Crossposted with www.theGreenGrok.
High fructose corn syrup: just sugars, right? Technically yes, but ...
Lately, corn syrup has gotten a bad name. With obesity increasing in the United States, some foodies (see here and here) have opined that federal farm policy and specifically huge subsidies given to American corn growers may be a root cause.
These subsidies make prices for corn products artificially low and as a result they show up in a dizzying array of the processed foods we eat. Chief among the corn additives is high fructose corn syrup, which, for good or bad, is considerably cheaper than sugar and so has become America's sweetener of choice. Don't take my word for it -- just read the labels on the cans and food packages in your pantry.
Concerns about the corn syrup have begun to gain traction. Some companies are even dumping high fructose corn syrup in favor of old-fashioned sugar. More and more shoppers seem to be avoiding foods with the syrup, and places like New York are considering adding a tax on sweetened soda.
To counter this bad publicity (some might say bad rap), the Corn Refiners Association -- a DC-based trade group -- has launched a new campaign, the Sweet Surprise, whose messaging includes the lament that:
"High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has gotten a great deal of media attention. Unfortunately, many stories about the dangers of HFCS have reported information that lacks scientific merit leaving consumers confused about what is fact and what is not."
And to make sure that American consumers get the message, the trade association has a TV ad campaign. In case you haven't seen them, you can watch them here, here, and here.
They're really quite brilliant. In each one a soon-to-be-embarrassed busybody-type approaches a happy, sharp-witted but kind, corn-syrup-consuming person and warns "you know what they say about corn syrup." But when challenged, the busybody cannot articulate anything wrong about corn syrup. The implication being: what a mindless dork. In fact in one of the ads, the busybody, in this case an older brother, is actually called a "dork." The dork -- I mean busybody is then set straight with these facts:
To back up its claims, the trade association links to a press release [pdf] from the American Medical Association (AMA) and a short statement [pdf] from the American Dietetic Association.
Though I couldn't find either document on their respective sites, I did find a related, more equivocal statement [pdf] on the AMA site:
"At the present time, there is insufficient evidence that HFCS is more likely to contribute to adverse health outcomes than sucrose or any other caloric sweetener. ... More information is needed to clarify the impact of HFCS and other sweeteners on health."
The case, the report suggests, is not quite fully closed. The operative point being the need for more data and more experimental studies. Well, one such study is now coming to light.
The paper was published in Pharmocology, Biochemistry and Behavoir and is authored by Miriam E. Bocarsly of Princeton University and colleagues. Over a course of eight weeks, the researchers tested male rats given different feeding regimens:
They found that the "rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose."
Findings of the long-term research weren't all that different: Over roughly half a year, both male and female rats that had access to the corn syrup "gained significantly more body weight than control groups."
And the bad news didn't stop there. The researchers write that the additional body weight with high fructose corn syrup "was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels."
Now, one shouldn't get too carried away about the Bocarsly study. The authors' methods and results have been criticized (see here for example). And don't forget that we're talking about an experiment using rats, and people, at least for the most part, are not rats.
What we really need is an experiment on humans, right? Funny you should ask.
We already have a human experiment. It's long-term, and it includes almost the entire population of the United States. Not convinced? Consider these statistics.
Percentage of high fructose corn syrup in Americans' daily caloric intake: 7
Percentage of U.S. caloric sweeteners made from high-fructose corn syrup: ~40
Year [pdf] high fructose corn syrup became available in the U.S. food supply: 1967
How much U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup rose between 1970 and 1990: 1,000%
Percentage of obese Americans, 1960-1962: 13.4
Percentage of obese Americans in 2005-2006: 35.1
Approximate number of obese Americans, 2007-2008: 1 in 3
In 2006, how many U.S. government subsidies went to corn: $4,920,813,719
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theGreenGrok
David Wallinga, M.D.: Challenging the Obesity System
For the past 35 years, U.S. farm policy has incentivized the production of a few commodity crops (like corn and soybeans), and the calories that come from them.
Follow this link for Dr. Marion Nestle’s criticism of the Princeton study: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/
USDA data show that per capita consumption of sugar has always exceeded high fructose corn syrup. Annual per capita consumption of HFCS for 2008 was 37.8 pounds. The 2008 sugar consumption estimate was over 9 pounds greater at 47.2 pounds per person.
Added sugars are not solely or even significantly responsible for obesity. This serious condition arises from consuming too many calories from all dietary sources over a prolonged period of time with no compensating increase in exercise. In the past 35 years, daily calorie intake for the average American has risen 25%. While energy from cereals/flour and fats rose by 200 and 300 calories/day, respectively, during this period, energy from sugars increased by only 55 calories/day, (USDA figures). At just 1/10th of the total calorie increase, added sugars are clearly not the primary cause of obesity.
More sugar is still used in the US today (and worldwide) than HFCS, thereby underscoring the fact that high fructose corn syrup is clearly not the cause of obesity.
For more information, visit www.SweetSurprise.com.
