Fact Check: Are icing sugar and powdered sugar the same?

Fact Check: Are icing sugar and powdered sugar the same?

Published May 9, 2025
by TruthOrFake
VERDICT
Mostly True

# Are Icing Sugar and Powdered Sugar the Same? The claim that icing sugar and powdered sugar are the same has been a topic of discussion among bakers...

Are Icing Sugar and Powdered Sugar the Same?

The claim that icing sugar and powdered sugar are the same has been a topic of discussion among bakers and culinary enthusiasts. While many sources assert that these terms are interchangeable, nuances in definitions and regional variations may exist. This article will explore the evidence surrounding this claim, examining the definitions, uses, and any potential differences between icing sugar and powdered sugar.

What We Know

  1. Definitions: Icing sugar and powdered sugar are both terms used to describe a very finely ground sugar. According to multiple sources, including Chef's Resource and Foodiosity, both terms refer to the same product, which is often used in baking for frostings and glazes 12.

  2. Regional Variations: The terminology can vary by region. For instance, in some places, icing sugar is referred to as confectioners' sugar, which may contain a small amount of cornstarch to prevent clumping 56. This is supported by the fact that confectioners' sugar is often used synonymously with powdered sugar in recipes.

  3. Texture and Composition: Both icing sugar and powdered sugar are characterized by their fine texture. However, some sources suggest that icing sugar may have an even finer texture than standard powdered sugar, making it preferable for certain applications like smooth icings 8.

  4. Additives: While powdered sugar may contain cornstarch, not all icing sugars do. This could lead to slight differences in performance in baking, particularly if one is used in a recipe that requires a specific texture or consistency 79.

  5. Interchangeability: Many culinary experts agree that in most baking contexts, icing sugar and powdered sugar can be used interchangeably without significant impact on the final product 346. However, it is essential to consider the specific recipe and desired outcome.

Analysis

The claim that icing sugar and powdered sugar are the same is supported by a consensus among several culinary sources. However, the reliability of these sources varies.

  • Credibility of Sources: Websites like Chef's Resource and Foodiosity are generally reliable, as they are dedicated to culinary education and provide practical information for cooking and baking 12. However, some sources, such as ShiftyChevre, present conflicting information, suggesting that icing sugar is a finer product than powdered sugar, which may not be universally accepted 8.

  • Potential Bias: Some sources may have a bias towards certain culinary practices or regional preferences, which could influence their definitions. For example, a source that emphasizes traditional baking techniques might favor one term over the other based on regional usage.

  • Methodological Concerns: The lack of standardized definitions across different regions and culinary traditions raises questions about the methodology used to categorize these sugars. A more comprehensive study comparing the textures and compositions of various brands of icing and powdered sugars could provide clearer insights.

  • Conflicting Information: While most sources agree on the interchangeability of the terms, discrepancies exist regarding the presence of additives like cornstarch. This raises questions about the implications of using one term over the other in specific recipes, especially where texture is critical.

Conclusion

Verdict: Mostly True

The claim that icing sugar and powdered sugar are the same is mostly true, as many culinary sources support the idea that these terms can be used interchangeably in most baking contexts. Key evidence includes the definitions provided by credible culinary sources, which indicate that both refer to finely ground sugar often used in frostings and glazes. However, nuances exist, particularly regarding regional terminology and the potential presence of additives like cornstarch in powdered sugar, which may affect their performance in specific recipes.

It is important to note that while the consensus leans towards interchangeability, some sources suggest that icing sugar may have a finer texture, which could influence its suitability for certain applications. This variability highlights the need for caution when substituting one for the other, especially in recipes where texture is critical.

Limitations in the available evidence include the lack of standardized definitions and potential biases in the sources consulted. Further research comparing the textures and compositions of different brands could provide more definitive answers.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information and consider the specific context of their baking needs when deciding whether to use icing sugar or powdered sugar.

