Sugarcoating the Truth: The Role of Lobbying in America’s Obesity Epidemic

Photo courtesy of Oregon State University.

In January 2024, Indiana State Representative John Bartlett proposed a bill to ban high-fructose corn syrup from all food and beverage products sold in the state. The bill addresses certain ingredients unique to the American diet understood to be at the root of America’s obesity epidemic. A key difference between American and European diets is sweeteners. Food availability per capita (a metric for food supply after exports, imports, and processing) for sweeteners is 39 kilograms in the European Union (EU), compared to 74 kilograms in the United States. Legislation addressing the role of sweeteners in the obesity epidemic must be passed to reduce American sweetener consumption and lower American obesity rates. Moreover, despite the widespread focus on high-fructose corn syrup, legislators must equally acknowledge sugar for its contribution to the declining health of American consumers. 

Experts trace the origins of America’s overconsumption of sweeteners back to the late 1970s and early 1980s, the period coinciding with the rise of ultra-processed foods and artificially sweetened beverages. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food pyramid guidelines in 1980 demonized fats as the primary cause of obesity. This perception was perpetuated by the 1992 graphic advising 6-11 servings of carbohydrates while assigning fats the label “use sparingly.” The recommendation sparked a “low-fat craze” that urged the replacement of fats with refined grains and encouraged the U.S. diet to stray from global norms, as Americans incorrectly hailed carbs as uniquely nutritious. Sugar from carbs quickly replaced fat, resulting in food of the same caloric value being advertised as healthier through a “low-fat” label. Overconsumption of these foods, mistakenly identified as healthy despite their sugar content, resulted in the SnackWell effect. Named after a popular low-fat high-sugar cookie, this phenomenon describes when consumers eat more of a food perceived as healthy than they otherwise would of a food deemed unhealthy, negating any potential health benefits through overconsumption. 

Concurrently with the rise of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grew in popularity from the 1970s to the 1990s as a cheaper alternative to table sugar, especially for producers of sweetened beverages. USDA policies encouraged corn, wheat, and soy production, and excess corn led to the mass production of cheap corn starch from which HFCS is derived. The U.S. historically deviates from the rest of the world in its lack of regulation of HFCS. Title 21 of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Code of Federal Regulations states that HFCS can be “used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice” and allows fructose proportions of 42% or 55%, whereas the EU permits only 20 to 30% fructose. The usage of excess corn, combined with limited HFCS regulation making the conversion of cornstarch profitable, generates a cycle that leads to abundant corn overproduction. From 2022 to 2023, the U.S. produced more than 387 million tons of corn, whereas the EU produced only 52 million tons in the same time frame. 

Tension between the rival corn and sugar industries has existed since the creation of HFCS. Both businesses use their financial influence as a weapon of combat through advertising and media. Sugar companies have portrayed HFCS as particularly detrimental to people’s health to market sugar as a healthier alternative, while the corn industry has declared HFCS to be no worse than any other sweetener. 

However, through lobbying, HFCS has been able to attain its dominance over sugar. Dwayne Andreas, CEO of the agricultural company Archer Daniels Midland, used his connections with former President Ronald Reagan to lobby for sugar quotas under the guise of encouraging domestic sugar production. In fact, his ulterior motive was to restrict the supply of imported sugar, thus making HFCS the cheaper ingredient to use in mass food and beverage production. To avoid quotas and high sugar import taxes, beverage manufacturers seeking sweeteners turned to HFCS, supported by farm subsidies that reduced the cost of corn. 

The rise of sugar in the 1970s was similarly propelled by big money. The 1977 McGovern Report, published by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, helped catalyze the low-fat movement through their recommendation of reduction of consumption of fats. This report was supported by research from Harvard University nutritionists, whom the sugar industry generously compensated for their efforts (namely the Sugar Research Foundation, now known as the Sugar Association). 