Audrae Erickson, Corn Refiners Association
another study saying practically the same thing: that HFCS promotes considerably more weight/fat gain in rats than in those that received only common table sugar, even when the caloric intake for both groups was the same.
so, for the past 40 years there has been a striking correlation between American obesity rates and the introduction of HFCS into the mainstream American diet.
now, we have proof of cause in addition to that correlation.
do the country a favor, write to your congress-persons about slashing subsidies to corn growers (and meat/dairy while you're at it), and boycott any products with HFCS in them. it may be a little more time-consuming, but your health (and your family's health, and the nation's health) will be better for it in the long run...and maybe, juuusssst maybe, cutting HFCS from our diets will have a significant impact on obesity related health-care costs.
The other day I was buying jam, and the only one without corn syrup was an imported ones.
I'm sure that corn syrup in moderation is not a problem- but the problem is that its in EVERYTHING unless you buy the more expensive imported or "Natural" items.
I am finding that gradually, more products are once again without it.
If you're swayed by corporate advertising, you probably voted for Bush last decade. In that case, pop open that HFCS! The more of you corporates who consume it, the fewer of you there will be.
Immunological detection of fructose-derived advanced glycation end-products
fructose contributes AGEs formation because its approximately eightfold higher reactivity.........high reactivity of fructose may contribute substantially to the formation of intracellular Fru-AGE and may lead to alteration in the function of cellular proteins, dysfunction of cells and, subsequently, to vascular complications........Fru-AGE is present in appreciable levels in common beverages , condiments and exogenous, dietary Fru-AGE may contribute to accumulation of Fru-AGE in the body. Increased usage of fructose in cooking may cause adverse health effects. AGEs form during the heating of common foods and, in contrast to in vivo AGEs formation, they can develop during cooking much more rapidly and in far greater concentrations.... Dietary AGEs accelerates the progression of nephropathy and shortens survival times in an animal model of diabetes.
In human diabetes mean concentration of C-reactive protein was 135% higher when the diet was high in AGEs than when cooking methods were altered to reduce the dietary AGEs content.
..............an individual drinking Fru-AGE-rich beverages and foods every day may wish to restrict their intake......Fructose promotes the formation of Fru-AGE both intracellularly and extracellularly.
It is possible that Fru-AGE formation by these endogenous and exogenous routes contributes importantly to the tissue pathology of diabetes and aging
HFCS is not produced anywhere near where I live. I'm a strict locavore and only eat food produced within 100 miles of my town. I make sure the water it's grown with is from a non-toxic source.
Be a locavore!
But then you get into all the sticky considerations like......if you eat meat from an animal slaughtered near you, were they fed on grain trucked in from miles away? Or was there fertilizer applied to crops near you that was produced miles away and then trucked in? Or was the packaging on foodstuffs trucked in from miles away? It goes on and on.
But I do agree, we need to eat more locally.
They want to tax HFCS, but isn't giving our tax dollars to produce corn for this syrup already a tax?
Meanwhile, any government looking for a loan in the third world is not allowed to subsidize farmers at all.
Crazy.
I'm in Mexico, where I enjoy Coke with cane sugar, so if this American switch back to sugar is true, I'm thrilled.
We avoid sugar and refined starches in all its forms in our house. They are poisons that contribute (or create, depending on what you believe) to diseases of western civilization.
And the US government is our pusher.
Fructose is effectively a chronic poison regardless of the form in which it's consumed. It's metabolized a lot like alcohol (but without the acute intoxication): if you don't burn the calories immediately, it's directly stored as fat along with the biosynthesis of LDL cholesterol as a transport medium. There's no glycogenic intermediate as with glucose.
America isn't the only nation afflicted with an epidemic of metabolic syndrome (obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease), although it has been the epicenter due to relative affluence and cheap food.
Mexico has among the worse increases in metabolic syndrome statistics in recent years. As with America, Mexico has experienced a dramatic increase in the consumption of soft drinks that coincides with the epidemic. However, in Mexico, most soft drinks are sweetened with cane sugar.
Liquid candy is making us sick, whether it's sweetened with HFCS or cane sugar.
However, the shift in public opinion on HFCS is beginning to make matters worse, as the sweetener industry transitions to crystalline fructose, the result of running the HFCS reaction to completion, converting all of the glucose into fructose.
Crystalline fructose doesn't (yet) have the negative image associated with HFCS, and it has fewer calories for the same sweetness. But all calories are not created equal, and while HFCS is no worse than sucrose, crystalline fructose most certainly is!
The cost of honey is driven by, among other things (including the recent problems with colony collapse disorder), the simple fact that bees have to fly about 20,000 miles (almost all the way around the earth) in order to produce one pound of honey. It's not a very efficient process in terms of the amount of nectar the bees have to consume.
In the absence of any government intervention, sugarcane and sugar beet would be by some margin the most economical sources of sugar, followed by barley (malted) and then corn (since it requires an external source of amylase).
Type in HFCS
And read the research