by Mary E. Gearing
figures by Shanon McArdel

It’s hard to find a more controversial topic than sugar, which is never far from the media’s attention. From the recent hype surrounding That Sugar Film to the continued demonizing of high fructose corn syrup, we can’t stop talking about sugar and how we’re likely eating too much of it.

In an effort to decrease sugar consumption, the FDA has recommended labeling foods with “added sugars.” To determine if this policy change is appropriate, we’ll look at what science has to say about sugar, examining natural and added sugars to see how they compare.

First Things First: What is Sugar?

Sugar comes in many different forms- the one most people think of sucrose, also known as cane or table sugar. Made by processing sugar cane and sugar beets, sucrose consists of glucose bound to fructose in a 1:1 ratio. Another common, maligned form of sugar is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), synthesized from corn. HFCS is sold in two forms: one has 42% fructose, the other has 55% fructose, with glucose and water as the other primary components. Food manufacturers prefer HFCS because it’s cheaper and easier to use than table sugar, two qualities that explain its presence in many processed foods today [1].

Sugars like HFCS are commonly added to food during production, increasing Americans’ sugar intake. Many products that aren’t considered sweet, such as tomato sauce or ketchup, have large quantities of added sugar. Foods we think of as healthy, like granola and yogurt, may also be manufactured with extra sugar. Since added sugar means extra calories and weight gain, the FDA is seeking to define these added sugars on food labels. For the first time, the label will also provide a percent daily value for added sugars, indicating that they should represent no more than 10% of total calories per day [2]. The FDA distinguishes added sugars from the fructose and glucose present in fruits and some vegetables, despite their identical chemical structures.

Within the category of added sugars, HFCS in particular has caused a major public outcry, with many groups claiming that it’s more dangerous than table sugar [3]. Opponents are concerned that the syrup is artificial, unnatural and highly processed, and they also worry that the fructose in HFCS may be harmful.

To examine the effects of HFCS and fructose, researchers have fed research subjects diets high in fructose, glucose or HFCS. Such studies have concluded that fructose is more harmful than glucose, citing negative physiological outcomes in patients fed a high-fructose diet. These include increased abdominal fat, as well as increased blood cholesterol and triglycerides [4]. Although the results are compelling, many of these studies include very high doses of fructose. One commonly cited study fed participants 25% of their calories from fructose. For a standard 2000 calorie diet, this means consuming 125 g fructose, or the fructose content of more than three 20 oz. sodas sweetened with 55% HFCS per day [5]. Studies with more realistic amounts of fructose, or studies directly comparing sucrose to HFCS, would be much more informative. Based on current evidence, most meta-analyses and reviews drawing from multiple studies conclude that moderate fructose consumption is not harmful [6-8].

Since HFCS has been blamed for the rise in US obesity levels, many companies have raced to replace HFCS with natural “pure cane sugar” [9]. If we look more closely, however, the arguments against HFCS begin to crumble. The sweetest form of HFCS, with 55% fructose, has only 5% more fructose than cane sugar. HFCS containing 42% fructose is much more commonly used, and it contains even less fructose than cane sugar [1]. The problem is not HFCS, but rather too much total sugar consumption. Natural cane sugar is not a healthy alternative to HFCS. Despite their different origins, these two sugars have fundamentally similar properties, and both have negative effects on our health when overconsumed.

The Problem of Natural, Processed Sugars

Having debunked the HFCS controversy, we can turn back to the FDA’s new added sugar labels. Although there’s no question that added sugar is unnecessary and unhealthy, classifying sugars as added or natural doesn’t tell the whole story, and we must consider the context of the sugar we consume.

Imagine waking up to a kitchen full of orange: oranges, orange juice, and orange soda. Which one would you pick? The FDA’s new sugar labeling would tell you that a 16 oz. orange soda has 58 grams of sugar, all of which are classified as added sugar [10]. A 16 oz. glass of orange juice has 48 grams of sugar, but none of this is considered added sugar since it comes from fruit [11].

Based on the labels, you might pick the orange juice and assume that it’s healthier than the orange soda. Unfortunately, the FDA’s added sugar label misses a key point – it doesn’t cover sugars from natural sources that have been heavily processed during production. This loophole includes a number of popular fruit-based products, notably fruit juices and smoothies. In these cases, all of the sugars come from fruit, so they are termed natural. However, the manufacturers have significantly altered the fruit’s properties. In doing so, they have changed the way our bodies process the sugar contained in the fruit, which has key implications for our health.

