High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

[alanamoana]

This article in the New York Times on high fructose corn syrup has some interesting information that I have not read before.

In the news media and on myriad Web sites, high-fructose corn syrup has been labeled "the Devil's candy," a "sinister invention," "the crack of sweeteners" and "crud." Many scientific articles and news reports have noted that since 1980, obesity rates have climbed at a rate remarkably similar to that of high-fructose corn syrup consumption. A distant derivative of corn, the highly processed syrup was created in the late 1960's and has become a hard-to-avoid staple of the American diet over the last 25 years. It spooks foodies, parents and nutritionists alike. But is it really that bad?

[Lordof7]

That's a good article. I, for one, didn't know that the amount of fructose in high fructose corn syrup is about the same as that of cane sugar. On the last page of the article the authors do suggest that the increasing obesity may not be due to the biochemical nature of the sweetener, but the business aspect. Since high fructose corn syrup was initially less expensive than cane sugar (which may have been artificially so due to subsidies/tariffs and the like, but I'm not sure), more of it could be used in many different products. And lets face it - humans like sweet things! The article suggests this may have allowed the "supersizing" of everything, which must be a contributor to obesity. The industry representatives dismissed those ideas, but I think this theory of our expanding wastelines is more than valid.

At any rate, everytime I go outside the US, I MUST have a Coke. They taste so much better in their nice bottles, and I have noticed that they are sweetened with cane sugar. After watching a show about how people will travel from all over the country to a Dr. Pepper bottling plant in Texas(?) just to get cane sugar sweetened Dr. Pepper, I wonder if cane sugar isn't what makes foreign coke taste so much better! Its definitely worth the exorbitant amounts usually charged. (I have seen MANY times that Coke is more expensive than wine or beer.)

[alanamoana]

i agree. sugar sweetened coke is better! and i do believe that supersizing has as much to do with obesity as anything else. i doubt one ingredient can do as much damage as people say...but it goes along with the trend in the united states of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. if they can find a scapegoat...so much the better.

psychologically though, i'm still tempted to avoid food items which contain hfcs.

[emsny]

The article covered only health/diet aspects of high-fructose corn syrup, and devoted no attention to the environmental/agricultural issues raised by, say, Michael Pollan in Omnivore's Dilemma. I won't try to sum these up, because I'm bound to mis-state them.

[gus_tatory]

in an effort for me to understand food additives through grossly oversimplifying matters ( ), do you guys think it would be safe to say that, *in general*, things that are man-made (i.e., h-fcs and trans-fats) are bad, while their counterparts in nature (less-processed sugars and oils that are liquid at room temp.) are better?!

[rlibkind]

in an effort for me to understand food additives through grossly oversimplifying matters (   ), do you guys think it would be safe to say that, *in general*, things that are man-made (i.e., h-fcs and trans-fats) are bad, while their counterparts in nature (less-processed sugars and oils that are liquid at room temp.) are better?!

←

I think it is misleading and not at all useful to generalize. You have to look at the particulars of each product (natural as well as man-made) and study how they work in the body. If a synthetic and natural product are chemically identical (not similar, but identical), I find it difficult to understand how one can be superior to the other. If they are similar but not identical, well, well, viva la difference.

[hazardnc]

  The article suggests this may have allowed the "supersizing" of everything, which must be a contributor to obesity.  The industry representatives dismissed those ideas, but I think this theory of our expanding wastelines is more than valid.

←

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight management. It matters not if your diet consists of only soft drinks or ding dongs or vodka, if you take in more calories than you expend you will gain weight. We are fat because we are more sedentary and high-calorie foods are cheaper than healthier ones, not to mention easier to prepare.

I remember as a kid that getting to drink a Coke was a real treat. My parents never bought the stuff, but we would sometimes get a case of Coke as a reward for filling our car up with "Ethel." That is not to say I didn't drink my share of Kool-Aid in the summer.

As for HFCS, I only wonder if the scientists will find that consumption contributes to heart problems in the same vein as trans-fats.

