Michael Pollan: High-Fructose Corn Syrup Not Necessarily Worse Than Sugar

When Michael Pollan talks about the food industry, people listen. As the author of best-selling books like In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma, he wields huge influence among those who care about mindful eating, both in terms of health and sustainability. So his repeated condemnation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as particularly harmful has helped damage the sweetener's reputation over the past few years.

Things have gotten so bad for HFCS that the corn industry is trying to change the name of the syrup to "corn sugar," provoking a lawsuit from the sugar industry.

But now Pollan is refining his stance. He was asked about the dangers of HFCS in a recent interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, and clarified his current thinking:

"I've done a lot to demonize it," he says. "And people took away the message that there was something intrinsically wrong with it. A lot of research says this isn't the case. But there is a problem with how much total sugar we consume." High-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar, so it traditionally was pumped into a lot of foods, including savory items.

"It shows the brilliance of the industry, which is always a couple of steps ahead of me," Pollan says. "They started giving products made of real sugar health claims and [are] trying to make sugar look good." And that is a problem.

In the same interview, he cites both the demonization of high-fructose corn syrup and the craze for gluten-free products as examples of the fadishness of nutritional thinking. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of high-fructose corn syrup. It's not like Pollan's encouraging people to run out and buy a case of Mountain Dew. But it does strike a blow to the argument that "real sugar" is vastly preferable to corn syrup.

Quick Poll

Does Pollan's new statement on high-fructose corn syrup make you rethink your position?

Yes! I'm going to buy a Coke right away.

I guess he's right that sugar's just as bad...

I don't really pay attention to him.

Not at all -- I'm firm in my belief that HFCS is bad.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[NewHope360]

05:06 PM on 11/02/2011

We're not changing our stance, just like Pollan didn't change his. HFCS has been linked to obesity and other health issues. Sugar has, too. So it's a little sad that it's the Sugar Association suing the Corn Refiner's Association for its attempt to rebrand as "corn sugar." (That explanation here: http://newhope360.com/marketing/high-fructose-corn-syrup-processors-hit-lawsuit-sugar-association)

As the poll above shows, people know HFCS is bad. So why aren't we as consumers doing more to stand up against sugar, in all its forms, in our food supply?

[TownCalledMalice]

01:30 AM on 11/02/2011

Bottom line, the food industry uses far too much sweeteners in everything.

[Morgantheaxe]

10:20 PM on 11/01/2011

He in no way backs off that HFCS is bad. All he says is that he doesn't like the message has morphed in to Sugar is good. He is warning that both are bad, but HFCS is still worse than sugar.

[mercurium captans]

09:56 PM on 11/02/2011

Nowhere in this article, nor in the discussion of HFCS that it links to, does he say it is worse for your health than sugar. He says, "And people took away the message that there was something intrinsically wrong with it. A lot of research says this isn't the case. But there is a problem with how much total sugar we consume." And if you look at the linked article (http://www.cleveland.com/taste/index.ssf/2011/10/michael_pollan_talks_food_natu.html) he says, "Carbs are the problem. Refined carbs and carbs are implicated in metabolic syndrome…" Nowhere does he compare table sugar and HFCS directly, but the implication is that they are more or less equivalent.

[Tags]

05:53 PM on 11/01/2011

The agribehemoths fund this "research" that shows HFCS to be the same as sucrose.

[taddles]

02:21 AM on 11/02/2011

Yes, just like the cigarette industry funded research in the 60's that showed that smoking didn't cause cancer and like the oil industry funds research that claims global warming has nothing to do the use of fossil fuels.

[hugatree]

04:42 PM on 11/01/2011

Pollan's stance has always been that there's TOO MUCH HFCS in processed foods and that we as a nation have a problem with sugar. He hasn't changed his stance. The demonization of HFCS is deserved, NOT because it's more harmful than sugar, but right up there with ALL of the sugars we consume. It's not the KIND of sugar that's killing us; it's TOO MUCH sugar.

[mercurium captans]

09:58 PM on 11/02/2011

Yes, yes and yes!

[Sumocat]

09:16 AM on 11/01/2011

My distrust for HFCS is based on the fact that it cannot be purchased as a separate product. I can buy straight sugar, stevia, aspertame, or any other sweetener from a local market, no problem. Pure HFCS is not for sale anywhere, not even over the Internet. Why not? What sets HFCS apart from all other sweeteners that it can't be obtained in pure form? At least with sugar, I can see for myself that a straight spoonful won't kill me. Can't say the same for HFCS.

