The War Between the Sweeteners

Anyone who uses sweeteners has to be aware of the ongoing battle for market supremacy between sugar and corn syrup―particularly HFCS. And now, the battle has taken an unexpected shift given the current market.

Sugar took the first hit with Corn’s pricing and the more-convenient liquid syrup form. Sugar fired back in quick succession with the specter of health: The pro-Sugar contingent noted the concurrent rise in the use of corn syrup and the obesity rate (never mind all those other confounding factors.). Then they struck at Corn’s naturalness claims, and lobbed the inference that all this “fake” food is plain no good into the collective consumer consciousness. Corn parried these blows, pointing out those confounding factors in the first case and, in the second, the lack of FDA backing for any unnatural nature. (Meanwhile FDA sat quietly on the sidelines declaring publicly for neither of the warring factions―although one soldier apparently took the initiative to join Sugar in battle by saying she couldn’t see how HFCS could be natural given the artificial leanings of one of its processing substrates.

Now, Sugar has received reinforcements: The rising price of corn, due―in some part, depending on your interpretation―to the diversion of a significant portion of the crop to ethanol production―has made sugar much more price competitive. This, with the added impetus of “HFCS...bad” campaigning, has led to a reawakened interest in sucrose sweeteners by U.S. manufacturers, says Sugar. I haven’t seen any numbers that say when the economic tipping point―especially taking reformulation costs into consideration―will occur.

Regardless, the war’s not over. I hear rumors that sugar makes a much better substrate for ethanol than corn.

            —Lynn A. Kuntz