High Fructose Corn Syrup is Not the Devil

By The Center for Consumer Freedom , Promoting Personal Responsibility - May 08, 2009

Icoemail3
Comments(16) | (0)

Our ObesityMyths and MercuryFacts websites are dedicated to debunking common misinformation about how some foods affect Americans’ health. But despite the media’s penchant for pouncing on every new food-scare study, flavor-of-the-month fear mongering doesn’t have much to offer consumers who are just trying to get healthier. Activists don’t like to admit it but a calorie is a calorie, and -- as we’re making clear this week -- sugar is sugar.


It’s become fashionable in recent years for food activists (and some marketers) to blame high fructose corn syrup for our collective love-handles. But all natural sweeteners (including cane sugar, beet sugar, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, agave nectar, and others) are made up of two basic sugar molecules called glucose and fructose. Each of those sugars contains the same number of calories as all other carbohydrates: just four per gram. So a gram of fructose in table sugar is no more fattening than a gram of fructose in honey, or a gram of fructose derived from corn.


Basic science truth hasn’t stopped celebrities like Jenny McCarthy from calling high fructose corn syrup “the devil,” and it hasn’t stopped a few lawmakers from trying to ban the sweetener. But only the most skilled logical acrobats can deny the evidence as it piles up. There’s no link between high fructose corn syrup and obesity, for instance, as a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition confirmed.


Taking another tactic, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) is scaring consumers with wild claims about traces of mercury in high fructose corn syrup. IATP published a junk-science study that claimed they found mercury in 17 out of 55 common grocery items containing the sweetener. But they neglected to test for mercury in food products that didn’t contain it, meaning there’s no way to tell whether the mercury came from a source other than corn. (Not only that, but the mercury traces were measured in parts per trillion – not exactly cause for concern.)


Consumers need to be aware of the truth lurking behind the latest ingredient hysteria. Our latest offerings will point you in the right direction.

This content is inappropriate
Loading

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:


Regarding Article
OPINION: High Fructose Corn Syrup is Not the Devil

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • slacker
    it's not that it's different

    it's that HFCS is overused. It's listed as a top ingredient in a lot of processed foods. Refined sugar is not part of a natural diet , and eating foods loaded with the stuff is what leads to obesity . I haven't deluded myself into thinking that HFCS is somehow metabolized differently in the body compared to cane sugar, beet sugar or honey. It's just cheaper than all of those, and as such seems to be used more than it should.

    - slackerUS May 13, 2009 11:19AM

    Reply to this Recommend (3) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Livvy
      Fructose, glucose, and sucrose.

      I agree mostly with what you say, but fructose IS metabolized differently than glucose. Fructose doesn't require insulin to get through cell membranes, but glucose does. This means that less energy is used to store fructose, which means it becomes fat more readily.

      When the author says: "a gram of fructose in table sugar is no more fattening than a gram of fructose in honey, or a gram of fructose derived from corn." S/he is right to say that both of them have equal amounts of calories, but since it takes more energy to metabolize glucose than it does fructose, fructose really is more fattening.

      Since cane sugar is half fructose, and half glucose, it's only half as bad for you as HFCS. You're right to say that refined sugar is not part of a natural diet . Sucrose actually feeds cancer cells.

      - LivvyUS May 13, 2009 12:24PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • slacker
        re:

        I'm willing to believe that but even with my own research I have a hard time pinning any hard facts down. There was apparently some Yale study that showed a link between high fructose diets and insulin resistance. Also that fructose can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disorder... but more research needs to be done.

        The only irrefutable fact is that there's just too much of it in our food . Americans consume something like 60 pounds of it a year on average. Whether that's HFCS or organically grown evaporated cane sugar, it's still way too much. We can get all the carbohydrates we need from other sources, and our bodies have to work to break them down. Refined sugar itself is the bulk of the problem.

        - slackerUS May 13, 2009 12:57PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • Blappo
          You're wasting your time with her, she's a proven liar

          if you visit the Circumcision thread, you'll see she openly lies while trying to prove her "points".

          Stop wasting your energy with someone who thinks "You can't say anything to change my mind" is "arguing objectively".

          - BlappoUS May 14, 2009 5:52PM

          Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • ToddG
        HFCS = fructose and glucose

        You're correct about everything except for the fact that HFCS is fructose. From "UM. Study - Not Enough Evidence to Indict High Fructose Corn Syrup in Obesity"
        ( http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1470 )

        "The composition of HFCS-55 (55% fructose and 42% glucose) is very similar to that of sucrose (50% fructose and 50% glucose). HFCS-42 (42% fructose and 53% glucose) actually contains less fructose than sucrose does."