[johnsmith45678]

Here's a related study:

An experiment with rats that were fed a diet one-third of which was sucrose may serve as a model for the development of the metabolic syndrome. The sucrose first elevated blood levels of triglycerides, which induced visceral fat and ultimately resulted in insulin resistance. (from Wikipedia)

Role of Fatty Acid Composition in the Development of Metabolic Disorders in Sucrose-Induced Obese Rats

[joiei]

Reading this thread made me more curious about the production of HFCS, so I found this piece by Linda Forristal - The Murkey World of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme's "backbone" won't break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.

[joiei]

On further investigation, I found this description

How is HFCS made?

The corn wet milling industry makes HFCS from corn starch using a series of unit processes that include steeping corn to soften the hard kernel; physical separation of the kernel into its separate components—starch, corn hull, protein and oil; breakdown of the starch to glucose; use of enzymes to invert glucose to fructose; removal of impurities; and blending of glucose and fructose to make HFCS-42 and HFCS-55. (2)

on this site, run by the Corn Refiners Association It makes it seem much simpler than the other descriptions of the process of turning cornstarch into HFCS.

[rlibkind]

Reading this thread made me more curious about the production of HFCS, so I found this piece by Linda Forristal - The Murkey World of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme's "backbone" won't break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.

←

Looking at this excerpt in isolation, the author's use of the word "murky" is not only loaded, it's wrong. There's nothing "murky" about HFCS is made; one only has to do a minimum amount of research to learn how it's done. Use of the word "murky" suggests "sinister". After reading the entire aritlce, the word "murky" appears in no less than four out of 18 paragraphs. I'll not reject her argument that ADM's price-fixing may be sinister, the article as a whole fails to make the case of an HFCS manufacturers cabal. If anything is "murky" it's the writer's use of that word.

Note: How many propaganda techniques can you identify in both the excerpt and my critique of it?

[Devotay]

Those who are interested in this topic should take a look at this summationof the Times article

New York Times: High-fructose corn syrup gets "a bad rap"

Above all, do not read the headline of this New York Times article about high-fructose corn syrup. Do not read the sub-headings. Do not read the opening anecdote or the closing foolishness.

These book-ends reflect the worst of "flavor-of-the-day" health and science journalism. In this brand of journalism, what you thought was unhealthy yesterday is always healthy today. And, for excitement and novelty, it will always be unhealthy again tomorrow.

The spin of the headline and opening grabber paragraphs ruins an otherwise competent article.

In the sensible body of the article, you will find that leading experts such as Barry Popkin and Walter Willett are very concerned about rapid increases in consumption of soda and other sweetened beverages in recent decades. These beverages rank with the switch from home cooking to fast-food diets and the adoption of sedentary lifestyles as leading causes of the obesity epidemic.

Much of the sugar in these beverages, and scattered throughout the rest of the food supply in places you would never expect, comes from high-fructose corn syrup.

In the sensible body of the article, you will find that this corn syrup should never be considered "natural." It comes from an industrial chemical process that cannot be reproduced in your kitchen.

But, the book-ends. Arrghh!

Read the whole article here

And also check out a similar thread to this one located HERE

[johnsmith45678]

Those who are interested in this topic should take a look at this summationof the Times article

←

I found the NYT article far more informative, compelling, and convincing than what that blogger wrote (which is essentially vacuous). Comparing HFCS - which appears to be nothing more than sugar with a slighty different ratio of fructose and glucose - to cop-killer bullets?

[alanamoana]

i never take what i read (especially from the new york times) at face value. of course you can spin just about anything said, read, in print, on the radio etc. any which way you like. that is what is so deceptive about statistics...they can be used by anyone to say completely different things.

i found myself avoiding products which contain hfcs because of some vague sense that it is "bad". i end up choosing things which are more natural in general, but sometimes also do contain sugar.

of course this article does nothing to address the environment with regard to producing hfcs...but that isn't the point of the article, so it doesn't need to address that fact. it does point out that the corn used to produce hfcs can already be genetically modified...so where you go from there is almost moot if you're concerned about that aspect of food in general.

i guess, i just like to see more than one side of the story.

