Poll

What is your favorite type of cookie?

View Results

The New York Times and High Fructose Corn Syrup

07/03/06 @ 10:26:39 am, by Kate Hopkins Email 2863 views • Categories: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)

In case you missed it this weekend, the New York Times had an article about the bad reputation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (login:accidental PW: hedonist) this weekend, and whether or not that reputation is deserved. Long time readers of this site are already going to know my response to this topic.

While I have many questions left unanswered from the Corn Refiners Association in regard to HFCS (like, how the heck can HFCS be considered a "natural product"), when it comes to obesity the producers of food have as much to answer for as much as the producers of HFCS. This may take some explaining.

Below is the pounds per capita consumption of sweetners here in the US, one in 1980 when HFCS took off, and in 2004.

Total caloric sweeteners
1980 - 120 lbs.
2004 - 142 lbs.

refined sugar
1980 - 84 lbs.
2004 - 61 lbs.

HFCS
1980 - 35 lbs.
2004 - 78 lbs.

others
1980 - 1
2004 - 1.4

(The above information comes from Marion Nestle's book "What to eat", which in turn came from the USDA)

What this shows, to me at least, is that the primary reason for the rise in obesity has more to do with the over-consumption of sugar than it does with how our bodies react to either table sugar or HFCS.

This doesn't reduce the Corn Refiners culpability in the syrup consumption however. They have been more than happy to have their produce infiltrate any product willing to have them, regardless of if the product needs sweetener or not (Think canned tomato products). When the discussion turns to beverages (be they sodas, or fruit juices) HFCS plays a large part. If someone were to compare the amount of sugar put into beverages back in 1980 versus the amount of sugar put into drinks today, I sincerely doubt that there's a one to one correlation, with my money on the more sugar being in beverages today than back in 1980.

The reasons the food producers put HFCS into their products is two-fold. First, humans migrate toward the sweet. Second, making products sweet with HFCS in order to make the more palatable to humans is a cheap proposition. Why is it cheap? This is where the New York Times completely whiffed on the topic.

The reason why HFCS is cheap is because the Federal government and the Corn Growers want it to be so. In my estimation, this is where responsibility starts. The way to put less sugar into foods is to make sweeteners a more expensive proposition to put into foods. But that will never happen with a government that subsidizes the corn industry.

There are other side conversations to be held in regard to sweeteners and HFCS. There are folks who regularly react badly to corn syrup consumption and their stories need to be addressed.

But as HFCS is the top dog in the sweetener world, they are quite rightly the number one focal point in any discussion about obesity. For any of them to say "Hey, it's not our fault that we're getting fatter" is flat out incorrect, no matter how nice a picture the NY Times wishes to paint.


Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: stephen [Visitor] · http://www.stephencooks.com/
Kate...I guess I must be slow to comprehend, but can you explain in a simple sentence or two what's wrong with HFCS? (And don't say "it makes you fat" - people get fat by eating more calories than they burn, no matter what the calorie source...you can get just as fat on steamed brocolli and rice cakes if you eat enough of them as you can on mainlined HFCS...)

With all the ink and bandwidth being expended over this stuff I'd like to at least understand why you and others feel there's an important issue with this...

Thanks...Stephen
PermalinkPermalink 07/03/06 @ 10:52
Comment from: Kate Hopkins [Member] Email · http://www.accidentalhedonist.com
My position has certainly changed over the course of a year or so, but to me, what it comes down to is this.


The rise in obesity is directly the result of over-production of a government subsidized sweetener.

There are other tangental arguments against HFCS in regard to health and the use of the "Natural" label, but primarily, we make too much sweetener.
PermalinkPermalink 07/03/06 @ 16:34
Comment from: Marc [Visitor] · http://marcsala.blogspot.com
Thanks for bringing up the very important issue of agricultural policy. The Washington Post is running a series on farm policy this week, with the first story about $1.3 Billion in subsidies to people who aren't farmers. (link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html or http://tinyurl.com/k27ko )

Here's a taste:

Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.

The payments now account for nearly half of the nation's expanding agricultural subsidy system, a complex web that has little basis in fairness or efficiency. What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.


To follow the series, look for an "About the Series" block to the right of the article's text. The most recent piece is about a farm subsidy program that was originally designed to help farmers when prices are low, but provides the same subsidy when prices are high.

