麻豆传媒

BUFFALO - Coca-Cola Co. announced that it will produce a cane sugar-sweetened version of its brand name soda that will debut this fall in the United States.

For decades, Coca-Cola and other soft drink makers have used high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or artificial sweeteners in their products manufactured in the U.S. In recent years, however, consumers have been seeking beverages and food that contain more natural ingredients.

There are no health benefits of switching to cane sugar, says Jennifer Temple, PhD, director of the Nutrition and Health Research Laboratory at the 麻豆传媒o. Temple, a professor in the UB Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, says the price of soda may increase with the use of cane sugar, also known as sucrose, which could reduce purchasing of soda and lead consumers to healthier options.

Below, Temple answers some questions cane sugar and the impact it may have on consumers.

Is cane sugar a better alternative than high fructose corn syrup?

It depends what you mean by better. Cane sugar and HFCS have the same number of calories and are almost identical biochemically. Both undergo processing to get them to be usable for beverages and foods, although HFCS involves more processing, as it is not found naturally. HFCS has 55% fructose compared to 50% fructose that is present in sucrose.

In a side-by-side taste test, would the consumer notice the difference between cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup?

Consumers can absolutely tell the difference taste-wise. HFCS is perceived as sweeter. You can buy sucrose-sweetened Coke now. Coca-Cola offers a kosher coke that is sweetened with sucrose, and sometimes Coca-Cola does a throwback version of their products with sucrose. 

What are the nutrition and health implications shifting away from high fructose corn syrup?

The benefit of HFCS to the food companies (and consumers) is it is very inexpensive, so it can make the costs of foods cheaper – especially very sweet foods.  If soda companies pivoted to sucrose, it is likely those costs would get passed on to consumers. Now, from a health perspective, that is good, because maybe people may not be able to afford to purchase as much food with added sugar and they may turn to healthier options. From an economic perspective, U.S. agriculture has been heavily subsidizing the growth of corn to provide corn syrup to food companies. If we pivot away from that, there could be a lot of farmers who may lose money if they cannot easily grow other crops.

Any other thoughts you would like to share about this announcement?

A lot of people like to blame HFCS for obesity because the rise in obesity rates correlates in time with the introduction of HFCS to the market, but there are no data to suggest there is a physiological link. It is more likely that the link is economic, if there is a link at all. HFCS has allowed the price of foods and beverages with added sugar to stay relatively stable when compared to inflation, so as the price of fresh fruits and vegetables and other products have increased in price, soda has increased to a lesser extent.