Cane Sugar vs. Corn Syrup: How Soda Sweeteners Stack Up for Your Health
Nutrition researchers say focusing on the two sweeteners is besides the point because scientific studies have found that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages frequently is associated with weight gain and a higher risk of obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
'Whether it's high-fructose corn syrup or table sugar, it's soda, and we need to drink a lot less,' said Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford.
Coca-Cola already sells Mexican-made Coca-Cola sweetened with cane sugar in the U.S., and its Kosher for Passover Coke is made with sugar. PepsiCo sells a 'real sugar' option.
What's the difference between high-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar?
Sugars are carbohydrates with a sweet taste, said John Coupland, a professor of food science at Pennsylvania State University. Fructose and glucose are among the simplest of sugars. Other sugars, such as sucrose, are made up of combinations of these simple sugars. High-fructose corn syrup and cane sugar, which is a type of sucrose, are both made up of glucose and fructose.
The high-fructose corn syrup often used in soda is typically made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Table sugar is composed of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Both sweeteners are highly processed and refined.
'Both of them are just a natural food stripped way down to nothing but sugar,' said Kimber Stanhope, a research nutritional biologist at the University of California, Davis.
To make high-fructose corn syrup, starch from corn is first turned into a syrup composed mostly of glucose. Manufacturers add enzymes to convert some of that glucose into fructose, which tastes sweeter, Coupland said.
To make table sugar, manufacturers use machines to squeeze juice out of sugarcane or sugar beets, then purify the liquid and refine it through heating and other processes to turn it into the white crystals we buy in bags at the supermarket.
Does cane sugar affect your health differently from high-fructose corn syrup?
Some studies have found little difference between the health impacts of drinks made with high-fructose corn syrup and those made with sucrose.
'The calories will be the same, the impact on blood sugar is almost the same, and the risk of obesity will be the same,' said Eric Rimm, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
People who drank three servings a day of beverages with high-fructose corn syrup had higher levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides and more liver fat, markers of decreased insulin sensitivity and increased heart-disease risk, after 12 days, according to a study by Stanhope and colleagues. So did the people who had the same amount of drinks sweetened with sucrose. The study involved 75 participants and was published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2021.
A (slightly) less bad option?
The modestly higher percentage of fructose in drinks with high-fructose corn syrup could make those products slightly worse for health over the long term, compared with ones with sucrose, Stanhope said. This is because of how fructose and glucose are handled by the liver.
The glucose that isn't used by the liver is sent to the rest of the body to be used for energy. But when fructose gets to the liver, it largely stays there, she said. What isn't needed for energy is turned into fat. Fat in the liver can cause inflammation and raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes.
'Maybe the negative consequences are slightly smaller, but don't think you're doing your body any favors,' by picking soda with sucrose, she said.
Is there too much sugar in American diets?
U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that Americans limit their consumption of added sugars to 10% of daily calories. For someone with a 2,200-calorie-a-day diet, that could mean one 16.9-ounce bottle of classic Coca-Cola a day or about two-thirds of a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream.
The American Heart Association recommends a limit of 6%. Americans average about 13%, federal data shows.
Sugar-sweetened beverages are the top source of added sugars in the American diet, making up 24% of daily added sugar intake, according to federal data. (Added sugars found in processed foods are distinct from sugar that occurs naturally in foods like fruit and dairy products.)
Christina Roberto, director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said sugary beverages are more problematic than other kinds of sweets because they have little nutritional value and aren't filling.
'This is just pure liquid sugar,' she said. 'At least a Snickers bar has some nuts.'
The drinks also deliver sugar quickly and in high doses, which causes them to act potently on the brain's reward system in a way that makes us crave them, said Ashley Gearhardt, a University of Michigan psychology professor who studies food addiction.