Our orange juice example clearly illustrates these principles. Since one medium-sized orange has about 10-13 grams of sugar, the 16 oz. orange juice contains four oranges’ worth of sugar. If you were eating the actual fruit, you probably wouldn’t consume anywhere close to this amount of sugar. Whole fruit contains fiber, which fills you up and keeps you from overeating. The cellular structure of fruit is also important – since your body has to break down the cells of the orange before the sugar can be released, the sugar is absorbed into the blood more slowly. Eating fruit raises your blood sugar levels, but in a slow and controlled manner, promoting fullness and preventing overconsumption [12].

Unfortunately, the metabolic effects of orange juice are very different than those of the fruit. Orange juice does retain the vitamins found in oranges, but the fiber content is very different. During juice processing, fiber is usually filtered out or pulverized, reducing its beneficial, pro-satiety effects. The juice’s dissolved sugar is thus efficiently absorbed by the small intestine and enters the blood quickly [12]. Consuming juice raises your blood sugar rapidly; after the subsequent blood sugar “crash,” you’ll soon be hungry again.

Although juice and smoothie companies fairly state that their products contain only natural sugars, fruit and fruit juice are not equivalent. Even if you consume the same number of calories from whole fruit and juice, the metabolic effects are very different. Metabolically speaking, juice is much more similar to soda than it is to whole fruit. In these instances, the FDA’s added sugar labels would fail consumers by providing the illusion that the sugar in processed fruit products is less harmful than that found in soda and candy.


An overview of the metabolic effects of orange-related products. A – indicates little to no effect in a given category, while a ++ indicates an important effect.


Is added sugar labeling valuable?

Given what we know about added and natural sugars, it’s easy to see that the FDA’s new labeling venture is imperfect and potentially misleading. In the best case scenario, consumers would realize that their yogurt or cereal contain large amounts of added sugar and subsequently switch to lower sugar options. But by separating natural and added sugars, the FDA creates a false dichotomy. The benefits of fruit come from its fiber, rather than its natural sugar. The science does not support endorsing natural sugars over their added counterparts, since these sugars have similar metabolic effects. The FDA’s efforts would be better directed towards education about the negative metabolic effects of high sugar intake.

A potential alternative to the natural/added sugar labeling is traffic light labeling, popular in Europe and in limited use in the US. In this system, food and beverages are labeled by color, with green indicating the healthiest options, and yellow and red less healthy ones. In the UK, total sugar content is used to determine a beverage’s rating, placing juice on par with soda [13]. Studies have shown that these simple systems help consumers make better choices, even when they don’t have the time to peruse a nutrition facts label [14].

At this point, you might be wondering if it’s better to choose no-calorie artificial sweeteners over sugar. While we don’t have enough information to conclude that artificial sweeteners affect our health as negatively as sucrose or HFCS, these compounds remain troubling [15]. Some studies have shown that artificial sweeteners do not reduce, or may even increase, weight gain over time [16]. Possible explanations include a continued craving for sweets or negative effects on gut bacteria [17]. Artificial sweeteners do not appear to be a “get out of jail free” card for a sweet tooth. A piece of fruit is a much better choice when you’re craving something sweet.

For all of the hubbub about added and natural sugar, the best piece of advice we have now is to simply eat less sugar, with the whole fruit as a notable exception to this rule. Ideally, our diets should be low in sugar and high in fiber, consisting primarily of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. By paying attention to the sugar in prepackaged foods, adding less sugar to our tea or coffee, limiting desserts, and drinking water instead of sugary beverages, it’s easy (and worthwhile!) to reduce our sugar consumption and risk of metabolic disease.

Mary E. Gearing is a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences Program at Harvard University.


1. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Questions and Answers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 5 Nov. 2014.
2. Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 27 Jul 2015.
3. The Evils of Corn Syrup: How Food Writers Got It Wrong. McWilliams J. 21 Sep. 2010. The Atlantic.
4. Adverse metabolic effects of dietary fructose: Results from recent epidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic studies. Stanhope KL, Schwarz J, Havel PJ. Jun 2013. Current Opinion in Lipidology. (free article)
5. Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans. Stanhope KL, et al. 20 Apr 2009. Journal of Clinical Investigation. (free article)
6. Challenging the Fructose Hypothesis: New Perspectives on Fructose Consumption and Metabolism. White JS. 6 Mar 2013. Advances in Nutrition. (free article)
7. Fructose Metabolism and Relation to Atherosclerosis, Type 2 Diabetes, and Obesity. Kolderup A & Svihus B. 14 Jun 2015. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. (free article)
8. Fructose-Containing Sugars and Cardiovascular Disease. 15 Jul 2015. Advances in Nutrition.
9. Is Sugar Really Healthier than Corn Syrup? Butler K. 14 Mar 2011. Mother Jones.
10. Calories in Sunkist orange soda. CalorieKing Wellness Solutions, Inc.
11. Calories in Minute Maid 100% Premium Original Orange Juice. CalorieKing Wellness Solutions, Inc.
12. Making the Case for Eating Fruit. Egan S. 31 Jul 2013. NYTimes: Well.
13. Food packaging ‘traffic lights’ to signal healthy choices on salt, fat and sugar. Campbell D. 18 June 2013. The Guardian.
14. How ‘traffic light’ labels promote healthier eating. McGreevey S. 10 Oct. 2013. Harvard Gazette.
15. The Evidence Supports Artificial Sweeteners Over Sugar. Carroll AE. 27 Jul 2015. NYTimes: The Upshot.
16. Artificial Sweeteners. Nutrition Source. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
17. Enough Diet Soda? Respect the Microbiota. Smith LL. 25 Sept. 2014. Science in the News, Harvard University.

Featured image by Lauri Andler(Phantom) (Photo taken by user) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

29 thoughts on “Natural and Added Sugars: Two Sides of the Same Coin

  1. I have read that there are differences in the way that some sugars are absorbed into the body during digestion. I am wondering if there is any basis in truth to this and if so does the way sugars are digested have any impact on the body?

    1. Hi Marty,
      Both fructose and glucose can absorb quickly, But it depends on what nutrients you eat at the same timeline.
      How are different sugars digested?
      Throughout digestion starches and sugars are broken mechanically (through chewing), And chemically (by enzymes)toward the single units glucose, fructose, and/or galactose which then are absorbed into the blood stream, And transfer for use energy throughout the body.
      Hope This Helps! 🙂

  2. As a pre diabetic, and currently on a Ketogenic diet – i do not care for the source of the sugar. But for the sugar contents in general. Sugar is sugar and will spike an Insulin reaction. The amount of sugar (natural or added) is what matters, at least for me. Great read and informational article.

    1. I think this is not correct. The amount of sugar consumed is not all that matters. The variance in blood sugar matters too. So if you have some average blood sugar in a given day but that blood sugar varies from really high to really low (ex 40g of sugar from fruit juice), this is much less healthy than the same average blood sugar but more constant throughout the day (ex 40g of sugar from fruit). This article mentions that by referencing slow-controlled blood sugar release vs rapid blood sugar spike. I think the reason is related to insulin response. Too much sugar at once puts a huge strain on your insulin while slow-release is much more manageable, even if there is the same total amount of sugar.

  3. I like how this is very readable and understandable for a regular person, thanks! I was confused about the new labelling I’ve seen on bars, etc.

  4. I find this article to also be somewhat misleading, as even though all the facts presented are “kind-of-accurate”, some important ones have been left out.
    For instance, when we talk about fruit juice, it is not the same to buy a juice from a store (heavily processed if it comes from a factory – less so if it is produced with a slow press juicer) than to make it yourself at home. Additionally, when you make your own juice, not all the fibre is stripped away, as soluble fibre remains and it also affects the way in which the sugar in the juice is absorbed into the bloodstream (having soluble fibre helps the body slow down the absorption of sugars).
    Furthermore, even though making a juice is processing the fruit in a way, the sugar in the fruit (and in the juice) is not the same as the added kind, and our bodies are better equipped to deal with it as they can recognise it as for what it is (natural sugar).
    Moreover, juices bought in a store (unless cold-pressed, which is usually treated with pressure rather than heat for “pasteurization”, have lost many of the other nutrients during the pasteurization process due to the high heat applied to them to kill potential pathogens, whereas home-made or cold pressed juices haven’t.
    So, as you can see, this issue is much more complicated than stated here. I, for one, think it is a good step in the right direction to start by informing the public about the levels of added sugars in any food. Plus the new labels inform of both total sugar content and added sugars.
    Finally, what I am about to share is not scientific data but it is observational data. I have done several juice only fasts in which I have spent several days or weeks consuming nothing but freshly extracted fruit and vegetable juices (4-5 a day, 500 ml each on average) and two of those times I had blood tests conducted both before and after the juice fast. In both cases, my fasting blood sugar levels and cholesterol levels were significantly reduced after the juice fast. If natural sugar, and specifically that in juices, is so bad for you (or as bad as added sugars), how come my total blood sugar levels have been reduced twice after having spent a whole week each time on nothing but fruit and vegetable juice?
    I totally agree that education should play a much bigger role than it presently does in regards to sugar and nutrition in general, both at a school level and at univerist level (many doctors, for example, are pretty clueless in regards to how important nurition is for health). But this article is also an educational tool, and I think it should have been written more carefully, painting a wider or more picture.

