Is it quantity, not quality, of corn syrup that makes the difference?

Some have suggested that corn syrup, which is added to so many American foodstuffs, is worse for obesity than other types of sugar.

The US indirectly subsidizes the production of corn syrup, primarily through federal support for corn production rather than direct subsidies for corn syrup itself. It provides several types of subsidies to corn farmers, including a significant portion of farmers’ crop insurance premiums.

It has price and income support programmes to help stabilize farmers’ incomes when market prices fall below certain levels. And there are disaster aid and conservation payments.

These programmes make corn cheaper to grow and more abundant, which lowers the cost of corn-based products, including corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The artificially low price of corn reduces input costs for processors, and tariffs on imported sugar make sugar more expensive, which makes corn syrup a cheaper alternative for sweetening food and beverages.

Because corn syrup is cheaper than sugar, it became the dominant sweetener in US processed foods, especially beverages, starting in the 1970s and 1980s, when these agricultural policies took shape.

When people say ‘corn syrup,’ they usually mean high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which comes in two main forms. There is HFCS-55 (about 55% fructose, 45% glucose) used in beverages. And there is HFCS-42 (about 42% fructose, 58% glucose) used in baked goods.

For comparison, table sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose, 50% glucose, chemically bound together. Once digested, sucrose breaks into those same two simple sugars, so the body ultimately sees nearly the same mix as from HFCS.

This means that, gram for gram, HFCS and table sugar deliver essentially the same calories (about4 kcal/g) and have very similar metabolic effects.

While HFCS isn’t uniquely ‘toxic,’ it is extremely common in the US food supply because it is cheap, liquid, and stable. That ubiquity leads to higher overall sugar consumption, particularly through sugar-sweetened beverages, which are strongly linked to obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and an increased cardiovascular risk

It is not that HFCS is worse molecule-for-molecule, but that its prevalence encourages overconsumption. Some lab and animal studies suggest that very high fructose intake (regardless of source) can promote liver fat accumulation and dysregulate appetite hormones. Because HFCS in beverages is a ready liquid form of glucose plus fructose, it may be absorbed faster than sucrose in solid foods, a small difference, but potentially meaningful when consumed in large doses.

The analysis suggests that HFCS is not uniquely fattening compared to other sugars, but that excessive added sugar intake of any kind promotes weight gain and metabolic disease. The main concern is the sheer volume of HFCS-sweetened products in the modern diet, not the molecule itself.

Although President Trump announced that Coca-Cola was to replace corn syrup with cane sugar, there is no commitment to replace corn syrup in all Coca-Cola beverages. Instead, a new variant using cane sugar is being launched in the US market, alongside the standard version that remains HFCS-based.

Americans (and others) consume more sugar than is good for their health. It’s the quantity of it rather than its quality.

Madsen Pirie