Decades later, both industries continue to use money as a means to gain a competitive edge. In 2011, the Sugar Association contributed more than half of all total funding of the nonprofit Citizens for Health, an advocacy group for improved nutrition, in exchange for campaigns focused on reducing HFCS in American diets. Corn companies are equally culpable. For instance, the Corn Refiners Association (CFA) spent more than $30 million between 2008 and 2014 to improve the public’s perception of HFCS. In 2010, the CFA even petitioned the FDA to rename HFCS to “corn sugar” to distance the ingredient from its complicated name and instead invoke the public’s more positive perception of sugar. The FDA did not approve the name change, citing consumer confusion as their rationale.

HFCS is correctly implicated in the rise of obesity in America. However, solely attributing the obesity epidemic to the consumption of HFCS is not entirely valid. The true cause is the addition of HFCS on top of the already large quantity of sugar consumed in the American diet. Since 1985, the annual American’s HFCS consumption has risen from 45 to 66 pounds. Concurrently, refined sugar consumption has increased by 5 pounds in the same time frame. This parallel growth challenges assertions that only one industry is responsible for the obesity epidemic. 

Despite the arguments sugar companies may try to feed the public, the industry is not blameless in the steady worsening of the American diet. The negative health effects of HFCS are exacerbated by its combination with sugar and vice versa, as evidenced by the spike in obesity rates after the creation of HFCS in 1970 and the parallel increase of sugar and HFCS production. Additionally, the chemical compositions of HFCS and table sugar do not differ significantly in proportions of fructose. Their similar formulas indicate that they have nearly equivalent addictive properties, as fructose affects dopamine neurotransmission in the same way as other addictive substances. Therefore, the inclusion of either as an ingredient in food or drink can lead to food addiction and binge eating, amplifying the public health crisis of obesity. 

It is tempting to think that a viable solution to the obesity epidemic in America would simply require implementing dietary regulations that prevent the sale of food and drinks containing HFCS. Along these lines, the New York State Senate considered a bill in 2016 to prohibit the sale of food products containing HFCS, which ultimately died in committee. Based on the precedent set by California Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 418 in 2024, which banned four food additives linked to health complications, experts predict that banning ingredients will be a “key regulatory trend in 2024,” hinting at similar bills regulating HFCS being introduced in more states. 

Instead of just targeting HFCS, public health legislation must also be aimed toward the sugar industry. This two-pronged approach would ensure that American consumption of these interchangeable contributors to obesity is reduced. Reduction of corn subsidies, which were valued at $2.2 billion in 2019, can limit the overproduction of HFCS, which is converted from cornstarch in part due to overproduction. Harm from reduced corn subsidies would mostly be shouldered by large farms that can afford the change, as the largest 10% of farms receive 60% of U.S. subsidies. As for sugar, the FDA’s current plan is to mandate easy-to-read labels that indicate sugar content for consumers, which is proven to decrease the likelihood of a parent buying the product for their child. However, a further strategy for reducing consumption of beverages with added sugars would be leveraging an additional tax. A UC Berkeley study on five American cities found that when prices of sugar-sweetened beverages increased by 33.1% through the implementation of excise taxes, there was a corresponding 33% decrease in purchases of those products. In addition to these measures, some changes must reach beyond the scope of ingredient-based legislation. For example, educational initiatives implemented in academic institutions as well as across broader society could help Americans unlearn their biases against HFCS by emphasizing the similarities between both unhealthy sweeteners, leading to more informed consumer choices. 

The key to any effective sweetener reform effort is the simultaneous regulation of the production and consumption of both ingredients. Regulating only one ingredient would prove ineffective, as substitution would negate any benefits. Since the availability of HFCS as a cheaper option is key to its marketability, legislation that tackles HFCS by making it less attractive to producers would not have any meaningful impact on rates of sweetener consumption. It would simply encourage companies to pivot back to sugar. Without a comprehensive legislative solution that targets both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, America invites a replication of the sugar industry’s previous demonization of fat, with high-fructose corn syrup as its new scapegoat, once again prioritizing industry profit over public health.

Parishi Narain (BC ’27) is a staff writer for CPR from West Windsor, New Jersey, hoping to study political science and statistics.