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

03:42 PM on 11/01/2011

That's sort of an odd reason. I bet the corn refiners will send you a spoonful if you'd like to test that theory out.

[N0NDescript0]

12:05 PM on 11/02/2011

You're right: that is a very strange reason not to trust something. There are hundreds of compounds, solutions, and substances that the average consumer can't buy over the internet. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be trusted. Conversely, there are hundreds of thousands of items that can be purchased over the internet, but that doesn't mean they should be trusted.

[hugatree]

04:48 PM on 11/01/2011

You never heard of Karo Syrup (CORN syrup)? It was a favorite baking additive in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up. Karo Syrup is HFCS. It CAN be obtained in pure form. You just don't understand what HFCS actually is. Your specious argument against HFCS is exactly why there's a need for this article. It's not HFCS that's poisoning America; it's SUGAR OF ALL KINDS in outraageous amounts that's poisioning America.

[jillianbaba]

05:57 PM on 11/01/2011

HFCS is made from corn syrup, but it is NOT the same as corn syrup.

High fructose corn syrup is made from corn syrup through an enzymatic action that converts the dextrose sugar (in the corn syrup) into fructose sugar.

HFCS is sweeter than corn syrup, which is why you find it in so many foods both processed and fast food, and especially sodas (the corn syrup isn’t sweet enough to be used in sodas).

There are further processes that are run depending on the percentage of fructose desired in the high fructose corn syrup.

[HazelPethigFan]

06:31 PM on 10/31/2011

After reading the comments below by the obvious white sugar fans I now realize they are trying to spin this to make it sound like cane/beet sugar is much healthier than HFCS. Nonsense.

Why is it that it's always someone else's eating habits that are unhealthy not their own?

[N0NDescript0]

03:12 PM on 11/01/2011

Are you *still* getting your information from that tobacco-funded lobbyist group? There is plenty of biological and scientific information to demonstrate that HFCS and table sugar are *not* the same thing (or are you still confused about their contents?).

And why do you assume that everyone/anyone who thinks HFCS is bad, doesn't eat it? I know I do, since it's in practically every processed food-stuff...

[N0NDescript0]

03:30 PM on 10/31/2011

Pollan said:

"...people took away the message that there was something intrinsically wrong with it. A lot of research says this isn't the case."

And yet more recent research has demonstrated that the higher sacharides present is HFCS *are* inherently more dangers (wrt health problems) than sucrose. That, coupled with the fact that HFCS contains a high percentage of free fructose, which is more easily absorbed into the body, makes it inherently different from sugar.

Mr. Pollan should a) stay more on top of research, or b) accurately represent research about HFCS.

Don't get me wrong, I like Mr. Pollan and (almost) everything he is doing for food. But his mistreatment of science is one thing I don't particularly like.

[HazelPethigFan]

06:21 PM on 10/31/2011

"And yet more recent research has demonstrat­ed "

----------------------------------------------------------------

Please link the actual research study you quote rather than just spouting off.

[N0NDescript0]

09:21 PM on 10/31/2011

Next time go ahead and make an intelligent quote.

And don't make inane statements like "just spouting off" when you are 1) too lazy to look yourself, and 2) ridiculous enough to use a lobbyist's website as a "source".

(article about paper)
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
(paper from article)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Hoebel%20high%20fructose

This, coupled with the response below to your inability to understand what a "solution" is, should answer your ridiculous request.

Next time do your own homework, rather than relying on a propaganda site...

[HazelPethigFan]

06:24 PM on 10/31/2011

, "makes it inherently different from sugar."

It is not inherently different.

fructose is a chemical name...it is in both. Period. What part of this don't you understand?

[N0NDescript0]

09:13 PM on 10/31/2011

What part of the chemical definitions for "solution" and "compound" do *you* not understand?

High-fructose corn syrup is a solution of sucrose, glucose, fructose, and higher saccharides.

Sucrose is a compound of fructose and glucose.

THEY ARE INHERENTLY DIFFERENT...it's not that hard to understand...for most people.

[Karl Wilder]

12:54 PM on 10/31/2011

Another misleading headline. He is saying HFCS is BAD, very bad but sugar is not a health food.

[Sue Bryant]

05:37 PM on 10/31/2011

He's saying they're both bad mainly because we eat waaaaaaaaay too much of them.

[Elefaentchen]

11:34 AM on 10/31/2011

I think Pollan's view should be taken in full context of what he has said in his books and articles. This is of course not an endorsement of HFCS. Pollan and others also note that foods containing HFCS is a sign that it has been highly processed and likely contains other ingredients that are unhealthy, such as preservatives, coloring, stabilizers, etc. As Pollan notes, HFCS is cheaper and can also mean that a food product has been overly sweetened with unhealthy amounts of sugar, even in products that we don't typically associate with sugar such as processed bread.