This subject reminds me of your posts from March about how importers of Coca Cola from Mexico made with sugar [gasp!] were threatened with legal action by Coca Cola.
PermalinkPermalink 07/03/06 @ 18:10
Comment from: Mark [Visitor]
There are a zillion correlations similar to HFCS-obesity, several of which were in that study last week that was all over the news ("Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity"): air conditioning, antidepressants, etc.

I think the NYT article was a long-needed return to sanity. Let's hope they do the same with trans fat, a bad thing to eat, just as bad as saturated fat -- but no worse, as far as mainstream science goes. The general public doesn't understand the difference between hypotheses (which scientists create in abundance, and which rarely pan out) and established results.

The increase in HFCS also tracks an increase in calorie intake (via soft drinks). Gee, could eating more calories have something to do with obesity, ya think?
PermalinkPermalink 07/04/06 @ 04:22
Comment from: pacific_waters [Visitor]
Well gosh, I certainly feel better now. I'll be sure to includes HFCS products on my shopping list.
PermalinkPermalink 07/04/06 @ 05:22
Comment from: Sharon [Visitor]
It seems well-established to me that the causes and contributors to obesity are still largely not so well-established. Sweetners have been added to processed foods for so long a time that we have developed a taste preference for it as a culture. (Anybody read Sugar Blues?) At the same time, we began subsidizing ag commodities. Since we can produce far more corn than sugar cane, we have a perfect solution to the politics of agriculture is to substitute HFCS for sugar. But why stop there? What about using it as a filler as well? We can stuff our foods with HFCS and decrease the use of pricier ingredients! No one will know because everyone likes a bit of sweetness, right? What can a little more hurt?

I just experienced this slow manipulation of my taste buds personally yesterday when I bought some 'low carb' Heinz catsup....I couldn't believe how non-sweet (dare I say refreshing? or TOMATO-EY!?!) it tasted??? There is a lot more to obesity than energy in > energy out. Never underestimate the politics of food and the easy scapegoat fat people are through the convenience of the energy in > energy out mindset. Thanks for asking the tough questions, Kate, and not settling for easy and 'pat' answers.
PermalinkPermalink 07/04/06 @ 13:16
Comment from: Former Seattle-ite [Visitor]
Is HFCS the SOLE cause of obesity in the United States? Probably not. Is the web of agribusiness married to US government agriculture policies (economics) the main reason HFCS is so wide spread in the American food supply. Most probably. Are the FDA's technical deifintions of "natural" and "safe" the reason no one is supposed to bat an eye at HFCS' inclusion in everything from bread to condiments to cold medicine? Apparently so. The debate between HFCS versus refined sugar isn't even germaine. If that nice lady at Corn Refiners' Association can show extensive research that: 1) it does not suppress natural appetite control; 2) the only thing your liver can do with this stuff is turn it into fat BEFORE your body make use of it; 3) it does not possess addictive qualities that encourages further consumption, then she might be worthy of paying attention to. The FDA' s definition of "safe" meaing that it does not kill you does not really work for me when it comes to my health. I don't care if her group decides to change the name of the stuff or not as long as we can still identify it. And tell her to not take it personally; I feel the same way about hydrogenated and partiallly hydrogenated oils. Just because your product helps your bottom line financially, does not work for my financial bottom line if it impairs my health.
PermalinkPermalink 07/04/06 @ 23:07
Comment from: rockandroller [Visitor]
Interesting point of view. I also avoid HFCS but the statistics above don't seem to measure how people's overall intake of ALL food and drink has changed. I'd wager that if you lined up ANY food or drink category from 1980 vs. 2004 everything would have gone up in consumption, and that's why everyone is fat. Portion sizes have more than tripled nationwide in nearly every eatery you can think of. From the big gulp to the biggie fries, IMO it is the total increased consumption of everything that has made America fat, not just one particular thing or another, though some things (I think) are worse for the body than others (trans fats, HFCS). Thoughts?
PermalinkPermalink 07/05/06 @ 11:30
Comment from: augieland [Visitor] · http://www.augieland.blogs.com
Why does no one ever mention that it simply doesn't taste as good. For a simple comparison taste a European orange Fanta next to American. for years I couldn't figure out why I would never in a million years drink American soda but enjoyed it in Europe, then someone pointed out that there was one variant ingredient HFCS.
PermalinkPermalink 07/05/06 @ 13:34
Comment from: Anne [Visitor]
Government subsidies on corn are also fueling [sorry] the rise in popularity of E-85 ethanol, which actually takes 20% more energy to produce than the crude oil it is replacing.

