Michael Pollan says, 'don't listen to scientists'

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Did you catch the explanation for the absence of Pellagra in the Native American populations from which the practice of corn cultivation was borrowed?

I already knew about that. Long before I read your link. Look up "nixtamalization" if you want to learn more.

Did you note that your link also points out another traditional name for pellagra?

The "springtime disease". This is directly related to its incidence among farming communities.

That isn't always a synonym for starving communities.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Michael Pollan mentiond Joel Salatin in "The Ominivores Dillemma" as a pioneer of progressive farming.

In terms of his comments about food safety referenced in the OP I would recommend reading Joel Salatin's book

Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories From the Local Food Front

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Want-Do-Illegal-Stories/dp/0963810952

Here is an article summarizing Joel Salatin's arguments.
www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Salatin_Sept03.pdf

On a side note relating to the comments about preparing ones own food then cannin, bottling or freezing it.
I recently attended a seminar where one of the so called expert consultants in Food Safety said she would never buy any food at a farmers market including homemade jams, sauces etc since it was dangerous!! If these experts had their way they would ban all food prepared in Aunt Maggie's kitchen and only allow mass produced corporate food which was prepared in kitchens which she or her kind inspected and they had all the paperwork in place.
This argument is ridiculous as it assumes that a home kitchen entrepreneur has the same risk exposure producing 100 bottles of jam a week compared to a factory producing 10 million. As Joel Salatin points out in his article above it is like the aftermath of 9/11 were rational statistical risk was thrown out of the window in favour of emotional non-statistical risk. A sample of one does not a risk make. Also having actually been involved in large factories which pass these " food safety experts" standards it is very obvious very soon that abstract paperwork becomes primary and actual daily hygiene is secondary or worse completely discounted.

A "food safety expert" visited my factory on friday and his comments about an area which would be actually physically difficult to clean was not close that area off from the rest of the factory so that it does not pose a potential contamination risk, but make sure you have a written record that it has been cleaned!! In the end it is the written record which counts and not the actual physical risk. I am sorry but all that these co-called "food safety experts" have done is criminalise your grandmother in order to make their work appear rellevant. The joke that Salatin mentions in his book is that it is perfectly legal to bake cakes for a school function in your home kitchen and serve them up to a class of 1st graders, but don't try to sell these same cakes at the farmers market. There is no science behind this law and that is what Pollan is refering too.

People are welcome to trust their Aunt Maggie's canning techniques. And corporate food production doesn't have a perfect track record. Recent Hep A, E-coli, and Listeria outbreaks attest to that.

But what the above position forgets is the critical need for standards and having the infrastructure to inspect those food producers.

The solution to that is to review the specific requirement and see if it was indeed necessary. The solution is not to condemn inspections and rules altogether.

If it is a matter of one needing to be a certain size in order to afford to meet the requirement then you have to weigh the need for that regulation, not just ignore it because it hampers a small producer. Small production has advantages. But is that automatically a benefit that outweighs the risk of unregulated food production?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, I read that thread.




The thing is, sucrose is glucose and fructose. HFCS is ... glucose and fructose.

In the other thread you mention it was pointed out that the relative proportions of glucose and fructose in the two compounds are not significantly different. 5% or 10% on average. Sometimes not even that much.

If you want to really up your fructose intake (as opposed to sugars in general) then stick with apples, raw cane sugar, and honey. But that wouldn't sound as good to the food alarmists, so they single out corn sugar, and ignore the rest.


I do not take issue with the idea that there is too much sugar in many processed foods, and it is probably true that the economics of HFCS has exacerbated that problem, but it doesn't do a bit of good to confuse the issue by waving around scarey words on a flagpole of bad science to try and make that point.

People are regrettably prone to think in dichotomies, and the sad fact is that when when corn sugar is demonized as "bad" there is a certain tendency to think of "not corn sugar" as "good". This leads to otherwise intelligent people looking at a label and saying "Yuck, corn sugar. I ain't buyin' that stuff." for no good reason, and then buying something else with just as much sugar that advertises its "goodness" because it uses different sugar source instead.

It's about how much sugar something contains. That's the lesson we need to teach, not that one product is healthier than another one because the sugar in it costs more.

I'm not arguing against the theoretical issue the two sugars should have the same impact once absorbed into the bloodstream. But there are many things in medicine which seem obvious but which we are still wise to test before making assumptions.

The study results are mixed so far.

Study Shows More Insulin Resistance With Fructose-Sweetened Beverages

All contain glucose and fructose in roughly equal amounts. The high-fructose corn syrup used in most soft drinks and other sweetened beverages in the U.S. contains about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, compared to the 50/50 fructose-glucose ratio found in table sugar.