Write to Andrea Petersen at andrea.petersen@wsj.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
States sue Trump, saying he is intimidating hospitals over gender-affirming care for youth
Seventeen Democratic officials accused President Donald Trump 's administration of unlawfully intimidating health care providers into stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a lawsuit filed Friday. The complaint comes after a month in which at least eight major hospitals and hospital systems - all in states where the care is allowed under state law - announced they were stopping or restricting the care. The latest announcement came Thursday from UI Health in Chicago. Trump 's administration announced in July that it was sending subpoenas to providers and focusing on investigating them for fraud. It later boasted in a news release that hospitals are halting treatments. The Democratic officials say Trump's policies are an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on the treatment for people under 19 - and that's unlawful because there's no federal statute that bans providing the care to minors. The suit was filed by attorneys general from 15 states and the District of Columbia, plus the governor of Pennsylvania, in U.S. District Court in Boston. "The federal government is running a cruel and targeted harassment campaign against providers who offer lawful, lifesaving care to children," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. Trump and others who oppose the care say that it makes permanent changes that people who receive it could come to regret - and maintain that it's being driven by questionable science. Since 2021, 28 states with Republican-controlled legislatures have adopted policies to ban or restrict gender-affirming care for minors. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a right to enforce those laws. For families with transgender children, the state laws and medical center policy changes have sparked urgent scrambles for treatment. The medical centers are responding to political and legal pressure The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the biggest public provider of gender-affirming care for children in teens in the U.S., closed in July. At least seven other major hospitals and health systems have made similar announcements, including Children's National in Washington D.C., UChicago Medicine and Yale New Haven Health . Kaiser Permanente, which operates in California and several other states, said it would pause gender-affirming surgeries for those under 19 as of the end of August, but would continue hormone therapy. Connecticut Children's Medical Center cited "an increasingly complex and evolving landscape" for winding down care. Other hospitals, including Penn State, had already made similar decisions since Trump returned to office in January. Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA, an organization that advocates for health care equity for LGBTQ+ people, said the health systems have pulled back the services for legal reasons, not medical ones. "Not once has a hospital said they are ending care because it is not medically sound," Sheldon said. Trump's administration has targeted the care in multiple ways Trump devoted a lot of attention to transgender people in his campaign last year as part of a growing pushback from conservatives as transgender people have gained visibility and acceptance on some fronts. Trump criticized gender-affirming care, transgender women in women's sports, and transgender women's use of women's facilities such as restrooms. On his inauguration day in January, Trump signed an executive order defining the sexes as only male and female for government purposes, setting the tone for a cascade of actions that affect transgender people. About a week later, Trump called to stop using federal money, including from Medicaid, for gender-affirming care for those under 19. About half of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of transgender issues, an AP-NORC poll found. But the American Medical Association says that gender is on a spectrum, and the group opposes policies that restrict access to gender-affirming health care. Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person's gender identity, including when it's different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It includes counseling and treatment with medications that block puberty, and hormone therapy to produce physical changes, as well as surgery, which is rare for minors. In March, a judge paused enforcement of the ban on government spending for care. The court ruling didn't stop other federal government action In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed government investigators to focus on providers who continue to offer gender-affirming care for transgender youth. "Under my leadership, the Department of Justice will bring these practices to an end," she wrote. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report discouraging medical interventions for transgender youth and instead focusing solely on talk therapy. The report questions adolescents' capacity to consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility. The administration has not said who wrote the report, which has been deeply criticized by LGBTQ+ advocates. In June, a Justice Department memo called for prioritizing civil investigations of those who provide the treatment. In July, Justice Department announced it had sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in gender-affirming care for youth, saying they were part of investigations of health care fraud, false statements and other possible wrongdoing. And in a statement last week, the White House celebrated decisions to end gender-affirming care, which it called a "barbaric, pseudoscientific practice" Families worry about accessing care Kirsten Salvatore 's 15-year-old child started hormone therapy late last year at Penn State Health. Salvatore said in an interview with The Associated Press before the lawsuit was announced that it was a major factor in reduced signs of anxiety and depression. Last month, the family received official notice from the health system that it would no longer offer the hormones for patients under 19 after July 31, though talk therapy can continue. Salvatore has been struggling to find a place that's not hours away from their Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, home that would provide the hormones and accept Medicaid coverage. "I'm walking around blind with no guidance, and whatever breadcrumbs I was given are to a dead-end alleyway," she said. The family has enough testosterone stockpiled to last until January. But if they can't find a new provider by then, Salvatore's child could risk detransitioning, she said.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Here comes NISAR: A reminder that high science requires global collaborations