[Shalmanese]

Reading this thread made me more curious about the production of HFCS, so I found this piece by Linda Forristal - The Murkey World of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme's "backbone" won't break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.

←

There may be possibly some valid concerns with preventing GM food from entering your diet but this is ridiculous. HFCS doesn't contain any actual genes. Its a conversion from a starch to a sugar, neither of which actually contain any genetic material. The components of HFCS are just simple chemicals. Both Glucose and Fructose are just 6 carbon, 12 hydrogen and 6 oxygen atoms arranged in a ring shape. Regardless of whether the corn was GM or whether the bacteria were GM, you still end up with 6 carbon, 12 hydrogen and 6 oxygen in a ring shape.

[Shalmanese]

in an effort for me to understand food additives through grossly oversimplifying matters (   ), do you guys think it would be safe to say that, *in general*, things that are man-made (i.e., h-fcs and trans-fats) are bad, while their counterparts in nature (less-processed sugars and oils that are liquid at room temp.) are better?!

←

Not really. Olives in their natural state are inedible but put through a complex chemical process, become delicious. Wine is much tastier than grape juice. Bacon and other cured meats go through similarly complex curing processes. Cheese is the controlled rotting of milk and yet tastes great. Applying heat to fat & protein causes a maillard reaction which is insanely complex. All of these food preparations are far more complex than what corn has to go through to make HFCS. Just because they're older, they're more accepted but it doesn't mean they're any "better" or "worse" than the untreated state.

[jsolomon]

Not really. Olives in their natural state are inedible but put through a complex chemical process, become delicious. Wine is much tastier than grape juice. Bacon and other cured meats go through similarly complex curing processes. Cheese is the controlled rotting of milk and yet tastes great. Applying heat to fat & protein causes a maillard reaction which is insanely complex. All of these food preparations are far more complex than what corn has to go through to make HFCS. Just because they're older, they're more accepted but it doesn't mean they're any "better" or "worse" than the untreated state.

←

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Shalmanese. You are still going from Complex->Complex with all of those except Corn-> HFCS. HFCS has something like 4 ingredients: fructose, dextrose, sucrose, and water. A cell has thousands, easily, and that's if you just count the ones the cell synthesizes itself, not any food stuffs.

By that argument, HFCS is purer, which we're finding out may not be as healthy (we need more nutrients than sugar), but plays on our concept of pure=good which is a red-herring.

[sizzleteeth]

Where does the allowance of the manipulation of food end? When does it cross the line from a relatively natural process to something entirely objectionable?

I have recently seen discussions the notion of restaurants using Silica (Silicon Dioxide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silica, you know the stuff in those little packages in your new box of shoes that say "don't eat this") - which also appears in the ingredients of Burger King's "Angus Burger Patty". This ingredients list, like many others, contains a number of questionable substances. Do some cutting and pasting into Wikipedia.

http://www.bk.com/Nutrition/PDFs/ingredients.pdf

My point in bringing this up is that just because something is "derived from something natural" does not mean that what it came from was not poison to the human body in the first place - and it doesn't mean the way in which it has been modified or is affected by heat does not turn it into poison in whatever quantity, yeah HFC is derived from corn - but corn can also become moonshine and even gasoline.

The notion that because something is derived from something natural it is "safe" or "healthy" is just as ridiculous as the notion that something created in a lab is "dangerous". The notion that "all processed food is bad" is just as ridiculous as the notion that "all natural food is good". Things must be evaluated on a case by case basis and the BIG PICTURE and THE LONG TERM must be taken into account.

Take the example of Modified Tapioca Starch, such as in products sold by National Starch (www.foodinnovation.com).

There is a great difference between a "physically modified tapioca starch" and a "chemically modified tapioca starch" - the latter of which is defined on their very site under resources-dictionary:

"A starch which has been treated with chemicals so that some hydroxyl groups have been replaced by either ester or ether groups. Crosslinking, in which two hydroxyl groups on neighboring starch molecules are linked chemically is also a form of chemical modification. Very low levels of chemical modification can significantly change the rheological, physical, and chemical properties of starch. Chemically modified starch for use in foodstuffs is restricted in range and level of modification by various legislative bodies."