"Any added sugar used as an alternative to high-fructose corn syrup would have a similar chemical composition," University of Cincinnati obesity researcher Matthias H. Tschop, MD, tells WebMD. "While it is possible that there are differences in how these sugars affect metabolic pathways, I know of no studies that show this."

But Tschop says the newly reported study is an important step forward in understanding the metabolic impact of glucose and fructose, even if the real-world public health implications are less clear.

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

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.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thought I'd add something I happened to read earlier today, from At Home by Bill Bryson (highly recommended):

Is there a disease you were thinking of that our current processed food may be contributing to because we are missing a micronutrient?

 

[Dymanic]

Did you note that your link also points out another traditional name for pellagra?

The "springtime disease". This is directly related to its incidence among farming communities.

That isn't always a synonym for starving communities.

One would presume not -- but then, if the main focus of those farming communities is nonfood cash crops like cotton and tobacco, it wouldn't be very surprising to find many of the residents of those communities flirting with malnutrition from time to time, especially when the whims of weather and markets did not favor prosperity in those endeavors. It is interesting to note that pellagra mortality peaked in 1928, and had already declined sharply before Elvehjem identified the cause, nine years later, as niacin deficiency, and the start of voluntary bread enrichment in 1938.

I wonder what would happen if we were to fast-forward from the year 1900 (chosen arbitrarily anyway, remember) to the year 1942, by which time mandatory enrichment laws had been enacted and 75% to 80% of all family flour and baker's white bread produced in the US was enriched. What has changed since that time? Was there more or less public focus on nutrition than there is today? Were people less nutritionally healthy? Have agricultural methods changed significantly since that time? Food advertising and marketing?

 

[quadraginta]

One would presume not -- but then, if the main focus of those farming communities is nonfood cash crops like cotton and tobacco, ...

<snip>

How much cotton and tobacco were they growing in 18th century Spain and Italy, or the rest of Europe?

 

[jt512]

The varieties that do [add sugar] at least use sugar rather than HFCS.

The composition of HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) are similar, so I don't see any reason to prefer "sugar" to HFCS. In fact, the type of HFCS used in most foods other than carbonated soft drinks and ice cream contains less fructose than sucrose does (42% vs. 50%), so if it is fructose you fear, you're better off with HFCS than sucrose.

Jay

 

[Dymanic]

How much cotton and tobacco were they growing in 18th century Spain and Italy, or the rest of Europe?

Couldn't say. Also couldn't say what the extent of the Pellagra problem there was. One thing they evidently were growing was lots of corn, so we're kind of going in circles there.

Any particular reason why you chose to completely ignore the rest of my post?

 

[jt512]

Obesity in the US increased with the increased consumption of HFCS. There are other possible variables and of course total calorie consumption increased. But the claim that the body processes all forms of carbs the same is not true. Concentrated calorie consumption does trigger insulin production. The calories are quickly utilized or stored and the blood glucose drops stimulating one's appetite. This cycle is believed to affect some people causing weight gain.

Whether the fructose differs from sucrose which is broken down into glucose is unclear. But I'm certainly skeptical of bought and paid for science of the Corn Refiners front group.

First of all, HFCS isn't fructose; it's a mixture of fructose and glucose. Secondly, sucrose doesn't break down to glucose; it breaks down to its constituent monosaccharides, fructose and glucose. Third, the percentage of fructose in the most common form of HFCS (42%) is less than in sucrose (50%), so if you're worried about fructose consumption, you should be at least as worried about sucrose as HFCS.

Jay

 

[quadraginta]

First of all, HFCS isn't fructose; it's a mixture of fructose and glucose. Secondly, sucrose doesn't break down to glucose; it breaks down to its constituent monosaccharides, fructose and glucose. Third, the percentage of fructose in the most common form of HFCS (42%) is less than in sucrose (50%), so if you're worried about fructose consumption, you should be at least as worried about sucrose as HFCS.

Jay

And more worried about apple juice and honey.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The composition of HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) are similar, so I don't see any reason to prefer "sugar" to HFCS. In fact, the type of HFCS used in most foods other than carbonated soft drinks and ice cream contains less fructose than sucrose does (42% vs. 50%), so if it is fructose you fear, you're better off with HFCS than sucrose.

Jay

Umm, are you sure? My source says sucrose is about 50:50 glucose and fructose and HFCS is 45% glucose and 55% fructose.

All contain glucose and fructose in roughly equal amounts. The high-fructose corn syrup used in most soft drinks and other sweetened beverages in the U.S. contains about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, compared to the 50/50 fructose-glucose ratio found in table sugar.

I'm interested in accuracy so a source that says HFCS differs in different products would be important.

I appreciate your post. I had no idea that corn syrup was all glucose and no fructose. At least that is what this site says.

