 In cooking, the process of clarification entails straining out extraneous muck from liquids so that they might be pure, clear and ideal for consumption. With this series on food terminology we're attempting to do the same. No politics - just the facts about what the words mean. There's major debate swirling about the allegedly adverse effects that high fructose corn syrup may having on Americans' diets. Opponents say it's a big factor in the US population's increasing levels of obesity. Advocates claim that it's just a natural, corn-based sweetener, and that it's being unfairly maligned. But what exactly is it, and how is it made? The corn syrup is made by first steeping kernels of corn in a solution of 122°F-140°F water and a small percentage of sulfur dioxide - to prevent excessive bacterial growth - for 30-40 hours. This hydrates the kernels, more than doubling their size and breaks gluten bonds down to release starch. The steeping water, which then contains nutrients as a result of the process, is condensed for use in animal feed and fermentation processes. The kernels are coarsely ground to break the germ down, then spun in cyclone germ separators. First, the germ is pumped onto screens and has the starch washed off it, then it's sent through chemical and mechanical processes to extract corn oil, which is then refined. The germ residue is used in animal feed. The corn and starch are then sent through a second, more intensive milling process that releases the starch and gluten from the fiber in the kernel. The fiber is screened out, milled again, then piped off to - you guessed it - become animal feed. The starch and gluten that remains is piped off to a starch separator. In this next centrifuge, gluten and starch separate easily. The gluten is sent off to become, yes, animal feed. The starch is diluted, washed 8-14 times to remove any residual gluten protein, and then rediluted and washed again to produce high quality starch. Some of this starch is dried and sold as unmodified corn starch, and the rest converted into corn syrups and dextrose - also known as D-glucose. From this humble kernel comes: Hulls: used for animal feed and scientists are working on new applications for corn fiber oil, patented as "AmaizingOil" and a corn fiber gum, "Zeagen" which could be used as a thickener in culinary and industrial applications Oil: used for cooking, biodiesel fuel, paint, ink, pharmaceuticals and other products. Protein: used as animal feed or as an herbicide Starch: used for fabric sizing, surface coating, adhesives, anticaking agents, mold-release agents, dusting powder, thickening agents, "drilling mud" employed to cool down superheated oil drilling bits, dextrose and corn syrups It's that last one we're after. The starch, in a water suspension, is treated with enzymes - namely alpha-amylase, which is derived from a bacteria - to break down long chemical chains of pure glucose into shorter chains called polysaccharides. Then these shorter chains are treated with an enzyme, glucoamylase - which is derived from from a fungus called Aspergillus. This fermentation converts the mixture, or "slurry" into almost pure glucose. If other sugars like maltose are desired, different combinations of enzymes and acids are used, for varying times. This glucose mixture is then poured over columns containing an enzyme called glucose-isomerase, which converts the pure glucose into a glucose-fructose mixture. This is then distilled to a 90% fructose solution using a process called liquid chromatography. This higher fructose liquid is then blended back into the original mixture to net out at a solution of 55% fructose and 45% glucose: known in the industry as high fructose corn syrup or HFCS. Despite the complicated process and high cost of at least one key ingredient - the glucose-isomerase - HFCS is often a cheaper ingredient than sugar for manufacturers for several reasons. Because it can be produced domestically, it is not subject to the USDA tariffs and quotas that drive up the price of cane sugar. It can also easily be packed into tankers and driven across country. Additionally, corn subsidies to US farmers - $3,975,606,299 in 2009 alone - make corn a cheap and plentiful commodity. And because of its relative inexpensiveness, high fructose corn syrup is a common sweetening agent in countless packaged foods, from soft drinks and baked goods, to tomato sauce, salad dressings, jellies and ketchup. That makes for some pretty sweet business for the makers of "corn sugar"– as the Corn Refiners Association is now lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to call the stuff. Previously – Is high fructose corn syrup getting a bad rap? |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
buy american....
While it may be chemically the same fructose you get from fruits, you can argue that the way it is consumed may have an adverse affect on the body. If you were to consume same amount of fructose in a 12 oz soda you would probably need to eat a couple of apples. With an apple you are also consuming a lot of fiber which most likely affects how the sugar is absorbed by the body. Maybe our bodies are not adapted to consume sugar in such a pure form. Interesting that obesity has seemed to increase with the use of HFCS along with the fat free craze.
i agree with those above who raise concern about HFCS. I agree with the comments of 'Chas' that many processed foods are not good for us, whether or not they can be assimilated (what ever that means). The american food supply is regulated by self interested parties and also is, by and large, crap. If you go to Europe and look at the ingredients in 'junk food' – cake , cookies etc it will typically have about 1/4 to 1/2 the number of ingredients of similar food items sold in the USA. I am an MD but it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that putting a bunch of chemicals in your body is not only unnatural but also simply unhealthy.
This article didnt answer the question; is it bad or isnt it. It informed the reader of the process of how High Fructose Corn Syrup is made. Anyone clicking on this article would have some familiarity with the process and what HFCS is.
The real problem shouldn't be whether HFCS is the same 'sugar' we find in fruit etc. The issue is that corn and corn products are used in a growing number of the foods we consume because it is CHEAP. Due to government subsidizing and agricultural policies over the past few decades supply is larger than the demand. Instead of our policies keep production in line with demand they encourage overproduction and then come up with ways to use these commodity crops. And now it's cheaper to buy junk food such as soft drinks, chips, snack cakes (empty calories) than it is to buy whole foods.
this is just another article to get the health nuts worked up..so they can complain and try to mess up food and other things for others.. more bull sh**
I think it's great that people are so engaged over this subject. Our food supply and diet are very important issues.
I recently blogged on these things. Here's the link to the first of those blog posts:
http://adrianzupp.blogspot.com/2010/08/food-we-eat-part-1.html
Take care,
Adrian Zupp
can someone please tell me how you're supposed to practice moderation on this crap when it's in everything including my Nyquil and Dayquil. I mean really WTF it's cough syrup.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is only cheaper because the US pumps massive subsidies into the corn industry. I guarantee you, if the government offered the kinds of subsidies for sugar cane as corn, farmers in the south would be growing it like wildfire (much like they once did). I try to avoid HFCS when I can and have even been buying sodas that use cane sugar. I recently noticed that both Dr. Pepper, and several Pepsi products (Sierra Mist and Mountain Dew) have been selling drinks made with cane sugar. In all three cases they tasted better than the HFCS kind, in my opinion.
Stories like this are used by the manufacturers just like BP used "vacation" ads on the gulf coast to keep states effected by the oil spill happy and to lure people there, just like big pharmaceutical companies brand a disease as something major and convince throngs of people they need the drug they are selling for it. So do the people making HFCS get writers to put out articles like this one to muddy the waters and make people forget just how bad this trash is, and if they can make some ad revenue off all the page hits the story gets, all the better. Dont be fooled by the man behind the curtain, you are being played.
Moderation and exercise are key to living healthy. Make the healthy choice not to eat at any restaurant that services burgers or any other item with portions as big as your head. Don't want to consume so much HFCS? Stop buying and eating processed food. I'll bet there is something else on the 50 item ingredient list that is worse for you then HFCS. I can't help but chuckle as I read the comments. Ignorance and conspiracy theories are out of control in the US. There is an almost complete lack of personal responsibility when it comes to healthy eating and healthy lifestyles. I don't need the government to ban certain products. I just don't buy them. I send a message with my wallet and if everyone did that we would all be a lot better off.
All of the pseudo-chemists need to retake chemistry 101. http://sweetscam.com/myths-and-facts/
The reason it is less costly is because the gov. put a high tarrif on sugar imports to aid the corn industry. If it wasn't for the tarrifs, HFC would be too expensive and all manufractures would go back to sugar.
While knowing how HFCS is made is nice and all, an article on the differences between sugar and HFCS would have been much more useful. The difference is that, while sugar and HFCS both contain fructose and glucose, in sugar they are chemically bonded while in HFCS they are not bonded.
Fructose on it's own requires the GLUT5 transporter (located mainly in the liver) whlie fructose+glucose bonded need the GLUT1 and GLUT4 transporters (located in most cells in your body.) Because of this, much if the fructose in HFCS goes straight to the liver which causes high caloric sensing in the liver. The liver then tells the brain that too many calories are being consumed, and what does your body do when you eat too many calories? It stores them as fat.
Sugar on the other hand doesn't put a high calorie load on any particular part of the body like HFCS, so it doesn't necessarily trigger the same reaction in the liver.
I'm not saying sugar is considerably better than HFCS, but I am saying that it's much easier for HFCS to push your liver in to a high calorie sensing state.
Don't take my work for it though, look up the science behind it yourself.
So much ignorance, misinformation and hysteria on the subject of refined sugars! Sugar is not evil, but too much sugar –in any form - can be deadly. The problem with HFCS is that because it is added to so many foods where you don't expect to find it, a consumer of processed and fast foods can far too easily eat twice or three times (or more) the RDA for sugars...day in and day out.
What IS evil is the way food companies purposely use different forms of sugar in a single product so that sugar will not appear as one of the top ingredients (even if, cumulatively, sugar is one of the largest components of the recipe). I always make a point of noting how many grams of sugar per serving a product has. I avoid products with HFCS because I dislike the taste and mouthfeel of that stuff - but it is not the poison some make it out to be.
We get it. There are differing opinions and different studies that lead different people to different opinions. It is not clear cut. If you ingest too much of anything; it is not healthy......hence the phrase "too much". Read all you can, form an opinion, don't eat too much of anything........and have fun. Life is short and rat studies are just that. I'm certain if I did research on the computer monitor I'm sitting in front of right now I could find countless blogs online on how unsafe it is: And how I will most likely get cancer from TOO MUCH exposure. You can find danger anywhere you look. The most dangerous thing you can do is drive a car; but almost everyone does that even though you don't have to. When so called experts (scientists, doctors, nutritionists) have a high percentage of disagreement: Some of what all of them are saying is most likely true. Be true to yourself, know your body, and excercise. I personally do not feel good after eating a lot of 'junk food', candy, soda, etc.....so I listen to that and don't do it TOO MUCH.......
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GO ON YOUTUBE and WATCH THE VIDEO "SUGAR: THE BITTER TRUTH." It is THEE most informative and best video you will see on this subject. The professor literally breaks down how our bodies break this POISON down from A to Z. HFCS is everywhere and so is diabetes and obesity. DO NOT ignore what is extremely obvious. The companies do not care about people, they care about profit and making a cheap sweetner adds substantial profits to their margins. This article, like most articles and forms of advertisements, do not and WILL NOT go into how the body breaks this down for obvious reasons. BE SMART, BE INFORMED.
what a conspiracy health nut.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."
uh, hey, here's a thought - stop drinking soda and eating junk food, and you'll thereby avoid HFCS? You people act like the government is foricbly knocking it down your throats. Even if Twinkies and Pepsi have cane sugar - and I know this is shocking news - they're not good for you! Have a banana, you know?
Genius! Unfortunately, the US is full of mindless, media zombies with short attention spans who are incapable of forming their own opinions. Oh look! A story about Lindsay Lohan!!!
If the logic is as simple as "Sugar is sugar immaterial of the source" ... why can't we extract sugar from dead fat people ? They consume a lot of it. The process will be complicated but "Sugar is Sugar" ... right ?
Why go through the complicated process just to produce sugar. Sugar derived from sugar cane go through a much simpler process. It is also more in its natural state in terms of sugar. Making sugar from corn does not make sense.
The problem alone is not HFCS. It is that processed food contains absolutely no nutrients, and people are consistently consuming these types of food and consuming more energy than they use. I also feel that as a consumer products should be labeled when contain genetically modified anything. We should know what is in our food, after all it's going in our bodies!!!
Please watch the "Future of Food" documentary. Its available free on Hulu (google is your friend). The film clearly show the huge lobby power of companies like Monsanto and ADM. In fact, I would bet that a large % of HFCS supporters on this blog are company guys wearing the cloak of casual citizenry.
The fact is HFCS is made from genetically modified corn. That in of itself is sufficient to stay away from that junk.
The potential source of mercury in High Fructose Corn Syrup comes courtesy of the Chloralkali Process which has been used for many years to make chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. The last two chemicals are used to control the pH of the enzyme solutions used to release the sugars from the corn starch. The enzymes won't work properly unless the acidity is just right and so in comes either an acid (hydrochloric acid/aka muriatic acid) to reduce basicity or sodium hydroxide (aka lye) to reduce acidity. Both can contain mercury in amounts that find its way into the HFCS. There has been a long debate about the link between mercury (thimersol) in infant's vaccinations and autism but these shots are only a one time thing but the use of HFCS by both pregnant/nursing women and their infants probably has exposed infants to much more mercury than any vaccinations ever could. The Chloralkali process has been phased out in over half of US plants but is still used widely in many other countries. (Just like DDT, lead and many other toxic materials.)
I moved to the US about 25 years ago and I acquired all kinds of allergies and adverse reactions to processed food( I grew up with fresh, organic food). I think it is disgusting, what people and animals are fed in the US. No wonder there are so many overweight and unhealthy people. The list of what I cannot eat is getting longer every day.HFCS is almost in everything , why? I also felt from the beginning on, that a lot of food is overly sweetened. Is it necessary to put HFCS in salami for instance?
It's funny how so many here say that HFCS is in everything. I don't mind HFCS (or any added sugar) and don't go out of my way to avoid the stuff. Yet, even though I don't care about it, I end up getting very little of it – It's in the (tasty) ketchup I use. Will I stop using it? I love my Heinz ketchup. As for sugar (and saturated fat – Butter is #1), I get plenty of that in desserts (yum!). Will I stop eating desserts? Heck, no, I love them! The curious thing here is that I'm not overweight (but in excellent health). That's because I get plenty of exercise and eat in moderation.
Food (and life) is something you should enjoy. That means not denying yourself what you crave, but it also means being responsible with your actions. If you do that, odds are you'll be pretty damn happy. The alternative is... Well, if you want to be miserable and keep finding scapegoats for what goes wrong, I guess that's your right. I wonder what people will blame next?
Everybody eats da poo poo
LOL, do you have the pancake mix?
Let's skip the science and get to the heart of this debate: Are hfcs that are found in american grocery stores bad for you?The final answer, including a street shoutout and phoning of a friend, is surely yes and no, because it depends on who you are asking that matters most. Let me explain and put this thing to bed for all eternity.
You need to understand two important principles before finding your own answer to this question. There are no blanket answers here. We have heard from the scientists and the biologists, I have a better understanding of the science now but still no hard answer. Their contributions to this debate, though perhaps accurate and thoughtful, are less than lucid, simply because they tried to answer this question with one broad brushstroke. For those paying attention, this is my story, and without the understanding of economics and american class distinction you have no reasonable expectation of clarity.
I dare, no I double dare, any person to deny parents with limited incomes and education the opportunity to provide daily living essentials to themselves and their children. Corporations do this with broad powers and get away with it, because they sought and received government protection from personal accountability and culpability. The answer for this family is that hfcs is a good thing, because economics tells us so. Class distinction is a very powerful mechanism for those who have the right kind of it. It's a gun without a firing pin for those less fortunate.
End of Story.
Any good thing can be abused. Simply, eat less.
This article is obviously a regurgitation from some press release from a corporation. If you know just a little bit about health you will know that any kind of sugar, specially processed sugar such as HFCS is just bad for you, period.
Most processed foods are bad for you. MOST HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP IS MADE FROM GENETICALLY ENGINEERED COIN. THE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FROM EATING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS IS JUST NOT KNOWN.
We need to stop the subsides of big corn and create something more sustainable and better for the planet. I suggest watching the movie KIND CORN and the book THE OMNIVORES DILEMMA.
High fructose corn syrup spikes the insulin response in the body, it is one of the culprits of people overweight and for the epidemic of diabetes in the US. Stay away from it whenever you can.
first off i quit drinking soft-drinks and switched to fruit juices over 2 years ago, with this switch alone i quit gaining weight, i eat as much as i did before..
The body can break down HFCS but it takes a very long time. Considering that my father is a Doctor that runs a diabetic camp every year and is an excellent nutritionist I think i will go with what he says. I will also go with the direct studies of insulin on HFCS, which by the way turned out to be highly insulin resistant.
The reason that HFCS is resistant to human insulin is because the insulin produced by the body is produced under conditions that that don't mach the conditions that HFCS is created in. PLuss fructose is insulin to start with, that's why when a diabetic patients blood sugar is dropping they give glucose tablets, and not fructose.
EITHER WAY, weather you go with the studies or you go with history, eating a FATTY meal with a large fry and then HFCS is going to make you fat, reduce your intake of carbs and sugars,
drink water for once instead of a 50ounce bucket of corn pis.
The correlation between the rise of Type 2 Diabetes and High Fructose Corn Syrup is staggering. HFCS is a cheap sugar and in so many processed foods that we eat and beverages that we drink. I have completely cut out HFCS. I read each and every label of ANY processed food I purchase. I have found it in bread, cookies, canned goods, ice cream and many other items. Not for me and not for my family.
See? It's perfectly natural.
This back and forth is a bit amusing, but more tiring.
As for me, I avoid HFCS as MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I guess I just don't trust it as something good for my body and I do not have faith in the people trying to promote it.
This is killing honeybees and causing problems with those that don't die. commerical bee keepers feed this junk to bees all winter and then wonder why they leave the hive and don't return. Wake up America this is a product that only benefits big farmers and others who use because it it is CHEAP and the people who produce it. The people and honeybees are of no value when compared to the $$$ dollar.
It is known that rats gain markedly MORE weight on HFCS than sugar. Princeton Study. This is a highly refined and processed ingredient, much too much in the many processed foods on grocery shelves. I avoid it entirely and have lost 60 lbs and gained much better health. Its up to you to look out for your own health, they make strong effort to steer you in a unhealthy direction. because of the money involved. kids drinking this stuff in soda in quantity. Say no to all the processed foods and fast food choices which destroy the health of so many. Safeguard the health of yourself and loved ones. GOOD LUCK!
remove the tariff on cane sugar ,that killed the haitian main industry, and re start the cane fields in haiti and the country would no longer be the poorest country in the world in a decade. ask bill clinton about it.
The problem is that your body does not recognize HFCS as sugar because of the way the fructose and glucose are bonded together. The body digest HFCS very similiar to howit process alcohol. The other problem is that there is no negative feedback loop for your body, there is nothing to tell you brain to stop eating it. For me the proof is that when I stopped eating all foods with this stuff in it I finally was able to stop the constant cravings I had for the foods that contain them. Now I can eat normal size meals and not snack in between. Here is a link to a great video by Dr Robert H. Lustig. Watch and it will amaze you. http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/video/aletho-news/sugar-bitter-truth
I just watched the link its long but TOTALLY worth listening too... stuff is BAD
Although both sucrose and HFCS cause obesity, the difference between the two seems to be how fructose, especially when alone (versus a disaccharide), essentially bypasses the brain's hunger center so as not to provide the same sense of "fullness".
