In a recent announcement on Truth Social, President Donald Trump claimed that Coca-Cola has agreed to switch from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to cane sugar in its U.S. beverages, a move he described as “just better.” This statement, while not explicitly confirmed by Coca-Cola, has sparked widespread debate about its potential effects on American agriculture, the sourcing of cane sugar, and whether it aligns with the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While the switch may appeal to consumers nostalgic for the taste of cane-sugar-sweetened “Mexican Coke,” it raises critical questions about its economic fallout for American farmers, the feasibility of using domestic cane sugar, and whether the health benefits are significant enough to justify the change.
Economic Impact on American Corn Farmers
The proposed shift from HFCS to cane sugar could have profound economic consequences for American corn farmers, particularly in the Midwest, where corn is a cornerstone of the agricultural economy. HFCS, derived from corn starch, has been the primary sweetener in U.S. Coca-Cola products since the mid-1980s, driven by federal subsidies that make corn a cost-effective crop and tariffs that increase the price of imported sugar. The Corn Refiners Association, led by President and CEO John Bode, has warned that replacing HFCS with cane sugar “would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit.”
Corn prices are already near historic lows due to oversupply and fluctuating global demand. In 2025, the U.S. is projected to produce over 15 billion bushels of corn, with approximately 6% used for HFCS production. If Coca-Cola, one of the largest consumers of HFCS, were to switch to cane sugar, it could significantly reduce demand for corn-based sweeteners. Estimates suggest that replacing HFCS in the 17 billion gallons of soft drinks consumed annually in the U.S. would require an additional 1.69 million short tons of cane sugar, potentially disrupting the market for the 1.1 million tons of corn syrup used annually by major soda producers like Coca-Cola and Pepsi.This reduction in demand could further depress corn prices, squeezing farmers’ already tight margins. Iowa, the top corn-producing state, is home to major HFCS producers like Archer Daniels Midland, whose operations are deeply integrated into the agricultural economy. A decline in HFCS demand could ripple through rural communities, affecting not only farmers but also jobs in processing plants and related industries. The farm lobby, a powerful force in Washington, has historically shaped policies to favor corn production, and such a shift could prompt significant pushback from agricultural stakeholders.
Would Coca-Cola Use American-Grown Cane Sugar?
The question of whether Coca-Cola would source cane sugar domestically adds another layer of complexity. The U.S. does produce cane sugar, primarily in Florida and Louisiana, but it accounts for only about 30% of the nation’s sugar supply, with the remainder imported from countries like Mexico and Brazil. In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately $1.68 billion worth of raw cane sugar, indicating a heavy reliance on foreign sources.
Switching to cane sugar would likely increase U.S. sugar demand significantly. If Coca-Cola were to replace HFCS entirely, the additional 1.69 million short tons of cane sugar needed would exceed current U.S. tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for sugar imports, potentially driving up costs and necessitating increased imports. Domestic cane sugar production is limited, and scaling up would require significant investment in infrastructure and land use, which may not be feasible in the short term. Furthermore, U.S. sugar prices are kept artificially high due to tariffs and quotas imposed since the 1980s to protect domestic producers, making imported cane sugar a more cost-effective option for a company like Coca-Cola.
Given these dynamics, it’s likely that Coca-Cola would rely heavily on imported cane sugar, which could undermine President Trump’s broader agenda of reducing the trade deficit and promoting American products. This shift could also exacerbate tensions with domestic sugar producers, who already face competition from cheaper foreign sugar.
Health Benefits: Is Cane Sugar Really Better?
The push to switch from HFCS to cane sugar is partly driven by the MAHA initiative, which aims to reduce chronic health issues like obesity and diabetes by targeting ingredients such as corn syrup, seed oils, and artificial dyes. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized HFCS, calling it a “formula for making you obese and diabetic.” However, scientific evidence suggests that the health differences between HFCS and cane sugar are minimal.
Cane sugar (sucrose) is composed of 50% glucose and 50% fructose, while HFCS typically contains 55% fructose and 40% glucose. Both are caloric sweeteners that break down quickly in the body, leading to rapid blood sugar spikes and potential insulin resistance when consumed in excess. Dr. Saptarshi Bhattacharya, an endocrinologist at Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, notes that “cane sugar is no better than high fructose corn syrup” in terms of health impacts, as both contribute to risks like diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. A tablespoon of cane sugar yields approximately 48 calories, while HFCS yields about 53 calories, a negligible difference.
The World Health Organization recommends limiting free sugars to less than 10% of daily energy intake, with further benefits below 5%. Whether sweetened with HFCS or cane sugar, a can of Coca-Cola contains about 39 grams of sugar (approximately 150 calories), far exceeding these guidelines. Studies, such as one by Bray et al. (2004), have linked HFCS to obesity and metabolic issues, but these risks are primarily tied to excessive sugar consumption rather than the specific type of sweetener. Medical experts, including those cited in a MAHA Commission report, emphasize that limiting overall added sugars is more critical than switching between HFCS and cane sugar.
Taste is another factor often cited by proponents of cane sugar. Consumers of Mexican Coca-Cola, which uses cane sugar, describe it as having a “cleaner” or “less saccharine” flavor compared to the HFCS-sweetened U.S. version. However, blind taste tests have produced mixed results, with some finding no perceptible difference. The perceived superiority of cane sugar may be more about nostalgia or marketing than a meaningful health or sensory advantage.
Will This Make America Healthy Again?
The MAHA initiative, championed by Kennedy, seeks to combat chronic diseases by promoting whole foods and reducing processed ingredients. While the proposed switch to cane sugar aligns with this goal symbolically, its actual impact on public health is questionable. The nutritional similarity between HFCS and cane sugar means that swapping one for the other is unlikely to address the root causes of obesity, diabetes, or other diet-related conditions. A more effective approach, as suggested by Kennedy, would be to reduce overall sugar consumption and promote dietary guidelines that prioritize whole, unprocessed foods.
Moreover, the economic trade-offs could undermine the broader “Make America Great Again” ethos, which emphasizes supporting American workers and reducing reliance on foreign goods. The potential loss of thousands of jobs in the corn industry and increased imports of foreign sugar could create political and economic challenges for the Trump administration. Additionally, Coca-Cola’s cautious response—acknowledging Trump’s enthusiasm without confirming a recipe change—suggests that the company may not fully commit to a nationwide switch, possibly opting for limited-edition cane sugar products instead.
Conclusion
If Coca-Cola were to switch from HFCS to cane sugar, the move would likely deal a significant blow to American corn farmers, who are already grappling with low prices and oversupply. The reliance on imported cane sugar, given the limited domestic supply, would further complicate the economic picture, potentially clashing with Trump’s protectionist policies. From a health perspective, the switch offers no significant benefits, as cane sugar and HFCS are nutritionally similar and both pose risks when consumed in excess. While the MAHA initiative’s focus on reducing processed foods is laudable, swapping one sweetener for another is unlikely to “Make America Healthy Again” without broader dietary changes. As Coca-Cola has yet to confirm the change, the debate remains speculative, but the implications for farmers, consumers, and public health warrant careful consideration.