 

[Muldur]

Science is self-correcting.

Not as much as you'd think.

Get a copy of and read the book I linked to.

Religion is not.

Which has exactly what to do with the point that we pay too much credence to scientists?

 

[ZirconBlue]

It does seem possible that at least some of the increase in incidents involving contaminated food is due to improvement in detection methods.

Has such an increase actually been demonstrated?

When I read the highlighted phrase it keeps coming out, "... at least use sugar instead of sugar."

Better phrased would be ". . . at least use one type of sugar instead of another type." I prefer cane sugar for taste reasons. Also, I don't think the US government policies that give HFCS an artificial price advantage over cane sugar, are, in the main, beneficial. So, my hope is that some market pressure can be used to push back against that. Finally Skeptic Ginger expressed a particular dislike to sauces containing HFCS, so I made a point to address that concern with my recommendation.

The composition of HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) are similar, so I don't see any reason to prefer "sugar" to HFCS. In fact, the type of HFCS used in most foods other than carbonated soft drinks and ice cream contains less fructose than sucrose does (42% vs. 50%), so if it is fructose you fear, you're better off with HFCS than sucrose.

I have no "fear" of fructose.

 

[quadraginta]

The composition of HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) are similar, so I don't see any reason to prefer "sugar" to HFCS. In fact, the type of HFCS used in most foods other than carbonated soft drinks and ice cream contains less fructose than sucrose does (42% vs. 50%), so if it is fructose you fear, you're better off with HFCS than sucrose.

Jay

Umm, are you sure? My source says sucrose is about 50:50 glucose and fructose and HFCS is 45% glucose and 55% fructose.

All contain glucose and fructose in roughly equal amounts. The high-fructose corn syrup used in most soft drinks and other sweetened beverages in the U.S. contains about 55% fructose and 45% glucose, compared to the 50/50 fructose-glucose ratio found in table sugar.

I'm interested in accuracy so a source that says HFCS differs in different products would be important.

<snip>

Part of the confusion is that HFCS isn't just one formula.

Sucrose, as has been pointed out, is a disaccharide, a molecular compound made up of two different monosaccharides, one molecule each of glucose and fructose, which means that pure sucrose by definition is 50/50.

Table sugar, by convention (but not necessarily by definition) is mostly sucrose.

HFCS is a mixture of (mostly) glucose and fructose, not a compound, and depending on the intended purpose the proportions are different.

From Wiki.

According to the USDA, 24% of HFCS consists of water, and the rest sugars. The most widely used varieties of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#cite_note-4[5] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.[6]

This is what jt512 was referring to.

The main point is that once it hits your tummy it doesn't matter any more. Your stomach acids convert the sucrose to its component sugars anyway, and then your body goes on to process them as if they had never been a compound.

For all practical purposes it just doesn't make any difference how the sugars are bonded (or not). What is important is the total intake.

The real issue with HFCS is an economic one. It's cheap, and that makes it easier for a manufacturer to add to a prepared food. Our bodies are evolved to like sugar, and sweetening makes a food more attractive. That is an irresistible sales gimmick.

HFCS alarmists are missing the point, either through ignorance or neglect. Which kind of sugar isn't the problem. If it was then apples and pears would be at the top of the hit list. Their fructose to glucose ratio is around 2:1. It's how much sugar is getting into our diet that is the problem.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Better phrased would be ". . . at least use one type of sugar instead of another type." I prefer cane sugar for taste reasons. Also, I don't think the US government policies that give HFCS an artificial price advantage over cane sugar, are, in the main, beneficial. So, my hope is that some market pressure can be used to push back against that. Finally Skeptic Ginger expressed a particular dislike to sauces containing HFCS, so I made a point to address that concern with my recommendation.

<snip>

Your taste buds are more discriminating than mine. Aside from properties of texture (sucrose is prone to crystallize in some food preparations) I doubt that I could tell the difference in a controlled taste test between a food prepared with HFCS 42 and the same one prepared with an equivalent amount of cane sugar. (Which is about 50/50 fructose/glucose.)

I do agree with you most emphatically about the part I highlighted. Sadly, I'm not sure that there is enough discrimination in that sort of food selection to encourage (pressure) manufacturers to choose one sugar over another unless you combine it with writing complaints to the ones you're unhappy with. I tend to purchase items which contain as little added sugar as I can, and if I want it sweeter (which is rare) I'll add some at home.

 

[Dymanic]

Has such an increase actually been demonstrated?

The answer to that will vary with the time frame, the specific pathogens, and the specific geographic areas one considers. The best information on US trends started becoming available when the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network ("FoodNet") was established in 1996.

