For a long time in the US, processed foods have featured high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener rather than cane or beet sugar. This is largely because of subsidies for domestically produced corn and tariffs on imported sugar. There now seems to be a backlash developing against HFCS and in favor of “natural” sugar (HFCS is processed by converting the glucose in corn syrup into fructose.) This Slate article takes a critical look at the case against HFCS and clarifies a few misconceptions. For one, while fructose is probably worse for you than glucose, HCFS has no more fructose than, for example, table sugar. Also, there is mixed evidence whether there is any difference in taste.
In a street survey conducted by the Toronto Star, most passers-by preferred regular Coke to the Passover version; several folks described the latter as tasting like aspartame. A similar confusion beset the Snapple testers at Fast Company: One described the HFCS version as tasting “more natural” while another dismissed the all-natural version for its “chemical taste.
Here is the ad for Pepsi Throwback with “natural sugar.” What model of consumer behavior rationalizes introducing a limited-time product that raises questions about the main product line?
Cheap Talk 
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 30, 2009 at 9:27 am
Anshu
I think people’s tastes have adapted to HFCS in countries where it is commonly used.
But I think that highlights the difference between HFCS and more natural sugar. Natural sugar doesn’t taste as good, which essentially makes you eat much, much less of it.
For example, when traveling to countries where they use less refined sugars (derived from cane in particular), you quickly notice the taste very quickly becomes sickly sweet. So only a small quantity can be used before it begins to detract from the taste of the food or drink to which it is being added.
I suspect if the use of HFCS was banned outright, the average number of calories consumed daily in North America would drop by a significant margin. You just can’t eat that much natural sugar.
April 30, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Sean
I suspect that if the use of grapes were banned in wine production, the average volume of alcohol consumed daily in North Amerca by a significant margin; I hope the previous comment was intended to be a simple characterization rather than a policy suggestion.
I think a rational model of Pepsi’s throwback could be relative easy to obtain by including close substitutes from competitors (e.g., Coke). While you might cast doubt on Pepsi with Throwback, you would also cast doubt on Coke, and if Pepsi Throwback beats Coke Throwback to the market, you gobble up more of the “natural soda” marketshare. At the expiration of the promotion, Pepsi’s relative position vis-a-vis Coke would depend upon the details of the model, but I suspect a reasonable model could be developed where Pepsi comes out no worse post-experiment.
May 1, 2009 at 10:27 am
Anshu
I suspect that if the use of grapes were banned in wine production, the average volume of alcohol consumed daily in North Amerca by a significant margin; I hope the previous comment was intended to be a simple characterization rather than a policy suggestion.
I’m not sure I understand the analogy and I think its completely misplaced. If natural sugars are used in place of HFCS, the amount of sugar to achieve the same level of sweetness would be lower. This means to achieve the same subjective level of sweetness, the food or drink would contain fewer calories. And the built-in control is that excessive sweetness from natural surgars becomes bad, in that a negative taste effect occurs. You can consume a much higher concentration of sugar (and calories) from HFCS before people report a taste sensation of it being too sweet, hence the tendency by food producers to use more of it to positively differentiate their product. I don’t see how this is in any way similar to wine production without using grapes.
And for the record, my comment was a characterization, not a policy suggestion. My policy suggestion would be to end all agricultural subsidies and trade barriers on agricultural production. This would achieve multiple things quite gracefully: end the artificially tax-dollar supported production of corn used for HFCS; lower the consumer price of sugar and all foods that contain sugar; lift economies in the 3rd world where sugar production is more efficient; and reduce obesity in North America (with the resulting benefit to our health care system).