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

03:47 PM on 11/01/2011

How much of the sugar is left in the bread after the yeast ferments it?

[Kelly Jade]

09:52 AM on 10/31/2011

I just ty and avoid corn and sugar in general so "corn sugar" definitly gets the boots as well. Corn is just too much starch to being with for me.

Learn to cook, if you don't know what the ingrediates are put the box back if you have to buy packaged.

Before anyone starts: I don't eat meat, I avoid most dairy and when I do eat it it's from pasture raised cows, and the eggs I buy are also for pastue raised chickens. It's not perfect but I limit things where I can.

[StephenKr]

02:46 AM on 10/31/2011

Here's a great clip from the documentary "King Corn" with the leads of the film making HFCS in their kitchen:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jisBG3egS8o

and here's another clip with a trailer and an interview with one of the stars of the film discussing our current use of HFCS..
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfIMbv_f0Q

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

03:53 PM on 11/01/2011

Here's another similar clip about chemicals and processing used for corn based foods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcan7L4azWc

[mbecktel]

11:56 PM on 10/30/2011

The bad thing about HFCS is that it concentrates the fructose and makes it readily available, already separated from the sucrose. In the digestive system, sucrose is readily available to all cells, but fructose must be processed by the liver. If you eat fruit, your body breaks the sugars down gradually so there isn't a direct bomb to the liver. But since the fructose is already concentrated and available, it shoots directly to the liver. Some kids who drink a lot of soda have livers like 40 year old alcoholics.

[N0NDescript0]

03:39 PM on 10/31/2011

mbecktel,

your basic chemistry is wrong. sucrose is not processed by human cells. glucose and fructose can be utilized by human biochemistry, not sucrose, and *both* glucose and fructose must be metabolized in order to be useful. Additionally, the fructose doesn't "shoot directly to the liver". Sure, free fructose can be more readily absorbed by the liver, and other cells, but it doesn't home to the liver as your statement suggests.

More importantly, fructose metabolism is not regulated like glucose is, which can result in high production of fatty acid components, leading to high triglyceride levels. So, the higher concentration of fructose, the form of free fructose (as opposed to glucose-fructose disaccharide), and the unregulated metabolism of fructose, and what lead to problems.

[StephenKr]

09:01 PM on 10/30/2011

So I'm listening on the radio today and was hearing about things that folks can do in order to make themselves healthier overall. One of the suggestions was to eat at home at least once a week or so. Serious? It used to be eating out, and fast food, was something one did as a treat... now it seems to be treated as the norm and eating at home is the oddity... Restaurant food, particularly at chains, is primary combined in labs with a focus on fats, sweeteners and salts... the idea is to please the taste buds in order to attract and keep customers returning... nutrition is far from the issue... if they have to make their food essentially dangerous in the process in order to excite this one organ then clearly they'll do so with hardly a second thought. To rely on these guys for our daily consumption makes about as much sense as playing tag football in the middle of the freeway....!

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

04:12 PM on 11/01/2011

That's why mom ground up spinach and used it instead of sugar in her cake icing, right?

[HazelPethigFan]

08:57 PM on 10/30/2011

All you anti-corn types should go ahead and eat all the organic cane sugar you want. You won't gain a pound...tr­ust me. Organic cane sugar is always healthy you know......­

And most importantly, do not believe those silly scientists when they say cane sugar has about the same fructose content as HFCS. They are ALL on us corn farmers payroll ya know.

hahahahaha

you iddiootts.

[HazelPethigFan]

09:03 PM on 10/30/2011

http://sweetscam.com/science-and-nutrition/

[profuse]

01:04 AM on 10/31/2011

Like riding on horses, I see.

[N0NDescript0]

03:49 PM on 10/31/2011

It's really very ironic that you cite a website that contains misinformation, which they guise as "myth" busting, when you yourself spread misinformation.

I'll explain it for you, in simple terms.

1) 55% fructose and 45% glucose is "about the same" as 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

2) 55% fructose and 45% glucose is a "high fructose" solution, compared to 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

So not only do you fail to understand generalities, but the site that you cite as "evidence" fails to understand mathematical accuracy...not to mention that HFCS-99 exists...

[N0NDescript0]

03:46 PM on 10/31/2011

Perhaps you aren't aware but accusing someone who disagrees with you of being on a "payroll", only demonstrates your inability to produce a legitimate, factual argument.