Thus turning cassava into tapioca, tapioca into tapioca starch, tapioca starch into physically modified tapioca starch (which may be harmless) or into chemically modified tapioca starch which can be dangerous to the point that it's use must be regulated because when heated it is shown to block the absorption of iron and have other ill effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...6&dopt=Abstract

Sure, maybe in small quantities heated, chemically modified tapioca starch isn't fatal or highly detrimental to your health - but then neither is antifreeze in the right quantity - and I'm told it's sweet and tastes really good - perhaps we should start allowing it as a sweetener in desserts?

What is the big picture with HFC in my opinion?

HFC has provided a cheap means of sweetening things that don't need to be sweetened, thus it is in EVERYTHING, not just in food where you have an ingredients list to recognize it, but also in the foods you are buying where no list is provided. It raises the calorie content of foods that otherwise may contain no sugar at all and most people don't read labels nor are they "calorie conscious" - so they are blindly consuming far more calories than they realize, especially when the calorie content of something they have eaten for years changes because of a shift in ingredients - they never even notice.

Tastes are changed to the point that things that do not contain the sweet element (even if people are not conscious of things being sweetened) become undesirable. Ketchup with HFC becomes the default condiment because unsweetened ketchup is no longer palatable, things made with regular sugar become "not sweet enough" because of the affect of consuming hyper sweetened everything. The collective palates of a whole nation are changed to crave items with increased calorie counts in higher quantities - fatness is inevitable.

Just because something is "approved for use" doesn't necessarily mean it should be used - I hope I'm not eating Red2G anytime soon - good thing it's banned everywhere except the U.K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_2G

[jsolomon]

The collective palates of a whole nation are changed to crave items with increased calorie counts in higher quantities - fatness is inevitable.

←

We're not fat because we crave sweets.

We're fat because we sit in cars. We sit in front of computers. We sit in front of the TV. We sit when we travel. We take the elevator at work. We drive to the restaurant, and then go through the drive-through. We mow our lawns with a riding lawnmower. We buy a snowblower instead of a shovel. We drive to the store instead of walking. We use a remote control instead of getting up and pushing a button.

How many miles have you put on a pair of running shoes, or a bicycle in the past year? How many times have you gone to the gym--you know, the one you've been a member of and meaning to go to?

We're fat because we don't do shit to be not fat.

[sizzleteeth]

We're not fat because we crave sweets.

We're fat because we sit in cars.  We sit in front of computers.  We sit in front of the TV.  We sit when we travel.  We take the elevator at work.  We drive to the restaurant, and then go through the drive-through.  We mow our lawns with a riding lawnmower.  We buy a snowblower instead of a shovel.  We drive to the store instead of walking.  We use a remote control instead of getting up and pushing a button.

How many miles have you put on a pair of running shoes, or a bicycle in the past year?  How many times have you gone to the gym--you know, the one you've been a member of and meaning to go to?

We're fat because we don't do shit to be not fat.

←

I agree with elements of that statement - certainly if we expended more calories in exercise we would all be less likely to be overweight and exercise is a good thing - but that does not overshadow the fact the the over-intake of calories is the problem in the first place.

I'm no scientist but I've read that most of your recommend calorie intake is expended just keeping you alive and breathing, your heart beating and your eyes seeing.

The simple fact is if you take in less calories than you expend your body will feed on itself and you will lose weight - exercise may accelerate this process - but if you sit on your ass all day and eat less than your body expends keeping you alive - you will grow thin and weak and eventually die.

If you simply learn to know your metabolism and watch your calorie intake according you your individual metabolics - you will not get fat. I realize this is easier in theory than in practice.

It isn't even so much the quantity you eat - rather the calorie content of what you eat - 3 hostess lemon pies at 800 calories a piece and you're done for the day.

How many of us know how many calories you eat a day?

[slkinsey]

Let's try to keep this on the topic of HFCS. If the conversation takes us usefully in another direction, please just start a new thread.