The launch of the world's first remote sensing satellite, Sputnik 1, heralded the era of remote sensing. Since that epic moment in 1957, hundreds of Earth observation satellites have enhanced the understanding of the planet. The NISAR satellite, launched on Wednesday, will capture details on the Earth's surface, which are stunning even by the high standards set in remote sensing in the past 68 years. The satellite, jointly operated by India's premier space research agency ISRO and NASA, will generate 80 TB of data every day, three times more than any other existing Earth observation systems. It will enhance the understanding of ecosystems and enable the study of natural hazards such as earthquakes and landslides at a time when the chances of such environmental threats are much higher compared to any other period in recent human history. NISAR's radar systems will scan nearly all the planet's land and ice surfaces twice every 12 days, tracking shifts as slight as a centimetre. The satellite will be able to see through clouds, smoke, and even thick vegetation, both during the day and at night, in all weather conditions. The information is likely to be available in a matter of hours, enabling governments and even local communities to frame urgent responses during extreme weather events such as floods and storms. NISAR, therefore, promises to be a game-changer in disaster management. The satellite's power comes from its two synthetic aperture radars (SARs), which are designed to capture complementary sets of images for the same location at the same time. This will provide a much more detailed view of the Earth compared to what has been possible so far. One of the radars can capture minute details, including the planet's undulations, and study trees even in dense forests — this can help estimate carbon stocks. The other SAR, which has a shorter wavelength, is equipped to capture features such as water bodies or fields and provide data on soil moisture and the maturity stages of crops. This could help agriculture research agencies pass on crucial information to farming communities. Placing two SARs on one satellite was a major engineering challenge. That's one reason NISAR was more than 15 years in the making. The project was initiated by NASA in 2008. ISRO joined the endeavour four years later. The Indian space agency's contribution was crucial to the mission. It designed and built one of the radar systems, created the data handling and downlinking systems and provided NISAR's launch vehicle, the GSLV-F16. The collaboration was spared the funding cuts inflicted on NASA by the Trump administration. Its success is a message to the US President that high science is almost impossible without meaningful partnerships between nations.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Ultra processed food's intake linked to higher lung cancer risk: Study
People who consume the highest amounts of ultra-processed foods face a 41% greater risk of developing lung cancer compared to those eating the least, according to research published in the respiratory journal Thorax. Ultra processed food's intake linked to higher lung cancer risk: Study The findings, based on data from over 100,000 Americans followed for 12 years, suggest that limiting consumption of ready-to-eat meals, processed meats, and sugary drinks could help reduce the global burden of the world's most common cancer. Lung cancer claimed 1.8 million lives worldwide in 2020 alone, with 2.2 million new cases diagnosed that year, the researchers noted. The study analysed data from 101,732 participants (50,187 men and 51,545 women, average age 62) drawn from a broader pool of 155,000 people aged 55-74 who completed detailed dietary questionnaires as part of major US cancer screening trials between 1993 and 2001. Researchers tracked cancer diagnoses until 2009 and deaths until 2018. Foods were classified into four processing categories: unprocessed or minimally processed; containing processed culinary ingredients; processed; and ultra-processed. The ultra-processed foods examined included lunch meats, ice cream, fried foods, breakfast cereals, instant noodles, shop-bought soups, soft drinks, and fast-food items like hamburgers and pizza. Participants consumed an average of nearly three servings daily, ranging from 0.5 to 6 servings. The most frequently consumed ultra-processed foods were lunch meat (11% of intake), diet or caffeinated soft drinks (just over 7%), and decaffeinated soft drinks (nearly 7%). During the follow-up period, 1,706 people developed lung cancer—1,473 cases of non-small cell lung cancer and 233 cases of small cell lung cancer. Even after accounting for smoking habits and overall diet quality, those in the highest consumption group showed significantly elevated risks. The increased risk was 37% for non-small cell lung cancer and 44% for small cell lung cancer among heavy ultra-processed food consumers. 'Over the past two decades, consumption of ultra-processed foods has significantly increased worldwide, regardless of development or economic status,' the authors wrote. This rise may be driving global increases in obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, they added. The researchers suggest ultra-processed foods may crowd out protective foods like whole grains, fruits, and vegetables from people's diets. Industrial processing also alters food structure, affecting how nutrients are absorbed whilst generating harmful compounds like acrolein—found in grilled sausages and caramel sweets and also present in cigarette smoke. Food packaging materials may also contribute to health risks, the study noted. The authors acknowledged their findings require confirmation through additional large-scale studies across different populations before definitive conclusions can be drawn about causality. 'If causality is established, limiting trends of ultra-processed food intake globally could contribute to reducing the burden of lung cancer,' they concluded.