    1. I meant say “…painting a wider or more precise picture” in my last sentence there.

      I would also like to add that it would have been nice for someone to have replied to the posts people have posted here. There’s no point in having a reply or post section if there’s going to be no interaction from the writers.

      1. Marco,
        Thank you for this very thoughtful and well written article. I believe that it is really pretty simple if we recognize that whole food in general is far more nourishing because it is the way we were designed to consume our nourishment.
        Sadly, our food industry was corrupted many long years ago all in the name of profit of course, and it shows in the sickness and disease we now deal with at least in the U.S. I use what knowledge I have from a lifetime of investigating and researching food info. But I firmly believe that if we eat mostly off the tree and plant, it’s a win-win for us and Mother Nature/Earth. Stay safe and stay well.

    2. “sugar in the fruit (and in the juice) is not the same as the added kind, and our bodies are better equipped to deal with it as they can recognise it as for what it is (natural sugar)”
      This is my biggest question! I have had a really hard time finding credible information on this. It would be amazing if this were true, but this article is saying the exact opposite. I am truly open minded about it, but have seen more science suggesting that your body may not be able to distinguish between sources of sugar. I can see both sides, and just want to have a healthy diet that isn’t unreasonably restrictive. Does anyone have any studies specifically looking at this? I see tons of recipes using honey and dates as sweeteners and I WANT those to be better (grams to grams) than added sugar, but I have not seen the evidence.

      1. To know the answer to this question just invest in a 10 dollar blood glucose
        Meter and some test strips and check your blood sugar levels after eating various forms of sugar. Then you’ll know the answer and won’t have to listen to anyone.
        In my experience there’s. No difference between “ natural” and added sugar. If I drink fruit juice or sugar flavored drinks my blood sugar spikes are the same. Fruit is a little better but not much. In my body anyway, sugar is sugar. It’s best for me to eat carbs with some protein, fiber, and fat. I’ve read that the great Kenyan long distance runners had a diet of 20% white sugar, added to their tea. For them it was ok, as they did so much exercise, which pushes sugar into the cells. They use it was fuel which requires no energy to digest. Hope this helps!

    3. “Furthermore, even though making a juice is processing the fruit in a way, the sugar in the fruit (and in the juice) is not the same as the added kind, and our bodies are better equipped to deal with it as they can recognise it as for what it is (natural sugar).”

      In what way is it different? How do you know this is true?

      1. Sugar is sugar no matter where it comes from. Your body cannot distinguish a source. A chemistry lab cannot distinguish a source. Sugar (that is the monosaccharides of fructose and glucose, which is the form that sugar exists once it is in your body). The sugar from sugar cane is identical to the sugar from honey, apples, pears, dates, HFCS. They all break down to fructose and glucose in your body and look and act identically. Added sugars are identical to natural sugars. The only difference being the “other stuff” that comes with the natural sugars, since added sugars generally are not compounded with any additional ingredients. The take home message is all sugar is identical. Just reduce your overall sugar intake for overall health benefits.

        This article is full of sources:

        1. All sugar may be perceived the same by the body I suppose, but, having completed several juice cleanses (blended vegetable and fruit flavors), I can 100% attribute major dietary changes that occured immediately after the cleanses. I effortlessly reduced the sugar added to my daily coffee by 50%, completely lost my craving for junk food items like potato chips and fast food and would NEVER consider drinking another canned or bottled soda again. My body (& mind) desired only whole real food. I also experienced a much clearer mind and had much more energy. I would argue that if I were to become addicted to anything, it would be healthier to go with the natural whole food approach than eat overly processed foods with added ingredients.

