The Dangers of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

[cwalner]

I became intrigued by this due to some TV Ads I recently saw put out by some Corn Growers associations attempting to debunk the percieved dangers of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Thier argument is that it has no artificial sweetners and in moderation is no more dangerous than sugar.

I defenitely agreed with the add, since I have never heard of any dangers of HFCS other than dangers typically associated with a hugh sugar and high calorie diet. When I did my (limited) research (thank you google) I confirmed my suspicions and could only find complaints linking HFCS with obesity and diabetes.

Has anybody here ever seen these ads as well or know of any claim that HFCS is dangerous in ways other than consuming too much sugar is dangerous? There must be something out there, since I don't think that the growers association would bother spending that much money on ads to counter claims that are non-existant.

 

[applecorped]

As for evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature that directly links HFCS to overweight or obesity, very little exists and what does exist is inconclusive.

http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2007/ja/sweetfactsfi407.cfm

 

[fuelair]

My primary argument is taste. Try a coke made in Mexico and a coke made in the US - if you can't tell the difference with no hints, you deserve to drink pepsi.


Hint: the coke made in Mexico tastes like pre-New coke coke because it has sugar, not the corn syrup they sneaked in when New Coke failed (as some of us think was planned).

 

[applecorped]

My primary argument is taste. Try a coke made in Mexico and a coke made in the US - if you can't tell the difference with no hints, you deserve to drink pepsi.


Hint: the coke made in Mexico tastes like pre-New coke coke because it has sugar, not the corn syrup they sneaked in when New Coke failed (as some of us think was planned).

Funny you mentioned that. I heard that recently in a jesting manner. Do you really think it was pre-planned? I sense a CT coming on.

 

[cwalner]

My primary argument is taste. Try a coke made in Mexico and a coke made in the US - if you can't tell the difference with no hints, you deserve to drink pepsi.


Hint: the coke made in Mexico tastes like pre-New coke coke because it has sugar, not the corn syrup they sneaked in when New Coke failed (as some of us think was planned).

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. My friends and I are defenite Coke snobs - When we can afford it we try to get Coke in glass bottles because that affects the taste as well (even when using HFCS). One day, I happened to be fairly flush and shopping at Costco when they had a special on Cases of glass bottle Coke 'Hecho en Mexico' Much rejoicing was had that evening.

 

[TheDaver]

In my short stay at Above Top Secret, I discovered the CT woosers are almost as afraid of HFCS as they are of Aspartame.

Funny thing is, some of these very same people recommend using only “pure” honey as a sweetener. As far as I can tell, honey is nutritionally almost identical to HFCS.

 

[cwalner]

In my short stay at Above Top Secret, I discovered the CT woosers are almost as afraid of HFCS as they are of Aspartame.

Funny thing is, some of these very same people recommend using only “pure” honey as a sweetener. As far as I can tell, honey is nutritionally almost identical to HFCS.

Did anyone say why they were so afraid? I am not looking for anything reasonable or supported here. I am just curious as to what the claims are that the corn growers thought they needed to respond to in TV Ads.

 

[Theophage]

Funny you mentioned that. I heard that recently in a jesting manner. Do you really think it was pre-planned? I sense a CT coming on.

How it probably happened was that Coca-Cola was planning to switch to corn syrup anyway, and since that was going to affect the taste somewhat they decided to go whole hog with a new tasting drink. When that failed, they probably decided that they could still get away with using the cheaper HFCS, since even though it tasted different from the original, it wasn't as drastic of a difference.

They were right, it worked.

 

[cwalner]

Funny you mentioned that. I heard that recently in a jesting manner. Do you really think it was pre-planned? I sense a CT coming on.

I actually remember seeing something about the switch to new coke. In response to allegations that Coke ignored evidence that showed in advance what a collosal failure new coke would be a Coke exec answered "We're not that stupid." In response to the CT claim above he responded "We're not that smart."

 

[applecorped]

i actually remember seeing something about the switch to new coke. In response to allegations that coke ignored evidence that showed in advance what a collosal failure new coke would be a coke exec answered "we're not that stupid." in response to the ct claim above he responded "we're not that smart."

lol!!
:d

 

[dakotajudo]

I've discussed this topic some with both crop breeders (wheat, mostly) and with an exercise physiology; it's some thing I've taken an interest in.

A few references I've collected that suggest metabolic problems arising from fructose consumption:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/1374
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Hyperinsulinemic Diseases Final.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39449.819271.BEv1

There have been a couple more recently that suggest HFCS may not affect appetite; however, these don't really address long-term metabolic changes. Certainly these could be cited by corn processors to debunk link between HFCS and the metabolic syndrome
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/116
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(06)00392-3/abstract


Personally, I'd rather see corn processed to ethanol than to HFCS; or traded to Mexico for sugarcane. For that matter, I don't much care for the trend of pushing crop yields at the expense of food quality.

 

[cwalner]

I've discussed this topic some with both crop breeders (wheat, mostly) and with an exercise physiology; it's some thing I've taken an interest in.

A few references I've collected that suggest metabolic problems arising from fructose consumption:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/1374
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Hyperinsulinemic Diseases Final.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39449.819271.BEv1

There have been a couple more recently that suggest HFCS may not affect appetite; however, these don't really address long-term metabolic changes. Certainly these could be cited by corn processors to debunk link between HFCS and the metabolic syndrome
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/86/1/116
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(06)00392-3/abstract


Personally, I'd rather see corn processed to ethanol than to HFCS; or traded to Mexico for sugarcane. For that matter, I don't much care for the trend of pushing crop yields at the expense of food quality.

Thanks for the links dakota.

Interesting that all the links are related to obesity, insulin production and other effects that have already been strongly linked to overconsumption of sugar. So it seems that all of the health scare related to HFCS boils down to that it is not any healthier than suger. Well No ****, Sherlock. I was at least hoping that the scare mongers had something better than don't eat this type of sugar because it really is not any healther than that other type of sugar. Was there actually a significant group of people who honestly did not know that HFCS is sugar? Did they think it was low calorie like Saccharine or Aspartame?

I do agree with most of your political objections to the dominance of HFCS over sugar in the market, but that is a different discussion.

 

[dakotajudo]

So it seems that all of the health scare related to HFCS boils down to that it is not any healthier than suger.

What it boils down to is the difference in insulin response to fructose vs glucose. Fructose does not trigger insulin secretion; the concern with this is the long-term effects on metabolism, the development of insulin insensitivity, the metabolic syndrome, obesity and adult-onset diabetes.

Sucrose does contain fructose as well, but at a 50/50 ratio, vs 55/45 ratio in the most commonly used form of HFCS. The debate is the importance of that difference in compounding the effects of excess sugar intake.

Comparing sugar to an isocaloric dose of HFCS, there's 10% less of the sugar (glucose) that triggers the primary physiological response. How does that feedback into weight gain (and, of course, how that weight gain further feeds-back to insulin response)?

 

[zenotter]

Regular sugar or cane sugar used for sodas makes sodas waaaay yummier than the HFCS. I looove seeing bottles of Dr Pepper made with 100% Imperial Sugar at my local Kroger, and whenever I'm at a Whole Foods, I must get the 365 brand root beer, made with sugar... nom nom nom nom nom. Sure, too much sugar in whatever form is bad, but if you're going to ingest sweetness, get the good stuff!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This site, Carbohydrate metabolism, has a detailed description of the metabolism of various sugars and if you can get past the technical nature of the information, offers some insight into the issues involved. While fructose is metabolized in the liver and doesn't trigger insulin as dakota notes, it is not as simple as that.

One of the strange things here is the role of fructose. Why is fructose such a strong signal for release of glucokinase. Remember, glucokinase is "not interested" in reacting with fructose. It is specific for glucose. The enzyme required to initiate fructose metabolism, fructokinase, is only found in quantity in the liver (and sperm cells). Furthermore, it is not under metabolic control. If fructose comes to the liver, it will be taken up and very quickly metabolized!

Carbohydrate metabolism starting from glucose or galactose proceeds under strict control; fructose is in a special class! We are "constructed" to conserve energy. The rapid entry of fructose into glycolysis leads to fatty acid synthesis in the liver. Because fructose metabolism "fills" glycolysis with substrate at a very high rate, frequent use of sucrose (remember sucrose is a dimer of fructose and glucose) or fructose promotes fat production. Plasma triglyceride levels are increased by the ingestion of large amounts of sugar. There is a correlation between sugar consumption, high plasma lipid levels and atherosclerosis.

Starch, which yields glucose during digestion, has been a main energy source for mankind since the agricultural revolution 8000-10000 years ago. Fructose is found in small quantities in many fruits and honey. The amount of fructose in our diets was far lower than starch-derived glucose found in the food we have eaten for thousands of years. Combine an apple (5-7% fructose) and some wheat, potatoes or corn, and you get translocation of glucokinase and an active glucose metabolizing system (with a little fructose taken along for the ride). Fructose seems to have acted as a signal substance, used to activate glucose metabolism.

So fructose affects the body's use of glucose by stimulating enzymes that have no affect on the fructose, but rather have an effect on glucose. In addition, we evolved, according to this information, consuming small proportions of fructose relative to glucose. They speculate that changing that ratio could produce unwanted effects.

I have no opinion on the matter. It isn't my field of expertise.

 

[Spud1k]

The concept of HFCS is more or less alien to us Brits. Part of this is a hangup from the empire, when cane sugar was seen as a status symbol. However, a lot of the sugar we get is actually beet sugar, which as far as I can tell, tastes more or less the same and is something we can and do grow at home.

I've never understood the problem with HFCS. Okay, so it tastes rank in comparison to other sugars but that doesn't make it evil. I think some people are just scared by the big sciency terminology.

 

[cwalner]

The concept of HFCS is more or less alien to us Brits. Part of this is a hangup from the empire, when cane sugar was seen as a status symbol. However, a lot of the sugar we get is actually beet sugar, which as far as I can tell, tastes more or less the same and is something we can and do grow at home.

I've never understood the problem with HFCS. Okay, so it tastes rank in comparison to other sugars but that doesn't make it evil. I think some people are just scared by the big sciency terminology.

The real problems with HFCS are political not health related and the reason why it is only relevant in the US. Sugar Tariffs & corn subsidies results in a highly processed corn based sugar to be much cheaper than the less processedl cane sugar or beet sugar. Therefore most of US food processing is done with HFCS instead of sugar, but outside US sugar is still cheaper to use.

 

[TheDaver]

Did anyone say why they were so afraid? I am not looking for anything reasonable or supported here. I am just curious as to what the claims are that the corn growers thought they needed to respond to in TV Ads.

Nope. I think it’s a typical case of CT “latching on”. Somewhere, sometime, somebody heard about the evils of sugary soft drinks, and fixated on the HFCS that the Big Two (Coke & Pepsi) use.

Especially considering the way CTs think, I don’t see how the corn growers can hope to change their minds, but I think they can definitely stop slightly more reasonable people who hear about it from latching on as well.

 

[cwalner]

Should have done this before, here are two of the ads.

Notice that ads themselves heavily imply that the criticisms of HFCS is just vapor.






and I guess this is some of what they are trying to combat.


this one is a bit long but she manages to link HFCS to several other CT's