Is high fructose corn syrup banned in any country?

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a controversial sweetener that has been linked to various health issues. It is commonly used as a cheaper alternative to sugar in processed foods and soft drinks. Some countries have implemented bans or restrictions on HFCS due to concerns over its health effects. This article examines whether HFCS is completely banned in any country.

What is high fructose corn syrup?

High fructose corn syrup is a liquid sweetener made from corn starch. It consists of either 42% or 55% fructose, with the remaining sugars being primarily glucose. It is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which undergoes enzymatic processing to increase the fructose content. The resulting syrup is sweeter and cheaper than sucrose (table sugar).

HFCS became popular in the U.S. in the 1970s due to sugar tariffs that increased the price of sucrose. HFCS was cheaper and easy to use in processed foods and beverages. It quickly replaced sucrose as the main sweetener in soft drinks in the U.S. Today, the average American consumes around 60 pounds of HFCS per year.

Health concerns over HFCS

There is ongoing scientific debate over whether HFCS poses greater health risks than regular sugar. Some of the concerns include:

  • HFCS contains higher amounts of fructose than sucrose. Fructose is primarily metabolized by the liver, whereas glucose can be metabolized by all cells. Consuming excess fructose places stress on the liver.
  • Fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production. This may promote weight gain and obesity.
  • Fructose increases triglyceride levels. Elevated triglycerides are associated with increased risk of heart disease.
  • Fructose may contribute to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. Tests show it causes more significant glucose intolerance than glucose alone.
  • Fructose increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs). AGEs are implicated in chronic inflammation and the complications of diabetes.

Some health organizations and researchers contend that these negative effects are only seen at extremely high doses, and that moderate HFCS consumption is no worse than sucrose. However, other experts recommend limiting intake of all added sugars, including HFCS.

Countries that have banned HFCS

Currently, no country has implemented an outright ban on HFCS in all foods and beverages. There are no laws completely prohibiting the production or sale of HFCS. However, a few countries have placed restrictions on foods containing added HFCS:

European Union

The European Union has not banned HFCS, but has imposed quota limits on HFCS imports from the U.S. Prior to 2004, there were no limits on HFCS imports. This allowed HFCS to displace about 14% of the sugar market in the EU. In 2004, the EU imposed quotas to prevent further market disruption. This has limited the use of HFCS in the EU.


In 2006, Venezuela banned the use of HFCS in soft drinks intended for children and adolescents. This was part of an effort to reduce exposure to products considered detrimental to health. The ban applies to domestic production and imported products.


In 2010, Argentina implemented a ban on HFCS as an ingredient in soft drinks and fruit juices. While HFCS can still be added to other products like baked goods, the ban was intended to decrease national consumption. The government argued that HFCS is an unsafe, artificial substitute for traditional sugar.

So while there are no comprehensive HFCS bans, some countries have targeted its use in certain products due to health concerns.

Countries that tax or limit HFCS

Rather than implementing outright bans, several other jurisdictions have imposed taxes or quotas on HFCS as a public health measure:


Mexico imposed a tax on soft drinks and other beverages containing HFCS in 2014. The tax added 1 peso per liter on drinks containing HFCS. This is equivalent to about a 10% increase in cost. The tax was part of a larger fiscal reform package aimed at improving nutrition and reducing obesity and diabetes.


France approved a tax on soft drinks containing added sugars in 2012. Beverages with more than 2g of sweetener per 100mL are taxed at around 11 cents per liter. While not specifically targeted at HFCS, the tax increases the cost of HFCS-sweetened beverages.


In 2011, Hungary implemented a tax on foods high in sugar, salt, and caffeine. Prepackaged products containing HFCS are charged at around $0.24 per kg. The tax aims to improve dietary habits and combat obesity and related diseases.

United States

Some U.S. states have attempted to impose restrictions on HFCS, though none have fully succeeded. In 2010, the California State Senate considered a bill prohibiting manufacturers from labelling HFCS as “natural” (it failed to pass). In 2014, the Maryland General Assembly considered a bill banning HFCS from school lunches, but this was also unsuccessful.

While no national bans or taxes have been implemented, there have been efforts to curtail HFCS consumption at state and local levels due to health concerns.

