The cloying appreciation for the still-unconfirmed switch that Coca-Cola has, in reality, not revealed was splashed with some cold truth from Coca-Cola. While continuing not to validate the contract, the soda maker appeared to react to the “artificial” bit in Fox’s post, stating that HFCS is “just a sweetener made from corn. It’s safe; it has about the same number of calories per serving as table sugar and is metabolized in a similar way by your body.”

The drink maker likewise stated that the American Medical Association “confirmed that HFCS is no more likely to contribute to obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners.”

A 2008 report from the AMA concluded that “Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.” The medical association kept in mind an absence of research study straight comparing the sweeteners.

While political critics recommend that the carbonated Coke hassle is simply an interruption from the president’s continuous Epstein file scandal, health professionals are shaking their heads.

Nutrition professional Marion Nestle, teacher emeritus at New York University, informed Stat News that the push for walking stick sugar, much like the push to get rid of synthetic dyes from processed foods, was “nutritionally hilarious.” Whether Coke is sweetened with walking stick sugar or HFCS, it still includes the equivalent of about 10 teaspoons of sugar per 12-ounce can and positions threats for conditions such as Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. “It’s the example that makes nutritional experts roll their eyes, due to the fact that it does not make any distinction,” Nestle stated.