        Apparently it is HFCS-55 that is used in soda. This article suggests more study is needed to show whether our bodies in some way metabolize HFCS differently than sucrose, but current evidence does not support that it does. Personally, I mostly stay away from the stuff. But then I stay away from unhealthy foods in general. I have no problem having HFCS when I know that I'm only having a little bit, no more than I have of any other sweetener.

        - ToddGUS May 13, 2009 1:51PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • ToddG
      exactly right

      This article is in fact false when it says "There’s no link between high fructose corn syrup and obesity ". The article that they link to has the correct quote: "no special link". The operative word there is "special". Any sugar would cause the same problems if used in the same quantities. The problem is not HFCS per se, but is the excessive amount of consumption that is driven by the low price and great availability of HFCS. Truly though, HFCS is a symptom, not the source of the problem. It is both a symptom of our distorted agricultural policies as well as the food industry's singular concern for profits and continued growth of profits at the great expense of health .

      - ToddGUS May 13, 2009 12:38PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • American Patriot
    HFCS

    Someone better go back and do their homework.

    I take strong issue with your article about sugars and HFCS. The research you describe are employed in the interest of the food industries. I can give my sworn testimony that HFCS raises blood sugars far above normal levels.

    Being a full blown insulin dependent diabetic. I noticed when using a food product containing this substance as compared to the same food without HFCS, my blood sugar would rise to levels way far above meals not containing it.

    Not only does it rise but requires a massive amount of insulin and a huge increase in the time required before starting to reduce BG levels.

    I experimented for six months to determine the facts.
    Here's what I discovered. To establish a baseline, I used the AVERAGE of three A1C test results taken over a period of nine months. The average is 6.6. Then for three consecutive months consumed the same amount of foods but containing HFCS. The resultant A1C was 8.2. The next three months I consumed foods NOT containing HFCS, At the end of that period my A1C result was 7.1. My next A1C hopefully, will return to an acceptable 6.2 - 6.8 .

    Noted during the period of HFCS consumption:
    I was always Hungary.

    Irritable due to high levels of blood glucose.

    Tired, slept longer, no energy when working out at the gym.

    Loss of concentration.

    Upon arising, morning bg's excessively elevated ranging from low to high hundreds. Normally morning bg's range from mid sixties to low eighties.

    Worse of all, AN INCREASE IN BLOOD PRESSURE.


    These results prove to me beyond any doubt, HFCS is the culprit. In discussing and demonstrating to my physician using empirical statistical data and graphs he blurted out "Of course that is bad stuff and most doctors agree but no one listens"

    Take the researchers results with a grain of salt. They are derelict and irresponsible and in the employ of the food industry to state HFCS is harmless.

    Do some research yourself. Do not ask anyone in the food industry as it's in their interest to lie.
    Do not consult foreign researchers because one does not know where their loyalties lay.

    Not only prevents slimming but poisons your body.

    Of course HFCS is not the only evil but it is the worse. It's ptiful to see sso many men and women in store needing electric wheel chairs because they are not only fat but HUGE. We don't have a health care crisis in this county, we have a health crisis.

    Do better research next time.


    - American PatriotUS May 13, 2009 11:37AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • VulcanTourist
    Extra nicotine, please....

    High fructose corn syrup is to the packaged/processed food industry what nicotine is to the cigarette industry.

    It's not that HFCS is "the devil" (Jenny McCarthy, for supposedly being gifted, is an idiot), it's that it's METABOLIZED differently than sucrose. It delivers a quadruple whammy:

    1. It's far sweeter than sucrose or the other natural sugars;
    2. It's more calorie-dense, in spite of what is claimed above;
    3. It BYPASSES the digestive system's normal satiation response (you could eat a pound of it and not feel full); and last but not least...
    4. In the human body it is metabolized into an intermediate compound WHICH IS TOXIC and much be further defused by the kidneys; if too much of it is consumed at once, as is certain to happen with so many current processed foods, it will overwhelm the kidneys and over time will CAUSE KIDNEY DAMAGE.

    Think about those latter two items, as you drop that so-called "fruit juice" drink in your kid's lunch box: not only will he be inclined to keep drinking the junk because he'll never feel full, the more he drinks the more likely that kidney damage is to occur.

    - VulcanTouristUS May 13, 2009 12:03PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sesquiculus
    Fructose not like other carbs

    The argument against hig-fructose curn syrup goes like this:

    Fructose is not like other carbohydrates. Uniquely, it induces elevation of uric acid levels.