Back on topic, Big Gulps have been around for at least 25 years, and Super Big Gulps have been around nearly as long, so I question portion size as the primary cause, or even a tertiary cause, of obesity. I would blame it first and foremost on urban sprawl and zoning ordinances that separate where people live from where they shop and where they play. Building unwalkable cities have forced people into automobiles, and, I suspect, the upward trend in weight correlates closely with the increase in commute times.
PermalinkPermalink 07/06/06 @ 06:57
Comment from: Former Seattle-ite [Visitor]
I agree that portion sizes have increased dramatically in the same time period. That's a direct result of cheaply produced food. Look at it this way: we are biologically programmed to eat when we see food. We are hard-wired with the feast and famine nature of food acquisition. We also have natural appetite controls that tell us when to stop eating so that we do not create problems for our bodies. If you disable (or suppress) natural appetite controls and encourage an addiction to continual consumption, what do you get? A human body with a big problem. Your body is a delicate; amazing machine that can only handle what it has been designed to handle. After a certain point, it starts to wear out from "over stimulation" and overuse. Your body can only store so much fat until you basically have a "system" failure.

Tig Wallis hit the nail on the head with his comment:

“What the heck, I'll elaborate. "The rise in obesity is a direct result of over-production of a government subsidized sweetener which does not function the same as the sweetener it replaces."

And, to me, it goes without saying that sugar tastes better than HFCS because real food always beats out chemical concoctions.

PermalinkPermalink 07/06/06 @ 07:40
Comment from: a.noymous [Visitor]
What the greatest thing about this post is that when I came to this site your Google Ads displayed a link for "Free Kettle Corn".

http://www.food-offer.com/rd_p?p=113082&t=1120&c=83150&gift=6238&a=6238-kettle%20corn%20popcorn

Which turns out to be Divvies Kettle Corn for A Crowd which, besides the convenience of coming in 5 gallon containers, also happens to make caramel corn full of corn syrup and hydrogenated oils:

http://www.divvies.com/store/commerce.cgi?search=action&keywords=CCRN

That along with another Google link abouve that that just reads "Kettle Corn" and leads to numerous sources for sugar and corn syrup filled snacks in large quantities.

Awesome.

How much do you make from Google Ads a month?

PermalinkPermalink 07/06/06 @ 09:42
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Someone has been a busy shill for midwestern agribusiness interest - managing to pull in trans fats to this discussion on two blogs. They ARE worse than saturated fats.

http://www.umm.edu/features/transfats.html

PermalinkPermalink 07/11/06 @ 13:08
Comment from: Scott Tuchman [Visitor]
All of this is just great discussion, but I do not see and I am very interested in, a comparison of health (or not) benefits between HFCS and good old C&H pure cane sugar. Is one better or worse than the other or are they both about the same?

Thanks
PermalinkPermalink 07/11/06 @ 13:27
Comment from: Matt [Visitor]
In response to a couple of comments/questions on the difference physiologically between HFCS and cane sugar (or glucose) --

HFCS has been shown to favor lipogensis (fat formation) when compared to glucose.

HFCS does not stimulate production of leptin (a hormone produced in fat cells that acts on the hypothalmus to suppress appetite and burn fat).

Some related research is available at -- http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/4/537

Moreover, I believe the introduction of fructose corn syrup (and even worse -- HFCS) in the early 1980s contributes to the obesity problem. (Note that I did not say is the causation of the problem, but rather contributes to the problem). Furthermore, as some have mentioned on this site, the government subsidation of corn provides a cheap sweetner (cheaper than glucose) additive for all the consumer packaged good companies looking to "improve" the flavor of their products.
PermalinkPermalink 07/22/06 @ 18:46
Comment from: JoAnne Nordling [Visitor] · http://verizon.net
Regarding the dangers of eating corn syrup, here is a quote from Dr. Andrew Weil: "I wonder about the metabolic effect of such a great increase in consumption of fructose, which is unprecedented in human history. The FDA considers HFCS innocuous, because the body breaks sucrose down into glucose and fructose. In fact, however, the body does not handle large amounts of fructose well. You can maintain life with intravenous glucose, but not with intravenous fructose; severe derangement of liver function results. There is also evidence that high intake of fructose elevates levels of circulating fats (serum triglycerides), increasing risks of disease of the heart and arteries." Dr. Weil is someone I trust to know what's he's talking about...His arguement is pretty convincing to me so I do my best to avoid eating corn syrup.
PermalinkPermalink 06/11/07 @ 15:55

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))
What color is a red balloon?

AH Food Journals