The amount of insulin and leptin, a chemical important in inducing satiation, produced after consuming HCFS is less that that produced with an equal amount of glucose. Therefore the brain doesn't "see" the fructose being absorbed so a person can consume a large amount without feeling full. This certainly makes HFCS more dangerous than glucose in inducing obesity as it causes an uncoupling of the hunger mechanism. So far the this seems definitely true for fructose vs glucose but not as much work has been done comparing HFCS vs sucrose, so I think the jury is still out to some extent.
So, the really interesting part is how they did NOT bring up a few subjects like:
That there exists direct and irrefutable scientific evidence that proves HFCS is bad.
The subsidies are my and your tax dollars, going for something that's not food for us and that we don't want. Why can't those corn farmers grow sugar again?
Why is there no such thing as organic high fructose corn syrup? (there's a nice question to ask, huh?)
The debate over GMO products is increasing right along with the worlds population. We now have GMO rice, wheat, soy, corn, and many more with patents in place but not yet in production. Our oceans are being raped by a worldwide commercial fishery, including American corporations, resulting in this new emerging worldwide seafood farming debate. Is there any documentation out there yet confirming real health hazards, besides obesity,from eating this stuff.? The environmentalists want to stop this movement, and have some valid arguments for doing so. I don't know who to believe anymore.
What I find most appalling about this entire article is that it fully skips the most breaking point about high fructose corn syrup- and that is that it today, in America it is almost all made from GENETICALLY MODIFIED CORN which has been outlawed in all other major countries except the U.S. for human consumption because it causes many side effects including but not limited to increases in Allergies and Asthma in people who never had them before (think about all the people you hear about with peanut allergies and allergies to glutens nowdays, and surely it could possibly even be linked to the high rate of obesity) Autism, Asthma and Heart ailments, along with huge increases Dermatological ailments and Allergies to tons of things like wheat glutens and peanuts among the population have all risen in the United States since 1994 when Genetically Modified foods began entering our chain (while the UK outlawed them for the very reasons I list here mind you, our government refuses to accept genetically modified foods are dangerous and do something about it!) By 1997 almost all of our food supply including even our skin lotion and vegetable wax had been contaminated. Now that its in and on almost everything we are consuming- we all suffer and the people responsible, including our own Government and the FDA, refuse to do anything to stop it.
Most people don't realize the reason that corn syrup is cheaper to use in large production than real sugar is because it is made by the use genetically modified corn. Yet Many are running to the store to grab Pepsi throwback with Real Sugar in it and cleaning it off the shelves as soon as its stocked! Our government simply needs to accept that Genetically Modified Foods has changed all of our ways of life and it is killing people on a regular basis.
When an article like this about corn syrup can skip over the entire part about where the corn came from to make it, it means we all need to be more aware of Where our food is Coming from, not just what has been made out of it once its been harvested.
Its funny how they tell you "exactly" how its made but that never answers whether it should be used in almost everything that we eat. It may appear that you're only eating a little bit of sugar but having sweetners in food that don't require sweetners is bad for the body ( why would you need a sugar in ketchup really) and really adds up after eating a full meal with other foods that possibly contain the same sweetners. And yes, the body can break it down and use it but again that doesn't mean its use is a good thing our bodies are used to eating a major particular sugar replacing that with another version can be dangerous. This obesity epidemic that "mysteriously" hit out country may be due in part to the rampant use of HFCS in everything from drinks to foods because its so cheap. Maybe instead of the focus being on the use of HFCS being dangerous maybe the focus should be on how its used too widely in everything and if there really is a correlation elimination from so many products would reduce obesity incidence
In India, the the table sugar is called 'white poison'! This fact is always stressed by the followers of naturopathy (they allow some unrefined sugar to be taken so that one will not crave for sweet things). If this is true, imagine how much big a poison is corn syrup? The less, the better!
I have eliminated HFCS from my diet, I use only honey or cane sugar for sweeteners and I have lost over 30 pounds. I feel like a new person.
Nobody seems to mention the fact that most corn (over 50%) is genetically modified, which is an additional risk and we don't really know what is in the GMO corn! Corn makes the HFCS!!! Does anyone see anything good about this at all??? Just another reason to read every label and to buy organic whenever possible.
HFCS is most definitely, a poison. The best explanation of this is provided by a medical research physician from UC San Francisco in a lecture that is called “The Bitter Truth about Sugar”.
If the link doesn’t work, google “The Bitter Truth about Sugar” and select the 89 minute U-tube hit.
Starting today i no longer put sugar/sweetener, of any kind, in my coffee. It was great and so easy to do. should have done this a long time ago. one step at a time.
Check out a study done by Princeton researchers. They fed a group of rats a diet which included a water and sugar solution and another group the same diet along with a water and HFCS solution with the same caloric content. The HFCS group gained twice the amount of body fat in the same time period. If you want to read the study do a google search and type in "Princeton HFCS". It's just one study but appears to be credible. So, what I take away from that, although table sugar and HFCS have similar chemical makeups, the body does respond differently to HFCS. I for one will stay away from that stuff as much as possible.
CNN, looks like your readers asked more questions than you did. Wonder how much the corn people paid to run this advertisement.
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
What a useless, self serving article. No facts whatsoever about its health effects. Who cares how the process works?
this all has happened before, and will happen again.
natural chemicals will always be more healthy than synthetic chemicals!
Hey if you want to eat it knock yourself out. Bottom line give people a choice. You put real sugar against HFCS and I'll choose Sugar every time even if it costs a few pennies more. Wake up America!
Well this looks like purely a lobbying article to dissipate fears regarding high fructose corn syrup by making a very benign article. The lack of facts outside of the 'chemical' process which itself is over simplified smacks of lobbying tactics oddly enough coinciding with the attempt to have "high fructose corn syrup" renamed as "corn sugar". I didn't realize that CNN was on anyone's lobbying payroll and if they aren't obviously the Eatocracy managing editor Kat Kinsman is. Poor journalism regardless by not giving the complete picture and by leaving out 'the rest of the story' then asking a polling question obviously fishing for statistic numbers to support the arguement of the industry that creates high fructose corn syrup when they lobby and can present how people perceive the threat of HFCS with incomplete information.
Hail Satan!
The problem is both reg sugar and HFCS. They are EVERYWHERE now! Fracken whole wheat bread has it in it. You just have to control your over all sugar intake, which is getting harder and harder to do because they sweeteners in everything.
no wonder the 13th colony destroyed its self. a majority thought that synthetic chemicals were the same as natural chemicals.
one cylon to another, chris, at-least you have the sense to be healthy!
p.s. its "frakken"
It's funny how people talk about "Chemicals" and "Organic" as if they are different things. Chemistry is all around us, we are made of it. Even nature works through chemistry. Think about it while you sip your glass of H2O... oh, I'm sorry, water.
If you look at the process of making HFCS, it's nuthing more than extended crushing, distilling, fermenting and washing...
"... it's nuthing more than extended crushing, distilling, fermenting and washing..."
*Anything* we consume is produced via nothing more than extended physical and chemical processes. That doesn't mean all such products are fit to consume or have no health affects. Do you drink caustic soda? After all, it can be produced by extended mixing, heating, washing...
I understand your point, but you don't understand mine. Many people crucify HFCS and other product components just because it has a "non-natural sounding" name. Of course I won't drink caustic soda. But it's also a farce to say that because coca cola dissolves the rust from a penny it does the same thing to your stomach (by the way, pure lemon juice does the same thing). Get what I mean? The thing is, there should be an impartial debate about these things, not just wanting to bury them "becarse them are dee stuff of kemicaaals".
People should be educated on what they are, how they work and what are their consequences.
Points to consider:
The product's low cost leads to it being included in an increasing percentage of food products in greatly concentrated amounts.
This decreases the diversity of components in the diets of the populace.
More and more children are becoming corn sensitive (allergic) as this sweetener is used in products aimed at young children.
Can we afford an epidemic of allergies similar to the "peanut" allergy alert in schools and public places?
See how easy it is to get off HFCS, its in things you'd never think it would be in. Keep your kids off HFCS for two weeks and then grab a soda and let your kid drink it. Start counting to 30 and you will see a change in your kids behavior, that is if you are off it too. My kids go from mild to wild when they consume it.
Schools did'nt pull soda machines for a stupid little reason, they know that there is over 62 grams of this sweetner in a 20oz. bottle. Furthermore, the corn is modified to produce its own pesticides and to have roundup applied up to the day of harvest. Now there are hush reports of water contamination and allegedly, Monsanto is buying up water rights everywhere so they can sell good water to the World.
Let me ask you defenders of HFCS this...how intelligent is it to make fuels from a food source? You can look to the Government mandated ethanol to be a major factor in increasing poverty in Mexico, where corn is a major food, yet the prices have increased 8 fold overnight.
Oh and you defenders better look up how the powers are looking at cotton-seed as being a new great food source. Cotton seed contains a natural sterilant. Oh but its ok, its natural. So is strycknine.
"Additionally, corn subsidies to US farmers – $3,975,606,299 in 2009 alone – make corn a cheap and plentiful commodity."
Huh? Since when is 4 billion dollars CHEAP??? I'd say it would be interesting to do the math how CHEAP it really is. And also figure out how plentiful it would be if it wasn't being subsidized.
BTW, anyone with fructose malabsorption notices the difference between that poison and table sugar. It is NOT the same!
hfcs is not in my food. unless they are injecting into fresh fruit and veggies or that sack of whole grain flour i just bought.
Just like many things it is moderation. What you find is that because this product can easily be incorporated into many foods it gets into everything. Look at many, many products at the grocery store and you see it. Where 10, 20 years ago it was a great deal less. So the problem is take it out of the 'food chain'. Of course this is not good for the corn industry because they want to just sell more – plant something else. The companies should explore and direct efforts to better things rather then just sit back and spend a lot of money trying to keep things the same.
If you want to be healthy avoid all sugar products. The only foodss that the human body needs to survive and be healthy are vegetables, fruits, and less than 3 oz. of meat servings a few times a week. If you eat only these items you will no longer have weight problems, and you will be much healthier and feel much better. Potatoes and rice should be avoided as much as possible because they turn straight to sugar when they are digested. Our bodies are only designed to handle the sugars from vegetables and fruits.
Some bodies are also not designed to handle fructose unless accompanied by equal amounts of sucrose.
Hence, they cannot tolerate apples, but can deal with bananas.
Even veggies like bell peppers and tomatoes can cause problems for people with fructose malabsorption syndrome.
Not every body works the same!
I prefer sugar just because it tastes better than HFCS.
Of course no one wants to talk about why HFCS is put in anything and everything lately. I'm surprised they aren't adding it to water. If we needed this substance, it would be already in this world. But we've got the corn industry in cahoots with the food industry where if you add a little more sugar to something, it tastes better. If it tastes better, people buy and eat more of it. So the food industry and the corn industry make more money. Pure and simple – its about money! Just look at the obesity rates today and if that isn't blatant enough, your eyes aren't open!
stating as said above many times, its just like sugar and the such.
are you guys insane?
i mean come on people, if its not bad for us, why in the heck do the commercials have to put in, "its ok in moderation"?
alcohol is ok in moderation, alcohol destroys our bodies.
Ive never heard them say "apples are ok in moderation" or "celery is ok in moderation".
it baffles me that our nation is so naive and shallow.
that we believe something because the "mass media" says so.
do some research, go ahead, look and see who owns the "hfcs" processing plants. then go and see who owns this web site you are currently on.
then go and see who owns and funds big pharma. do the same with big oil.
check out fox news after that. oh, then go and see who owns the federal reserve.
that tingling you feel? dont worry about that, thats just your reality crashing.
oh then go and research why all your bills, credit cards, loans and medicine bottles have your name in CAPITAL letters.
hello to "we the people", "we the corporation of self".
ever read the "TOS" or the "END USER AGREEMENTS" to all the "Anti" social networking and 140 character blurbs?
a certain movie just released? its fiction guys. a fabrication, a fabrication to lead you to believing that your face-books and twabbers were not created by "military contractors".
don't get me wrong, i love my country. im proud to be a American. i voted for obama and im gunna do it again. i just wish they would be honest with us and tell us the truth on how the world really works.
;
The bottom line, is that we need to return to basics. Eat food that we can grow ourselves, or buy from our local green market. Buy organic when possible. Eat local meat that has been raised free range, and grass fed rather than pumped full of hormones. Diet induced health problems are on the rise, the comment from Mgates is true. The government and companies like Monsanto, Pfizer, Merck, are creating foods that cause disease and then selling us the drug to treat the disease. Monsanto has engineered seeds to grow pathogen resistant foods (i.e. corn is the biggest) with non viable seeds (no seed saving). If we don't demand organic, non-gmo foods than across the globe, our food will continue to be adulterated. HFCS is a toxic product. If you consume foods that are basically chemistry experiments you will get sick. Watch Supersize Me, Watch Food Inc. Join your local CSA (community supported Agriculture) and join your local co op where you can buy organic non-gmo local foods that are in season.
Well truth exist for me, I LIKE the taste of sugar better the High Fructose. We eat enough corn based product. Our animals eat it, we eat those animals, it's in everything, maybe it doesn't need to be....sugar. Convienance/cheap price over quality, outside of 'health' issue we might be creating for ourselves, this modality of thinking has been wiping us under carpet on a global scale. It's almost become an issue of morality and self worth to your fellow being as much a matter of national survival.
Bottom line, this arguments exists because of money, or some call it.....greed. Isn't that enough to reconsider 'what' we are doing?
In this article the process of extracting corn syrup is written. If it is incomplete then it should be stated as such. If mercury is part of the process then it should have been listed. If mercury is not part of the process then the article is complete. I don't care about agendas or bias, just give us the facts!
It is these "refiners" that are the problem. For hundreds of years our bodies have adapted to eat things in natural ratios. The "refiners” have upset that ratio for profit and cause all kinds of problems for our bodies.
My wife has childhood Diabetes, type one, and there is a huge difference in how her body handles the different types of sugar. In chemistry they may all be the same but in the real world of your body there is a huge difference.
The body does not handle HFCS as well as it handles cane sugar, honey or agave. So, thanks to the scientist for all the information but in real life it doesn't work out that way.
People have their head in the sand, when will they realize that greedy corporations are slowing killing us with their addictive low nutrient foods. The process them using nasty chemicals like sulfur dioxide (brimstone), and mercury, remove most of the natural nutrients and then load them up with excessive vitamins. why do we need 100 percent of our intake of calcium with one bowl of cereal and then find that there is a tiny fraction of magnesium, which we need in balance with calcium. So we are being fed excessive amounts of *vitamins* all the while being dosed over and over with various forms of MSG (hydrolyzed soy protein, sodium caseinate, calcium caiseinate, autolyzed yeast, etc.).. These food corporations have NO soul and DO not care about your health whatsoever. They want your money and they want you to buy that junk over and over. We need a food revolution and we need a ban on food additives but I don't see it coming any time soon. MSG and its various sneakily hidden forms have been implicated in ADD, ADHD, glutamate toxicity, and various other neurological disorders yet the shameless jerks continue to insist this stuff is safe. Whether is HFCS, Aspartame, MSG and its various dopplegangers, we are being slowly poison. I hear its too late, there is no political willpower to tame the evil beasts that are poisoning this country.
My problem with HFCS was never whether it was less safe or less healthy than regular sugar. Like most moms, my problem was picking up a "fruit drink" designed to be consumed by my children, reading the label and finding that after water HFCS was the second largest ingredient! I would have had the same problem with cane sugar if those drink manufacturers had used it instead. If there had been more actual fruit juice with a small amount of HFCS to add sweetness, I never would have given it a second thought. But I won't serve my kids "sugar water", so that's what I'm complaining about when I say "that drink is all HFCS".
The uncontroversial facts are:
Don't each so much SWEET and SALTY and FATTY and PROCESSED food.
Avoid fruits and vegetables treated with pesticides and grown in large factories.
Walk more often and never eat so much that you feel full.
Don't consume so much snacks and treats.
Spend more time on food preparation in your daily life.
Combat stress in your life!
The more hardcore you are getting rid of stress, the sooner and easier you will obtain a healthy balance in your life.
No studies, no polls, no experts, no seminars, no books, no medicine are required.
Just use your natural common sense and start trusting and listening to yourself.
Everything will fall into place naturally, the further you go along the path that simply feels good and right.
Our body, mind and spirit has a natural tendency of finding its own balance, if given a real chance and time.
Is it bad for you? Yes and no. Small amounts aren't bad for you. Grape juice has a fairly similar mixture of glucose and fructose, so an equal amount of sugar from grape juice as from soda is barely different.
The problem is that almost all products that used to contain cane sugar (sucrose), now contain HFCS instead. So it's in just about everything, and therein lies the problem. Large amounts of HFCS become a problem. In HFCS, the glucose is immediately absorbed by cells and used for energy. Fructose goes almost immediately from the small intestines to the liver which cause the creation of fatty acids and triglycerides, which are bad!
Advocates of HFCS state that cane sugar (sucrose) is the same. It contains fructose and glucose. This is the truth and a lie at the same time. Sucrose contains fructose and glucose, but it is NOT the same. The fructose and glucose in sucrose are bound together making sucrose a type of sugar called a disaccharide (two sugars). Cells can't directly absorb sucrose and use it for energy. Instead, the body must first produce an enzyme called sucrase, which breaks the sucrose into fructose and glucose. This step limits the rate at which the glucose and fructose are released into the system. So instead of your liver getting flooded with fructose at a higher speed than it can handle, it happens more slowly at a more sustainable rate. It also reduces the risk of insulin resistance caused by high levels of fructose.
But the bottom line is, if you're going to drink a 32 oz big gulp every day, you're not doing yourself a favor. People consume FAR too much sugar in this country whether it's HFCS of in some other form.
i would prefer if Companies would stop changing food from its natural state, there was nothing wrong with it to begin with.
Does it not concern anyone else that companies are allowed to put potentially and sometimes in fact harmful things into our food, all because they want a few more bucks in there wallet.
Why not simply do a chemical analysis on the final product of corn syrup and publish it so we call all see what is in it. In my opinion- just reading the processing info in this article- I would assume it is going to have alot a junk in it. I have to ask myself, "Why was mercury not mentioned in the article?" It's like implying, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."