    In turn, uric acid at high levels is a conditional pro-oxidant. This has been related to the causation of metabolic syndrome (type-2 diabetes, hypertension, etc. )

    - sesquiculusUS May 13, 2009 12:13PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • VulcanTourist
    Lack of impartiality, indeed, BTW

    As an aside, I'd like to point out that the motives, goals, and tactics of the Center for Consumer Freedom are rather well established:

    http://www.consumerdeception.com /

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

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

    The name of the group alone is specifically intended to mislead, mis-frame, and mis-educate. It requires considerable gullibility to consider any statement of such an organization authoritative in any sense.

    - VulcanTouristUS May 13, 2009 12:16PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • dotkhan
    Flawed And Biased

    The JOCN (JOKe?) report cited was nothing more than a web search by what is most likely a front group possibly funded by someone with an agenda.
    The direct links only have quotations instead of the actual article.
    Give us several peer-reviewed studies from well known and respected medical authorities before falling for this.
    HFCS may come from a natural source but requires a chemical process to make.
    Billard balls are made from a plastic made from wood but we would not call them natural.

    - dotkhanUS May 13, 2009 12:46PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • sesquiculus
    Fructose and Metabolic Syndrome

    A review article on the potential role of fructose in metabolic syndrome and type-2 diabetes is at:

    http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/1/96

    Fructose is NOT just another carbohydrate.

    - sesquiculusUS May 13, 2009 12:50PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • locavore
    Slacker hit it in one shot.

    These pro-HFCS campaigns are missing the point entirely. It's not that I, or anyone else I know, believes HFCS is any different from any other form of sugar. The point, and the problem I have with it, is that it's very nearly impossible to buy good, wholesome foods like bread, applesauce, fruit snacks and juices, granolas, etc, that do not contain HFCS. It's not that I want to be able to buy HFCS-free applesauce because I think HFCS is "the devil", it's just that I don't think applesauce (or sliced bread or fruit juice) needs added sugar.

    Arguing that "there's no link between HFCS and obesity " is like saying "there's no link between Doritos and obesity". Either one is fine in moderation, and, sure, you probably can't point to Doritos as a specific underlying cause to the obesity problem, but there's no massive government-subsidized effort to add Doritos to even our most innocuous and ostensibly wholesome foods. HFCS is no different than any other sweetener, which is exactly why I would have the same problem with government subsidy of, say, beet sugar production which resulted in financial incentives for farmers to grow sugar-beets and for food manufacturers to include beet sugar in every prepackaged food whether it needs it or not.
    Of course HFCS isn't "the devil", but when eating a moderately-healthy diet means a routine 20-30 calories more per food per serving over the same breads, fruit products, etc without added HFCS then I have every reason to avoid purchasing products that contain HFCS.
    I'm not making purchasing choices between applesauce with HFCS and applesauce with honey or cane sugar, I'm making purchasing choices between 90cal/serving applesauce made of apples and cinnamon and 120cal/serving, cloyingly sweet applesauce made of apples, HFCS, and cinnamon. Or buying a loaf of sliced bread that's 100cal/slice vs 120cal/slice for bread with added HFCS. Bread does not need a teaspoon or more sweetener per slice. I have had friends from Europe visit and mention how surprised they were to find that sandwich bread is sweet here in the US.
    It's sad that we're reaching a point where we have to go out of our way to consciously purchase foods like wholegrain bread and fruit products with no added sweeteners.

    - locavoreUS May 13, 2009 12:56PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • rcmpvern
    HFCS is not an entity

    ADM, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International are THE DEVILS that want HFCS to be in everything.
    As pointed out above, HFCS is metabolized differently than sucrose and other natural sugars.
    The OP ought to read up on the complicated process needed to create this corn product.
    Corn Refiners use politicians to keep sugar prices artificially high to make their artificial product more affordable. Te same Corn Refiners have wasted valuable time pushing Corn Ethanol as a solution to our dependency on petroleum.
    Just about the most inefficient way of extracting fuel from plant matter, but highly profitable to large corporations that already have huge corn refining operations in place.
    But I digress.
    Even the very slow FDA ruled last month that HFCS cannot be called "natural" because of the way it is made.
    ADM is the Devil. Cargill is the Devil.

    - rcmpvernUS May 13, 2009 1:04PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • blacknkhak
    YES

    hfcs will wreck your health . It has wrecked mine.