I, for one, found the following interesting:

the name "high-fructose corn syrup" is something of a misnomer. It is high only in relation to regular corn syrup, not to sugar. The version of high-fructose corn syrup used in sodas and other sweetened drinks consists of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, very similar to white sugar, which is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. The form of high-fructose corn syrup used in other products like breads, jams and yogurt — 42 percent fructose and 58 percent glucose — is actually lower in fructose than white sugar.

This tells me that anyone buying jam made with sucrose instead of HFCS is actually getting more fructose by doing so.

[johnsmith45678]

My point in bringing this up is that just because something is "derived from something natural" does not mean that what it came from was not poison to the human body in the first place - and it doesn't mean the way in which it has been modified or is affected by heat does not turn it into poison in whatever quantity, yeah HFC is derived from corn - but corn can also become moonshine and even gasoline.

The notion that because something is derived from something natural it is "safe" or "healthy" is just as ridiculous as the notion that something created in a lab is "dangerous". The notion that "all processed food is bad" is just as ridiculous as the notion that "all natural food is good". Things must be evaluated on a case by case basis and the BIG PICTURE and THE LONG TERM must be taken into account.

I agree - there's a ton of nasty natural stuff out there. Just check out an edible plants book to see just how many naturally occuring things are inedible at best and deadly poisonous at worst. And many plants need to be processed in some way to remove poisonous elements.

I think the argument for "natural" food items is that they've been consumed for ages, and our bodies are probably well adapted to them and any adverse side-effects are known and been addressed. When a new food ingredient is created in a lab, it's almost like coming up with a new drug - it's untested and unknown and there will surely be unforeseen reactions and short- and long-term effects in the body.

Tastes are changed to the point that things that do not contain the sweet element (even if people are not conscious of things being sweetened) become undesirable. Ketchup with HFC becomes the default condiment because unsweetened ketchup is no longer palatable, things made with regular sugar become "not sweet enough" because of the affect of consuming hyper sweetened everything. The collective palates of a whole nation are changed to crave items with increased calorie counts in higher quantities - fatness is inevitable.

Same goes for salt.

In addition to foods having more calories due to HFCS and what-not, I think the super-sizing of everything is also to blame. A lot of Americans buy the "more and bigger" messages that advertisers and marketers try to cram down our throats.

Finally, I also think that exercise is a vitally important part of weight control - I think it improves body efficiency and functionality, and of course burns off some calories.

edit - I also want to add that sweets are empty calories. After eating them, our body will still crave other foods for whatever nutrients we're lacking, and thereby bringing additional calories.

Edited July 5, 2006 by johnsmith45678 (log)

[Pan]

In a thread discussing Michael Pollan's article about food vs. "nutritionism," Fat Guy made the following point that I believe deserves separate discussion:

[...]I don't think there's any convincing evidence that, for example, high fructose corn syrup is less healthful than white sugar. You could ban high fructose corn syrup tomorrow and it would just be replaced by white sugar from cane and beet sources, and nothing would change except the price of sweets by a few percent.

←

If he hadn't made that point, I would have. What is the convincing evidence that corn syrup, rather than sugar per se, will "kill you," as people are arguing?

[Kouign Aman]

Thanks for asking that Q. The only downside I know of to HFCS is flavor. In liquid products, it provides a different taste, slightly, than sugar. Not worse, just different.

[hjshorter]

In a thread discussing Michael Pollan's article about food vs. "nutritionism," Fat Guy made the following point that I believe deserves separate discussion:

[...]I don't think there's any convincing evidence that, for example, high fructose corn syrup is less healthful than white sugar. You could ban high fructose corn syrup tomorrow and it would just be replaced by white sugar from cane and beet sources, and nothing would change except the price of sweets by a few percent.

←

If he hadn't made that point, I would have. What is the convincing evidence that corn syrup, rather than sugar per se, will "kill you," as people are arguing?

←

As a sweetener I am not sure that it's any worse than beet or cane sugar, but it's cheaper, and that seems to have encouraged widespread use. I learned quite a lot about added sweeteners during a bout with gestational diabetes, and was shocked at the number of products that list HFCS in the ingredient list.