Why was mercury not mentioned?
Because CNN is a respected news organization. As I mentioned some posts up, the MERCURY SCARE of HFCS originated from "studies" found in "journals" that were NOT peer-reviewed, but profit drive – "Pay us and we'll publish what you've got."
To bring that up would actually make this into something of a propaganda piece, because it's essentially reporting bad news.
If they are just lobbying the FDA now to call it corn sugar, why am I already seeing ads on tv by the industry, calling it that?
Why is CNN posting corporate propaganda as if it is legitimate news?
Oh. That's right. CNN is a corporation.
When is the FDA gonna start selling "Brawndo" and telling us that is good for us too!
From what diabetics are saying, it looks like corn syrup is more quickly absorbed and dumped into the blood stream. For diabetics this is an obvious problem, but people need to realize this is a problem for non-diabetics too. That much sugar dumped into your system that quickly likely triggers a large insulin response, perhaps larger than necessary for the true amount of sweetener. I'm sure that this can have effects such as increasing insulin resistance and effects on appetite as large hits of sugar and then insulin can make you hungry/crave carbs that much faster.
"Additionally, corn subsidies to US farmers – $3,975,606,299 in 2009 alone – make corn a cheap and plentiful commodity."
Does this statement not strike anyone odd? HFCS is not "cheap"! It is really really expensive. This subsidy figure is 2% of our national debt. Wake up!
I am astonished at the comments sent in by flat-earthers denying the harmful effects of HCFS in the American diet. I am 67 years old. In my lifetime the diet Americans eat has remained much the same, but the substance that sweetens our foods has not, as HCFS has gradually replaced cane sugar. Obesity and diabetes have both reached epidemic levels in our time, and HCFS is the culprit.
Ok people, let's use some common sense. The FDA ( Food and Drug Administration) has a monopoly on what the American public consumes. From high fructose to the medications needed to combat heart disease and diabetes...which are usually caused from a life of unhealthy diet. With that in mind, why would you think the FDA has the American public's health as a priority. They don't..POINT BLANK. It's about being able to control how we think and operate as a society. If THEY can keep us all needing the medications caused by the adverse effects of HFC-S and aspartame THEY have control! So put the genetically modified meats and veggies away..try something organic that doesn't come in a box. Oh and that means NO McDonalds!
you all miss the real point its not whether hfcs is good or bad for you its that it is in everything we eat and drink and theres not just a small amount look at your average 20oz bottle of pop you have at the least 30g of sugar in one serving. thats a 3rd of the bottle that is just pure sugar. that is the problem.... sugar is also as bad as any narcotic out there for our brain, if you don't believe me try to stop eating sugar in any form. hfcs probably isn't bad for us its the quantity that we consume that is.
It's very difficult to find food in the supermarket that does not have high fructose corn syrup in it, but I avoid it like the plague and have for the last 30 yrs. There is a graph that shows the rise in obesity corresponding closely with the increased use of corn syrup in foods. Must be some truth in that.
We have made it a point to reduce our intake of HFCS as much as possible. One obvious way is that we don't drink sodas unless they contain real sugar (and even those only on rare occasion). But if you look at ingredients you'll find HFCS in everything - it's in bread, even many "healthy whole wheat" brands, it's in hot dogs (pretty much all processed meats), it's in canned vegetables. It can be avoided but it takes a bit of diligence.
We need make a critical thinking course mandatory in public high school curriculums so that we educate people to make well thought out decisions about what to put into their body. We should not eat somethng just because it is plentiful and cheap if it also has bad health effects.
I like the discussion here, and think a healthy debate is always productive.
Personally, I despoise HFCS, but I can't say I believe it's the main cause of obesity. It might be. But more likely it's just a factor. If this is the case, it'll take decades to demonstrate – like it did for smoking. I think it's harder to test for HFCS than for smoking, since that's about everything you eat, and not just whether you smoke or not.
Anyway, I'm proud to say that I removed HFCS from my diet (as much as I could) before it was trendy (started in 1995). I found its omnipresence disturbing, and frankly don't really like the taste of it as much as unprocessed sugar. Also, I felt that HFCS encouraged me to increase the sweetness of everything else I ate (I used to sweeten my coffee). This is because, back then, it was very hard to find a drink that didn't contain it, with the only alternatives being water, apple juice and OJ. Not even unsweetened iced tea. This is often still true today (i.e. this is the situation in the cafeteria where I work). And HFCS in other foods too: cereal, cookies, yogurt, etc...
Note this is not the case in most of Europe, where the Coke has real sugar in it, HFCS is hard to find, and naturally sweetened juices are much more common. (HFCS can be found in the UK somewhat.) Guess what – Europeans are a lot skinnier than us. Even the ones that really pig out. I lived in Germany for a while, and those people really EAT. And drink (beer). I'm sure they aren't alone in Europe, but that's just where I lived. There is some obesity there, perhaps more than most of the rest of Europe, but nothing like the US. And when you look at people in the US with common ancestry in Europe, you find the same thing. i.e. people in Ireland, Sweden, Italy, ... aren't huge, but those in the US with the same origin can be. Also, eating food is more of a social event, and its slower pace probably helps too.
My suggestion – if you can afford it – stop consuming HFCS. It's a lot of work, but it helps focus your attention on what you eat in a really good way. When I want a sweetened drink, I go out of my way to find one with raw sugar or honey, but this is still not too often, and often just lightly sweetened is fine. I feel much healthier now. I also avoid other heavily processed foods in general, and when I eat meat, I try my best to make sure it's naturally raised and not corn fed (with the by products of HFCS, and another potential problem). I suggest reading Michael Pollan as a way of understanding this issue better (try googling "michael pollan modern meat" for a good excerpt on how feeding cows corn makes them sick – a related topic I didn't see in this article). Cows should eat grass. Chicken should eat worms. Mostly they are fed corn in the US. (Similar to what I said earlier, I'm happy to be able to afford expensively raised animals – and it's mostly expensive because corn is so cheap – it's subsidized. Again, it's typically 75% to 150% more expensive. But then again, I eat less. I'm happy to cook for my friends that can't afford it. Part of me is amused when they comment how tasty the meat is, and part of me feels sad. It doesn't have to be this way. (In Germany, for instance, you can't buy cheaply made meat so easily, and in some cases, not at all. Meat is more expensive, and it's also a lot better.)
My suggestion: stop corn subsidies. It might appear to help farmers, but it really helps these corn corporations the most. If you want to keep food costs constant, just use this same money on food stamps, or better, lowering taxes for low income families. Let Americans buy the food they want, and not be forced into something just because it's cheapest (subsidized). If people still want to eat crap at that time, then it's their own fault.
Note that I'm not saying subsidies are bad. But the corn one is. Some things are hard to do, and wouldn't be around in some regions if not for government support. Beekeeping, for instance. Well, that's to be debated – free markets have a way of making sure everything that's needed locally happens.
You lived in Europe but you missed the most significant difference in food (and health) – Portion sizes.
Europeans are generally thinner, not because of "natural" sugars, but because portion sizes are much smaller over there. A small soda over here is about the size of a large in Europe. Plates, sandwiches, drinks, etc. are all more moderately sized in European nations.
Like the few reasonable people here have been saying, it's not about the HFCS, but about moderation/exercise (personal responsibility). HFCS and other processed foods aren't making you fat. In the end, it still comes down to consuming more calories than you need.
As for the MERCURY SCARE TACTIC used by some here, I wonder if they even know how ridiculous they're acting.
First off, the "studies" were "published," not by some reputable journal, like the JAMA, but a complete fake, "Environmental Health." It took me a while to find out what they were about (I wonder why?). Neither that article (or the other) are peer-reviewed (as in, being respectable), but publish articles for a fee. In other words, it's junk science at best.
Moving on, even if you go by those "studies" the amount of mercury detected in HFCS (and other products) is insignificant. The average amount of mercury found by the "studies" was about 0.1 ppm (highs and lows being 0.005 and 0.57). As they say, all numbers are relative. Here are the levels of mercury from some fish (FDA numbers, I took some of the more common fish):
Anchovy: 0.04
Lobster: 0.09
Oyster: 0.01
Tuna: Canned: 0.35, Fresh: From 0.2 to 0.6
Salmon: (Fresh/Frozen) 0.01
Swordfish: 0.9
So... Yeah. Basically, in order to eat enough mercury to reach the FDA's threshold... Actually, it'd be pretty much impossible for most of us to eat that much food. You'd have to be in Joey Chestnut's league to eat that much.
Finally, about mercury consumption. Is mercury bad? Yeah. If you're involved in some accident and you breath in high amounts of mercury vapor, you're a goner. But, food? Not happening. In fact, back when modern medicine wasn't so modern, mercury was something of a snake oil and was given to people to put on the skin and even drink for certain tests. Not something you want to do, but people didn't exactly drop like flies. Why? Because it's mercury. Just looking at it tells us. Basically, our bodies are lousy at absorbing the heavy element. If you eat the stuff, we're talking about a tenth of 1% that you're going to absorb.
Everyone interested in learning more about sugar and HFCS should look on youtube for a video called Sugar: The Bitter Truth. Very long university lecture (an hour and a half!) that also gets into some "boring" biochemistry, but if you can make it all the way through is absolutely fascinating! I've watched it a couple times simply because of the "fascination factor."
Pure cane sugar is also processed. It's not as though they take the cane sugar and put it into a food processor and out comes crystalized sugar.
not up fo reading all the comments but has any1 mentioned 50% of HFCS has MERCURY in it due to the processing?
not great for pregnant women or kids....not great for any1.
funny how they warn pregnant women off of fish with lots of great nutrients but but don't bother to warn them about eating whatever with HFCS?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
also any1 interested in this subject should watch the movie KING CORN.
To Dustin, some people drink diet because they are diabetic and therefore cannot have the iintensity of the sugar (by whatever name) which a regular soda pop contains.
I love this article, its like saying heroin is a naturally occurring product of poppies.
There is so much fail in many of these comments; it's dizzying to even imagine how to respond. I'm beginning to think that nutrition information isn't the real problem here. Many of the commentators lack basic knowledge of science and human physiology. Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if the majority here graduated from high school?
Read "The Sugar Blues" by William Dufty. It's a little paperback book published a long time ago and has been in reprint since. If you are considering the impact of sugar, in all it's incarnations, on your health, it is a must read. Based on a composite of information we have gathered, combined with ongoing health and medical concerns, our household is seriously considering reducing/eliminating processed sugars from our beverage and food intake. P.S. Renaming something to make it less hot topic noticeable won't fool most folks. Bad is still bad.
What was being clarified, exactly? Did the author really think that people were looking for an explanation of the manufacturing process? Really? Not a single HFCS-related health issue was addressed here. The corn syrup lobby couldn't have done a better job themselves. Which, I believe, is the point.
My take is this, if it can't be proven that its 100% safe, then it shouldn't be introduced into the food system.
But HFCS in almost every food ...EVERY FOOD! Look at the ingredient labels. Do you put regular sugar on EVERYTHING?!
The real issue is that HFCS is kind of "hidden" in everyday processed foods. So as parents, if we don't give our kids soda or a cookie we think they haven't had much sugar. Problem is HFCS (or corn sugar) is in nearly everything, so our kids have had way more empty calories than we thought. We MUST read labels and try to eat more fresh food to lower the obesity epidemic. Here is a blog post about breaking your family's sugar habit. http://babyminding.com/2010/04/27/breaking-the-sugar-habit/
Fructose bypasses the liver and leads to faster and greater triglyceride synthesis. Glucose is handled in a more controlled manner in the liver.
I say all things in moderation and that we could really get by with much less fructose in our food than is there. Just a start by cutting it in half as I have done, got me used to not having things as sweet. And now have cut it down even more. But to do this, the companies making it, would lose money and so it is deeply discouraged. The rest of the world is used to things much less sweet. do yourself a favor and try it!
Corn syrup is a poor and half-arsed alternative to evaporated cane juice.
- A
I think that the bigger issue is reading labels and understanding what is in what you eat. High fructose corn syrup as an ingredient is a sign that the product is heavily processed and of little nutritional value.
Studies show that sugar is more satiating. Fructose does not trigger the same feeling of fullness. Even find that you can drink hfcs soda all day and not feel full?
I also prefer the taste of sugar.
I try to avoid high fructose corn syrup as much as I can. It is not easy though... hfcs is in EVERYTHING! It drove me to create a community site with some friends to list products without hfcs. Check it out if you are interested.
The Sugar Diet. http://thesugardiet.com
Smoking is good for you.. Doctor recommended! Remember that one? Ok. If you don't, then you probably aren't quite as old as some.. but yes. Tobacco was once touted as being healthy and harmless too. When profits are involved, don't trust studies by any corporate industry. Corn is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED by the US government. That is why corn syrup is so darn cheap and used extensively in the USA. The product is artificially cheap. Stop the subsidies and corn syrup will no longer be viable. Vote with your wallet. If you don't like it. Stop buying products with HFCS in it. The companies will get the idea... what it takes is informed consumers. Unfortunately... well informed consumers aren't always easy to find with all the lobbying and cash being thrown around to keep the facts muddled up with propaganda.
As a layman, I have a simple method that demonstrates that not all sugars behave the same. This method actually harkens back to the cane sugar vs beet sugar debates. To simplify the results of that debate, confectioners demonstrated that beet sugars do not crystalize or 'glaze' like cane sugar does. HFCS has the same issue. I have many older recipes based on Coca-cola that do not work with the current incarnation of the soda. These recipes do work if I can use 'Mexican' or 'Passover' Coke. This simple cooking issue tells me that these sugars do not behave the same when undergoing various chemical reactions. So stop telling me there is no difference between cane sugar and HFCS when I can't use HFCS based products for my cooking.
In brewing, the stuff known as "corn sugar" has always been glucose (dextrose). This article clarifies why this is so, since it states that the sugar gotten directy from corn is nearly 100% glucose. Then we read that this natural component is highly modified to make it sweeter (fructowe is almost the sweetest sugar there is, while glucose is not very sweet at all). In my opinion, the resulting mixture is presently aptly named "hiogh fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the term "corn sugar" should continue to be applied to glucose.
There was an article a few months ago stating HFCS feeds cancer cells. As a cancer patient, I cut it out of my diet completely and lowered my total sugar intake. Why do we need to genetically modify something to make it into sugar? Because it's cheaper? What is the real expense?
Please look into a Raw diet.
Or at least organic. Don't eat any gluten, processed foods, or anything except wholesome, organic foods.
Buy some pH test strips. Test your urine and saliva. I can guarantee you both will come up acidic.
Alkalinize your body, and the cancer will go away.
http://www.rawcancure.com/janette%27sstory.html?ref=nf
This is the story of a personal friend who developed aggressive breast cancer and was given 6 months to live. She cured herself of cancer with a raw alkalinizing diet
They make things like HFCS so that we can become addicted to it, develop diseases and die in hospitals and make money off of us. Eat healthy naturally!
There have also been some tests that suggest HFCS increases the risk of gout, but of course its never mentioned in these bland, business friendly, CNN articles
I am a Ph.D.biochemist, but not a food chemist, and have just read this article. It contains several errors of fact. For example, the statement is made that a mixture of sugars is "....distilled to a 90% fructose solution using a process called liquid chromatography". WRONG. Liquid chromatography is NOT a distillation prrocess (sugars are not volatile and wouldn't distill anyway.). There are other mis-statements too. Whoever wrote this piece obviously does not understand the science involved. That being so, I would have my doubts about the accuracy of the whole article. Caveat Lector.
...
I wondered that about liquid chromatography, as I thought it just involved separating things on a medium like paper so you can see what's in it... Thanks for the info! But what's the actual process called in making HFCS? Fractional distillation? (A wild guess – my knowledge of chemistry is decent, but still limited.)
Liquid chromatography and distillation are two very different methods of purification. For HFCS, liquid chromatography is used. The mix is passed through a medium (possibly silica powder or something similar). Certain types of molecules will pass through the medium faster than others. So as the liquid passes through, it separates. So, for example, the first 40% might be fructose while the last 60% is something else, and you would simply keep that first 40% (I'm just using these numbers as examples. I don't know the specifics for HFCS production). But that's basically how liquid chromatography is used. It's a common process used to separate and purify chemicals.
Well said! The distillation part is completely wrong so you should probably not read the rest of the article either.
Aside from human health its not healthy for the Caribbean economies. I am a Barbadian (from Barbados) and we have grown sugar on the island for over 300 years. But with the huge subsidies to US corn and the tariff to sugar imports our industry is on the verge of collapse. Another bad side effect of corn sugar! Many other Caribbean islands face this (or have already closed their sugar industries). Corn subsidies and corn sweeteners have bad effects for people and economies. Stop subsidizing corn and let natural cane sugar take its place. Oh and use the savings in subsidies to pay off some of the national debt. How about that?
crap. it's bad – that's it. period. not sympatico w/our physiology.
Sure HFCS is bad, but this business about what it does to our bodies is about overconsumption. Go anywhere else in the world and you will not be able to find a super mega duper big slurp anywhere. People from around the world come to this country and see a 44 ounce soda (or even a 20oz) and they laugh.
This issue involves so much $$$$$ that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a conclusion that HFCS is bad for you. The tremendous flow of $$$ will interfere with any data. However, it stands to reason that because fructose is bonded in table sugar differently than by just mixing fructose and glucose together as is done to get HFCS, then the body would process it differently. Where is the commercial from the corn refiners that shows that HFCS was developed and used because it is good for you? It was developed because it is cheap and it increases profit. This is no different than the product that the food industry nicknames "pink slime" that is added to a significant portion of processed hamburger patties. It is cheap and increases profit but you would never consider adding it yourself. Good and/or safe become fuzzy terms when mind boggling $$$ are involved. I expect that the FDA will allow the corn refiners to disguise the name of HFCS as corn sugar because $$$$ is extremely powerful in our government agencies.
Although having a vested interest in subject as corn is one of my cash crops, I'll still admit HFCS is one of worst sugars for human body as lab tests seem to indicate that the body has no idea how to process this type of sugar
I work in the food ingredient industry.
Ignoring whether HFCS is good for you, or not there are some things in the article that were lost a bit. At least in my reading of the article.
#1 – US consumers lose on two fronts.
- High tariffs on cane sugar got started because the sugar beet industry wanted to be able to sell their sugar to the candy industry. Unfortunately for Americans, the sugar is taxed if it goes into candy, BUT if the candy is made offshore and shipped into the US the amount of sugar in the candy is not taxed. End result? Nearly all candy in this country is produced outside of the US. Mexico and Canada can thank the sugar beet industry for all of those jobs.