Sources

  1. Chef's Resource. "What is the difference between icing sugar and powdered sugar?" Link
  2. Foodiosity. "Is Icing Sugar The Same As Powdered Sugar? Yes, And Here's Why." Link
  3. Ask Difference. "Icing Sugar vs. Powdered Sugar — What's the Difference?" Link
  4. Chef's Resource. "Is icing sugar the same as powdered sugar?" Link
  5. Martha Stewart. "Is Confectioners' Sugar the Same as Powdered Sugar?" Link
  6. Differencebtw. "Icing Sugar vs. Powdered Sugar: Know the Difference." Link
  7. Sugars. "Confectioners Sugar vs Powdered Sugar." Link
  8. ShiftyChevre. "Is icing sugar the same as powdered sugar?" Link
  9. Home Dining Kitchen. "The Sweet Truth: Is Confectioners' Powdered Sugar the Same as Powdered Sugar?" Link
  10. Jow. "Caster Sugar vs. Powdered Sugar: Which Should You Use?" Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: There is no question Mark Carney is a brilliant business man and has a very impressive resume. But does he give a shit about you, and for that matter other Canadians? I didn't know anything about Mark Carney a couple of weeks ago and yesterday, I decided to do a little research project. This is what I discovered with about 1 hour of research. Lets take a bit of a dive in… Mark Carney is the UN special envoy on climate change pushing governments around the world to adopt “clean energy”. A great position, no? Interestingly, right up until he entered the Liberal leadership race, he also conveniently sat on the board of Brookfield Asset Management at the same time as he sat in this position with the UN. Brookfield owns $1 trillion in assets under management and many of their portfolios are across renewable power & infrastructure. Hmm, sounds a little conflicty? He has directly profited off of the shutting down and blocking of fossil fuel projects in Canada which he advised Canada to do (and other nations) while making sure so called “green energy” options are pushed and approved, which line his own pockets with green. One of Mark's acts as Chair of the board was to move the head office of Brookfield from Toronto to New York, because of the impending tariff war. Sounds like he has a lot of faith in his ability to put Canada first...and then he lied about the whole situation claiming that he was not chair when Brookfield moved. Maybe true, but he approved the move and voted for it at the first hint of tariffs from Trump, while he was still chair… Let’s look further at Mark’s role with Brookfield though. While he was doing all this “good work”, or rather making western governments do all this good work while he profits off of them, he was also directing Brookfield to act completely contrary environmentally when it suits the firm and their shareholders. While Brookfield manages green companies, they also acquire and invest in “dirty” fossil fuel projects and “carbon releasing” in other parts of the world. “One of Brookfield's collection of assets was 267,000 hectares in Brazil. producing soybeans, sugar, corn and cattle. between 2012 and 2021 Brookfield's subsidiaries deforested around 9,000 hectares on eight large farms in the Cerrado region of Brazil, a vast area bordering the Amazon rainforest. The report estimates that 600,000 tonnes of CO2 was emitted by deforesting these areas, the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to New York. A spokesperson for Brookfield said: "Brookfield made limited investments in Brazil's agriculture sector during the last decade. The decision to sell these businesses was taken several years ago because the fund they were held in was reaching the end of its life, and we therefore had an obligation to return capital to investors." Global Witness claims that this decision to sell clashes with public statements subsequently made by Mr. Carney as a global leader on climate policy, which call upon companies not to sell off climate-damaging assets, but to hold onto them and either clean them up or close them down”. - Ben King, BBC 15, Dec, 2022 They cut 9000 hectares of prime forest on the border of the Amazon to expand their GMO farming operations. Wow! How about the $16 billion acquisition of Inter Pipeline by Brookfield”? An oil pipeline, yes. Just two of the many "CO2 emitting" actions that Mark Carney has directed Brookfield on as Chair to the Board while he pushes green energy where it benefits his own books… A 2023 report on Brookfield by “Private Equity Climate Risks” paint a pretty bleak picture. "The combined current fossil fuel investments of Brookfield and Oaktree emit an estimated 159 million metric tons (mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. This is an order of magnitude more than the 11.8 million mt CO2e disclosed in Brookfield’s sustainability reports". So… will Carney be good for Canada? Well all of the above makes me think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and let’s keep in mind he has been a close financial advisor to Trudeau since 2020. All of the great results of Trudeau’s tenure are the direct result of Carney. Doubling of house prices Record inflation Doubling of Canadians in the line of the food bank Our now crippling national debt and $60 billion deficit One of the biggest red flags for me is that Mark refuses to disclose his own personal financial situation. A guy who just a couple of months ago sat on 20 different corporate boards, including many American companies, promises he has a lot to gain by becoming PM. He is an ultra elite globalist who is 100% a part of the decisions that have led to Canada’s downfall and left us so vulnerable and if he remains as PM for any length of time, I feel Canada may end up bankrupt. The media will tell you that Mark is the guy to take on Trump, but the truth is not hard to uncover if you just do a little digging. Centrum