Countries that discourage HFCS intake

A few countries do not have specific limits on HFCS, but have taken steps to discourage its use and consumption:

United Kingdom

Public health officials in the UK have recommended the food industry reduce sugar and caloric content in foods and beverages by 20% by 2020. As part of this initiative, food manufacturers have been pressured to cut down on or eliminate HFCS and other added sweeteners.

South Korea

In response to rising obesity rates, South Korea launched a national campaign in 2016 to reduce sugar intake. While not mandating restrictions, the government has pressured food companies to reformulate products to contain less or no HFCS.

South Africa

South Africa introduced voluntary targets in 2016 for the food and beverage industry to reduce sugar content by 5-10% over 5 years. Companies have been encouraged to limit added sweeteners like HFCS without sacrificing taste.

These countries demonstrate that governments can influence HFCS usage by persuading manufacturers to voluntarily reduce levels in consumer products.

Reasons countries have not banned HFCS

Given the concerns surrounding HFCS, why have more countries not taken action to ban or restrict it? There are several potential reasons:

  • Insufficient evidence of harm: While some health professionals have sounded alarms about HFCS, there is no scientific consensus that it is uniquely harmful compared to other sugars. Not all authorities are convinced there is adequate evidence to wholly eliminate it from the food supply.
  • Protectionism: HFCS bans have been criticized by some as veiled protectionism. HFCS is predominantly made in the U.S., while sucrose is produced from sugar cane grown in tropical regions. HFCS restrictions protect domestic sugar producers.
  • Free trade agreements: Some countries have free trade agreements that discourage bans on food ingredients like HFCS. For example, Mexico’s HFCS tax led to objections from the U.S. government and corn industry.
  • Consumer choice: Outright HFCS bans limit options for consumers and manufacturers. Some argue that moderate intake of HFCS is not harmful for most people.
  • Difficulty of enforcement: A full ban on HFCS requires monitoring all processed food imports and ingredients. Some countries lack resources or infrastructure to fully implement and control such a ban.

These reasons help explain why most places have not gone as far as fully prohibiting HFCS, even if health advocates recommend limiting intake.

The prevalence of HFCS in different countries

HFCS consumption varies widely between countries due to factors like agricultural subsidies, trade policies, consumer preferences, and health regulations. Here is a comparison of HFCS intake around the world:

Country Annual HFCS consumption (kg per capita)
United States 28.4
Canada 14.6
Mexico 12.6
Chile 10.2
Argentina 1.6
Australia 1.2
European Union 0.5
South Korea 0.16
Malaysia 0.03
South Africa 0.02

The U.S. far outpaces all other countries in per capita HFCS consumption. American diets rely heavily on processed foods and soft drinks containing HFCS. In contrast, Asian countries like Malaysia consume very little. European intake is also comparatively low due to EU quotas and cultural preferences for sucrose over HFCS in foods and beverages.

Alternatives to HFCS

In products where HFCS has been restricted or reduced, manufacturers have turned to other sweeteners. Some alternatives include:

  • Sucrose: Plain white sugar made from sugar cane remains the most popular alternative to HFCS, particularly in beverages.
  • Glucose-fructose syrup: Made from wheat rather than corn, it has a nearly identical composition to HFCS.
  • Agave nectar: Contains approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose derived naturally from the agave plant.
  • Stevia: Extracted from stevia leaves, it provides sweetness without significant calories or carbohydrates.
  • Erythritol: A sugar alcohol that tastes similar to sugar with minimal calories and GI impact.

Food scientists can reformulate products to match the sweetness and functional properties of HFCS using these alternative sweeteners. However, some are more processed than others or do not perfectly mimic HFCS.


High fructose corn syrup remains legal in most parts of the world, though some regions have implemented targeted restrictions or taxes on products containing HFCS. While there are ongoing health concerns related to excess fructose in the modern diet, there is no global consensus on entirely banning a sweetener consumed safely in moderation by millions of people worldwide. But as more countries take steps to discourage overconsumption of added sugars and promote public health, we may see more efforts to reduce HFCS levels in processed foods over time.

Leave a Comment