- US citizens are subsidizing the corn industry! Anyone care to tell me how much money the two largest producers of HFCS have made over the last four or five DECADES? (BTW. Their newest way to fleece Americans is turning corn into ethanol, which is also subsidized.) Anyone care to talk about corporate entitlement programs?
Dis article good. but not get down science good. Next article need to look at molecular structures of various sugars and how body breaks them into glucose. Article need to show sucrose harder to turn to glucose, that why diabetic sugar spike faster with fructose than sucrose. Article need to say little sugar okay, say how much sugar average people eat a day and how much a day is considered unhealthy. Then people think like Grok.
Grrrr....all this brainiac talk make me head hurt. I keep it simple. Natural = good. Man-made/Processed = bad. HFCS = man-made/Processed
Normal diet made with unprocessed foods = low sugar intake. processed foods = greater sugar intake. Sweetened foods, regardless kind of sugar = not natural diet, high sugar uptake, body overloaded with sugars, liver work overtime. overtime liver work = bad.
Grok say moderation best approach to everything. Drink too much water = death. See what I mean?
Sugar = bad, hufckas (HFCS) = bad.
Eat real food. Veggies, fruit, meat, water, boiled whole grains, spices!!!
Also, use tequila. Sure it's processed, but if you're going to eat healthy at least you can drink fun. ;-)
The problem isn't necessarily with consuming HFCS, it's with consuming TOO MUCH. Sadly, it costs about 1/2 as much money to buy soda, as it does to buy milk, even though I'm pretty sure we all know which one is healthier for us.
I think people need to remove the knots from their knickers and look at the simplest thing... choice.
If you choose to eat HFCS, it doesn't mean you're lazy, it doesn't mean you're stupid. It means you have the choice. You will choose based on the information you have available. You think there isn't enough proof to decide it's bad or it's not a priority for you, or whatever. It's your choice. It's your body.
If you choose NOT to eat HFCS, it doesn't mean your smarter or better than everyone else. It means that you have made that choice. You choose to avoid HFCS based on the information you have available. You think there is proof enough to decide it's unhealthy. You decide to think it's bad for you. It's your choice, and it's your body.
The biggest thing for me is MODERATION. With the food industry using corn and corn products, such as HFCS, as much as they do, it's more difficult to achieve moderation. I try to avoid HFCS, whether or not the scientific data I have read is accurate or not, because the foods in which you find HFCS, such as soft drinks, cereals, soups, etc, tend to be unhealthy. It could very well be the amount of fat, the types of fat, sodium, preservatives or other ingredients that cause problems. It is important to remember that correlation does not equal causation. I ingest very little HFCS, because I choose to. I feel better safe than sorry when it comes to HFCS. It's relatively easy for me to avoid, because my mother is allergic to corn, and I find it easy to live without corn and corn products, because I grew up without them.
It's not easy for everyone. There are families that are busy, parents that work and go to school, kids in sports, and some of these families find convenience in buying McDonald's or instant foods that have HFCS. Some people just don't care, and we can't make them care. It's not my place to judge them. They live differently than I choose to, but that is their decision. Calling people lazy or stupid because they make a choice that is different than your own is ignorant. A lot of people can't afford to buy from fresh market, whole foods, or places of the like. Trader Joe's is awesome and lower cost, but they don't have locations everywhere.
I don't care for HFCS. I think we should live without it, but it's easy to say what everyone should or shouldn't do. Everyone should exercise. Everyone should eat healthy foods. Everyone should get off their high horses. It's easy to say that, but not everyone is going to. Bottom line. I can't control anyone's actions other than my own. I'm doing that by making my choice.
This kind of comment for "moderation" is the standard line of the Corn Refiners lobby. It sounds so "reasonable" to eat all things in "moderation." But hat's hard to do when HFCS is found in almost everything, including products like bread which never used to have any sugar added. Thus it's next to impossible to avoid this stuff–a good idea, of course, but not do-able for most people.
Keep in mind that in 1976 HFCS was given the green light by the FDA–it was simply termed Generally Regarded As Safem, or GRAS. This highly processed sweetener has now become commonplace, yet was NEVER TESTED before being placed in our food supply. That fact alone should spark outrage.
Had the FDA been a responsible arm of our government, they would have required extensive testing–like recent studies done at Princeton showing that rats fed HFCS in water solution got fat, whereas rats fed sucrose (table sugar )in water solution did not.
Researchers at Princeton proved recently, in the last year, that HFCS isn't processed in the body the same as other sugars.
They gave multiple sets of mice multiple sets of waters infused with sugar, all with the same caloric value. Much to their dismay, the mice that were fed water infused with HFCS gained weight much more quickly than the mice drinking water infused with other sugars. This same sort of thing applies in humans, explaining why weight gain has been on the rise for what are ostensibly the same foods since we started using HFCS more and more in foods over the years.
Bottom line: WHOLE FOODS does not allow ANY HFCS. It is poison but if lazy people wish to eat it, then let them. No effect here. Believe what you want and eat at McDonald's. Enjoy.
The article was lame, really didn't say much or mention the CHEMICALS used in the process. CNN get your information together and not print just a fluff piece.
This article was a waste of my time – I could have just wiki this information. HFCS is horiible for you, since it is already in the puriest form your body does not know how to metabolize it so it is just stored as fat – they NEVER leaves you body. No matter how hard you work out or how skinny you get – it will always be with you, hidding in your fat.
I might be wrong about this – please correct me if I am? But don't make me read a pointless article on the manufacturing process. It is a waste of time.
Tell me about the controversy, the debate – CNN – you should be ashamed, I know the economy is rough and good employees are hard to find. But really???
I completely disagree with you. I assure you that the vast majority of readers have no idea of how fructose is obtained from corn kernels. This article explains the complicated process corn goes through to become HFCS. The article is not about the safety or dangers of HFCS, or how the body metabolize HFCS, it is not meant to be about these issues. It is arrogant know it alls like you who usually do not know what they are talking about.
This is kind of off the subject, but I recently purchased a bottle of log cabin syrup. On the front of the label it stated not to have any "high fructose corn syrup" but when I read the ingredients, the first listed ingredient was corn syrup. Someone explain to me how were they able to get away with such false advertisement directly stated on the front of the bottle?
It was corn syrup not high fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup has less processing. Probably not as bad for you as hfcs.
"Corn syrup" is not HFCS. "Corn syrup" is the 'true' syrup made from corn starch. It is almost 100% glucose (dextrose – they're two names for the same chemical compound). "Corn syrup" is an intermediate in the production of HFCS – before the isomerase is used to convert the glucose to fructose. "Karo" is a brans of corn syrup that has been around for decades.
I looked at the ingredients in the store and did not purchase the syrup, but was outraged at this blatantly misleading label. They can get away with it because the gov't subsidizes the corn; they benefit. In the 80s when Nutrasweet was introduced, my friend (whose father worked as a chemist at some big company), told me he forbade her to ever eat the stuff. I remember news stories about how Nutrasweet was going to be pulled due to health concerns, but it never was. Was making too much $ to do that!
Blaming HFCS sounds to me like finger pointers looking to blame something for our obesity problem when the problem is us. We are generally programmed to want to eat whenever food is available because until maybe 60 years ago, food was generally hard to get and expensive. Now it's not. You can't get away from food; it's everywhere. However, we are still evolutionarily the same because 60-100 years is a very short period of time.
We are fat because we evolved to want to seek food constantly because for millions of years it was very hard to get. Now it's not, but we don't have the willpower to not eat and then want to blame fast food, HFCS, trans-fats, whatever for our obesity. Gaining weight is a VERY simple equation: Calories in vs. Calories burned. That's it.
Eat less, exercise more. Hard to do, yes, but I really don't see a silver bullet short of stomach stapling everyone to fix the obesity problem because it just a function of economics and human nature.
Why is it that we are the most overweight country in the world then? There is a reason that HFCF has been banned in other countries!
Perfectly stated.
Eat paleo (like a caveman).
Do CrossFit.
Be awesome.
another first rate non article. no it isn't bad for you, it's just in all of our foods, the bulk of our population is over weight and a large chunk have cancer, but keep believing the industry that produces the stuff will tell you the truth about it. troglodytes.
When you get to the end..it all finally makes sense. "HFCS is often a cheaper ingredient than sugar". Personally I feel they should raise the prices the probable 2 cents and use REAL SUGAR...and start using the corn to lower our dependency on oil.
This article gives us a great example of food processing and why we need to rethink our entire industrial food production. It is a fact that HFCS and many other manufactured foodstuffs are synthetic chemicals that never occur in the natural world. I fundamentally question whether such ingredients are really food and are suitable for ingestion. Whether it is from the trace additives that are present, or simply from the highly refined nature of the substance, it does not appear to be a reasonable assumption that our bodies have adapted to ingest such chemical compositions. The overwhelming evidence (and reasonable common sense presumption) suggests that humans are designed to ingest plant material in a relatively unprocessed (with respect to chemistry) form. That we deviate from this is solely for profit and short-term interests of big food business.
The explaination of how it's made is interesting. They start with corn, and through a series of chemical and mechanical processes, remove all the nutrients and fiber from it, until you are left with nothing but the calories. Everything good for you goes to animal feed, and what's left is HFCS, to be added to your foods.
It's a sweetener, so that's pretty much its purpose – Add it to make it taste sweeter. I actually thought the whole process was good, because it's highly efficient and very little goes to waste.
I love that most Americans are waking up to the fact that HFCS is poisonous to our bodies. Once again I am completely disappointed with CNN. There agenda is soooo obvious! Buying foods without HFCF does help us battle the corn industry. We now have a nice, big, grocery store called, Trader Joe's here in my hometown, that does not have a single trace of HFCF in any of their food! Let me tell you the store is probably one of the busiest stores in town. We are winning! CNN can hire as many people as they want to come on here and say wonderful things about HFCS- and I think this is quite obvious to everyone! The comments on this article made my day because of how many people are aware. The internet is filled with information on this and Americans are researching it themselves. It is time to wake up and realize that HFCS is banned in many other countries for good reason!
PS- CNN thank you for convincing me that any story that you print has a bias agenda, just like all the other main stream channels!
SUBSIDIES, by both Parties.
WELFARE.........................................................
When corn is fed to cattle to fatten then up on feed lots the animal gets sick because cattle eat grass, not corn. Read the "Omnivore's Dilema", it explains everything..
Even most "grass fed" cattle are fed corn (stalks) and many other things to balance their diet. And, most are fed corn to "finish" them. "Corn fed" cattle are fed things other than corn. From the perspective of their well-being, there's nothing wrong with cows having a diet focusing on a starch like corn (Entirely different argument for the nutrients and taste of their meat).
Whether HFCS is worse for my health or not, what bothers me the most is that companies are making billions off the stuff because our government subsidizes corn in such an illogical, archaic fashion. As a result, these companies have found a way to get super-cheap corn into nearly everything we eat. Why should the tax payers subsidize these companies? The documentary King Corn provides a good look at the crazy corn system (warning: It's a bit dry).
So now you read it here! "Additionally, corn subsidies to US farmers – $3,975,606,299 in 2009 alone – make corn a cheap and plentiful commodity."
So basically the government subsidizes farmers to produce corn which they can't sell at a profit, but sell at a loss compared to what it cost to produce it, and the food companies are buying corn to make High Fructose Corn syrup for less than what it costs to produce. So who is making good money here from the help of the governent? The big food producers! All of this is controlled by the stock market! So now you have it, our capitalistic ways let certain corporations make billions because of the government subsidies. This really doesn't make sense! But it does to the people who have interest in the big food corporations. Big money is being made because the government is subsidizing them. It is time for these corporations to foot the bill for the corn, not the American people!
Hes it is bad for you. Your body treats HFCS just like Liquor a poison and that is why it is bad for your liver. The only difference is that your body can tell you when you had enough liquor but not when you had enough HFCS. Their is something in HFCS that by passes the part of your body that tells you that is enough.
This article is clearly biased in favor of HFCS, and it makes it on the CNN site because the huge corn lobby can pull off just about anything. Remember ethanol? And $4 billion in corn farmer subsidies is very impressive. I wonder how much of that money is spent on lobbyists.... What could sugar cane farmers do with $4 billion? Well, they'd probably steal the corn lobbyists and force cane sugar into everything. Which, in my opinion, would be better than HFCS.
Nope – not paid by any lobbyists. Not taking a side (though I certainly have one). Just sharing the facts. I know that most of the news we're seeing takes an extreme position - I just wanted everyone to understand what the words mean so we can all be in a better place to debate.
Starch: used for fabric sizing, surface coating, adhesives, anticaking agents, mold-release agents, dusting powder, thickening agents, "drilling mud" employed to cool down superheated oil drilling bits, dextrose and corn syrups
so, we're eating something that is also used for all the above?? ya, sounds safe and natural – the same thing that makes the collar on my shirt stiff?? and all the other uses listed....good grief
starch is just a blanket name for complex branched chains of glucose. Does that mean you'll avoid bread, apples, pasta...because they contain natural starches? please.
you said it yourself in your reply buddy, natural starches, those are fine...but i know of no natural starch that comes in an aerosol can to make shirt stiff...or a natural starch that is used to lubricate drills...they're all processed and so is HCFS...get off the payroll a hole
Ever try Coca Cola with REAL cane sugar? It's crisper and cleaner tasting than HFCS coke. The body of the drink is also lighter.... HFCS feels like sludge in the mouth by comparison. Also ever they Nestea Iced tea in a can w/ HFCS??? Pretty terrible compared to sugar eh?
Yup. No puff piece paid for by the corn industry can stand up to a simple taste test. HFCS coke in one glass, and sugar coke in another glass. Try it, and the answer is obvious. HFCS is not the sweetener of choice.
You can get the real thing at passover, or south of the border. If you have a grocery store that caters to immigrants, look for coke in the glass bottles, that's the good stuff.
absolutely. I think instead of making a big deal about the health issues, they should make a huge deal about the taste issue. No amount of scientific data can refute THAT!
The problem is the subsidy. The subsidy makes an unhealthy food cheaper, which then alters the free market into thinking it needs more sugar. They are talking about increasing the size of government with a soda tax, but once again reducing the size of government by eliminating subsidies is the real answer.
I find the 4B welfare for the farmers to be more repulsive than the corn syrup.
What you didn't explain was the type of corn used to make HFCS!
The corn that is used is not even edible when fresh picked. It NEEDS to be manufactured before eating, even by animals! Farmers don't even make enough money to live farming this corn, but they usually don't have a choice. It's government subsidized.
i think they use that native american corn with all the different color kernals....either that or a sweet and sugar version
Funny you should say that, because I have seen HUNDREDS of cattle eating whole ears of corn – cob and everything. The only 'processing' that corn had seen was to remove the shuck.
You ever seen a deer in a cornfield? I didn't think so.
I guess that's why no waterfowl hunters or dove hunters ever go to cornfields to hunt – because everybody knows that ducks, geese, and doves only eat "processed" corn, and never eat it straight out of the field.
You don't know what you're talking about.
P.S. It's not that deer don't get in cornfields (and eat the "unprocessed" corn), it's more likely that you've never seen a cornfield.
"That makes for some pretty sweet business for the makers of "corn sugar"– as the Corn Refiners Association is now lobbying the Food and Drug Administration to call the stuff."
enough said
Everyone should be forced to watch Super Size Me. That man made his liver fatty (what happens to an alcoholic) after eating nothing but McDonalds for 30 days straight. What does that tell you people? It is sad that a person can have the same outcome as an alcoholic after years of heavy drinking, just by eating what other humans are making for us and selling as "food." Take a stand people. Quit complaining and take a stand by not purchasing fast food or soda. Let's put these corporate killers out of business. We make our selves sick by eating all of this junk. Why has life gotten so busy that humans can not cook or feed themselves anymore? We rely on people who only want to make money to feed us. They don't care about our health.
I read that it makes it extremely difficult for people to lose weight if HFCS is in your diet. Any truth to that?
I remember reading in "Sugar Shock" and a few other studies regarding HFCS that the issue is about "feeling satisfied" after eating. With HFCS this is not the case. I remember when I was young eating a black and white cookie and washing it down with a Hires Root Beer and was full. Today, you can eat a bag of Oreos and guzzle a Coke and 20 minutes later you are looking for more. HFCS is banned in the EU. Have we seen any articles on chubby German kids? I haven't..Ban it NOW!
Let's face it. HFCS is a manufactured sweetener. It's a chemical. I sweeten my baked goods with organic fruit juice only. It takes a few months to lose that sugar/HFCS craving but you'll feel so much better.
Hey, here's how you make white sugar from sugar cane, the process is even simpler for raw sugar:
"Mill" white sugar is the result of sulfur dioxide being introduced to the cane juice before evaporation. It effectively bleaches the mixture.
In the production of "refined" white sugar, which is the most common product in the Western world, the raw sugar syrup is mixed with a heavy syrup and run through a centrifuge again to take away the outer coating of the raw sugar crystals.
Phosphoric acid and calcium hydroxide are then added to the juice which then combine and absorb or trap impurities. Alternatively, carbon dioxide is used to achieve the same effect.
The resulting syrup is then filtered through a bed of activated carbon to remove molasses and then crystallized a number of times under vacuum. It is then further dried to produce white refined sugar like we buy in the store.
Any way you look at it, the process seems much less intense for sugar cane than for corn. Just based on that it's probably better for you - though raw sugar is probably the best.
Lots of informations. There is one question that has I have not found an answer to. In plain sugar the Sucrose and Glucose are bound. It takes energy to break the bond, then the metabolic path diverge, one for Fructose (Liver Enzyms) and Glucose (Insulin). The question I pose is? Are the Fructose and Glucose in HFCS bound? Is so the mix is 55%-45% which means that there is 10% free Fructose in the mix. Could that be the real reason we are getting fat? Would a 50-50 mix solve that issue?
They're not bound (This is really the only valid point to be made, and it's a very weak one) The fructose/glucose ratio is about taste – Higher the fructose, the sweeter the mixture. The 55% is used in soda and a lot of other stuff, but some goods, like bread, use a lower blend (I think 42%?). Can this be an issue? Well, yeah. If you're overloading your system with fructose, of course it will. But, there's the catch – You have to OVER-CONSUME. As usual, it's a moderation issue.
The reason that people get fat now is the same reason that people got fat 100 years ago – You're eating too much.
If you eat 3,000 calories a day of Kale, Milk, Broccoli and nuts, and only use up 2,000 calories, guess what? You're going to gain weight. Oh, and, if you, say, eat 3,000 calories of Broccoli a day (and take supplements), you're going to die from it. Because of... Yes, moderation. Too much of ANYTHING/EVERYTHING is bad for you.