    - blacknkhakUS May 13, 2009 2:06PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Albino Luciani
    JUST THE EMPIRICAL FACTS

    HFCS, crystalline fructose, & criminally labeled - FDA unapproved toxic 'agave' (illegally affirmed false in labeling & non GRAS by FDA & really chemically refined hydrolyzed high fructose inulin syryp) are highly chemically refined forms of a man-made monosaccharide called 'fructose', of the same molecular weight as the fruit sugar occuring monosaccharide 'levulose', but NOT metabolized at all the same in the human body.

    PROOF: Levulose or other naturally occuring, mono, di, or olgio saccharides, in fruit, convert to blood glucose for energy in the KREBS CYCLE. Refined chemical fructose (not natural, nor existing in this isomeration of polarity in nature) is not recognized by the human body, & automatically converted to blood triglycerides (leading to cardio vascular disease) as well as stored as adipose tissue (body fat).

    But let's say that's not good enough for you. Well then why are more and more life and health insurers literally giving premium discounts to individuals not consuming HFCS, just like non drinker, non smoker & good driver discounts.

    Argumentation by PR & spin entities like the one writing this opinion article are the equivalent of BIG TOBACCO denying, deflecting, & lying, for 45+ years, that their was no connection whatsoever between their products & disease.

    In point of fact, this opinon pr spin piece reads as though it is written be a Tobacco Lobby Propagandist.

    Read Greg Critser's 'FAT LAND: HOW AMERICA BECAME THE FATTEST NATION ON EARTH'

    Watch at www.youtube.com food critic Mark Bittman's lecture: 'WHAT'S WRONG WITH WHAT WE EAT?'

    OK, to recap, consume ONE soda, or other HFCS sweetened food, say a candy bar, (not an abundance) sweetened with HFCS, and your blood triglycerides with be up over 300% of normal. This does not occur with other forms of sweeteners (cane sugar, fruit juice, honey, maple syrup, etc.).

    Americans consumed no HFCS, or other refined forms of fructose in 1970. It did not exist.

    Today, 2009, some almost 40 years later, the average America is consuming approximately 98 pounds per year of refined man-made fructose (these are the hard numbers from the Corn Refiner's Production Numbers In Bushels Processed & Coversion Factors To Industrial Sales Per Year In Rail Tankers Sold).

    Coincidentally, the obesity rates in America went from 12% of the population being MEDICALLY diagnosed obese, or morbidly obese, in 1970, to 34.86% now being medically diagnosed 'MORBIDLY OBESE', & 33.27% being MEDICALLY DIAGNOSED 'OBESE'.

    The rates of insulin resistance, hypoglycemia, type 1 & 2 diabetes, cardio vascular disease, nutrient deplete trigger forms of cancer , all correspond with the Tsunami of HFCS used in the food/beverage chain.

    Of an average 68,000 items sold in a mainstream supermarket in America today, 43,000 contain HFCS.

    Other books of empirical data, for your consideration, of the proven health harms of refined fructose and HFCS are: SUGAR SHOCKED by Connie Bennett & Dr. Frank Sinatra, MD, & SWEET DECEPTION by Drs. Joseph Mercola & Kendra Pearsall, MD's.

    The average America consumed less than 1,500 calories per day in 1965, & ate from 4 basic food groups, & we as a country were not OBESE. Why? Because there were real nutrients in our food, & we were satiated (satisfied - full), & did not over graze or consume.

    Today, the average America consumes over 3,200 calories per day, & is not satisfied because there are 75% LESS nutrients in our highly process, refined, chemically maipulated, pasteurized, homogenized, chemically preserveted, colored, & artifically high sweetened food chain.

    We are over fed & under nourished in America.

    And this processed & sweeter western diet is now doing the same to Europe, Asia, Australia, where HFCS is even more deceptively labeled as 'glucose' or 'iso glucose'.

    After air, water, & salt, the next most frequently used raw material (bulker/filler) in the America food & beverage chain is HFCS, because of it's low cost, & it puts higher profit margins into the pockets of manufacturers using it.

    America has become slowly poisioned on HFCS laden food & beverages. Follow The Money.

    THE SOLUTION offered by K Street Lobbyists for industries controlling the USDA and FDA? DRUGS, lots of them, and also more transfer of income/revenue, into the pockets of these DEATH MERCHANTS.

    Read THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DRUG COMPANIES by Dr. Marcia Angell, MD, former editor and chief of The New England Journal Of Medicine for 21 years.

    KING CORN, the name of a documentary out on DVD (also at www.youtube.com ) exposes all these FACTS.

    REFINED CORN IS TO NUTRITION OR FOOD, WHAT PORN IS TO FINE ART.



    - Albino LucianiUS May 14, 2009 10:57AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...