In a post on X, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., cheered Tyson Foods Company’s decision to drop high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from its branded products by the end of this year. He wrote, “I call on every food company to follow your lead and join the movement to Make America Healthy Again.”
There’s only one problem with that post: nothing supports the secretary’s claim that swapping HFCS for table sugar (sucrose) makes you healthier. Science shows your body processes them the same way—and too much of either is harmful.
HFCS is a liquid derived from corn. It contains 24 percent water. Sucrose, on the other hand, is granular. Both are almost identical in composition. The most common form of HFCS is 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Sucrose is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. The main difference is that glucose and fructose are bound together in sucrose, whereas they are unbound in HFCS.
The body converts ingested fructose into glucose, mainly in the liver and gut, to serve as an energy source. When sucrose is consumed, the gut separates the two molecules before absorbing them into the bloodstream. Since fructose and glucose are already separated in HFCS, the gut doesn’t need to perform this step, so they are absorbed more quickly.
Research indicates that both sucrose and HFCS have the same metabolic effects, regardless of whether people consume them at low, medium, or high levels.
A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant differences between HFCS and sucrose in weight, waist circumference, body mass index, fat mass, cholesterol, and blood pressure. However, it identified a modest association with an increase in C‑reactive protein (CRP), a liver-produced protein that serves as a biomarker for systemic inflammation, compared to sucrose. We do not know if the latter is clinically significant.
A 10-week randomized controlled trial comparing HFCS to sucrose found neither form increased liver fat deposits or intramuscular fat deposits.
Both sweeteners have a similar effect on appetite.
A review of the literature by Florida researchers in Advances in Nutrition concluded:
So, what do we really know about the metabolism, endocrine responses, and health effects of sucrose, HFCS, and fructose? At present, we believe that the following conclusions are warranted. First, there is no unique relationship between HFCS and obesity. Second, there is broad scientific consensus that there are no significant metabolic or endocrine response differences or differences in health-related effects between HFCS and sucrose. Third, the metabolism and health effects of both HFCS and sucrose are different from those observed in studies that compare pure fructose with pure glucose, neither of which is consumed to any appreciable degree in the human diet. Fourth, recent randomized clinical trials have suggested that there are no adverse effects on total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol or HDL cholesterol at amounts ranging up to the 90th percentile level of fructose consumption, although other investigators have shown increases in cholesterol and/or LDL cholesterol in subjects consuming either sucrose or HFCS, so further research studies are needed to clarify this issue. There is, however, a reliable increase in triglycerides from consumption of elevated levels of carbohydrates (particularly simple sugars), which merits further exploration.
Perhaps Secretary Kennedy is unaware that many fruits, e.g., apples, pears, and cherries, naturally contain higher concentrations of fructose than glucose.
Honey has a fructose-to-glucose ratio of 1.2 compared to 1.3 for HFCS.
So if the science shows little difference, why does HFCS dominate US foods? The answer lies in government policy.
The government has established sugar import quotas, domestic production limits, and price supports through a complex, Soviet-style system since the Sugar Act of 1934. Today, the Sugar Import Program (SIP) restricts the marketing of domestic sugar and imposes tariffs on imported sugar. In 2013, Americans paid an additional $1.4 billion for sugar. Meanwhile, government subsidies to corn producers make HFCS relatively inexpensive.
Starting in the 1970s, the artificially high cost of sugar prompted food producers to switch to relatively cheaper HFCS, allowing them to keep their products more affordable for consumers. It also drove many US candy manufacturers to relocate their facilities outside the country.
If Secretary Kennedy still aims to reduce HFCS consumption despite the lack of scientific evidence, he should ask President Trump and Congress to eliminate the tariffs, production quotas, and subsidies that make HFCS more affordable.
Unfortunately, President Trump considers “tariff” to be one of the most beautiful words in the dictionary. His recent actions supporting subsidies and protectionism for favored industries and his moves toward “state capitalism” suggest he is unlikely to be open to lifting tariffs, quotas, and price supports on sugar and corn.
Until these government distortions end, pressuring companies to swap HFCS for sugar will raise prices without improving health—and might push more families into food insecurity.