The reason Coke uses HFCS in the US is driven by ag policy- America has the cheapest corn and almost the most expensive sugar in the world. We subsidize corn with direct payments as a subsidy to the meat industry, which is the largest consumer of corn (as feed), and HFCS is a byproduct... but we protect sugar prices through import quotas and tariffs, so sugar in the US is very expensive. HFCS is not any worse for you than sugar, and it doesn't taste very different in Coke. Nutritionally, there’s no meaningful difference. Both are made of glucose and fructose. Both have the same number of calories. And in blind taste tests, HFCS usually wins. The reason you think cane sugar tastes better probably comes down to the glass bottle it is packaged in, which people genuinely do prefer. HFCS has a branding problem. If it had been called "corn sugar" from the beginning, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. But “high fructose corn syrup” sounds industrial, and “cane sugar” sounds natural, even though both are processed and function the same in your body In the US, we spend over $10 billion per year subsidizing corn through a mix of insurance, price supports, and other programs. It’s a big subsidy to the meat industry... just 3% of corn is used for HFCS (it's a byproduct), but it ends up being very cheap. Because it’s so cheap, HFCS ends up in everything. Ketchup, bread, salad dressing, cereal, even "healthy" snacks. We use cheap inputs to make hyper-palatable, ultra-processed food.... now sugarslop is in everything, because we subsidize it and it's so cheap! IMO if Trump really wants to change how Coke sweetens its drinks, he should start by reforming our farm subsidy system, not telling private companies what ingredients to use.