress (LOC), the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Architect of the Capitol. Capitol Police would see a boost under the plan, along with the CBO, while funding for the LOC, the CRS and the GAO would be kept at fiscal 2025 levels. Lawmakers also agreed to $44.5 million in emergency funds aimed at beefing up security and member protection, citing safety concerns following the shootings of Minnesota lawmakers earlier this year. Republicans had previously been uncertain about whether the third bill would be passed as part of the package this week until Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator, said a deal was worked out to allow him to vote on the measure separately from the other bills. Kennedy has criticized the legislative branch funding bill for its proposed spending levels. 'It just doesn't seem appropriate for us to be spending that much extra while everybody else has to take a cut,' he told reporters in late July. 'Now, some of my colleagues point out, yes, but the extra spending is for member security.' 'If you're going to spend extra money on member security, find a pay-for within the bill. I just think the optics are terrible and the policy is terrible,' he said. 'We ought to hold ourselves to the same standard we're holding everybody else, and that's why I'm going to vote no.' Republicans also blame Sen. Chris Van Hollen's (D-Md.) resistance to the Trump administration's relocation plans for the FBI's headquarters for weighing down efforts to pass the annual Justice Department funding bill. Senators had initially expected that bill, which also funds the Commerce Department and science-related agencies, to be part of the package until those plans fell apart earlier this week amid a clash over Trump administration plans to relocate the FBI headquarters. Speaking from the Senate floor on Thursday, Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafted the annual funding deal, said he had been pushing for an amendment aimed at ensuring the FBI would 'have a level 5 security headquarters.' He noted his previous attempt during committee consideration that temporarily led to the adoption of an amendment to the DOJ funding bill that sought to block President Trump's plans to keep the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C. However, the change was later scrapped after staunch GOP opposition threatened to tank the bill. 'It didn't happen because members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats, didn't think that was the right thing to do – to preserve what we had set out before and make sure that the men and women [of the FBI] have a level 5 security headquarters,' he said. 'We did it because the President of the United States was going to throw a fit if that provision stayed on.' Van Hollen said he hopes the bill will be able to 'get back on track' in September. However, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), chair of the subcommittee alongside Van Hollen, offered a rather gloomy outlook for the bill's next steps after recess. He argued much of the focus in September is likely to be on getting a deal on a funding stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), to keep the government funded beyond the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. 'When we get back from recess, we'll move to working on the CR to get us so I would guess if the CJS has a path, it's probably just the CR and will continue,' Moran said. 'All the work that we've done goes away, and we'll go back to CR and fund those agencies at the same level and same way that we did last year.' 'Every time we say we want to do appropriation bills, then there's someone who has a reason that, 'Not this time,' 'Not this one,' 'Not – because I didn't get what I want,'' he said. 'And this time we're arguing over an amendment that was allowed to the senator who's objecting, but he wanted a commitment that he get the outcome he wants.' 'And he didn't win in committee, and he wouldn't win on the Senate floor, but he can, I wouldn't think, but he can make his case. But he rejected that option,' he said.