Preliminary data on this page show the trends for Campylobacter, E. coli O157, Listeria, Salmonella, and Vibrio from 1996 to 2010.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/trends-in-foodborne-illness.html

Campylobacter dropped by about a fourth and then stayed more or lesss steady; E. coli increased and then went down (but remained spikey); Salmonella pretty much held its own; Vibrio more than doubled.

Now go back and look at the trend in lab-confirmed Salmonella between 1976 and 1994:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/environmental/foodsafety/ref_manual/chap_1.pdf

and you see a strong overall increase, but with a lot of regional variation. Roughly quadrupled overall (if I'm following the right line on that somewhat fuzzy graph), and it did so more or less steadily, except for a ten-fold spike in the Northeast region around 1989 and a sudden tripling around 93-94 in the Pacific region.

In the context of Pollan's writings, perhaps the time period of most interest would be that during which the most significant changes in our food supply system took place, beginning with the increased use of chemical fertilizers around the end of World War II (due in part to a surplus in production capacity for ammonium nitrate, previously used for explosives), on through the "get big or get out" phase of US government ag policy and the rise of the fast food industry.

Unfortunately, as we go back in time the data are going to become increasingly sparce and fuzzy, but among the noteworthy observations made by scientists is this:

Infections due to enterohaemorrhagic (causing intestinal bleeding) E. coli, e.g. E.coli O157, and listeriosis are important foodborne diseases which have emerged over the last decades.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs237/en/

 

[ZirconBlue]

I do agree with you most emphatically about the part I highlighted. Sadly, I'm not sure that there is enough discrimination in that sort of food selection to encourage (pressure) manufacturers to choose one sugar over another unless you combine it with writing complaints to the ones you're unhappy with.

There is currently a trend of offering and marketing products without HFCS. "Contains No High-Fructose Corn Syrup" or "Made with Real Sugar" products seem to be a growing segment. The bread I usually buy (Arnold brand whole wheat) is an example the former, and Sierra Mist Natural of the latter. I figure supporting these products is a good way to keep this trend going.

 

[jt512]

The main point is that once [sucrose] hits your tummy it doesn't matter any more. Your stomach acids convert the sucrose to its component sugars anyway, and then your body goes on to process them as if they had never been a compound.

For all practical purposes it just doesn't make any difference how the sugars are bonded (or not). What is important is the total intake.

That's correct, except that the location of sucrose hydrolysis into glucose and fructose is the small intestine, not the stomach. But hydrolysis is so fast that it doesn't affect the rate of absorption, so, as you suggest, the rate of absorption of glucose and fructose is the same whether ingested as sucrose or as monosaccharides.

Jay

 

[quadraginta]

That's correct, except that the location of sucrose hydrolysis into glucose and fructose is the small intestine, not the stomach. But hydrolysis is so fast that it doesn't affect the rate of absorption, so, as you suggest, the rate of absorption of glucose and fructose is the same whether ingested as sucrose or as monosaccharides.

Jay

I wasn't suggesting "tummy" as a specific medical terminology.

...

"Duodenum."

...

"Frank Zappa!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Part of the confusion is that HFCS isn't just one formula.

Sucrose, as has been pointed out, is a disaccharide, a molecular compound made up of two different monosaccharides, one molecule each of glucose and fructose, which means that pure sucrose by definition is 50/50.

Table sugar, by convention (but not necessarily by definition) is mostly sucrose.

HFCS is a mixture of (mostly) glucose and fructose, not a compound, and depending on the intended purpose the proportions are different.

From Wiki.




This is what jt512 was referring to.

The main point is that once it hits your tummy it doesn't matter any more. Your stomach acids convert the sucrose to its component sugars anyway, and then your body goes on to process them as if they had never been a compound.

For all practical purposes it just doesn't make any difference how the sugars are bonded (or not). What is important is the total intake.

The real issue with HFCS is an economic one. It's cheap, and that makes it easier for a manufacturer to add to a prepared food. Our bodies are evolved to like sugar, and sweetening makes a food more attractive. That is an irresistible sales gimmick.

HFCS alarmists are missing the point, either through ignorance or neglect. Which kind of sugar isn't the problem. If it was then apples and pears would be at the top of the hit list. Their fructose to glucose ratio is around 2:1. It's how much sugar is getting into our diet that is the problem.

You are repeating what I already addressed without addressing what I said. In addition, I still don't see how you figure HFCS has a smaller percentage of fructose than sucrose does.

I get it that it appears that theoretically HFCS and sucrose given the same caloric concentration should act the same once digested and enters the blood stream. HOWEVER, it's is sometimes a good idea to test what we think seems obvious and not just assume a conclusion.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DO THE RESEARCH, you get mixed results. It is not clear why, but it is clear that there may indeed be a difference between the two sugars regardless that it is counterintuitive.