On July 16, 2025, former U.S. President Donald Trump declared on his Truth Social platform that Coca‑Cola has agreed to revert to using real cane sugar in the United States, replacing the high‑fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has sweetened American Coke for decades. “I have been speaking to Coca‑Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so… It’s just better!” Trump exclaimed, calling the decision “a very good move.”
Historically, Coca‑Cola transitioned from cane sugar to HFCS during the early 1980s, responding to domestic sugar price spikes, Soviet market pressures, and U.S. subsidies benefiting corn growers. The move helped reduce ingredient costs while maintaining flavor—though imported “Mexican Coke” and special U.S. iterations like Kosher‑for‑Passover versions still rely on cane sugar.
Coca‑Cola responded diplomatically, expressing gratitude for Trump’s “enthusiasm” without confirming any immediate formula change. The company stated that it would share details about “innovative product offerings” soon. Later, Coca‑Cola reaffirmed HFCS’s safety, referencing guidelines from the American Medical Association that concluded there is insufficient proof requiring restrictions on HFCS.
Two pivotal issues have emerged from this development: the health equivalence of sweeteners and the economic fallout.
Health experts caution that cane sugar and HFCS are nearly identical nutritionally. Cane sugar (sucrose) splits into equal parts glucose and fructose, while HFCS consists of about 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose—differences that have no major impact on calories or metabolic processing. A can of Coke will still deliver “empty calories” that contribute to insulin spikes, weight gain, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, non‑alcoholic fatty liver disease and metabolic syndrome. Dr. Saptarshi Bhattacharya, an endocrinologist at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals in New Delhi, emphasizes that both sweeteners are quickly absorbed and metabolized, posing comparable risks. Similar warnings about obesity and cardiovascular risk have been highlighted in international meta‑analyses . Public health officials recommend reducing sugary‑drink consumption altogether in favor of water, unsweetened teas, or fruit‑infused seltzers.
Economically, a nationwide transition to cane sugar could cost Coca‑Cola an additional $600 million to $900 million annually due to price differences—cane sugar costing roughly $0.40–0.50 per pound compared to HFCS’s $0.20–0.30 . This would not only drive up production costs but might pass the expense to consumers at the register. Moreover, sugar import tariffs and the potential shortfall in domestic supply could exacerbate price volatility.
The shift also raises concerns among U.S. corn growers and HFCS manufacturers. The Corn Refiners Association has warned that ditching HFCS threatens American farm income, rural jobs, and domestic food‑manufacturing infrastructure.
Underlying Trump’s announcement is a broader “Make America Healthy Again” ethos, championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., though experts argue that the debate should focus on reducing overall sugar intake—not swapping sweeteners with similar nutritional profiles.
In summary, the proposed shift from HFCS to cane sugar appears more symbolic and marketing‑driven than a meaningful improvement in public health. While indulging consumer nostalgia and perceived “naturalness,” it retains the same health pitfalls and injects significant costs into Coca‑Cola’s U.S. operations, with potentially disruptive repercussions for corn growers. At best, it may prompt beverage firms to add specialty cane‑sugar offerings alongside their standard HFCS‑sweetened products, preserving consumer choice but offering little in the way of nutrition gains.