If you eat and exercise in moderation, congratulations on being responsible with your own body. Enjoy the occasional fast food and/or sweets, because, as long as it fits into your healthy lifestyle, the occasional "bad" food won't make a difference.
I Was Watching Bill Maher on a Talk Show and he Pointed put Why Iowa was so Big into Corn Subsidies!
Iowa Has The 1st Primary, Which Brings in the Subsidy Corn Cash Flow.
Which includes Ethynol...............
How is HFCS considered "natural" when you have to go through all those steps? Also, without all the subsidies we wouldn't use it because it would be too expensive to produce. There is nothing beneficial about HFCS.
It is just as natural as cane sugar which also goes through several process before you purchase it, even that raw stuff is chemically processed. Natural does not automatically mean "good for you" Cocaine is all natural, as is cyanide. As to HFCS having no benefits, try making real old fashioned fudge or candy without it, you will end up with a hard inedible mess in your pot. Corn sugar has its uses, it just needs to be in moderation like all sugars
Eugene, I Think I would like to SEE some Counter Research????
I was Reading about Crohn's Disease Diet's and Sugar.
Honey was a bad one because of Pesticide residue? What nutrients or enzymes raw honey does contain are destroyed by manufacturers who heat it in order to give it a clear appearence to enhance sales.
Although Honey is a natural sweeetener, it is considered a refined because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars; Fructose, glucose, and sucrose.
Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories / tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/ tablespoons found in table sugar.
So, we get corn in the animals we eat, the oil we cook with, the products that have high fructose corn syrup. The corn that animals eat is not a natural food for them, so they have to be filled with drugs in order for them to digest it and not die. According to the latest reports, experts do not know how the human body digests high fructose corn syrup, or the meat from animals fed with corn (and drugs). A recent study showed that people who eat and drink mostly high fructose corn syrup DO gain more weight than those who use regular sugar. After all that happened with mad cow disease, are producers surprised that we find all this corn in our diet highly suspect?
Hey, has anyone thought that if the Government would just stop paying farmers to GROW corn (to the tune of 4 BILLION per year), this situation would correct itself? If "corn sugar" is so great, it will be able to exist side-by-side in the marketplace with sugar cane, beets, etc. as a viable sugar source. Let the market decide.
The thing is, ALL sugars are bad for you. Fruit juice even is bad for you. It's best to eat the fruit whole rather than buying the squeezed out juice. All the sugars are making us obese and sick. People need to get off sugars and they will be better. If you have sugar always have with fiber (as in eating a whole fruit)
Instead of rehashing everything written above, I just wanted to leave this thought - obesity is not in the rise only in the US. Diabetes is on the rise in Mexico, cardiovascular diseases are up in Europe and all around the world. These are places where there is no corn lobby, HFCS is NOT being used to great extent. Ultimately, it's hard to distinguish between what's caused by HFCS when people everywhere are eating so much of...just about everything. Don't be so quick to blame just HFCS.
Oh, but Victor, these are areas where soda is cheaper than water! Many people don't have a financial choice! Coke is EVERYWHERE!
touche. So how about this – instead of funding corn subsidies (which I don't agree with), we funnel that money so that third world countries don't have to subsist on coke, and can have clean, running water?
Did the article really just end right there?
Thanks anyways, I'll take sugar.
Hey, I'm just a guy who's been battling weight problems all my life. What do I know? To me, the real issue is processed foods in general, not just HFCS. Almost everything the typical American eats is vastly different from the real food source.
When I change my diet and eat real food,(fruits, veggies, lean meat, whole grains), and exercise moderately, I loose weight and feel better. When I eat junk food and sit on the couch, the opposite happens. But guess which path my brain tries to convince me to take?
I don't really care if HFCS is better/worse/same as table/beet/cane sugar. HFCS is an ultra-processed food product, and things made with it just plain taste worse than when they're made with natural sugar. My dollars walk to the better -tasting food and drink, plain and simple. Corn lobby be dammed.
Yummy, corn soaked in sulter dioxide. That's my favorite meal! And the author forgets to mention that the high protein "animal feed" that comes from the corn breaks down the cattle stomachs since they're not evolved to gorge on corn as they are condemmed to now, stacked up in pens being force fed anti biotics to deal with the stomach sores caused by corn products. You could all see this for youself but the feed lots are off limits, cameras are banned and you'lll probabaly get shot on site if you step foot in one of the wholesome meet processing plants. Remember this the next time, you pick up that pack of meat from sams club for a three bucks.
It's like debating which is better for you: Vodka or Whiskey
Exactly
HFCS is bad. The Princeton study is good. The most interesting thing about it is that the rats generated most of the extra fat on their ABDOMEN. This is relevant because take a look at American girls: no butt, sometimes decent breasts, but a ridiculously huge gut. If women are getting FATTER, then the fat should be distributed proportionately across their body (so at least SOME should go to their butt, etc.). But so many girls here have flat butts and enormous bellies that HFCS is the only reasonable answer for it.
Potentially, the largest exposure of Americans to the neurotoxin MERCURYis through the consumption of products containing HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. (Environmental Health, 2009) Who eats a lot of HFCS-kids. At what age is Mercury consumption the most damaging-develponging brain. What level of exposure to mercury is safe-NONE.
Especially since mercury continues to accumulate throughout our lifetimes.
We don't truly know what the effect will be on an entire lifetime!
SCARY!
Is that ethyl mercury or methyl mercury? One is poisonous, the other is not.
its jeckyl mercury!!!!!! oh nooooooooooooooooooooo
Jeckyl mercury?!?! RUN AND HYDE!!!
Don't make an a$$ out of yourself by being a corn industry troll. Mercury is Mercury. You don't want it in your food or water. And it is especially damaging to fetuses and children.
yeah, and from what I've been able to glean from the facts I've found on the internet, the mercury comes from the Castner-Kellner process, which uses a mercury cathode.
This might be elemental mercury.
Where did the information for this piece come from? My guess would be the corn industry. Saying that this sweetener is cheaper to make because it can be made locally is a crock. It is cheaper because congress has given the corn industry a boat load of money in subsidies and have basically shut out the sugar cane industry, which by the way can be grown in this country as well.
Yes, corn haz sugar, but, is NO GOOD for consume, stop having sugar from corn, it is killing people around and the scientists knows it,
I have a friend who's kid is so allergic to corn, he can't eat anything with corn sugars in it because of the trace amounts of protein left behind in the processing. He even has to buy special toothpaste without xyletol. It's horrible for him in one way because how do you tell a 6 year old you can't go out to Chuck-E-Cheeses on your birthday? Anyway, it's a blessing in disguise because his family is adjusting and eating well. Welcome to home-made food, the best food all around. I would say eat more broccoli, but personally, I hate it, so . . . eat more spinach!
If there is this much debate, why would you eat it or let your kids eat? Safe is better than sorry.
Another BS Fluff article about HFCS, it is bad for you, its terrible for your liver. And funny how they, instead of saying mercury, say 'chemical' sounds like monsanto and the corn refiners and trying to bully news agencies all over again.
HFCS has a lower glycemic index than sugar, meaning it take longer to break down into glucose in the body. The danger is that as more and more foods use HFCS, the glucose levels in the body remain high longer. This is a condition that is the primary symptom of Diabetes. My reaction is based on dealing with diet and disease second-hand as a primary care giver. HFCS in excess is very hard on the body. So, we take a product that may not have been so bad and over use it because it is cheap thereby damaging our health!
Hahaha. This one is actually funny. Diabetics avoid foods with HIGH glycemic values because those are the ones that will cause glucose levels to spike and lead to hyperglycemia (and coma and death). Glycemic index has very little to do with how long your body take to break something down – it's a measure of how much a particular food will cause your body's blood glucose levels to rise from baseline. If HFCS has a lower glycemic index as you argue, it would actually be BETTER for people to consume rather than sugar, in order to stave off diabetes. Your body likes the blood glucose levels to stay within a certain range (with the help of insulin) – high glycemic index foods are far worse to maintain that.
I don't know how others react to this stuff, but I found out purely by accident that I am quite allergic to it and that these allergic reactions were the cause of my fibromyalgia symptoms. Pepsi put out their "retro" cola for a time and I started drinking that instead of the HFCS version and my muscle/joint pain dropped significantly. The only difference between the two is the sweetener. Once I discovered that, I cut it out of my diet completely (not an easy thing.. it's in EVERYTHING). With that gone and a few other allergens identified, I'm pretty much cured. The corn industry can keep its toxic death sludge.
Yes, NOW I know why I have an allergic reaction to the stuff even though I'm not allergic to fresh corn: it's made using mold, which I am allergic to. Just goes to show that sometimes, ingredient lists alone aren't enough for those of us with food allergies and intolerances. Thanks, CNN, for the clarification!
Just in case anyone sees this and thinks ewww, mold?! The great scourge penicillin is made from mold! :-) (as are countless other antibiotics)
"It can be used as Feed AND Herbicide" That says it all folks.
Here's one for you! Stop buying their product and they will start using sugar again! Oh, thats right, its in everything. So, what you do is grow your own food like we do. Thats the way you get past all this bull $#!+ thrown at us by corporate greed. Did you all know that the rich corporate owners are the ones that buy their natural grown vegetables from from people like us? You know, "FARMERS", the people who get their food the way it was meant to be had. Its called hard work with dirt and a plow. I think they buy from us because they don't trust their own product!!!
Researchers from the University of California, Davis compared glucose and fructose consumption among 32 overweight or obese people and found they resulted in very different health changes.
After drinking either a fructose- or glucose-sweetened beverage that made up 25 percent of their daily calories for 12 weeks, both groups gained a similar amount of weight. However, those drinking the fructose-sweetened beverage experienced an array of other unhealthy effects, including:
* An increase in visceral fat, the kind that embeds itself between tissues in organs
* Less sensitivity to insulin, one of the first signs of diabetes
* Increased fat production in the liver
* Elevated LDL (bad) cholesterol
* Increased levels of triglycerides
People who drank the glucose-sweetened beverage, meanwhile, experienced no such changes.
"This suggests that in the same way that not all fats are the same, not all dietary carbohydrates are the same either," Peter Havel, professor of nutrition at the University of California Davis and lead author of the study told TIME magazine.
When glucose is consumed, a set of reactions occur in the body allowing it to be used as energy, and production of leptin, a hormone that helps control appetite and fat storage, is increased. Meanwhile, ghrelin, a stomach hormone, is reduced, which is thought to help hunger go away.
When fructose is consumed, however, it "appears to behave more like fat with respect to the hormones involved in body weight regulation," explains Peter Havel, associate professor of nutrition at the University of California, Davis. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin secretion. It doesn't increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. That suggests that consuming a lot of fructose, like consuming too much fat, could contribute to weight gain."
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/2009/april/29/glucose-fructose-sucrose-whats-the-difference.htm
The paper you cited here is correct in its findings. As a nutritional biochemist, I can tell you that fructose metabolisim skips one of several regulatory steps in glycolysis (the breaking down of glucose for energy). However, this paper is also irrelevant to this argument because HFCS is not made up of only fructose, and cane sugar is not made up only of glucose. In actuality, HFCS is about 55% (or 42% – depending on the formulation) fructose AND the remaining percentage is glucose. Normal sugar is 50/50 fructose to glucose. Since they both are approximately even in glucose to fructose ratios...the paper you cited does not matter.
Either you misquoted the article, or the researchers miswrote the article, or they weren't comparing "apples to apples".
"Glucose", that you quote, is only 55% as sweet as sucrose (table sugar). Don't take my word for it, look it up. "True" corn syrup (Karo (R), for instance) is composed almost entirely of glucose – it's not nearly as sweet as table sugar. In order to have the same level of "sweetness" in a food made with glucose as that made with sucrose or HFCS, you would have to use roughly 2 times as much "glucose". This also doubles the calories from 'sugar'.
If we just ate tablespoons of fructose, we'd never feel "done" from what Ive read. this would be due to no elevation of leptin. So.. we just drink soda after soda, never wanting to stop. Is this why fructose is bad when we eat too much of it?
I absoultely hate this stuff!!! I actually read all packages and this is the first thing I see and say "put it back and do not buy". Corn sweetners suck and makes me feel horrible. I bet if they took out hlaf the sugar most these people would not be so fat. I am noticing people born between 1950 and 1965 are not as fat as these people now days. We got out more and did stuff and ate food that was not loaded down with this corn sweetenr stuff they invented in 1959. It took years for them to get it in the major food chain. Probably kicked it into high gear by 1969 and now you see the effects.
High fructose corn syrup is fat juice and it's turned kids into the blimps they are today. When I was in school in the 60s there were maybe two or three overweight kids, but now the majority of kids seem to be overweight, and even celebrate their disgusting muffin tops. Industrialized foods are to blame and anyone who pretends otherwise has either bought into the food industry's lies or just hasn't done the research.
I bet in the 50's and 60's computers and video games were just as prevalent as riding bikes or running around outside. Kids these days need to get the hell out of the kitchen and off their asses.
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects an estimated 30% of adults in the United States, and there currently is no therapy for the disease. Noting that the rising incidence of obesity and diabetes coincides with a marked increase in fructose consumption, and that fructose consumption is higher in individuals with NAFLD than in people of comparable age and weight, Manal F. Abdelmalek, from Duke University Medical Center (North Carolina, USA), and colleagues studied the relationship between fructose consumption and disease severity in NAFLD. The team tracked 427 adults, enrolled in the NASH Clinical Research Network, collecting data on daily foods consumed and conducting a liver biopsy. The researchers found that only 19% of adults with NAFLD reported no intake of fructose-containing beverages, while 52 % consumed between one and six servings a week and 29% consumed fructose-containing beverages on a daily basis. Correlating the increased consumption of fructose appeared to increased liver fibrosis (scarring) in patients with NAFLD, the team concludes that: “These results identify a readily modifiable environmental risk factor that may ameliorate disease progression in patients with NAFLD.”
Manal F. Abdelmalek, Ayako Suzuki, Cynthia Guy, Aynur Unalp-Arida, Ryan Colvin, Richard J. Johnson, Anna Mae Diehl, for the Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Clinical Research Network. “Increased fructose consumption is associated with fibrosis severity in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.” Hepatology, 28 Jan 2010.
HFCS is NOT the same as fructose. Get that right. That's why the name is so unfortunate. HFCS is much closer in formulation to normal sugar than it is straight up fructose.
These kinds of remarks really crack me up. Rising levels of obesity and diabetes coincide with increased use of HFCS. I would be willing to bet that rising levels of obesity and diabetes also coincide with increased use of automobiles, robots, and other labor saving machinery. In the USA, we don't get enough exercise and we eat junk food. Big surprise that there is a correlation to weight gain and poor health.
In another post with your name on it, you said you lost weight and are healthier now that you avoid HFCS. Is that really all you did? In other words, do you drink soft drinks made with real sugar, instead of HFCS? Or are you avoiding high calorie and high fat foods altogether? Also, did you change your exercise regimen, or did that remain constant? If all you did was avoid HFCS, then you may have my attention, but I suspect that was not the only change you made to your lifestyle.
agreed, wholeheartedly.
"no intake of fructose-containing beverages"
So I take it this means they didn't drink any fruit juices either?
There is a lot of folklore on here, many biased opinions, and some fairly unfounded accusations. Disclaimer: I do not grow corn, nor do I process it, and I own no stock in any agricultural corporation.
The corn processing industry does indeed have thei bottom line in mind, as does every corporation. That said, one simply needs to look more closely at the end product – a sugar, a fairly simple sugar at that. The "societal problem" with HFCS is not its chemical nature, but how it is used. Americans, at least, have a tremendous sewet tooth, and HFCS tastes sweeter than other sugars, and is added to far too many products. If we eat enough, it contributes to a high calorie intake, overweight, and often diabetic related problems. Fructose and glucose, along with sucrose (cane sugar) exists naturally. The process simply removes all the extraneous "stuff" like germ, bran, etc. It's not steeping the corn in slfur dioxide, it's using a small concentration as a preservative – unless you want corn liquor instead.
You body also produces enzymes which convert long-chain sugars like sucrose into simple ones like glucose so the body can use it for energy. Extracting sucrose from sugar cane also produce processed sugar. "Raw" sugar is simply partially processed cane sugar.
This needs to be put in perspective. Over use of any sugar will cause problems – we already know that, but these sugars in themselves are not toxic or unnatural. People with allergies are most often reacting to residual proteins, not the sugar. Corn is not evil.
Ah, the voice of reason - clear proof of your duplicity.
I am not affiliated with advocates on either side of the issue. I am a victim of health problems caused by High Fructose Corn Syrup. Since I started avoiding High Fructose Corn Syrup, I have lost a lot of weight and hmy health improved tremendously. Every since, I have been reading various articles about the subject and my awareness about High Fructose Corn Syrup has been increasing. I think it's important for there to be more independent studies about the effect of all types of sugars. It's going into our bodies and of course we want to ensure the safety of all food we consume.
I would go so far as to say you avoided calories as well...weight loss is a matter of burning more calories than you consume.
This is why I drink Cokes from Mexico, they have real sugar. Yummy!
I'm a big fan of Pepsi's Throwback products. I normally hate regular Mountain Dew because it is like drinking syrup. The Throwback stuff actually lets some of the other flavors through.
The problem with the HFCS industry is they attempt to make their glop sound less unappealing by explaining how it is made. The problem with that though, is, much like knowing what's in a hot dog, their explanation only make it even MORE unappealing.
Wow! Did you guys just reprint a press release from the Corn lobby?!?! What a joke. How about doing some real reporting on the subject of HFCS, or "Corn sugar" as the corn lobby would like it renamed.
I think it's safe to say it is not healthy for us. It just doesn't seem natural at all!
where can i buy this stuff by the gallon?
Just a gallon? Sissy...
costco
In soda and fruit juice bottles. Look at the ingredient listing.
It is interesting that I can buy sugar, sugar cane, and beets (some sugar is made from beets) in the grocery store, but I can't buy HFCS, or the type of corn used to make HFCS in the store. Many products made with the stuff, but I can't buy it to cook with.
High USDA tariffs and corn subsidies ("$3,975,606,299 in 2009 alone") make HFCS AFFORDABLE???
People like to drag out the subsidies argument when trying to discuss this topic. It's a different discussion. Personally, I like having a stable food supply.
Stable until we can no longer pay the subsidies. Stable until petro-chemical fertilizers become too expensive. Stable until industrial farm processes collapse under their own weight. Stable until non-sustainable farming practices use up the remaining top soil in the Midwest (about 60 years).
Yeah, it goes through a CHEMICAL and mechanical process, says so in the article. I'm allergic to not only corn, but the chemicals in corn syrup, which they won't release to the public. Too risky to release that information. I wonder how many chemicals they use and what kinds in order to get the corn oil.
Yes, awter is an awful chemical, better stay away. If you are allergic to corn then OBVIOUSLY you would be allergic to CORN syrup. It is impossible, and unnecessary to remove all of the corn protein from the syrup. If you are allergic to corn stay away from HFCS and corn starch and corn meal.
Corn kernels steeped in sulfur dioxide? DELICIOUS!!!
Cane juice mixed with calcium hydroxide! Yum!
I will gladly consume a teaspoon of pure sugar, if you do the same with a teaspoon of pure HFCS.
Oh, wait, you can't. The corn industry won't sell their product directly to consumers. I wonder why....
It's funny; when I read the article, I was informed about how corn syrup comes from corn. I never knew and always wondered. I didn't see anything in the article trying to convince me one way or the other that HFCS was good or bad for me; just how it is made.
Frankly, I would like to see another article about how cane sugar is made.
http://www.sucrose.com/lcane.html
Thanks!
I do not buy any product that has high fructose corn syrup, or now corn sugar, in the contents label. I think most people are aware of the danger HFCS represents which is why all these HFCS friendly CNN articles and all those commercials are popping up.
Honey contains the same chemical rations, so you better Watch Out for that to! Moron
A little information is dangerous. I will consume a teaspoon of salt. You consume an equal amount of sodium and chloride in their raw forms. It's the same ratio, so you hsould be fine, right?
I am allergic to corn syrup. The normal human body cannot process fructose without equal parts glucose (which is what sucrose is) – basic chemistry.
Corn Syrup is used as a sweeter and a preservative – the oddest thing that I have found it in are toothpaste and "fresh" chicken.
and it's in most "diet" foods since the body does not process fructose very well.
If you are getting diet foods with HFCS then you are getting ripped off. HFCS has as many calories as fructose and glucose (cause that is what it is). It is added to some low fat foods to make up for the loss of flavor from removing fat. Read the label, start with the calories then make your decision.
The fact is humans were never meant to eat large ammounts of pure glucose sugar, either "natural" or HFCS. Excess of either is bad for you. Lack of excercise is what makes you fat, because if you're body can't burn what you eat, it stores it. You could eat the healthiest diet in the world and if you over-eat for your activity level you will be fat.
This article fails to report the fact that sugar quotas are only in place at the behest of Archer Daniels Midland powerful obbying in the early 1980's. ADM is also the largest supplier of HFCS. The only reason for that quota is to benefit ADM's profits.
The sugar tariffs have been going on since the English imposed the taxes on the colonial sugar and molasses. These were carried over to the new country of USA and was an excellent source of income for the government well into the start of the 20th century. I just wrote a paper on the method that the future NIST developed to make sure that all of the Customs offices were getting the same results for the same purity of sugar. It ensured that importers could not contaminate their refined sugar (highly taxed) to make it look like raw sugar (not taxed at some points).
Actually, John is right. ADM had some "connections" to the Reagan and was able to get tariffs in place that made HFCS economically viable against regular sugar. HFCS being process intensive, couldn't compete.
It may be bad for me but it is pretty damn tasty
...and to think that we are 'beating up' the bad fructose...here in America most foods are filled with preservatives...
ever wonder why life expectancy in this country is top in the world (along with the Swiss, Japanese, and people of Crete, Greece?)...
They forget to mention the part where the corn is soaked in a solution containing mercury. This mercury can never be fully removed. Because mercury increases the shelf life of the products containing it, the industry doesnt care that some residuals are left over. Check the correlation between when corn syrup become the sweetener to use in the industry and the rise of autism in US births. Seem to increase linearly. Coincidence? I think not considering. If drinking a beer is bad for a fetus, imagine what consuming mercury would do to the unborn.
Glad you are still counting on Jenny McCarthy as your scientific expert. I have actually run the heavy metals testing for HFCS at a major supplier and I can tell you that the levels are not detectable by any of the methods now known. Mercury is easily detectable by ICP or AA in corn syrup or in human plasma. Check the Pilgrim study if you want the truth about mercury and autism. Oh, that is an actual study by people who like facts not publicity. Maybe you shouldn't bother.
Didnt turn to any celeb for my info. Happens to be what I wrote my senior thesis on. And about 5 PhD in nutrition department at a major university seemed to agree with me. Imagine, a person employed by the corn industry for testing their products gets defensive. Wow, nice unbiased response lady.
For a balanced look at the question, Google
mercury AND "corn syrup"
and read the article at WebMD.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to ingest a chemically derived sweeter as opposed to a natural sweetener like honey or cane sugar? Plus HFCS leaves a nasty aftertaste and film on your teeth. Ever tried coke made with real cane sugar? It's completely different and more enjoyable experience. True to the people that say eating a lot of regular sugar in place of HFCS isn't going to change your waistline. But getting rid of HFCS and then moderating what you eat seems like a normal healthy diet to me. Did our ancestors eat HFCS or chemically derived ingredients in their baked goods? NO! Why can't people just eat natural, organic, home grown local foods? We're so dependent on the oil guzzling machine we can't even plant/raise our own food in our back yards anymore.
Just curious, but do you know that process to get from cane to sugar? I don't either, but I doubt they just chop the stuff down and grind it up. Molasses is extracted at some point (I think), and I doubt it is just drained off. Just because something is processed doesn't make it bad for you.
Use sugar in the raw as your table sugar, its pure cane and tastes great
If you are in the US then you better give up any and all sugar in everything you eat. It is almost entirely imported (brought in on big ol boats run on oil products). If you want to eat local then eat corn syrup, grown in the US extracted from corn and inverted by a naturally occurring enzyme. Not sure any of the people posting here have a grasp on what is natural and what is chemical.
Whoaaaaa! Might as well jump! Imagine if this stuff was around when i was wearing spandex! Wowwwww! i'm just a jigolo and everywhere i go!!! woooo wow! Panamaaahahahaha Panama! HFCS is scary busniness mamajamas! I'm Running with the deviilllll owwwwwww!!! simple like aint so simple!! woooo wow owowwww owww !!
Grow up David, this is why we kicked you out of the band!!
...and replaced him with a guy cornier than anything discussed thus far around here.
Why do I sense the Corn Refiner's Association have advertised here to bring about such a post. I smell something here and it is not good. I hope the next article tells how the human liver metabolizes Fructose differently and is actually immediately stored as fat by the body. So there is indeed a difference between Cane Sugar and HGCS. Also, the words "Corn Sugar" do not exist in my vocabulary and never will.
You mean how the body metabolizes "fruit sugar" which is the other name for fructose? Guess you better stop eating apples then. The only problem with HFCS is that Americans (and countries that we influence heavily) now consume nearly double the amount of calories from empty sources (like cola and candy) than we did in previous decades. HFCS is sucrose with one bond broken. Medecine may not be a science but chemistry is.
You are correct. There is a difference between cane and corn sugar. Cane sugar is primarily sucrose, a "double" sugar, while fructose, like glucose, is a "single" sugar. When you eat cane sugar (sucrose) your body's enzymes reducet it to single sugars, glucose, which is what is carried through the bloodstream to the cells. Beyond that, your knowledge of sugar metabolism is incorrect. Generally speaking, the liver does not metabolize sugars – they are consumed within the cells for energy, using ATP as the mechanizing molecule.
So the American tax payers fork over $4 billion to farmers, who use it to buy fertilizer and seed from big agri-businesses, to overproduce food which is inedible until processed, is only cost effective because of tarrifs, leads to cheap empty calories in our food, allows for cheap industrial meat production, which leads to unhealthy Americans who need increasing amounts of health care. People think Obama is a socialist because he wants health care for all, but it was the Nixon administration which made our socialzed food system, which in turn put our health care system into this sorry state. Think about that while you chew on your $1 burger.
As a chemist this one gets me everytime. Because this sounds like a complex set of reactions it must be bad for you right? Try to figure out how honey is made, or even simple stuff like beer or wine, the number of enzymes and chemistry involved is pretty incredible and no one seems to worry about it. (As a side note everyone hates twinkies because they can be stored for a long time, but honey can be stored for thousands of years without degredation).
I have yet to see a study which does show much of a difference, yes metabolism for cane sugar and HFCS differ, but its by one metabolic step, that occurs in the stomach within the first few minuets of eating. Others argue that the glycemic index for the two are different, and yeah they are frutose has a lower glycemic index which means it doesn't cause your blood sugar to spike as rapidly as cane sugar, again I dont know that the difference really means much. Really I dont think that has much to do with weither you get fat or not, what does influence your weight is how cheap the sugar is and how much of it you eat.
The first reasonable scientific explanation I've found on this board from someone who actually understands metabolism. Everyone else – do me a favor and wikipedia "glycolysis."
Sounds like a slanted article to me. If it sounds too good to be true...
This article sounds like a paid political advertisement
people people...
(A) The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer
fewer heart attacks than
the British or Americans.
(B) On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat
yet, they still suffer fewer heart attacks than the British
or Americans.
(C) The Chinese drink very little red wine and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or
Americans.
(D) The Italians on the other hand drink excessive amounts of red wine
yet they suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans
Conclusion:
Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English
that kills you.
By jove, you got it!
Well mop me face and call me Suzy....cheerio mate, i do believe you may be on to something....got me knickers in a twist thinking about it
Cheers
More corporate socialism at the expense of our citizens.
End the subsidy and the tariffs.
Well said.
More of the recent propaganda push from the corn industry? Aren't they trying to rename it "corn sugar" to make it sound natural? They are working real hard to combat the concerns of the general public. HFCS is not an equal substitute for cane sugar. Our bodies do not break it down the same. Sorry Kat, I don't trust you or the corn industry.
No where else in the world is HFCS being used like it is in the USA – presumably because individual governments are not subsidizing corn the way we are in the USA. Go to Europe and you rarely see it in any products. The fact is that we have artificially reduced the cost of all corn products, thus incentivizing all corporations to use corn products in everything. Either the consumer backlash needs to be so strong that the market balance swings to using real sugar, or we have to end these crazy subsidies.
Why? If sugar were cheaper and used in everything from Coke to Twinkies, there would be no less of an obesity epidemic in the USA. If you eat (and drink) foods that are bad for you, you will suffer the consequences. Not only that, but Americans are not getting the exercise we used to get a hundred years ago. So, as a nation, we are eating worse, and exercising less. Lethal combination.
Also, it kills me that people complain about the subsidies and the tariffs and then complain because jobs are being shipped overseas. Remove the corn subsidies and we will be buying our corn from China like everything else. Why? Because the farmers in this country are just like everyone else in this country; they need to make a living. And when the price of corn goes through the floor, they will quit producing it. Think it won't happen? What about all the hog farmers that were slaughtering their herds in the 90s when the hog market tanked. It was too expensive to feed them, so they simply killed the hogs.
Of course, after the market corrects itself (if it does), then corn will be grown in this country again, but will sell for double or triple the price. And then people will complain about the high cost of food.
Then there is the group that wants us off foreign oil. Corn is one of those things that can help that, too. But only if the price is cheap.
So, next time you complain about subsidies and tariffs, you might want to consider the few points above. And rest assured, that is only scratching the surface.
John, so you work for the corn industry?
@Dave - Not at all. The problem is that people want to spout off about something without considering the consequences. Why do you think all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas? Do you really expect someone to go into business just for the purpose of employing people? When I tried to start a business, that was not my goal. I wanted to make money. And as part of that, I tried to keep expenses as low as possible. So if a business can buy things from an overseas manufacturer much cheaper than from a US manufacturer, why not? If labor is cheaper overseas than it is here, what makes you think the jobs will stay here? And if subsidies are lifted, and the corn price does not adjust, what makes you think US corn growers will continue to grow corn? The love of farm life?
So fine, eliminate subsidies and tariffs. But don't complain when your grocery bill doubles, triples, or worse, and US agribusiness goes the way of the auto and steel workers.
FYI, I am not in favor of subsidizing farmers, either. I am just not so naive to think that eliminating them will solve problems without creating worse ones.
@Dave – Not at all. He's likely a shill at a paid disinformation/proaganda company who's been hired to spread F.U.D. into public forums like this. You can pick all of them out in the discussion they spout things like; show me the study that shows that, where's your 100% proof, that's just junk science, and there are different kinds of mercury and the HFCS mercury isn't too bad.
Simply put Europe looked at HFCS in the 70s and 80s and said no way are you putting that garbage in our food. The FDA got paid off to rubber stamp it's approval, like they just did with the recent name change, and allowed this garbage to be put into everything. An aging baby boomer population aside we're the least healthy we've ever been as a nation and it's the fault of the chemical (cough)corn(cough) companies that enticed food manufacturers to save money by cutting corners and including this bad chemistry experiment.
Right. The most common form of HFCS has nearly the same ratio of glucose to fructose as the table sugar (surcrose) it replaced (50:50 vs. 45:55). What is commonly called and used as 'table sugar' _is not simply glucose_, this has to be made clear; the industry predecessor to HFCS has nearly as much fructose content.
If HFCS makes you obese, then replacing it w/ table sugar or even pure glucose probably wouldn't help the situation much, if at all. Quantity is the key here, and Americans especially need to better regulate their sugar intake given just how much more of them are in the cheapest foods these days. People need to stop using the 'mysterious horrors of HFCS' as a scapegoat for a bad diet.
sucrose (table sugar) is glucose and fructose chemically bonded to each other. Your body has to break the chemical bond in order to release the glucose (what is present and measured as blood sugar). HFCS contains glucose and fructose NOT chemically bonded to each other, so your body does not have to break the chemical bond. HFCS immediately dumps glucose into your body without digestion having to take place.
sick it sounds like we are eating weapons grade corn syrup.
Calories from real sugar or corn syrup are BOTH empty calories and therefore a threat to our waistlines and general health when overeaten. That's not really the point here. The real problem is BIG CORN–the corporate stranglehold looming over U.S. agriculture that makes it really really really really really difficult for honest-to-goodness farmers, who wish to produce wholesome food, to compete. Hence, twinkies and coke are affordable to the masses, and organic peaches are not. Let's talk about the real issue here CNN.
they changed the name of ASPERTAME too. its now AMINOSWEET.
noone eats their poison so the rewrap the poison.
americans are dumb enough to bite the scams
IMHO the $3,975,606,299 subsidy from the taxpayers of the USA should be awarded to local organic farmers instead of the industrial corn complex.
That or end the subsidy all together.
I would prefer that we not subsidize agriculture at all, as it completely distorts the market (HFCS is a perfect example – this chemistry-experiment of a sweetner wouldn't be in everything if it were for the massive subsidies to corn growers). Organic foods aren't actually healthier than their non-organic counterparts, although I personally do buy organic if I feel it subjectively tastes better.
HFCS is the same as sugar in the same way that chicken nuggets (blended, processed chicken meat) is the same as whole chicken.
This article tells you the manufacturing process behind HFCS, but in no way answers the question on whether it is worse for you than regular, unrefined sugar. Nor does it answer the issue of mercury traces found in some samples of HFCS, the article on that I originally read on the CNN website last year.
All sugars are not equal, they metabolize differently. How long they take to metabolize affects your hunger, your blood sugar level – this is the reason that HFCS is contributing to obesity. The spike and dump in blood sugar cause hunger to return (even though sufficient calories were consumed) and the consumer then eats again.
I agree. The article totally skips over the fact there are always going to be traces of mercury in the HFCS. It, mercury, is used in the extraction process. It helps leech out the sweetness and keep it separated. Because mercury gives products a longer shelf life, the industry is all for it, increasing their profits by having less food spoil. People freak out about mercury in salmon, and tell you to only eat it once a week. Imagine how many products containing HFCS people eat everyday. You really must go out of your way to avoid consuming it.
yes – the body metabolizes sugar differently – if we were talking about glucose and fructose (and even then, the difference is really minute – look up glycolysis in a websearch). But we are talking about two substances here – sugar and HFCS – that are made up of approximately equal amounts of both fructose AND sucrose. Pick your poison – HFCS is responsible for the increase in obesity here in the US, yes, but sugar is responsible for the increase in obesity everywhere else (Mexico, Europe...)
I knew what corn syrup was but I didn't know what a puff piece for big agribusiness looked like until now. What a coincidence, the article ends calling it "corn sugar", exactly what the industry it trying to change the name to in order to fool consumers.
I heard on NPR that it may not be worse than any other kind of sweetener, but the issue is that this stuff as found its way into so many processed food products! Our taste for sweet is constantly bombarded by sugar in foods that might not need any sweetening at all! Quantity, not quality.
@Jen
You are correct...pls check the link
lol was about to post this video link. Awesome video good post.
So why should I eat this industrialized food "product"? It sounds like they're making plastic, not sweetener. I prefer having a piece of whole fruit, fiber and all, to satisfy my sweet tooth.
Like anything else it's not what you eat it's how much of it you eat. HFCS is not the reason we have obesity problems in the US. Lazy eat everything in site people is the reason we an obesity problem. And don't even start with the, "I don't have enough time to work out" statements. Guess what fatty you don't HAVE to work out at all. You can lose adipose tissue and keep it off just watching what you eat, but is that going to happen. Nope.
No, people who cannot spell are the reason we have an obesity problem in the US. It's sight (as in ability to see) not site (a location), moron. Get off your high-horse until you can show you have some sense.
go away, you're probably fat and just mad because you lack will pwer to lose it
I'm sorry I didn't know I was writing a research paper. Everything you wrote has nothing to do with what I stated or the article. It's not my fault you're a disgusting cow.
Technically speaking, Chris, that's not a spelling error. It's word misuse. You seem to know this, but if you're going to criticize in this way, then at least do it right. :)
But honestly, your comment is not productive. Talk about the content, as that's what matters. Nobody has editors here. My spelling is good, but even I often miss things as I'm typing quickly it in this teeny 4-line text box that CNN provides. Plus, I don't bother to proofread. :)
The corn producers are counting dollars and have gone as far as to "get" the Food and Drug Administration to allow them to re-name High Fructose Corn Syrup CORN SUGAR! It is a major contributor to the U.S. OBESITY RATE . I stopped drinking soda pop all together and, along with a better diet lost 30 lbs.!
Stay away from this stuff, people! READ LABELS!!!
HFCS does contribute to the increasing obesity rate in the US. Likewise, REGULAR SUGAR contributes to the obesity rate in the rest of the world. One is NOT better than the other. Avoiding soda is a great move wherever may be, in the US or elsewhere! Avoiding excess calorie consumption is the key.
However, isn't the major problem here that HFCS is in EVERYTHING? It's hard to find basic foods that haven't been sweetened with HFCS. Even things that should have a salty or savory taste contain HFCS. Its presence in every piece of food we eat has given us a major sweettooth in the US.
Recent studies show this stuff causes High Blood Pressure, liver problems, obesity, and may actually be addictive. This stuff is in nearly all processed-"food products." I am shocked that CNN is whoring themselves out on this product.
Umm–I don't think it is in the broccoli I just bought.
Dave, I don't think broccoli quailifies as a "processed-food product."
Johnny, my comment was in reaction to Bob's dramatic statement that HFCS is in "every bit of food that we eat". My point obviously being, that it is NOT in ANY of the food we eat if we make it a habit to avoid processed foods. This is not really as hard as it seems. Eat a freakin' banana instead of a snickers bar.
It's present in all junk food, not every food we eat. I watch the labels and don't buy anything containing the stuff. I eat well.
Bread is junk? Yogurt is junk? Heck, bread crumbs are junk?
I should make a correction. I don't buy processed foods. Period. Making a salad doesn't take long. Neither does preparing meat etc. Recipies may be simpler than the pre-packaged stuff, but the home made taste is much beter.
Even bread is usually tainted with high fructose corn sugar. You would be surprised how much food has it.
more propaganda. in the first paragraph . . ."developed a process to convert some of the glucose of corn syrup to fructose to tailor its level of sweetness". yeah right. "tailor" means try to "make it as really freaking sweet as possible."
i think they use the term tailor because futher down it says "Starch: used for fabric sizing"
Ar Ar Ar ack ack ack hoopoopoop snort!
"LOL" doesn't really capture my reaction.
Simple: normal, unadulterated sugars are broken down in normal digestion (stomach, intestine, etc). HFCS is broken down in the liver. It is immediately socked away as fat, and never has a chance to be used as energy and burnt off as normal sugars are.
I believe this is why we have a huge surge in fatty liver disease and overweight people. Natural sugars and HFCS are two different metabolic pathways in how the body handles them.
The commercials by the corn industry sicken me with their distortions, oversimplifications, and self-serving lies. They count on the fact people are too stupid to understand the science.
While it's probably not very good for you, show me research evidence (not someone's untested hypothesis) that high fructose corn syrup "...is immediately socked away as fat." This idea is what's making people rich – "Three foods never to eat – they make your belly bigger" or "Five foods to give you a flat belly." It's all a myth – a calorie is a calorie. Some may make you hungrier sooner, and some may not have much nutritional value, but none make you slimmer or fatter. You could eat 1000 calories in pure corn syrup a day and still lose weight – because you're eating few calories. Though you'd probably die of malnourishment in a few months.
the article mentions 1957 as if the process was invented then. that's only the date of an industrialized process. the process itself was known decades before that in laboratories. i have 47 studies dating back to the 40's whose conclusions indicate that hfcs causes more fat buildup in various mammals than plain sugar. where would you like them delivered MA?
MA, i'm assuming you know how to use a computer, search and disprove her....or are you too lazy because your body been "socking away HFCS as fat"???
Here you go:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories
Thay,
Thanks for the article! Very interesting!
Here you go, smart aleck . . .
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
Here's a human study worth looking at. Not all calories are the same.
J Clin Invest. 2009 May;119(5):1322-34. doi: 10.1172/JCI37385. Epub 2009 Apr 20.
Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans.
I'm a researcher that does active research into liver disease, one division is associated with fructose, at one of the leading universities in the country (top 5). That Princeton article is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. Very unscientific and doesn't really prove anything. The "instant creation of fat" previously mentioned is probably referring to de novo lipogenesis, which is basically the process by which fructose is eventually converted to fat within the liver.
This may cause some fatty liver disease, but don't be fooled by the wasted energy bs a previous poster mentioned. Fat is used for energy and has a viable and extremely useful biological purpose. It in it of itself is not bad for you, an excess is bad for you.
Keep in mind that de novo lipogenesis and lipogenesis happens from nearly all sugars you ingest, and most importantly, HAPPENS TO FRUCTOSE IN EVERY INSTANCE NOT JUST HFCS. Guess what? Sugar in excess is bad for you. Solution? Eat a healthy diet! Regular sugar and HFCS have almost the same effect on your body.
People always try to find the next big reason to blame for why they are the way they are. HFCS hasn't made you a victim, your diet has.
Oh and here is something that is seldom ever seen during any discussion of anything scientific by non-scientists: A SOURCE! If you want to know about science, read scientific articles and not the BS news websites post:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20368739
Robert Lustig has a lecture on youtube called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" found here:
In effect, sucrose and fructose are both horrifically bad for you, only one step removed from poison.
As someone with Type 1 diabetes, my body is very sensitive to all forms of sugar. As omeone with several food allergies, I've found I'm the "canary in the coal mine" for may types of foods. I've discovered that I can accurately calculate the carb ratio when I'm figuring out my insulin doses on foods with natural composition of fructose (such as fruits), but I cannot accurately calculate for the processed fructose in HFCS that's added to foods, even when I accurately measure out the portion sizes listed for the products. Now, granted, the portion information listed on the packages may be inaccurate, but I know that 20 grams worth of a food product with HFCS in it will jack up my blood sugar almost TWICE as fast as 20 grams of food product with naturally occuring sugars. While I don't have any studies to back it up, I suspect it is becasue the HFCS's have already been been broken down into a molecular structure that is more easily absorbed into the cells then another source, like fruit, that has other components, such as fiber, that the body has to work to break down. In any case, it means HFCS's interfere with my blood sugar control, jack up my blood test numbers, and have a poor effect on my overall health. Just another thought to consider when people are focusing on HFCS's chemical structure only and failing to take a broader view of its impact on the body.
Table sugar (sucrose) is made up of one glucose and one fructose. In the stomach, sucrose is rapidly broken into it constituent parts. HFCS-55 used in soft drinks is 45% glucose and 55% fructose. After the stomach, the only difference between table sugar and HFCS-55 is the higher fructose content. The higher fructose levels may give less of the feeling of satiation and leave us wanting to eat more. High levels of any sugars will damage the liver by producing large fat deposits. The sugars in apples are 30% glucose and 70% fructose. Honey has a similar sugar profile as HFCS-55. The real problem stems from the high amount of total sugars and the sugars "hidden" in processed foods. I am not a fan of HFCS mostly because of the large subsidies provided to corn farmers in the USA and why produce a different sugar when table sugar is just fine. If you give a rat large doses of fructose, the liver becomes fattened and damaged. If you give a rate large doses of table sugar, the liver becomes fattened and damaged. If you give a goose large amounts of grain, the liver becomes fattened and delicious. It's called foie gras, not good for the goose but delicious none the less.
There are formulations of HFCS that are 42%. How would that figure into your argument?
And if you force feed a duck with a funnel you get duck pate'
You're outright wrong. Normal "unadulterated sugars" are NOT just broken down in the stomach, intestines, etc. How do you propose that HFCS gets to the liver without going through your stomach and intestines? I don't know where you picked up this piece of information, but it's just wrong. Normal sugars are broken down by your liver too. A simple google or wikipedia search would tell you as much. Whether something you've ingested gets "socked away as fat" as you so eloquently put, depends on your activity level. If you eat something, and don't burn it off, your body (through millions of years of evolution) has learned to store it away for a rainy day as fat. This applies to normal sugar as well as it does HFCS.
So did someone from the Corn Refiners Association pay to have this article done? Like those stupid, manipulative commercials on tv? I will never trust HFCS or any statement from the CRA regarding it. Ever. The reason it is in everything is because that company is paid to have a huge surplus since in the end it is cheaper than real, NATURAL sugar so of course the American people's health is betrayed over dollar and cents as it always is. Profit is more important to these companies than the quality of their products. Check your labels at the grocery store! It is in everything!
I absolutelly 100% agree. What other LITTLE choice that americans do really have that are helathy. I have notices there are some issues with what used to be Named Nutra sweet. But that chemical is also in many Diet Sodas. WHy can't we as americans be given a healthier choice? If you make it, they will come. Why is everything always driven by one thing only, PROFIT and GREED Period.
If you're looking for a healthy, all natural sweetener that tastes about as good as nutrasweet,
try to find some stevia extract.
It is 100% natural, extracted from leaves of the stevia plant. 50 times sweeter than sugar, but it is not legally allowed to be sold in the US as a sweetener, just a dietary supplement (I suspect that this would be far too commercially successful)
Again, no calories, no health risks, the chemical is "Stevioside, a Diterpenoid glycoside"
There was this BS study about it being mutagenic, But it was clearly intentionally botched to reduce the likelihood of this becoming commercially available.
oh and gee, did anyone hear how the industry is tyring to change the name form High Fructose Corn Syrup to something else? HFCS is HFCS I don't care what you call it.
The corn industry thinks you are dumb enough that if they call it "Corn Sugar" you will think that it is sugar. They think the problem is that people don't trust unnatural sounding names or acronyms.
Diana and Andrew E (below) both hit the nail on the head. This is propaganda masquerading as news. Apparently this piece of 'journalism' was propagated in the previous article, too: "Is HFCS getting a bad rap?" Every notable scientific journal I've read in the past few years has raised serious questions, or come to serious conclusions, about the dangers of HFCS in processed foods. To say things like 'allegations of adverse effects' that 'may' cause health impacts... sounds an awful lot like the info-mercials cigarette companies used to make, or the auto industry trying or justify that impacts to clean air aren't caused by burning fossil fuels. Absolute rubbish. Read scientific journals and talk to a nutritionist, and then... read the label before you buy.
This ticks me off to no end. Not only is this a blantant propoganda piece, it (as well as it's commenters) purposefuly ignores the real issue at hand:
The reason HFCS is such a disaster is because years ago the farmers were subsidized to overproduce corn. As we kept overflowing silos with corn, we kept overproducing it for years. It became cheaper and cheaper. Then food engineers (PS why do we need people to engineer food?) took corn, made a sweetener out of it that costs less than a penny to make, and they shoved and crammed it into every form of processed food there is.
Now the biggest pill to swallow, inorder to keep up with demand, the corn needs to stay cheap and therefor needs to be even more produced than it is now. That eats up more and more farmland to be used in an ecologicaly irresponsible way. So we continue to destroy the Earth, overconsume sweetener, and send the farmers of America into a deeper slew of debt than they are already facing.
This article was my tipping point. I was a huge fan of CNN and eatocracy for the longest time but this is a shameless representation of horrible journalism and ignorant users. I am officialy removing CNN from my bookmark list and never returning. I ask that you all do the same. After you do, please watch Food Inc., educate yourselves, make conscious food decisions when you shop, and buy local. Goodbye.
Phil Muse, you made the most conclusive argument against corn syrup. Furthermore, if we look at the increase in obesity in Mexico, we notice it spikes as Mexico signed the open trade agreement with the US and Canada and consequently starting using cheap corn syrup as sweetener.
Those commercials are AWFUL. I'd love to see them do the same commercials with a sandwich (bread has it), or yogurt, or something else we consider "healthy". Sure moderation is fine, but how do you get moderation, when it is in everything!
Now, can you tell us if it's bad for us? That's really what all the controversy is about, isn't it?
The blunt answer is 'YES, it is bad for us.' The incidence of liver disease is up enormously and Jaundice, once considered the Drinking Man's Disease, has been diagnosed even in non-drinkers in surprising numbers. Quite literally, HFCS–Corn Sugar–cannot be processed by the body as sugar and will cause health problems if enough of it is consumed. Since HFCS is in nearly every processed food today, it's hard to avoid consuming too much.
Your comments apply to 100% pure fructose. However, HFCS is quite like regular table sugar (called sucrose, composed of one fructose molecule bonded to one glucose molecule) in composition. Thus, HFCS at a 55/45 ratio presents just about the same risks as table sugar.
And how much is too much? 1 20 ounce pop a week, 1 20 ounce pop a day, 4 2 liters a day?
You really believe that the human body can't digest HFCS? As the article states, HFCS is made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose, both natural monosaccharides found in many fruits and vegetables that you consume regularly. Pure cane sugar is such rose, a disaccharide. A disaccharide is a sugar made up of two monosacharides connected by a glycoside bond. Guess which monosacharides sucrose is made up of? That's right! It is made up of one molecule of fructose and one molecule of glucose. Guess what the first thing you body does when it digests sucrose? (Hint: glycoside hydrolase is involved.).
There are many things that can be correlated with increased obesity and liver disease. HFCS may certainly play a part in making a cheap sugar that goes into foods that ordinarily wouldn't have it. There may be an issue with adsorption rate and satiety. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. The idea that the human body isn't capable of digesting HFCS is pure ignorance.
You should look at the major components of honey.
I try to cook for myself so I know exactly what I use in my recipes.. then i avoid eating what I don't intend to eat.. but i wasn't always like this.. i used to eat whatever was at the store.. this put a lot more corn syrup in my diet than i had intended.. so thats when i decided to cook for myself.. i bought this hilarious beginners cookbook..google "whipped and beaten culinary works" to find it.. but if you can't take a good joke.. skip this one.. it's not for you.
Its not a question of which sugar it is, or how processed it is, or any of that stuff. Its a question of how much is used, and HFCS is cheap enough that manufacturers of processed foods over use the stuff. My wife uses fructose in place of sucrose in cooking in order to help keep her blood sugar stable, there's nothing wrong with the stuff if there's 10g (or even less) in a food portion instead of the 30-40g in the average 12 oz soda.
Science is not reality!!! Science is a perspective and more importantly a perception. The body digests and assimilates many things but that doesn't mean that it isn't bad for you and that there will not be side effects. The by products of the assimilation process are different and affect the cells in different ways. Bottom Line Up Front – the more anything is processed, the worse the second and third level effects on the living organism will be. White sugar is worse than raw sugar and so on. Artificial sweetners – forget about it!
Why substitute chemicals for the real thing?
Thats what i never got about people drinking diet.
Look up aspartame, its a poison.... that the mass considers safe
one delightful fact was not stated........ that this high-fructose corn syrup is made from genetically modified corn. or was that fact deliberately left out!
Vulpine,
Do you have a reference for any of that nonsense?
one delightful fact was not stated........ that this high-fructose corn syrup is made from genetically modified corn. or was that fact deliberately left out!
and while were here remember our natural foods are being replaced by geneticaqlly modified wheat and soy, and these are in everything we eat, start reading the ingredient label.
Thanks for the Science update "Elkton MD". Sure like to see the clinical studies behind those claims. Would you mind posting a link?
Just another "scientific" claim I'm sure one of the oldest and most powerful lobbying organizations on Capital Hill would just love the public to believe. Looks like they're trolling this article in droves...
I think that's great though: Let's outsource our sweetner production offshore to some godforsaken 3rd world island that pollutes the piss out of the ocean / land and pays it's people in food, rather than keeping it here in the Continental United States where we have gobs of corn.
I am a diabetic, when I eat food with HFCS's in them my blood sugar count spikes up almost twice as high as when I eat the exact same amount of food sweetened with pure cane sugar. A teaspoon of HFCC's will drive my blood sugar count almost twice as high as a teaspoon of pure cane sugar.
You no doktor. You no know what you say. Fructose get processed into glucose easy. Fructose in every fruit. Honey mostly fructose. Silly pozer, tricks for kids.
Why do some people claim that fructose from corn can't be processed while touting the benefits of fructose from fruit and honey?. It's the same thing. It's fructose. Fruit sugar. One of the halves that our bodies break sucrose into. (glucose is the other half) Either we can digest fructose or we can't (in which case what's with the fruit?) but fructose is fructose, no matter where it's from.
For those who doubt the problems with HFCS consider this. My wife used to weigh 300 pounds and drank an average of 2litres of soda a day. By simply swapping water for soda, she dropped over 50 pounds in less than 6 months. So you tell me–how much is too much? It looks to me like any at all is too much.
As a diabetic, any amount of corn syrup is too much. I can eat food with cane sugar and my blood sugars will only go up a little. I have food with ANY corn syrup and my sugar spikes to almost 300. (Normal is around 100). And before the bigots get on and say that diabetes is caused by obesity, I was UNDER weight along with 36.3% of diabetics that get it. Read the facts before you cast you filth. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/type-2/
"For those who doubt the problems with HFCS consider this. My wife used to weigh 300 pounds and drank an average of 2litres of soda a day. By simply swapping water for soda, she dropped over 50 pounds in less than 6 months."
This has to be the most ridiculous statement ever made. Your wife switched from drinking 800 calories a day in soda to 0 calories drinking water and you're surprised she lost weight? Average recommended caloric intake is 2000 calories so those 2 liters of soda accounted for 40% of that.
To say that the composition of HFCS and table sugar is the same is inaccurate. Close but not exactly. That means not the same. Get it?
so, do you want to explain WHY- if its such a no brainer bad thing to consume- what all the debate is about...it sure does seem like we (america) are constantly striving to add to the list of no brainer things to talk about;...and then of course the republican mindset tears it all up even more by saying its everyone's right to choose and keep gov't out...,when the dirty little truth is that fat and unhealthy americans will argue endlessly if it means they can avoid taking responsibility for their own welfare....- disgusting!
"For those who doubt the problems with HFCS consider this. My wife used to weigh 300 pounds and drank an average of 2litres of soda a day. By simply swapping water for soda, she dropped over 50 pounds in less than 6 months."
Your wife is still ridiculously fat. Does this mean water is bad for us as well?
FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut"
To all of you absurdly and irrationally assuming a corporate influence to Elkine Vulpine (if this were true, he would be supporting corn subsidies and fructose), check out this talk about the chemical breakdown of fructose : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM It's not processed as food, it's processed as poison - by the liver. Fructose is okay in fruit, because it has a lot of fiber (the antidote), but it's a poison otherwise (honey included), which doesn't satisfy the appetite at all; it stimulates it. 8 of the 12 long-term problems resulting from alcoholism also result from fructose.
Do many people consume too much sugar? Sure. Can too much sugar day after day can lead to negative health consequences in the long-term? Sure. But the only way you can argue that HFCS is inherently any more or less healthy than equal amounts of table sugar is if you are ignorant of the human digestive process. I can guarantee you that if obese Americans consume 10 cans of 12-oz soda with 50+g of pure cane sugar instead of HFCS, they will STILL be obese and at increased risk for diabetes etc. The problem isn't WHAT, it is HOW MUCH.
Its not the evil scientists and corporations that are making you fat. YOU control what you eat. If you really care that much about it, there ARE products available with less sugar (HFCS or otherwise)... diet soda maybe? or god forbid... water? The annoying thing about this entire discussion is that the anti-HFCS camp ultimately wants to remove HFCS from everyone's food, and the only way to do that is to use the government to pass some sort of legislation. Thanks for the thought guys, your heart might be in the right place, but I'd prefer that you don't create a nanny state to tell me what I can eat and I'd prefer that you not forcibly replace every sweetener in my food with more expensive alternatives. Grocery bills are enough of a pain as it is.
Watch King Corn and see what is really in HFCS. They leave out other ingredients that aren't mentioned and these ingredients require a hazmat gloves to be worn when handling. It is BAD for you...it is highly encouraged to make your own food and get back to the basics. Also the fact that we are the most obese country and also have one of the highest rates of cancer should tell you that there is something clearly WRONG with the food in our stores.
Chas wrote: “Science is not reality!!! Science is a perspective and more importantly a perception.”
So? What science determines *is* reality.
“Bottom Line Up Front – the more anything is processed, the worse the second and third level effects on the living organism will be. White sugar is worse than raw sugar and so on.”
That’s often the case with food, but it’s far from a rule. Cooking, pasteurization and irradiation are all types of processing. Can you tell me how any of them are any harm?
“Artificial sweetners – forget about it!”
What’s there to forget about? They just get a bad rep from conspiracy theorists; they’re completely harmless and actually a really good choice for some applications.
That's why it is a controversy: No one can tell you definitively whether it is bad for you or not.
Personally, I think it is a scapegoat. There are plenty of fattening foods around, and if you make a habit of eating them in excess, you will probably be overweight (I speak from experience, by the way). Lack of exercise is just as big a problem, in my experiece.
The problem is that they have replaced something that the body can process (real sugar) with something that the body does not process entirely. In other words, they have made junk food way worse than it already was. In addition to that, HFCS is pretty much in everything these days. So, it's not all on us and our dietary habits and exercise. They changed the game by pumping that stuff into nearly everything we eat.
Lonnie, anything the body cannot process simply, well, comes out the other end. Its like the old bubble gum adage. It doesn't really sit in your stomach for 7 years, it simples passes through, since you body can't process it. The problem here is gross overconsumption by the american people. It doesn't matter if it is sugar or HFCS, moderation is the key the a healthy life.
Nick,
You're missing the point here. How can you consume HFCS in 'moderation' when it is in EVERYTHING that you consume? Moderation would be great- if it wasn't used in the manufacture of nigh all foods purchased off the shelf.
Nick A,
Yes, the stuff our bodies can't process just passes on through, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. It can still cause some serious issues. I have digestive problems that a 26 year old woman with a healthy weight should not have. I have to avoid pretty much anything packaged (try doing that for a week or even one day). Plus, like someone else here said, it can cause liver problems. Your liver is still invovled in trying to process that food. Even if you eat in moderation, when the HFCS is in everything, you are still getting way too much of it. That's why these new HFCS commercials crack me up. How can you consume HFCS in moderation if everything at the grocery store has some in it?
If you don't like it, buy fruits and vegetables. You can buy wheat to grind yourself, you can buy corn to grind yourself. You say you are to busy, but that is bull, you can have this stuff done in bulk, you don't have to do it for evey meal. Most people, me included, are to lazy to do this, so we buy canned products, and pre-made products, so now we are paying for our lazyness. You can blame industry all you want, but ultimitly, you decide what you put in your body.
Brad,
You barley even read my comment before you decided to personally attack me and put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I was busy, you said that for me. You just proved my point by saying that in order to keep from eating processed foods, I would actually have to go through the trouble of grinding my own corn and wheat. Who on earth is actually going to do that? I know it is up to me to keep myself healthy, which is why I said I have to avoid packaged foods. I buy fruits and vegetables and cook every day. But like you said, unless I grind my own wheat, it is basically impossible to avoid packaged foods altogether. You are right about something, we have made this problem ourselves. But we are trying to get answers about HFCS and we can’t get a straight answer. HFCS companies are pumping millions of dollars into commercials to tell us that HFCS is okay in moderation. The average person cannot consume HFCS in moderation because it is in everything they eat, even if they eat in moderation. People don’t understand this or don’t care. Plus, the corn industry has the advantage of being subsidized to provide us all this unhealthy food. $4 BILLION in 2009!?! They are being encouraged to poison us. Since you basically agreed with my point but decided to make assumptions about me and attack me for not being able to eat the junk you eat, do you have something to say about my argument now?
@NickA: Not true. Certain poisons do NOT "come out the other end" as you put it. Some stay in the body and start to block or even kill cells in your organs. The chemically-altered fructose in HFCS acts just like the alcohol in your evening cocktail, but at the high quantities you absorb these modified sugars build up in your body just as quickly as they do in an alcoholic's body and can eventually result in Jaundice–total liver failure.
The proof is in the fact that since 1959 Americans have become on the average obese and out of condition, people–even children–having to actively exercise many times more than they used to in order to maintain any kind of healthy body. I am a victim of this problem. I weighed a mere 125 pounds at age 21 and could do things pretty much without effort. I worked with heavy steel, welding, cutting, fitting and shipping massive boilers for power plants. I was capable of lifting 500 pounds and carrying it as much as 50 feet from where I started. Now, I weigh 200 pounds and can barely lift 100 pounds and carry it the same distance. I've stopped drinking sodas with HFCS; I actively avoid HFCS in everything I eat. I expect that by flushing what I can out of my system, I'll be able to increase my metabolism and get back down to a decent weight. 200 pounds may not be too much for you, but I'm not a body-builder; I'm not a weight lifter; I'm an ordinary person wanting to get some of my energy back.
Actually, I can tell you that it's bad for you. I'm a biologist and I came across a recent study, I believe from Princeton, that showed something surprising. When mice were given high fructose corn syrup they gained more weight and at a faster rate than mice given equal amounts of cane sugar. The fact is, our bodies metabolize corn syrup in a way that is different from cane sugar. No one knows why.
Wow, what a NON informative article. You skim over the chemical process. There is MERCURY used in the making of HFCS and there is residue left behind. Didn't see that in your article. THIS IS VERY BAD FOR YOU. As always, it is about saving a few bucks at the expense of our health. Consumers, BEWARE.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
Is that ethyl mercury or methyl mercury? One is poisonous, the other is not. You may want to inform yourself before you make blatantly ignorant statements.
"Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply," the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.
Elemental mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin, but when it's bound as an organic ethyl, it's easily filtered out of your body by your kidneys and is quickly discharged.
The real problem with HFCS and one that I am surprised is not discussed in the article is mercury. There are currently conflicting reports on whether or not the chemical agents used in HFCS processing introduce mercury to the end product. I really couldn't care less whether the excessive sugar in the food my children eat is glucose, sucrose, dextrose, maltose or fructose. Too much sugar is too much sugar. But until an agency I trust can definitively tell me that HFCS does not contain mercury, I am staying away. See this link for a balanced report: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20090127/mercury-in-high-fructose-corn-syrup
Pamela and others. Simply saying that mercury is in a substance and is bad for you is an incomplete thought. There are and have been non-bioavailable forms of mercury consumed by us from natural and man-made things all our lives. Non-bioavailable means that it cannot and does not react in any way with our body. So, quit being scared about mercury until you do your own research and determine if in-fact it is in a form which will harm your body.
It is no worse the sugar. Since less is used, it's actually better to have then sugar. That said, Sugar, Corn Sugars, Honey are all bad for you. Too much of any of them will cause problems. Also too much Fat. Moderation is the key.
No reasonable study has shown any effect that's different from sugar. It pretty much has the same sucrose/fructose ration as honey.
Not so. Sucrose (sugar) is processed using insulin to regulate the levels in the blood. Fructose (including HFCS) is processed by the liver releasing enzymes. These enzymes promote increasing fat, so HFCS, in effect, makes us fat in the way the body responds to it. Despite the lobbying attempts to obfuscate it, there are studies that show this happens. Add in trace amounts of mercury that leech into it from processing methods and you've got something really bad for you. Definitely worse than sugar.
Every study is started to provide a particular bias. The end result is conflicting studies that either defend a product or tell you why you should use another product and not the one studied.
in response to JC: what you have written is factually incorrect (any diabetic or nutritionist will tell you). Sucrose is not processed by insulin. What insulin does is regulate the levels of glucose in the blood. Sucrose is broken down by dissacharidases into its two components, glucose and fructose. Fructose is processed by the liver, yes. So is glucose. They actually share the same metabolic pathway, called glycolysis. What fructose does is skip one of the first regulatory steps of the glycolytic pathway. But what so many people, including yourself, fail to recognize, is that HFCS is not just made of fructose. In fact, it is made with approximately the same percentage of glucose to sucrose as what is normally found in cane sugar. Get your facts right.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
All sugar is toxic to your body.
The only form we have adapted to safely utilize sugars are in fruits, where they are combined with fiber, Vitamin complexes, and minerals.
High fructose corn syrup is processed to the point of toxicity. Sucrose is Glucose and fructose bonded together.
HFCS is 45% glucose, 55% fructose, not bound together. It is unnatural and synthetically made.
All you people vehemently defending HFCS for the sole point of being contrarian hurt my brain.
Sugar is toxic. HFCS is even more toxic. Sugar is naturally made, at least. HFCS is pure fructose and glucose.
This toxic sludge is highly addictive, even more so than regular sugar, and lends itself to creation of brain and arterial plaques. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but people who drink excessive amounts of sugar are really, really, stupid.
No, not bad for you! It is the same as sugar, just coming from another plant. (All plants make some form of sugar).
Unfortunately the mass media is blaming HFCS as the bad guy, when it really just relates back to having too much of it. If we consumed the same quanitities of cane sugar, we'd have the same health ramifications. Sadly, we just look for the scapgoat...
You're wrong and need to do more research. The body does not proces HFCS the same as other sugars. The body treats it as a poison or unrecongnized substance. And your body can not tell when it's had enough.
This article is complete nonsense and it looks like now that Rick Sanchez has been fired- your food news is back to SPIN. We already know HFCS is harmful, aside from the fact that is a genetically modified chemical product, PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW IT CONTRIBUTES TO OBESITY- it's been proven in lab rat studies that CNN published earlier, remember? This article will maybe confuse people, but will not change their minds. Neither will changing the name to corn sugar. That'll just make people avoid corn sugar too- all the better!
Yes it's bad for you. Look at the diabetes, obesity, and other diseases affecting younger people. My random sample of a typical suburban grocery store shows that 70% of the products have high-fructose corn syrup. This goes back to Reagan cutting Federal school lunch programs. They fired all the ladies who actually cooked good food for the kids and they brought in the prepackaged crap from publicly traded companies, e.g., pizza, hotdogs, juices, etc.
Obesity is up everywhere – the WHO has issued a statement calling it a worldwide epidemic. How can we pinpoint HFCS as the problem with the problem is everywhere? People all over the world are simply eating too much of everything. Look at rates of obesity, CVD< and diabetes in Europe, Mexico – places where it has been touted to have "real sugar Coke!" Just because it has real sugar doesn't make it any better.
Um, I ate the school lunches before 'Reagan' supposedly fired all the lunch ladies. The lunches were just as bad then as they are now. What you are stating is wrong and shows you just regurgitate whatever crap you hear from the media. Do you even form your own opinions based on facts? Our schools recently made the switch you believe all schools were forced to make in the early 80s. Our decision was based on financial reasons and the fact that we can now offer our kids healthier more palatable choices for school lunches.
As usual, CNN has delivered an annoying, uninformative, badly written article. Yes, high fructose corn syrup is bad for you–worse than sugar, because it has an addictive quality. This is why so many companies use it in their products: they're banking on consumers getting, frankly put, addicted to the products in a way that they wouldn't if the products used regular sugar. So even if at face value the nutrition make-up looks somewhat similar, the chemical response in one's body is vastly different between the two.
Thanks, CNN, for being the most annoying "news source" ever.
Addictive? Mercury laced? Worse for you than supposed "Clean" cane sugar?
Great stuff I'm sure one of the oldest and most powerful lobbying organizations on Capital Hill would just love the public to believe. Looks like they're trolling this article in droves...
I think that's great though: Let's outsource our sweetner production offshore to some godforsaken 3rd world island that pollutes the piss out of the ocean / land and pays it's people in food, rather than keeping it here in the Continental United States where we have gobs of corn.
Here's an idea: Stop digesting your science through political snippets on CNN and movies like "Supersize Me"
high fructose corn syrup - Crap that is put into everything to make it palatable.
Potentially, the largest exposure of Americans to the neurotoxin MERCURYis through the consumption of products containing HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. (Environmental Health, 2009) Who eats a lot of HFCS-kids. At what age is Mercury consumption the most damaging-develponging brain. What level of exposure to mercury is safe-NONE.
Processed foods are bad, so yes, it's bad for you.
Is it bad for us? I don't know. Is it bad for me? Yes. If I take steps to reduce the amount of HFCS I consume, I can see very clear changes in my physical health, even if I add plenty of regular sugar to replace it. HFCS gives me headaches, makes me feel fatigued and there are other digestive consequenses I don't think I need to overshare. A large soda maker changed their formula from sugar to HFCS some years ago, and while they tell me the two are the same, in blind taste tests, it's very clear that there is a taste difference.
OK, there are a couple things in this article to look at. What does "milled" and "chemical processing" actually mean? What chemical? 1957 this began, but that long ago, there was not so much sugar / high fructose corn syrus in almost all the cheap processed foods. So High fructose corn syrup is the same chemical make up as sugar, but eating sugar in everything day after day is bad for everyone. Now think about hfcs and who knows what other chemicals sit inside it. So many chemicals are not tested for. For example, recently fetuses were tested and scientist found over 200 unnatural chemical in them. Yikes. Autism, Leukemia, hormone problems .... And why is it toys are shipped from China for less than making them here (well not just toys, everything) but sending sugar in is more expensive than this long process of making hfcs? Must do some research on trade and subsidies I guess.
It is 'bad' for us in that it makes sweetening things very inexpensive. Cane sugar had a built in 'sin tax' to discourage its inclusion in too many things. Since HFCS is so cheap, just like trans fat, it can be mixed into really cheap (and thus accessible) food,.. since the food is cheap people eat more of it, and thus get fat.
Somehow the sugar making industry has the government put HUGE tariffs on sugar cane from other nations. If this tariff was dropped, raw sugar would be far cheaper than modified corn syrup. But the small, and I mean small sugar cane farmers have done the US a dis-service by lobbying to keep this tariff high. In fact this tax is highly controversial in the scheme of free trade and this is one issue that has existed for more than a century and was supported mainly to be sure that Cuba's huge sugar cane production does not do well economically.
The answer is no it is not as bad as sucrose. Fructose is found in fruits, all fruits have it, except maybe pineapples which have mostly sucrose (table sugar). Fructose is made from 2 glucose molecules so it is easier digested than sucrose. Our bodies run on glucose, it is the fuel our cells burn.
Claiming it causes obesity and such is as laughable as saying water causes obesity. Because obesity is caused by an imbalance of calories taken in (the fuel tank) and calories being used (fuel being burned). If the body gets more fuel than it can burn it does a smart thing for self preservation, it makes fat which can be converted back into glucose later.
In reality, high fructose corn syrup is better for the human body than table sugar (sucrose).
.....Where are you getting your facts?
You are just plain wrong on so many levels.
Fructose is not made up of 2 glucose molecules.
Fructose is a monosaccharide. It is made up of one fructose molecule.
Fructose tells your body to rapidly produce fat.
This is an evolutionary instinct, as Humans are supposed to pack on fat for the winter when fruits are in season.
If it's as hard to digest as the article is then I'll consider giving it up. A lot of technical info to potentially scare people but nothing was resolved/answered unless your taking a chemistry class quiz.
In this day and age of multimedia, a bit of illustrations of this long process would have helped a lot for the comprehension.
Like everything, it's fine in moderation. Unfortunately, no one takes personal responsibility anymore and consumes way more than they should. THAT is the issue that NO ONE seems to care about. Kids are fat? Stop forcing crap food down their throat every night...it's not all that friggin difficult. "i dont have time to make them a healthy meal" is just one huge excuse.
It is hard to eat it in "moderation", when it is found EVERYWHERE, including breads, yogurt and other "regular" foods, not just in junk.
I think the problem is that it's in everything. HFCS is added to processed foods because it's cheaper to fill a box with sugar, salt and chemicals (like preservatives, artificial flavors, and thickeners) than it is to fill a box with nutritious and healthy ingredients. We buy proscessed food for the convenience. But we don't need all that sugar, all that salt, all those chemicals.Most of the time, we don't even read the package ingredients because we want food that's cheap and easy to prepare. So it's a choice – read the label – if it sounds like a science experience, don't buy it. You win!!
If it requires that much processing that much, then it is bad for you.
I know longer eat anything with high fructose or corn syrup in it. I lost 44 pounds this year and am now a size 3. A family member stop and they lost 60 pounds so far. So whoever wants to keep shoveling that garbage down their throats go for it. A lot of people refuse to buy anything with it anymore. Of course why would the food industry want anyone to know that is crap? LOL
Sugar is bad for you in any form, and HFCS is a highly processed one. I would be happy to debate that processed food should be left out of your diet completely. The problem here is that so many products have HFCS in them in order to mask or sweeten their original flavor. American's are addicted to sweet. Why does ketchup need to be sweet? What's wrong with potato chips as they are? Have had unsweetened cola? I think its unique and delicious, however kids hate it. It's all a massive marketing strategy to sell more sugar to America.
I don't think it's the HFCS so much as it is the amount we consume. Start reading ingredients.... it's in everything. One thing I don't like is the fact that its made from corn and soaked in pesticides. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy
We need to start going organic and stay away from foods that are loaded with pesticides, anti-biotics and hormones, it's killing us.
What a pointless article. Where is the debate whether HFCS is good or bad for you? All the article states is how HFCS is made. Come on! CNN.com!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
Washington Post – "Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury,"
Didnt see THAT in this article??? Yea, "I didnt know, AND NOW I DO!" (lol @ the survery..) _Thanx_ CNN N, you're superduper.
Just to recap the process to get HFCS- take corn, add chemicals and process. Add more chemicals and process. Add more chemicals and process yet again. Yup, that seems safe.
IT is bad for us. Just as sugar is.
In minute quantities, both are a-ok, but the amount we unwittingly consume in in preserved foods have many health ramifications.
So eat fresh foods, limit your 'toppings' and you will naturally eat less sugar, HFCS AND salt. And yeah, once in a while, you can eat your cake too.