          1. Bravo Colin! And keep up that attitude and determination and I promise your body will thank you for it.

        2. Andrew is correct. If you really want to understand the facts about sugar in their simplest, most practical terms, just read his post and ACCEPT the plain truths it illuminates, no matter how inconvenient or conflicting with your personal preferences and preconceptions. I did, and after hours and hours of wasted time researching sugar, I’ve reached the same conclusions Andrew did.

    1. These articles are fairly close and I think its people just trying to find fault and be skeptical. At some point you have to find your source and trust it, but please pick worthy sources. Harvard Med, Princeton, Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, the CDC….the point here overall is that all sugars will hit the body and the body will recognize it as sugar, but from fruit and vegetables the difference is the fiber. Yes apples have high fructose but the fiber controls its release and we get the benefits of the fruit while the sugar slowly enters the body and a healthy level. Fruit juices (not the at home kind, I can’t believe someone faults Harvard above for not mentioning this, pretty common sense), cereals, ketchup, BBQ sauce, candy bars, etc….no fiber with these products, and with these products its not just the sugar that’s bad, it’s almost everything about it. I can be just as “conned” as the next person, that is what marketing and lobbyists can paid to do. All we can do is our best homework, trust your doctor (or find a new one!) and work with that.

    2. Thanks for your Comment! I think the author is probably a smart person… therefore probably on the HFCS payroll. Everyone agrees HFCS is the cheaper option that industry wants. The industry pays these people off to pass the buck along. How they sleep at night is what I want to know?
      The good news, amazing news, is that the FDA made the added sugar labels. It is actually fantastic triumph against these people. I use these labels all the time when making food choices to reduce my sugar intake. I am not alone it seems and I have noticed a trend that products are containing less and less added sugar. It used to be difficult, for example, to find peanut butter with zero added sugar. Less so these days. Although in the past year or so I’m off the peanut butter as it is kind of like the orange juice of caloric intake.

  5. Comparing 1 orange to a 16 oz glass of orange juice is very misleading. 16 oz is around 3x more juice than is recommended for 1 portion to be classed as 1 of your 5-a-day. Consuming the recommended amount of orange juice with zero added sugar has been found to have no association with the development of type 2 diabetes in many literature reviews. When consumed in moderation, it is a healthy source of vitamins and flavonoids which actually help protect against cerebrovascular disease. Considering this article has come out of Harvard, I expect better as you must be aware of the effect your publications have on the behaviour of the general public.

  6. To avoid occasional heartburn, the best solution is to change eating habits and to avoid foods that affect the esophageal valve and cause it to soften which allows food and acid to back up. But, for a short-term relief, we take antacids, to neutralize stomach acid that is in the esophagus, and a teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate in a glass of water usually bring almost instant relief.

  7. This is amazing. Added sugar are the problems with the processed foods today. This article mentions that by referencing slow-controlled blood sugar release vs rapid blood sugar spike.

  8. It’s really a nice and useful piece of information. I’m satisfied that you just shared this helpful information with us.
    Please continue to keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

  9. I have to convey my respect for your kindness for all those that require guidance on this one field. Your special commitment to passing the solution up and down has been incredibly functional and has continually empowered most people just like me to achieve their dreams. Your amazing insightful information entails much to me and especially to my peers. Thanks a ton; from all of us.

  10. It’s telling. Whenever artificial alternatives enter the picture, the discussion gets muted and blurry. There’s always the ‘studies suggest’ statement. Never a sound finding. The shortest way to treat this is to ask if actual sugar, natural or otherwise, would pass regulatory muster as an artificial sweetener. Easily, the answer would be a resounding “no”. There are plenty of real findings to support this.
    The sugar industry is one of the biggest as well as most hidden. I’m sure there’s more hijinks than just paying off Harvard professors to lie about study results. After that, working conditions approaching slavery, and influence-buying, etc. is a whole other universe.

  11. In order to write a compelling article or story, the author needs to have sharp senses and eyes, and they need to examine the topic in great detail. Your article has left a very favorable impression on me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *