Manufacturers replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar. Big deal.
It no longer matters whether it's actually true that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is toxic to our livers, full of mercury, or to blame for exploding obesity rates.
The tales that have been told about HFCS have become so pervasive that it's beginning to hurt sales. Say no more! Manufacturers are now switching back to cane sugar--and using it as a marketing ploy. "Sweetened with real cane sugar!" the packages proclaim.
Sugar is now a healthy ingredient. How Orwellian.
So, what have consumers gained? Well, many feel that products sweetened with sugar taste better. But are they healthier? In my opinion, no.
If we continue to overconsume highly sweetened foods and beverages, we will likely continue to see massive rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Switching to foods and beverages sweetened with cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup is unlikely to have any measurable impact on public health--except perhaps indirectly.
Switching back to sugar will drive the price of these foods and beverages up. Maybe cost pressures will help shrink the ridiculously over-sized package and serving sizes. The only way anyone benefits from eating cane sugar instead of HFCS is by eating less of it.
See also "Scientists see little benefit in scramble to swap processed sweeteners for natural ones" in today's Chicago Tribune.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Regular versus instant oatmeal | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Are BMI guidelines for the birds? |
Posted by: James | Jul 8, 2009 8:19:02 PM
They are both bad for you, corn syrup and sugar. Drink water instead of soda if you are truly health conscious. It really is not hard to get in this healthy habit. Plus you will have positive feedback in that you will lose weight quickly and won't have any sugar "crashes" after the sugar high.
To Your Health!
James Reno (editor)
Raw-Food-Repair.com
Posted by: Peter R LeVan, Reading, PA | Jul 8, 2009 4:53:22 PM
This is a typically "academic" analysis, completely disregarding the "real world." It is the total consumption that is key. I was reminded of this with the recent limited-run of Pepsi Throwback with Cane Sugar. I am a big man and, frankly, I had a hard time finishing a 12-ounce can. The real sugar fills a person and that's why soft drinks came only in 8-ounce bottles until the 1960s. Eight was enough! I guarantee you won't see 12-year-olds drinking Big Gulps of soda made with cane sugar. Also, one other MYTH needs to be addressed...that cane sugar is highly processed. The fact is that there are very few, if any, foods that are LESS adulterated. The cane is pressure-cooked and the product is centrifuged so the molasses (the brown ingredient) is separated. Nothing added. Brown sugar is white sugar with the molasses added back at differing levels to achieve different flavors.
Posted by: Bill | Jul 7, 2009 8:03:32 AM
To dray065- Back when beef came to the stores on hooks the excess moisture would evaporate and there would not be as much moisture in it when cooked. Now meat comes in cry-o-vac bags. Much easier, cleaner, quicker to get to the case. The meat is now seamed out and like parts (loins,insides,shoulders,etc) are put in boxes for shipping. There is no curing time, by that I mean it is not left to hang for a couple of days before processing so there for extra moisture in the meat. The same with ground beef. In most chains to keep up with demand and the ever watchful eye of big government hamburger is bought in tubes, 10 lbs each and 6 to a box. The 93/7% is monitored by a USDA inspector and gruanteed to be that. The moisture is excess water not fat, that is why no cure time means more water. Hope that helps and that is my opinion from being in the business over 30 years in the retail end. Maybe someone from the packing end of the process can shed more info on the process.
Posted by: dray965 | Jul 6, 2009 11:38:19 AM
Regardless of who is right (HFSC=bad vs. HFSC=ok)...my concern is that I can hardly find any food that is not infused with either that or other artificial sweeteners, flavor enhancers (such as broths or salt water injected into the chicken, etc..I buy), corn syrups, sugars in various forms...etc.
It would be such a relief to go to the grocers and just buy a chicken, or a hot dog, or other product and just buy that.
When I buy ground beef..I'm paying for a product that is NOT all meat. I can go right now to my kitchen, weigh out a lb. of ground beef, cook it and it will weight 8 oz. (the other half is liquid in my skillet). This is TRUE because I do it every week in my own home. I am using 93%/7% beef...so I can only imagine what those folks are getting home with who can't afford to buy that or better.
In my opinion, when I lay down $8.17 for 2 lbs of ground beef and it cooks out to 1 lb...that means I am actually paying $8.17 a POUND...smacks of fraud to me...a legal way to bilk me out of my precious food dollar and it is blessed by the powers that be.
I also can't buy a chicken that doesn't have all that water, enhancers, flavors, etc. in it..For goodness sake...why can't I buy a weiner that is just a weiner?
Emotional issue? not only yes, but HELL yes. Many of us are sick of all the lies in advertisements...and the fact that you have to have access to the internet and spend time researching everything to keep from being poisoned...and those scientific FACTS change daily.
What am I doing? Buying as close to nature as possible and cooking from 'scratch'...and you know what? All my blood tests are coming back in much better shape. Have I changed my way of eating? My answer is, "No", if you're meaning all the things my family loves...but I am making them myself. However, my answer is "Yes", if you mean eating things with ingredients that sound like a chemical.
As they say, "The proof is in the pudding." (blood tests)
Posted by: dk | Jul 4, 2009 9:45:01 PM
You are crazy, how can you say that HFCS that is genetically/chemically altered is as good for you as natral cane sugar. You are CRAZY. that is like saying eat this apple flavored muffin and not the apple.
Monica's Response: Actually, that's not at all what I've said. I'm suggesting that neither one is all that good for you--especially in large quantities.
Posted by: Sarah | Jun 30, 2009 1:01:43 PM
Anyone who thinks HFCS is ok should read this article from the science channel:
http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/ingredients/ingredients-9.html
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Jun 26, 2009 3:18:44 PM
Thanks, everyone, for the spirited discussion and--above all--for keeping the tone civil despite differences of opinion. I don't know why this particular issue is such an emotional one for many people but in my experience emotion usually only serves to amplify the volume and not the accuracy of an argument. It's helpful to cite references to support your statements. Much has been written about this issue that is simply not based in fact.
Posted by: Audrae Erickson | Jun 26, 2009 3:06:58 PM
High fructose corn syrup may have a complicated-sounding name, but it’s simply a kind of corn sugar that is nutritionally the same as table sugar.
There is a lot of confusion about high fructose corn syrup and consumers can learn more about it at www.SweetSurprise.com.
Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association
Posted by: MsNanners | Jun 26, 2009 2:16:45 PM
NickAdam51,
My son has had a problem with weight gain and he is 40. He is on a few medications for severe depression (caused by a severe head injury). He does exercise and eat well but the medicines make it difficult to lose weight. If you are also taking medications, check with your doctor about the possibility that they are intefering with your losing weight.
Posted by: Tigger | Jun 26, 2009 11:03:32 AM
Marc,
Please provide a reference for your statement about how "your body can't process HFCS and instead converts it directly to fat."
I am constantly dumbfounded how people who are completely uneducated will spout out "facts" all over the internet without referencing any actual studies.
Yes, HFCS is bad for you, just like refined sugar is. But we don't need a bunch of lies to support it. Trying to support claims with lies just weakens the overall case.
Posted by: Marc Lucas | Jun 25, 2009 11:30:19 PM
HFCS is just plain bad for you.
Falsehoods about HFCS:
it is "Natural"
HFCS is made through a chemical process, it does not occur in nature. It may be "made" from natural ingredients..it however does not end up being natural. It ends up as a clear paste that is used as a thickening, binding and sweetening agent in many processed foods.
HFCS does not make people overweight:
Your body can't process HFCS and instead converts it directly into fat.
Don't listen to the Corn Lobby about how "natural" it is and how its "just like sugar"...which is also highly processed.
Check food labels and you'll be in for the shock of your life, here you will find Corn Syrup, HFCS and it's other many forms in processed foods
you eat every day.
HFCS is just plain bad for people.
Instead use honey or less processed sugar in moderation.
I have been "off" HFCS for 5 years now, if I taste juice for example that contains HFCS it tastes terrible to me and it will to you as well once your off it.
Posted by: Tigger | Jun 25, 2009 6:19:20 PM
Darla,
Another blog I follow has this rebuttal to the issue. I agree with you that we'd all be better off by limiting mercury exposure to ZERO, but it's still very likely that the amount of mercury you find in food as result of HFCS will have no adverse health effects at all.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/latest-scare-du-jour-mercury-in-hfcs.html
I think a far bigger issue here is the likelihood of food prices increasing even more than they are now. Hopefully those costs will be off-set by lowering of healthcare costs, whether it's directly related to having less HFCS in the diet or not.
Posted by: darla | Jun 25, 2009 5:06:31 PM
Tigger,
Here is a link to the study that found mercury in HFCS samples.
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2
This study includes information about average daily consumption rates and potential exposure levels:
"With the reported average daily consumption of 49.8 g HFCS per person, however, and our finding of mercury in the range of 0.00 to 0.570 μg mercury/g HFCS, we can estimate that the potential average daily total mercury exposure from HFCS could range from zero to 28.4 μg mercury. This range can be compared to the range of total mercury exposure from dental amalgam in children reported by Health Canada [20]. In the report issued by Canada, daily estimates of total mercury exposure from dental amalgam in children ages 3–19 ranged on average from 0.79 to 1.91 μg mercury. Canada and other countries do not recommend the use of mercury amalgam in pregnant women or children."
When talking about exposure levels, it's important to realize that the mercury is avoidable (using a different method to make HFCS, and in fact not all HFCS is made in the contaminating way) and that some populations are more at risk for exposure to mercury than others. Children and pregnant women, for example. Since it's possible to make sweeteners that do not contain mercury, why would anyone want to consume sweeteners that do contain mercury?
Seems like common sense to me that if you can easily avoid having even small doses of mercury daily over your lifetime, you would.
Is eating too much sugar far more likely to kill you? Yes. But that's not an excuse to allow manufacturers to be irresponsible about ingredients.
Posted by: NickAdamsi | Jun 25, 2009 4:26:14 PM
I really need your help. I'm a 61 year
old male, 5-11", who's ballooned to 260 pounds,
mainly from lack of exercise and eating all the
wrong foods.
For the past 50 days, I have been extremely
diligent about watching calories, eating nothing
white whatsoever, no oils (except some olive oil),
no sweets at all. I am trying to keep my calorie
intake under 1200 a day, eating only whole grain
products, salmon, canned tuna in water, fresh raw
spinach, no-fat dressing, tomatoes, blueberries,
2-4 cups of green tea a day, oatmeal, an
occasional egg, a cup or two of 1% milk, 1-2
ounces of vodka a day...NOTHING bad! I am taking
one Turmeric capsule (600 mg/day).
For the past 50 days, every day, I've been
walking between 4-5 miles every morning at a pace
of about 4 miles/hour, sometimes adding a jog of
1/2 - 1 mile.
My problem is this: I am not seeing hardly ANY
improvement in my body shape. Old clothes still
don't fit, etc.
I'm beginning to get really discouraged after
all my physical and dietary work. Am I expecting
too much after 50 days? Your help would be so
greatly appreciated!
Thanks, Nick
Gender: M
Age: 60-64
Interests: Interests: insomnia, weight loss,
natural health, natural weight loss
Posted by: Eugenia | Jun 25, 2009 4:23:49 PM
I agree w/Darla's comments about the different being that cane sugar may be a more trustworthy ingredient than HFCS. That said, given what I know about how sugar is produced, I believe it can be manufactured using bleach (to whiten it), and other chemicals, so perhaps it's only a lesser evil.
More importantly, to me, is the hope that making HFCS a less-acceptable ingredient may make the current massive corn subsidies that go to the agri-companies less palatable. One of the biggest problems with our food chain today is that the government pours money into making corn-derived products cheaper to produce, lining the pockets of big business, while shafting small vegetable producers & leaving them to fend for themselves. If this HFCS backlash makes supporting agri-business less appealing & starts to realign where we put our money & how the public treats food, it'll be well worth it.
Posted by: michelle | Jun 25, 2009 4:16:15 PM
IMHO, I'd rather have plain old sugar than hfcs any day. I think it's good thing to roll back to sugar even if it's not any healthier.
Posted by: Tigger | Jun 25, 2009 3:40:12 PM
Monica,
Could you possibly clear up some of this nonsense about mercury in HFCS being a health concern? I think a couple of people have mentioned it before, and there seems to be a lot of confusion.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 25, 2009 3:35:17 PM
BILLYHW,
Sugar is bad for you because it is a carb. All carbs are bad just like all fats are bad. The only thing okay to eat is protein, but it can't come from animals because then it has cholesterol. I learned all of this from the incredibly smart people who blog all over the internet.
Posted by: Sarah | Jun 25, 2009 1:52:12 PM
I agree with Darla. This article is completely missing the point. It is ridiculous to worry about this change leading to greater sugar consumption. Anyone who decides to consume more sugar because of this fact is not very bright and needs to learn the basics of good nutrition before they start worrying about the technicalities; i.e. the type of sugar they are consuming. It is a known fact that natural sugar is o.k. to eat in small amounts. What we don't know is how safe artificial sugar is. I do not feel comfortable buying products with shady ingredients in them. HFCS is a hyper-sweet addictive that should be treated as though it were MSG. Not to mention HFCS can be found in nearly everything. If factories can get away with lacing nearly every food product with this man-made sweetener… who’s to say what they will try next? A healthy market will respond to the public’s concerns.
Posted by: BillyHW | Jun 25, 2009 1:22:11 PM
But sugar comes from vegetables and is low in cholesterol and especially low in artery-clogging animal-based saturated fat!
How could it be bad for you?
Posted by: darla | Jun 25, 2009 12:46:12 PM
I think you're confusing two issues here: sugar consumption and safety of ingredients.
I don't eat many sweets at all, but when I do buy ice cream or cookies for a special treat, I want to trust the ingredients. And if there is indeed mercury in HFCS (which has been shown to be true), then I can't trust the ingredients.
Furthermore, if the food industry can get away with putting mercury in our food now, what will be next? This is an example of market forces producing change that the consumers want and I'm all for that. The FDA is impotent and it's up to consumers to make their voices heard and demand change.
Food marketers always stretch the truth about healthfulness. Just because many people will be fooled by the marketing doesn't mean the change isn't helpful. Isn't it also true that eating cookies that are marketed as trans-fat free are still cookies? Would you then argue that we shouldn't stop consuming trans fats?
We can't protect overindulgers from themselves. But we can make it possible for health conscious eaters to actually be able to buy products with fewer highly processed ingredients, preservatives, etc, without always having to bake your own cookie or loaf of bread.
Posted by: Dennis Allio | Jun 25, 2009 12:33:41 PM
I wholeheartedly agree. The real bad side of this is many marketers will convince people that foods are healthier now because natural sugar is used to sweeten rather than HFCS.
Because many mistakenly think healthy means it is o.k. to consume as much as they want consumption could increase.