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There is no question Mark Carney is a brilliant business man and has a very impressive resume. But does he give a shit about you, and for that matter other Canadians? I didn't know anything about Mark Carney a couple of weeks ago and yesterday, I decided to do a little research project. This is what I discovered with about 1 hour of research. Lets take a bit of a dive in… Mark Carney is the UN special envoy on climate change pushing governments around the world to adopt “clean energy”. A great position, no? Interestingly, right up until he entered the Liberal leadership race, he also conveniently sat on the board of Brookfield Asset Management at the same time as he sat in this position with the UN. Brookfield owns $1 trillion in assets under management and many of their portfolios are across renewable power & infrastructure. Hmm, sounds a little conflicty? He has directly profited off of the shutting down and blocking of fossil fuel projects in Canada which he advised Canada to do (and other nations) while making sure so called “green energy” options are pushed and approved, which line his own pockets with green. One of Mark's acts as Chair of the board was to move the head office of Brookfield from Toronto to New York, because of the impending tariff war. Sounds like he has a lot of faith in his ability to put Canada first...and then he lied about the whole situation claiming that he was not chair when Brookfield moved. Maybe true, but he approved the move and voted for it at the first hint of tariffs from Trump, while he was still chair… Let’s look further at Mark’s role with Brookfield though. While he was doing all this “good work”, or rather making western governments do all this good work while he profits off of them, he was also directing Brookfield to act completely contrary environmentally when it suits the firm and their shareholders. While Brookfield manages green companies, they also acquire and invest in “dirty” fossil fuel projects and “carbon releasing” in other parts of the world. “One of Brookfield's collection of assets was 267,000 hectares in Brazil. producing soybeans, sugar, corn and cattle. between 2012 and 2021 Brookfield's subsidiaries deforested around 9,000 hectares on eight large farms in the Cerrado region of Brazil, a vast area bordering the Amazon rainforest. The report estimates that 600,000 tonnes of CO2 was emitted by deforesting these areas, the equivalent of 1.2 million flights from London to New York. A spokesperson for Brookfield said: "Brookfield made limited investments in Brazil's agriculture sector during the last decade. The decision to sell these businesses was taken several years ago because the fund they were held in was reaching the end of its life, and we therefore had an obligation to return capital to investors." Global Witness claims that this decision to sell clashes with public statements subsequently made by Mr. Carney as a global leader on climate policy, which call upon companies not to sell off climate-damaging assets, but to hold onto them and either clean them up or close them down”. - Ben King, BBC 15, Dec, 2022 They cut 9000 hectares of prime forest on the border of the Amazon to expand their GMO farming operations. Wow! How about the $16 billion acquisition of Inter Pipeline by Brookfield”? An oil pipeline, yes. Just two of the many "CO2 emitting" actions that Mark Carney has directed Brookfield on as Chair to the Board while he pushes green energy where it benefits his own books… A 2023 report on Brookfield by “Private Equity Climate Risks” paint a pretty bleak picture. "The combined current fossil fuel investments of Brookfield and Oaktree emit an estimated 159 million metric tons (mt) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually. This is an order of magnitude more than the 11.8 million mt CO2e disclosed in Brookfield’s sustainability reports". So… will Carney be good for Canada? Well all of the above makes me think he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and let’s keep in mind he has been a close financial advisor to Trudeau since 2020. All of the great results of Trudeau’s tenure are the direct result of Carney. Doubling of house prices Record inflation Doubling of Canadians in the line of the food bank Our now crippling national debt and $60 billion deficit One of the biggest red flags for me is that Mark refuses to disclose his own personal financial situation. A guy who just a couple of months ago sat on 20 different corporate boards, including many American companies, promises he has a lot to gain by becoming PM. He is an ultra elite globalist who is 100% a part of the decisions that have led to Canada’s downfall and left us so vulnerable and if he remains as PM for any length of time, I feel Canada may end up bankrupt. The media will tell you that Mark is the guy to take on Trump, but the truth is not hard to uncover if you just do a little digging. Centrum

Mar 24, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Salaam zero sugar cola has no nutritional value or energy
Needs Research
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Salaam zero sugar cola has no nutritional value or energy

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Salaam zero sugar cola has no nutritional value or energy

Jun 7, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Are sweeteners worse than sugar?
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are sweeteners worse than sugar?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are sweeteners worse than sugar?

May 9, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Does sugar intake cause inflammation
Partially True

Fact Check: Does sugar intake cause inflammation

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Does sugar intake cause inflammation

Apr 13, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Sugar free alternatives cause cancer
False

Fact Check: Sugar free alternatives cause cancer

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Sugar free alternatives cause cancer

Apr 8, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Is LKO and LJN the same?
False

Fact Check: Is LKO and LJN the same?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is LKO and LJN the same?

Jun 12, 2025
Read more →