Final answer:
Manufacturers prefer high-fructose corn syrup over sugar primarily for cost reasons, fostered by geographical advantages in corn production and economic policies in the U.S. Concerns about the health impacts of HFCS have led to consumer resistance and some manufacturers reverting to natural sugar. Artificial sweeteners provide an alternative for those with dietary restrictions, despite having their own health debates.
Step-by-step explanation:
Food manufacturers prefer using high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) over sugar due to cost considerations. Since 1970 the shift from cane sugar to HFCS has been notable because HFCS is significantly cheaper to produce, especially within the United States, where the geography and climate favor the production of the corn needed to produce HFCS. A factor that contributes to the higher cost of cane sugar in the US is sugar subsidies and tariffs making domestically produced sugar comparatively expensive, leading some manufacturing jobs to relocate to countries like Mexico where sugar costs less.
Despite HFCS and cane sugar having similar tastes, there is concern among scientists and consumers about the potential health impacts of HFCS, particularly its role in the obesity epidemic. Studies suggest that HFCS might have different metabolic effects compared to cane sugar, which could contribute to health issues related to obesity. In response to negative perceptions, manufacturers have started to reintroduce natural sugar into some products, and the Corn Refiners Association's attempt to rebrand HFCS as corn sugar was denied by the FDA.
Some consumers prefer products like Mexican Coke, which is made with cane sugar, over those containing HFCS. For individuals with dietary restrictions, such as diabetes, or those looking for noncaloric options, artificial sweeteners like sucralose and aspartame offer alternatives to conventional sweeteners. However, these also come with their own controversies and health discussions.